The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Volume 23: 1875 [1 ed.] 1107134366, 9781107134362

Table of contents :
Dedication
Contents
List of illustrations
List of letters
Introduction
Acknowledgments
List of provenances
Note on editorial policy
Darwin/Wedgwood genealogy
Abbreviations and symbols
THE CORRESPONDENCE
Appendix I. Translations
Appendix II. Chronology
Appendix III. Diplomas
Appendix IV. Presentation lists for Insectivorous plants and Climbing plants 2d ed.
Appendix V. Reviews of Insectivorous plants
Appendix VI. Darwin and vivisection
Manuscript alterations and comments
Biographical register and index to correspondents
Bibliography
Notes on manuscript sources
Index
Table of Relationship

Citation preview

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF

CHARLES DARWIN Editors

frederick burkhardt† james a. secord samantha evans francis neary anne secord

shelley innes alison m. pearn paul white

Associate Editors

anne schlabach burkhardt† rosemary clarkson andrew corrigan elizabeth smith ruth goldstone muriel palmer

This edition of The Correspondence of Charles Darwin is sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies. Its preparation is made possible by the co-operation of Cambridge University Library and the American Philosophical Society. The Advisory Committee for the edition, appointed by the Management Board, has the following members: Gillian Beer Janet Browne Daniel Grossman Mandy Hill Simon Keynes John Parker

Tim Birkhead Sibyl R. Golden Sandra Herbert Randal Keynes Gene Kritsky

Support for editing has been received from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the British Ecological Society, the Evolution Education Trust, the Isaac Newton Trust, the John Templeton Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Science Foundation, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Royal Society of London, the Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft, and the Wellcome Trust. The National Endowment for the Humanities funding of the work was under grants nos. re-2316675-513, re-27067-77-1359, re-0082-80-1628, re-20166-82, re-20480-85, re-20764-89, re-20913-91, re-21097-93, re-21282-95, rz-20018-97, rz-20393-99, rz-20849-02 and rq-50388-09; the National Science Foundation funding of the work was under grants nos. soc-75-15840, soc-76-82775, ses-7912492, ses-8517189, sbr-9020874, sbr-9616619, ses-0135528, ses-0646230 and ses-0957520. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the editors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the grantors.

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF

CHARLES DARWIN VOLUME 23

1875

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107134362 © Cambridge University Press 2015 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2015 Citation: Burkhardt, Frederick, et al., eds. 2015. The correspondence of Charles Darwin. Vol. 23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd. Padstow Cornwall A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-107-13436-2 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Charles Darwin, by Walter William Ouless. Property of the Darwin Heirloom Trust, by permission of the Master and Fellows of Darwin College, Cambridge.

Dedicated to the many friends and colleagues in Bennington, Vermont, who worked with Fred and Anne Burkhardt between 1974 and 2012

The completion of this edition has been made possible through the generosity of the Evolution Education Trust, together with the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the Isaac Newton Trust. The Darwin Correspondence Project also gratefully acknowledges the essential long-term support for the edition provided by the British Academy, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Science Foundation, the Royal Society, and the Wellcome Trust, and by the following donors: Patrons The Evolution Education Trust Golden Family Foundation The Parasol Foundation Jim and Hilary Potter Affiliates Bern Dibner† William T. Golden† Kathleen Smith† Friends Jane Burkhardt Pamela Davis Florence Fearrington and James Needham† Gerald† and Sue Friedman John C. Greene Daniel V. Grossman and Elizabeth Scott Andrews Lawrence K. Grossman Shirley Grossman, MD Mary S. Hopkins Robert McNeil Michael Mathews Victor Niederhoffer Wendy L. Thompson Daniel J. Wright

CONTENTS List of illustrations

viii

List of letters

ix

Introduction

xvii

Acknowledgments

xxix

List of provenances

xxxiii

Note on editorial policy

xxxvi

Darwin/Wedgwood genealogy

xlii

Abbreviations and symbols

xliv

THE CORRESPONDENCE

1

Appendixes   

I. Translations

521

  

II. Chronology

565

   III. Diplomas

568

   IV. Presentation lists for Insectivorous plants and Climbing plants 2d ed.

572

V. Reviews of Insectivorous plants

  

576

VI. Darwin and vivisection

579

Manuscript alterations and comments

592

Biographical register and index to correspondents

603

Bibliography

696

Notes on manuscript sources

742

Index

745

ILLUSTRATIONS Portrait of Charles Darwin by Walter William Ouless Charles Lyell, commemorative postcard

frontispiece 75

William Winwood Reade

161

The proofmaniac

172

Lawson Tait with his nursing home staff

215

Edward Arnott Clowes

309

Lord Henry Gordon-Lennox

322

The prince’s first tiger

341

Dischidia rafflesiana

399

Frontispiece of Ernst Haeckel’s Arabische Korallen

438

Octocorallian named for Darwin

439

CALENDAR LIST OF LETTERS

The following list is in the order of the entries in the Calendar of the correspondence of Charles Darwin. It includes all those letters that are listed in the Calendar for the year 1875, and those that have been redated into 1875. Alongside the Calendar numbers are the corrected dates of each letter. A date or comment printed in italic type indicates that the letter has been omitted from this volume. Letters acquired after the publication of the first edition of the Calendar, in 1985, have been given numbers corresponding to the chronological ordering of the original Calendar listing with the addition of an alphabetical marker. Many of these letters are summarised in a ‘Supplement’ to a new edition of the Calendar (Cambridge University Press, 1994). The markers ‘f ’ and ‘g’ denote letters acquired after the second edition of the Calendar went to press in 1994.

8133. 26 [Dec 1875?] 8135. 17 [Apr 1875?] 9197. [c. 22 Nov 1875] 9203. [20 Mar – 14 Apr 1875] 9216. [after 26 Dec 1875] 9219a. [Sept 1875 or later?] 9219b. [c. Feb 1875?] 9233. 8 Jan [1875] 9790a. [Feb 1875 or earlier?] 9791. [1861–82]. To be published in a future supplement. 9791f. [1875?]. To be published in next supplement. 9792. [after 20 Oct 1873?] 9793. [after 23 Aug 1872?] 9794. [1869–75]. To be published in next supplement. 9795. [after 17 Feb 1875] 9795a. 1 Jan 1875 9796. 2 Jan 1875 9797. 3 Jan [1875] 9798. 3 Jan [1875] 9799. 4 Jan [1875] 9800. 5 Jan 1875 9801. 5 Jan 1875 9802. 5 Jan 1875 9803. 6 Jan [1875] 9804. 6 Jan 1875 9805. 6 Jan [1875] 9806. 6 Jan 1875

9807. 7 Jan 1875 9808. 7 Jan 1875 9809. 8 Jan [1875] 9810. 9 Jan 1875 9811. 11 Jan [1875] 9812. 12 Jan 1875 9813. [after 12 Jan 1875] 9814. 13 Jan [1875] 9814f. [14 Jan 1875] 9814g. 14 Jan [1875] 9815. 14 Jan 1875 9816. 14 Jan 1875 9817. 14 Jan 1875 9818. 15 Jan [1875] 9819. 15 Jan 1875 9819f. 16 Jan [1875] 9820. 16 Jan 1875 9821. 17 Jan [1875] 9822. 17 Jan 1875 9823. 18 Jan 1875 9824. 18 Jan [1875] 9825. 19 Jan [1875] 9826. 21 Jan [1875] 9827. 22 Jan 1875 9828. 23 Jan [1875] 9828f. 23 Jan [1875–82]. To be published in a future supplement.

x

List of letters

9828g. 23 Jan [1875–82]. To be published in a future supplement. 9829. 25 Jan [1873] 9830. 26 Jan [1875] 9831. 27 Jan [1875] 9832. [28 Jan 1875] 9833. 29 Jan [1875] 9834. 30 Jan 1875 9835. 30 Jan 1875 9835f. 30 Jan 1875 9836. 31 Jan 1875 9837. 1 Feb 1875 9838. 1 Feb 1875 9839. 3 Feb 1875 9840. 4 Feb 1875 9841. 5 Feb 1875 9842. 6 Feb 1875 9843. [7 Feb 1875] 9844. 7 Feb 1875 9845. 7 Feb 1875 9846. 8 Feb 1875 9847. 9 Feb 1875 9848. 9 Feb [1875] 9848f. 9 Feb 1875 9849. 10 Feb 1875 9850. 10 Feb [1875] 9851. 10 [Feb 1875] 9852. [after 7 Feb 1875] 9853. 11 Feb 1875 9853a. 12 Feb 1875 9853b. 12 Feb 1875 9853f. 13 Feb 1875 9854. 14 [Feb 1875] 9854f. 15 Feb 1875 9855. 14 Feb 1875 9856. 15 Feb 1875 9857. 16 Feb [1875] 9858. [16 Feb 1875] 9859. 17 Feb [1875–8]. To be published in a future supplement. 9860. 17 Feb 1875 9861. 17 Feb [1875] 9862. 17 Feb 1875 9863. 19 Feb [1875] 9863f. 19–21 Feb [1876–81]. To be published in a future supplement. 9864. 20 Feb 1875 9865. 22 Feb 1875 9866. 23 Feb 1875 9867. 23 Feb 1875 9868. 23 Feb 1875 9869. [24 Feb 1875] 9870. 24 Feb 1875

9871. 24 Feb 1875 9872. 24 Feb 1875 9872f. 24 Feb [1877] 9873. 25 Feb [1875] 9874. 25 Feb 1875 9875. [4 Apr 1875] 9876. 1 Mar 1875 9877. 1 Mar 1875 9877f. Cancelled: third-party letter. 9878. 2 Mar 1875 9879. 5 Mar 1875 9880. 7 Mar 1875 9881. 8 Mar [1875] 9882. 9 Mar 1875 9883. 11 Mar 1875 9884. 12 Mar 1875 9885. 12 Mar [1875] 9885f. [13–15 Mar 1875] 9886. 13 Mar 1875 9887. 14 Mar 1875 9888. 15 Mar 1875 9889. 16 Mar [1875] 9890. 16 Mar 1875 9891. 17 Mar 1875 9892. 17 Mar [1875] 9893. 19 Mar 1875 9894. 20 Mar 1875 9895. 20 Mar [1875] 9896. 20 Mar [1875] 9897. 21 Mar 1875 9898. 22 Mar 1875 9899. 23 Mar [1875] 9900. 23 Mar 1875 9901. 23 Mar 1875 9902. 25 Mar 1875 9903. 26 Mar 1875 9904. 27 Mar [1875] 9905. 30 Mar [1875] 9906. 31 Mar [1875?] 9907. [4 Aug 1881] 9908. [before 29 Apr 1875] 9909. [before 29 Apr 1875] 9909a. [12 Apr 1875] 9909f. [4 Apr 1875] 9910. [2 Apr 1875] 9911. 2 [Apr 1875] 9912. 3 Apr 1875 9913. 3 Apr 1875 9914. [5 Apr 1875] 9914f. 5 Apr [1875] 9915. 6 Apr [1879?] 9916. 7 Apr [1875] 9917. 7 Apr 1875

List of letters 9917a. 7 Apr [1875] 9917f. 8 Apr [1875–82]. To be published in a future supplement. 9918. 8 Apr [1875] 9919. 8 Apr 1875 9920. 8 Apr 1875 9921. 9 Apr [1875] 9922. 10 Apr [1875] 9922a. 10 Apr 1875 9923. [11 Apr 1875] 9923a. 12 Apr [1875] 9924. [24 Apr 1875] 9925. 13 Apr 1875 9926. 14 Apr 1875 9927. 14 Apr [1875] 9928. 14 Apr 1875 9929. 14 Apr 1875 9930. 14 Apr [1875] 9930a. 14 Apr [1875] 9931. [after 14 Apr 1875] 9932. 15 Apr 1875 9933. 15 Apr 1875 9934. 15 and 19 Apr [1875] 9935. 16 Apr 1875 9936. 17 Apr 1875 9937. 17 Apr 1875 9938. 17 Apr 1875 9939. 18 Apr 1875 9940. 19 Apr [1875] 9941. 20 Apr 1875 9942. 21 Apr 1875 9943. 21 Apr [1875] 9944. 21 Apr 1875 9945a. 23 Apr [1875] 9945. 21 Apr 1875 9946. 24 Apr [1875] 9947. 24 Apr [1875] 9948. 24 [Apr 1875] 9949. 24 Apr 1875 9950. 25 Apr 1875 9951. 26 Apr 1875 9952. 26 Apr 1875 9953. 27 Apr 1875 9953a. 28 Apr [1875] 9954. 29 Apr 1875 9955. 29 Apr [1875] 9956. 29 Apr 1875 9957. 29 Apr 1875 9958. 30 Apr 1875 9958a. 30 Apr [1875] 9958b. 30 Apr [1875] 9959. 3 May 1875 9960. 31 [May 1875]

xi

9961. May 1875 9961f. 1 and 2 May [1875] 9961g. [4 May 1875] 9962. 1 May 1875 9963. 1 May [1875] 9964. 1 May [1875] 9965. 1 and 4 May 1875 9966. 3 May 1875 9967. 3 May 1875 9968. 3 May [1875] 9968a. [8 Aug 1875 or earlier] 9969. 4 May [1875] 9970. 4 May [1869–81?]. To be published in a future supplement. 9971. 4 May 1875 9972. 5 May 1875 9972a. 6 May [1875] 9973. 7 May 1875 9974. 8 May 1875 9974a. [8 May 1875] 9975. 10 May [1875] 9976. 12 May 1875 9977. 12 May 1875 9978. 13 May 1875 9979. [after 13 May 1875] 9980. 15 May [1875] 9981. 18 May 1875 9982. 18 May 1875 9983. 18 May [1869, 1870, 1875, 1880, or 1881]. To be published in a future supplement. 9984. [19 or 20 May 1875] 9985. 19 May 1875 9986. 21 May 1875 9987. 21 May 1875 9988. 21 May 1875 9988a. Cancelled: third-party letter. 9989. 23 May [1875] 9989a. 23 May [1875] 9990. 24 May 1875 9991. 24 May 1875 9992. 24 May 1875 9993. 24 May 1875 9994. 26 May 1875 9995. 26 May 1875 9996. 27 May 1875 9997. 28 May [1875] 9998. 28 May 1871 9999. 28 May 1875 10000. 29 May 1875 10001. 29 May 1875 10001a. 29 May [1875–81]. To be published in a future supplement. 10002. 30 May [1875]

xii 10002f. 30 May 1875 10003. 31 May 1875 10004. 1 Jan [1875] 10005. 2 June 1875 10006. 2 June 1875 10007. 2 June [1875] 10007f. [after 3 June 1875] 10008. 3 June 1875 10009. 4 June [1875] 10010. 5 June 1875 10011. 5 June [1875] 10012. 6 June 1875 10012f. 7 June [1875] 10013. 11 June [1875] 10013f. [11 Nov 1875] 10014. 12 June 1875 10015. 12 June [1875] 10016. 12 June [1875] 10017. 13 June [1875] 10018. 14 June [1875] 10019. [after 17 June 1875] 10020. 16 June [1875] 10020a. 16 June 1875 10021. 17 June [1875] 10022. 17 June [1875] 10023. 17 [ July 1875] 10024. 19 June [1875] 10025. 20 June 1875 10026. 22 June 1875 10027. 23 June 1875 10028. 24 June [1875] 10029. 24 June [1875] 10030. 25 June [1875] 10030f. 25 June [1875] 10031. 26 June 1875 10031f. 26 June [1875] 10032. 27 June [1875] 10033. 28 June 1875 10034. 28 June 1875 10035. 29 June [1875] 10036. 30 June 1875 10037. 30 June [1875] 10037a. [30 June 1875] 10038. 1 July [1875] 10038f. [ July 1875] 10039. 2 July [1875] 10039a. Cancelled: enclosure to 10280f. 10039f. [after 2 July] 1875 10040. 3 July 1875 10041. 4 July [1875] 10042. 4 July 1875 10043. 5 July 1875 10044. 6 July 1875 10045. 6 July 1875

List of letters 10046. 7 July 1875 10047. 7 July [1875] 10048. 7 July 1875 10049. 7 July 1875 10050. 7 July 1875 10051. 8 July [1875] 10052. 8 July 1875 10053. 8 July 1875 10054. 9 July 1875 10055. 9 July 1875 10056. 10 July 1875 10056f. 11 July 1875 10057. 10 July [1875] 10058. 11 July 1875 10059. 12 July [1875] 10060. 12 July 1875 10061. 12 July 1875 10061a. 12 July 1875 10062. 13 July 1875 10063. 13 [July 1875] 10064. 14 July 1875 10065. 14 July 1875 10066. 15 July [1875] 10067. 15 July 1875 10067f. 15 July 1875 10068. 15 July [1875] 10069. 16 July 1875 10070. 16 July 1875 10070f. [before 17 July 1875] 10071. 16 July 1875 10072. 16 July 1875 10073. 16 July [1875] 10074. 17 July [1875] 10074f. 17 July 1875 10075. 17 July 1875 10075f. 17 July 1875 10076. 18 July 1875 10076f. 19 July 1875 10077. 18 Jan 1878 10077f. 17 July 1875 10078. 19 July [1875] 10079. Cancelled: enclosure to 10089. 10080. 20 July [1875] 10081. 20 July 1875 10082. 20 July 1875 10083. [after 20 July 1875] 10084. 21 July 1875 10085. 21 July 1875 10086. 21 July [1875] 10087. 22 July [1875] 10088. 22 July [1875] 10089. 23 July 1875 10090. 24 July 1875 10090f. Cancelled: third-party letter.

List of letters 10091. 25 July 1875 10092. 25 July 1875 10093. 25 July [1875] 10094. 26 July 1875 10095. 27 July 1875 10096. 27 July 1875 10097. [after 27 July 1875] 10098. 28 July 1875 10098f. 28 July [1875] 10099. 29 July 1875 10100. 29 July 1875 10101. 29 July 1875 10102. 29 July 1875 10103. [29 July 1875] 10104. [30 July 1875] 10105. 31 July 1875 10106. 1 Aug [1875] 10107. 3 Aug 1875 10108. 3 Aug 1875 10108a. 4 Aug [1875] 10109. 6 Aug 1875 10110. 7 Aug 1875 10111. 8 Aug [1875] 10112. 9 Aug 1875 10113. 10 Aug 1875 10114. 10 Aug [1875] 10115. 11 Aug 1875 10116. 12 Aug 1875 10117. 14 Aug 1875 10118. 15 Aug [1875] 10119. 16 Aug [1875] 10120. 16 Aug 1875 10121. 16 Aug 1875 10122. 16 Aug 1875 10123. 16 Aug 1875 10124. 18 Aug [1875] 10125. 18 Aug 1875 10126. 19 Aug 1875 10127. 19 Aug 1875 10128. [19 Aug 1875] 10129. 20 Aug 1875 10130. 21 Aug 1875 10131. 21 Aug 1875 10132. [22 Aug 1875] 10132a. 22 Aug [1875] 10133. 23 Aug 1875 10134. 24 Aug 1875 10134a. 24 Aug 1875 10135. 27 Aug 1875 10136. 27 Aug 1875 10137. 28 Aug 1875 10138. 29 Aug [1875] 10139. 30 Aug 1875 10140. 30 Aug 1875

10141. 30 Aug 1875 10142. 31 Aug 1875 10143. 1 Sept [1875] 10144. 1 Sept 1875 10145. 1 Sept 1875 10146. 1 Sept [1875?] 10147. 1 Sept [1875] 10148. 2 Sept 1875 10149. 2 Sept 1875 10150. 2 Sept [1875] 10150a. 2 Sept 1875 10151. 3 Sept 1875 10152. 6 Sept 1875 10153. 7 Sept [1875] 10153f. [1 Sept 1875 or later] 10154. 10 Sept [1875] 10155. 11 Sept 1875 10155a. 12 Sept 1875 10156. 13 Sept [1875] 10156f. [15–18 Sept 1873] 10157. 14 Sept 1875 10158. 16 Sept 1875 10159. 17 Sept 1875 10160. 17 Sept 1875 10161. 20 Sept 1875 10162. 20 Sept 1875 10163. 22 Sept 1875 10164. 22 Sept 1875 10165. 22 Sept 1875 10166. 22 Sept 1875 10167. [23–4 Sept 1875] 10167f. 23 Sept [1875–6?] 10168. 24 Sept [1875] 10169. 24 Sept 1875 10170. 25 Sept 1875 10171. 25 Sept 1875 10172. 25 Sept [1875] 10173. 25 Sept [1877?] 10174. 28 Sept 1875 10175. 28 Sept 1875 10176. 29 Sept 1875 10177. 30 Sept 1875 10177f. 15 Aug [1875] 10178. [31 Aug 1875 or later] 10179. 1 Oct 1875 10179f. 2 Oct 1875 10180. 3 Oct [1875] 10181. 3 Oct 1875 10182. Cancelled: enclosure to 10234. 10183. 5 Oct 1875 10184. 6 Oct 1875 10185. 7 Oct 1875 10185f. 7 Oct [1875] 10186. 8 Oct 1875

xiii

xiv 10187. 8 Oct 1875 10188. 10 Oct 1875 10189. 11 Oct 1875 10190. 11 Oct 1875 10191. 12 Oct 1875 10192. 12 Oct 1875 10193. 13 Oct [1875] 10194. 13 Oct [1875] 10195. 13 Oct 1875 10196. 13 Oct [1875] 10197. 14 Oct 1875 10198. 14 Oct [1875] 10199. 14 Oct [1875] 10200. 15 Oct [1875] 10201. 15 Oct [1875] 10201f. [16–22 Oct 1875] 10201g. 16 Oct 1875 10202. 16 Oct [1875] 10203. 17 Oct 1875 10204. 18 Oct 1875 10205. 19 Oct 1875 10206. 20 Oct 1875 10207. 20 Oct [1875] 10208. 21 Oct [1875] 10209. 21 Oct [1875] 10210. 22 Oct 1875 10211. 22 Dec 1875 10212. 22 Dec 1875 10213. 22 Oct 1875 10214. 23 Oct [1875] 10215. 23 Oct 1875 10216. 23 Oct [1875] 10217. 23 Oct [1875] 10218. 23 Oct [1875] 10219. 23 Oct 1875 10220. 22 Oct 1875 10221. 23 Oct 1875 10221f. 24 Oct [1876] 10222. 25 Oct [1875] 10223. [25 Oct 1875] 10224. 25 Oct 1875 10225. 25 Oct 1875 10226. [26 Oct 1875] 10227. 26 Oct [1875] 10228. 26 Oct 1875 10229. 26 Oct 1875 10230. 27 Oct 1875 10231. 28 Oct 1875 10232. 29 Oct 1875 10233. 30 Oct 1875 10234. 30 Oct 1875 10235. 1 Nov [1875] 10236. 2 Nov 1875 10237. 2 Nov [1875]

List of letters 10238. 3 Nov 1875 10239. [4 Nov 1875] 10240. 4 Nov 1875 10241. 4 Nov [1875] 10242. [after 28 Mar 1876] 10243. 5 Nov 1875 10244. 6 Nov [1875] 10245. 7 Nov [1875] 10246. 7 Nov 1875 10247. 7 Nov 1875 10248. 7 Nov 1875 10249. [before 4 Nov 1875] 10250. 8 Nov 1875 10251. 8 Nov 1875 10252. 9 Nov [1875] 10253. [before 10 Nov 1875] 10254. 10 Nov [1875] 10255. 10 Nov 1875 10255f. 10 Nov 1875 10256. 12 Nov [1875] 10257. 13 Nov 1875 10258. 13 Nov 1875 10259. 13 Nov 1875 10260. 16 Nov 1875 10261. 16 Nov [1875] 10262. 16 Nov [1875] 10263. 17 Nov 1875 10264. 17 Nov 1875 10265. 19 Nov [1875] 10266. 20 Nov 1875 10267. 20 Nov 1875 10268. 20 Nov [1875] 10269. 22 Nov [1875] 10270. 22 Nov [1875] 10271. 23 Nov 1875 10272. 23 Nov 1875 10273. 23 Nov [1875] 10274. 23 Nov [1875] 10275. 24 Nov 1875 10276. 25 Nov 1875 10277. 25 Nov [1875] 10278. 26 Nov 1875 10279. 27 Nov 1875 10280. 27 Nov [1875] 10280f. 28 Nov 1875 10281. 29 Nov [1875] 10282. [18 Apr 1876] 10283. 1 Dec [1875] 10284. 1 Dec [1875] 10285. 1 Dec 1875 10286. 2 Dec 1875 10287. 2 Dec 1875 10287f. [before 8 Dec 1875] 10287g. [after 2 Dec 1875]

List of letters 10288. 3 Dec 1875 10288f. 4 Dec 1875 10289. 6 Dec 1875 10289f. 7 Dec [1875 or later] 10290. 8 Dec 1875 10291. 9 Dec 1875 10291f. 9 Dec [1876] 10292. 10 Dec [1875] 10293. 10 Dec [1875] 10294. 10 Dec 1875 10295. [12 Dec 1875] 10296. [after 11 Dec 1875] 10297. 14 Dec 1875 10297f. [15? Dec 1875] 10298. [15 Dec 1875] 10299. 16 Dec [1875] 10300. 16 Dec [1875] 10301. 17 [Dec 1875] 10302. 17 Dec 1875 10303. [17 Dec 1875] 10304. 17 Dec [1875] 10305. 18 Dec [1875] 10306. 18 Dec [1875] 10307. [before 26 Dec 1875] 10308. [19 Dec 1875] 10309. 19 Dec 1875 10310. 20 Dec 1875 10311. 20 Dec 1875

10312. 20 Dec 1875 10312f. 20 Dec 1875 10313. 21 Dec [1875] 10314. 21 Dec 1875 10315. 21 Dec 1875 10316. 22 Dec 1875 10317. 22 Dec 1875 10318. 22 Dec 1875 10319. 22 Dec 1875 10320. 23 Dec 1875 10321. 23 Dec 1875 10322. 23 Dec 1875 10323. 25 Dec 1875 10324. 25 Dec 1875 10325. 26 Dec 1875 10326. 26 Dec 1875 10327. 26 Dec 1875 10328. 26 Dec 1875 10329. 28 Dec 1875 10330. 28 Dec 1875 10331. 29 Dec 1875 10331f. 31 Dec 1875 10562. 18 July [1875] 10732. 24 Dec [1875] 13813. 29 Jan [1875] 13826. 26 Dec [1875] 13836f. [10 Sept 1875] 13845. [before 3 Oct 1875]

xv

INTRODUCTION

Plants always held an important place in Darwin’s theorising about species, and botanical research had often been a source of personal satisfaction, providing relief during his periods of severe illness. Yet on 15 January 1875, Darwin confessed to his close friend Joseph Dalton Hooker, ‘I am getting sick of insectivorous plants.’ Darwin had worked on the subject intermittently since 1859, and had been steadily engaged on a book manuscript for some nine months. The pleasures of observation and experiment had given way to continuous writing and revision, activities that Darwin found less gratifying: ‘I am slaving away solely at making detestably bad English a very little less bad.’ The process was compounded by the fact that Darwin was also revising another manuscript, the second edition of Climbing plants, which he hoped to publish in a single volume along with the material on insectivorous plants. No sooner had he completed these tasks, than he took up the revision of another, much longer book, the second edition of Variation. ‘I am merely slaving over the sickening work of preparing new Editions’, he complained again to Hooker on 18 August. Finally, by autumn, he was able to devote more time to research, returning to the subject of cross and self-fertilisation. On 3 October, he wrote with fresh enthusiasm to the new assistant director at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, William Turner Thiselton-Dyer, about the prospect of obtaining new specimens: ‘I have great wish next summer to experimentise on some Marantaceous plant to make out meaning of 2 sets of differently coloured stamens.’ At intervals during the year, Darwin was diverted from the onerous task of writing by various controversies. January saw the conclusion of a long-running dispute with the zoologist St George Jackson Mivart. In April and early May, Darwin was occupied with a heated debate over vivisection, working with scientific colleagues and family members to prepare draft legislation for Parliament. At the end of the year, he campaigned vigorously against the blackballing of a young zoologist, Edwin Ray Lankester, who was up for election to the Linnean Society. The ‘malcontents’ of the Linnean sickened him much more than insectivorous plants. As he confessed to Hooker on 12 December, ‘I have not felt so angry for years.’ In January, the protracted dispute with Mivart came to a close. The final chapter of the controversy involved a slanderous attack upon Darwin’s son George, in an anonymous review in 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, Appendix V). Darwin remained bitter and dissatisfied with Mivart’s attempts at conciliation, and spent weeks deliberating how to end the matter to his satisfaction. On 8 January, he told Hooker: ‘I will write a savage letter & that will do me some good, if I do not send it!’ In the end,

xviii

Introduction

with much advice and assistance from his family, he sent a curt note to Mivart on 12 January, breaking off all future communication. Darwin had been supported during the affair by the loyalty of his close friends, Hooker and Thomas Henry Huxley. Because Mivart was a distinguished zoologist, a fellow of the Royal Society of London, and a secretary of the Linnean Society, Darwin’s friends had to find ways of coming to his defence while still respecting codes of conduct and communication in scientific society. Huxley chose journalism, depicting the anonymous reviewer (Mivart) as a blind antagonist of ‘all things Darwinian’ and a mere mouthpiece of ‘Jesuitical Rome’ (Academy, 2 January 1875, pp. 16–17). ‘How grandly you have defended me’, Darwin wrote on 6 January, ‘You have also greatly honoured George. You have indeed been a true friend.’ Hooker was hampered by his position as president of the Royal Society from spurning Mivart in public. ‘Without cutting him direct’, he advised Darwin on 7 January, ‘I should avoid him, & if he speaks to me should let him feel it.’ Hooker also directed some of his anger toward John Murray, the publisher of the Quarterly Review, in which Mivart’s anonymous essay had appeared. ‘I told him that the Review was disgraced, that I should give the cold shoulder to the Editor … Poor Murray shuddered again & again’ (letter from J. D. Hooker, 16 January 1875). Darwin had also considered taking up the issue with Murray in 1874, even threatening to break off future dealings with the man who had been his publisher for over thirty years. ‘My thirst for vengeance is now quite Satisfied’, he told Hooker on 17 January, ‘I feel now like a pure forgiving Christian!’ Darwin’s ire was not fully spent, however, for he set about exposing Mivart’s character to other men of science when the chance arose. On 28 January, he sent a note on Royal Society business to Edward Burnett Tylor, whose anthropological work had been reviewed in the same Quarterly article that attacked George. Darwin raised the matter at the end of the note: ‘I know positively that this article was written by Mr Mivart & I wish to take every opportunity of saying how false a man I consider him to be.’ Just as the Mivart affair was laid to rest, another controversy was brewing. In December 1874, Darwin had been asked to sign a memorial on the practice of vivisection by the religious writer and social reformer Frances Power Cobbe. The memorial raised questions about the cruel treatment of animals in experimental physiology and medical teaching. Cobbe was an acquaintance of the Darwins and part of a circle of philanthropists that included Hensleigh and Frances Wedgwood. She had corresponded with Darwin about the evolution of the moral sense, and shared with Darwin a great fondness for dogs (see Correspondence vols. 19 and 20). The vivisection issue was a delicate one within Darwin’s family, and he tried to balance his concern for animal suffering with his firm belief in the value of experimental physiology. He expressed his views to his daughter Henrietta on 4 January: ‘I wd gladly punish severely anyone who operated on an animal not rendered insensible, if the experiment made this possible … Under this point of view I have rejoiced at the present agitation … [but] I certainly could not sign the paper sent me by Miss Cobbe.’ Darwin found Cobbe’s memorial inflammatory and unfair in its criticism of physiologists. Instead of supporting her, he worked closely with Huxley

Introduction

xix

and John Burdon Sanderson to draft an alternative proposal. His extensive involvement in preparing legislation on vivisection is evident in the many letters exchanged with physiologists, medical men, and legal experts in April and May, and in various drafts of a bill that was presented to the House of Commons on 12 May, one week after a rival bill based on Cobbe’s memorial had been read in the House of Lords (see Appendix VI). With such divided opinion on vivisection, the government decided to appoint a Royal Commission to advise on future legislation. Huxley served on the commission, which heard testimony from physiologists, medical educators, and other interested parties. Darwin was summoned to testify on 3 November. It caused him much anxiety, but he was asked only to give his general opinion of the value of vivisection and the importance of eliminating unnecessary suffering. A much more controversial witness was Edward Emanuel Klein, a German histologist who worked with John Burdon Sanderson at the Brown Animal Sanatory Institution. When asked about his use of anaesthetics in research, Klein expressed doubt about the validity of experiments conducted under such conditions, and even asserted that he had ‘no regard at all’ for the sufferings of animals when performing a painful experiment (Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, p. 183). Darwin learned of Klein’s testimony from Huxley on 30 October 1875: ‘I declare to you I did not believe the man lived who was such an unmitigated cynical brute—as to profess & act upon such principles—and I would willingly agree to any law, which should send him to the treadmill.’ Darwin had become acquainted with Klein when his son Francis was studying medicine in London. Klein had assisted in some of Darwin’s botanical research and had visited Down House in April 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letters from E. E. Klein, 14 May 1874 and 10 July 1874). ‘I am astounded & disgusted at what you say about Klein,’ Darwin replied to Huxley on 1 November. ‘I am very glad he is a foreigner; but it is most painful as I liked the man.’ Darwin’s keen interest in the progress of physiology was due in part to his research on the digestive properties of insectivorous plants. This work had led to collaborations with a number of leading physiologists. Indeed, some of the experiments that Darwin performed on plants, such as the application of salts, acids, and poisons, were analogous to those carried out on live animals in laboratories. In January 1875, he received details of experiments by Thomas Lauder Brunton and Joseph Fayrer on the comparative effects of cobra venom on animal and plant tissue. The experiments involved the application of snake poison to the cellular tissue of frogs, newts, and freshwater mussels, as well as to Vallisneria (tape grass). Fayrer had previously supplied Darwin with a quantity of the dried poison, which Darwin had applied in varying amounts to the tentacles of Drosera rotundifolia (common sundew). He recorded the inflection of the tentacles, noting that little or no harm came to the plant, and that the poison even acted as a kind of stimulant, causing rapid aggregation of protoplasm. He added the details of Brunton and Fayrer’s experiments to Insectivorous plants, pp. 206–9, remarking on the pronounced differences in the response of plants and animals to various toxic substances.

xx

Introduction

By January, Darwin was trying to finish the text that he had begun writing in April of the previous year. He did not find the process of writing and revising at all satisfying. On 10 February he complained to Hooker: ‘You ask about my book & all that I can say is that I am ready to commit suicide.’ Darwin’s despair over the revision process may have coloured his perception of the book’s appeal to readers, for he warned Murray on 29 April that it might ‘sell very poorly’. When a relatively small print run of 1000 was proposed, Darwin offered to pay the costs for printing an additional 250 (letter to John Murray, 3 May 1875). In the event, the book sold well, and Murray’s partner, Robert Cooke, politely scolded Darwin on 3 July for underestimating demand: ‘You took such a desponding view of your new work that you made us over cautious & we printed but 1250 … & lo & behold we have sold some 1700 Copies!!!’ After the initial publication on 2 July, two further printings were needed in quick succession. As usual, Darwin had a number of presentation copies sent to friends, those who had assisted him, and various experts in the field. One of the most enthusiastic responses came from the Swiss botanist Arnold Dodel, an instructor at the University of Zurich. He immediately took the book on a botanical trip with students around the Katzensee, a lake on the border of Zurich, where Drosera rotundifolia grew in abundance. ‘Your book had to go along on the excursion,’ he reported on 6 July, ‘and it did us excellent service.’ The trapped insects were observed in the field, and some of Darwin’s experiments on digestion were then repeated: ‘I have the pleasure of demonstrating, in my botanical–microscopical laboratory at the university here, the results of your investigations on the living plant to dozens of eager students.’ The cunning ways in which plants lured insects to their death were described in a review of the book in the Academy, 24 July 1875, by Ellen Frances Lubbock: ‘in Utricularia they are enticed into a trap with a spring door … in Sarracenia drink is their ruin, and they fall into a pit of destruction.’ She also wrote a plea for the poor creatures in the form of a poem, ‘From the Insects to their friend, Charles Darwin’. ‘We are very much obliged to you / For now of course we shan’t / Be taken in or done for / By any clever Plant … Great plates of honey you will set / For us upon your lawn, / We’ll feast away & bless the day / That ever you were born’ (letter from E. F. Lubbock, [after 2 July] 1875). Darwin had originally planned Insectivorous plants to be published together with a revised edition of Climbing plants. He made corrections to both works from January to March, and completed the two manuscripts about the same time. As was the case with some of Darwin’s previous publications, however, the resulting text was judged too large for one volume. Climbing plants 2d ed. was delayed until November, allowing Murray to advertise it at his annual sale. In addition to these two botanical publications, Darwin also worked on a second edition of Variation, commencing in June, shortly after the proof corrections of Insectivorous plants were finished. Darwin’s attention seems to have been largely on aspects of generation and development that had some bearing on his hypothesis of pangenesis. He followed up a case of the alleged regrowth of an extra finger after amputation, corresponding in August with Annie Dowie, a daughter of Robert Chambers, in hopes of getting more precise details

Introduction

xxi

about an operation performed in 1851 on her sister. He had described the case in Variation 2: 14–16, suggesting that such regrowth could be explained by reversion to ‘an enormously remote, lowly-organised, and multidigitate progenitor’. In the end, following the advice of the physician James Paget, he removed the discussion in Variation 2d ed. Further information was gathered about graft hybrids. He revisited the case of Cytisus adami, a hybrid of two forms of laburnum with flowers of each form on different branches. He also expanded his discussion of hybrid potatoes, adding numerous cases of intermediate varieties produced by splicing tubers or by inserting the eyes of one variety into another (Variation 2d ed. 1: 420–4, 2: 360). Darwin had encouraged further research on the effects of grafting by George John Romanes. A scientific friendship had developed between the men in 1874, and this was enhanced by Romanes’s visit to Down House: ‘The place was one which I had long wished to see,’ he wrote on 21 April 1875, ‘and now that I have seen it, I am sure it will ever remain one of the most agreeable and interesting of memory’s pictures.’ Though trained in zoology and hard at work on the rudimentary nervous system of medusae, Romanes was eager to carry out experiments that might help confirm Darwin’s theory of heredity. ‘I am a young man yet, and hope to do a good deal of “hammering”,’ he wrote on 14 July 1875. ‘I shall not let Pangenesis alone until I feel quite sure that it does not admit of being any further driven home by experimental work.’ Romanes bisected root vegetables and tuberous plants, and boasted about a ‘beautifully successful graft’ of a red and white carrot: ‘You will see that the union is very intimate, and that the originally red half has become wholly white’ (letter from G. J. Romanes, [before 4 November 1874]). Experiments to test Darwin’s pangenesis hypothesis had been performed on animals in previous years by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton. These had been unsuccessful, and Galton went on to develop his own theory of heredity in a series of articles in 1875 and 1876, based partly on his studies of twins and the inheritance of ‘genius’ in families. Galton came to reject the view that characteristics acquired in an individual’s lifetime could be transmitted to offspring. According to Galton’s theory, some ‘germs’ developed within the individual, giving rise to characteristics such as hair and eye colour; however, most germs remained dormant and were stored in the reproductive organs in isolation from the effects of environment or habit. He believed that the active germs were rendered ‘sterile’ by their use in the organism, and so exerted little or no influence on offspring; whereas the inactive or ‘residual’ germs were passed to offspring unmodified. Galton shared his views with Darwin in several lengthy letters. ‘I am very glad indeed of your work,’ Darwin replied on 4 November, ‘though I cannot yet follow all your reasoning.’ Darwin struggled with Galton’s unconventional terminology and with the abstractness of his theory, which Galton was unable to improve upon in letters. ‘Unless you can make several parts clearer,’ Darwin reiterated on 7 November, ‘I believe (though I hope I am altogether wrong) that very few will endeavour or succeed in, fathoming your meaning.’ Darwin remained committed to the importance of conditions of existence, and the effects of changed habits on fertility and the health of offspring. In the previous year,

xxii

Introduction

he had expanded his discussion in the second edition of Descent of the causes of extinction in ‘savage races’ when their ways of life were altered by European colonists (Descent 2d ed., pp. 188–90). He drew attention to this discussion in a letter to George Rolleston, remarking on 2 September: ‘the case is strictly parallel to the sterility of many wild animals when made captive. The civilisation of savages & the captivity of wild animals leading to the same result.’ In correcting his manuscripts and proofs, Darwin now relied heavily on his son Francis, who had made the decision in 1873 to abandon his medical studies and work as his father’s secretary. On sending the latest batch of corrections to his son in February, Darwin wrote, ‘I beg ten thousand pardon & more’ (letter to Francis Darwin, [c. February 1875?]). By May, having finished Insectivorous plants, and moved on to Variation 2d ed., Francis signed himself, ‘Your affect son … the proofmaniac’ (letter from Francis Darwin, 1 and 2 May [1875]). But Francis also found time to pursue his own research, often taking up questions raised by his father’s work. He studied aggregation in the tentacles of Drosera rotundifolia and prepared a paper on the structure and function of the proboscis of Ophideres fullonica, an orange-sucking moth. He observed the hygroscopic properties of seeds, using an instrument designed by his brother Horace, who was doing an apprenticeship at an engineering firm. Darwin was impressed by the device, remarking to Hooker on 13 October: ‘Horace has made a hygrometer with a bit of the twisted awn or pistil (or whatever it may be) & mounted it on a graduated circle; & I have never in my life been more astonished than at its sensitiveness. If you blow gently at it from 1 or 2 feet distance, it absorbs moisture & instantly rotates.’ George continued to suffer from poor health, for which his chronically invalid father had much sympathy: ‘I know well the feeling of life being objectless & all being vanity of vanities,’ he wrote on 10 February. ‘But this will wear away all the sooner for not trying to work too soon.’ George had begun research on tidal friction and the rigidity of the earth, and was discouraged by his early experiments on the flow of pitch. Darwin encouraged him to persevere, writing on 13 October, ‘I do not in the least fear that if there is anything to be made out by your method with respect to viscous fluids, you will succeed—such energy as yours almost always succeeds.’ ‘I’m afraid my letters smell of pitch,’ George replied on 26 October, ‘but I can think of O else.’ In between his physics research and bouts of illness, George still found time to write articles for leading periodicals such as the Contemporary Review. Having just emerged from the controversy with Mivart over his paper on cousin marriage, he was embroiled in another as the result of a review of William Dwight Whitney’s work on language (G. H. Darwin 1874c). George had taken the American scholar’s side in an ongoing debate with the Oxford professor of oriental languages, Friedrich Max Müller. George’s article also rehearsed some of Darwin’s own arguments in Descent about animal language, which had become a debating point between Whitney and Max Müller. In Descent 2d ed., pp. 86–8, Darwin had cited Whitney’s supportive arguments on the evolution of language through unconscious processes, and had criticised Max Müller’s insistence that language was an ‘impossible barrier’ between

Introduction

xxiii

humans and animals. George, in turn, quoted Whitney’s favourable assessment of his father’s theory, and credited Whitney with a ‘successful refutation of the somewhat dogmatic views of the Oxford linguist’ (G. H. Darwin 1874c, p. 894). On previous occasions, Max Müller and Darwin had aired their differences cordially in letters (see Correspondence vol. 21), and George’s review prompted Max Müller to write to Darwin affirming that his convictions were founded on ‘careful consideration’ rather than a fear of animal ancestry. ‘You know better than anybody’, he wrote on 7 January, ‘how infinitely great is the difference between man and animal: what I want to know is the first small and hardly perceptible cause of that difference, and I believe I find it in language & what is implied by language.’ Max Müller also published an article in response to George’s essay, suggesting that ‘Mr Darwin, jun.’ had used the pretext of a review of Whitney to defend his father. He compared the elder naturalist’s writing on language to such opinions as the Pope might offer on astronomy, or the Duke of Wellington on art (Max Müller 1875, pp. 305–7). The debate between Max Müller and Whitney continued in the periodical press and elsewhere, growing more bitter. George, who was on friendly terms with Whitney, wrote to him on 21 December about the perils of entering into a professional dispute between philologists: ‘I confess I felt it a little hard on myself to be dragged into the foreground & chaffed—rather savagely however. In my Contemp. article I thought I had made it pretty clear that I wrote as an ignoramus & only intended to represent your views, with such comments as ordinary intelligence without linguistic knowledge wd. allow me.’ Tempers flared closer to home when an earlier dispute between Darwin and the local vicar George Sketchley Ffinden resurfaced. In 1873, Charles and Emma Darwin and the Lubbocks had sought Ffinden’s support in allocating a reading-room for working men in the evenings as an alternative to the public house. In previous years, they had used a village schoolroom that was under the authority of the Church. After becoming vicar in 1871, Ffinden had opposed their efforts, and had taken issue with Darwin over his involvement in parish affairs (see Correspondence vol. 21). Lubbock tried to bring about a reconciliation, writing to Darwin on 5 April: ‘Having occasion to write to Mr. Ffinden about another matter, I incidentally expressed my regret at the coolness between you, & my conviction that it must arise from some misapprehension on his part. In reply Mr. Ffinden expressed his regret that there should be any want of harmony between himself & one “so highly gifted both intellectually & morally,” but he refers to two matters, the first being your having written to the education department about the school, which he considered an intentional slight. The second was that you ordered five pounds worth of repairs to the Infant school whereas the Committee only sanctioned an expenditure of £4, & he thinks that in this also you intended to slight him.’ Darwin assured Lubbock that he never meant to show disrespect, but insisted that it was Ffinden who had given offence. ‘Mr. Ffinden accused me in the vestry of having made false statements,’ Darwin replied on 8 April. ‘This is conduct which a man does not commonly pass over without some sort of apology.— Nevertheless if Mr. Ffinden bows to Mrs. Darwin

xxiv

Introduction

or myself we will return it; but I fear under present circumstances that we can take no further step.’ Relations between the clergyman and the Darwins did not warm thereafter. On 24 December, Emma wrote triumphantly to the former vicar, John Brodie Innes, that a new reading-room had been opened in the village, and a local temperance society had been established by a Down solicitor and his wife: ‘Both these undertakings are thorns in Mr Ffinden’s side & he has not been content with holding aloof from them; but has used all his influence to prevent their succeeding.’ In the wider public sphere and in scientific communities abroad, Darwin’s work continued to elicit strong reactions, both critical and reverential. On 16 July he received a letter from an advocate of women’s rights, Charlotte Papé, questioning his views in Descent on the superiority of male intellect: ‘I myself know so comparatively many striking instances to the contrary, among my friends and my own family, that it seems highly improbable to me. At any rate, every woman ought to try to ascertain as much of the truth in respect to it as she can; for apart from the interest of the question in itself, it is most important for the future of women.’ Papé asked Darwin for advice on designing a comparative study of the inheritance of mental powers in women and men, and expressed her frustration at the social constraints that women faced in the pursuit of science: ‘of course, like all women, I have had no scientific training … And it is just this very helplessness as to getting information … that must form my excuse for the unwarrantable liberty I am taking.’ Some of Darwin’s most ardent support came from Germany. His long-serving translator, Julius Victor Carus, brought out a third German edition of Descent (Carus trans. 1875a), and started at once to translate Insectivorous plants (Carus trans. 1876a). The German publisher E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung began to issue Darwin’s other works in the form of a collected edition, Ch. Darwin’s gesammelte Werke, commencing with his famous narrative of the Beagle voyage, Journal of researches (Carus trans. 1875b; the series is Carus trans. 1875–87). More controversial was the proposal by the journalist Otto Zacharias to start a monthly periodical titled Darwinia. ‘Our Journals & weekly publications of Natural History’, he explained on 3 June, ‘are not sufficiently penetrated with the value & importance of your theory.’ Zacharias dubbed the journal ‘a special Organ for Darwinismus’ and ‘transformationist monthly’. The list of contributors and supporters included long-term correspondents such as Ernst Haeckel, Fritz and Hermann Müller, and Anton Dohrn. Although the periodical never appeared under the proposed title, many of the same contributors were involved in the launch of Kosmos in April 1877. From Haeckel, Darwin received a copy of a book titled Kant und Darwin, linking his theory of descent to the celebrated German philosopher’s ideas on race. ‘It is yet another laurel in the wreath of your fame’, Haeckel wrote on 6 June, ‘to have a predecessor in the greatest thinker of Germany!— I hope that this will convert many German philosophers to “Darwinism”!’ The author, Fritz Schultze, contacted Darwin himself on 12 June, describing the aims of his book: ‘My hope is that Kant, whose standing with all parties in Germany is exceedingly high, will convert to Darwinism also those who have remained unconvinced … we now view Kant as a “Darwinist before Darwin”.’

Introduction

xxv

A more humble tribute was paid by an anonymous correspondent: ‘The learned Darwin states that Moses taught confusion / For Man, he boldly says, descends from Ape or Monkey— / I, having read his book, am come to this conclusion / Darwin (at least himself) descends from Ass or Donkey.’ On the back of the doggerel, Darwin wrote: ‘An anonymous compliment | received Feb 16th 1875’. Darwin’s fame in 1875 was also marked by the increasing number of visitors to Down House. In addition to the usual round of friends, such as the Lubbocks, Huxleys, and Hookers, Darwin hosted many scientific guests and others of social distinction. One of the most keen of visitors was Lady Dorothy Nevill. She had corresponded with Darwin the previous year about insectivorous plants, and had lent him several tropical specimens from her large private collection. She tried to meet Darwin in London on several occasions and finally arranged a visit to Down House on 4 May, but was not content with just one meeting: ‘I did so enjoy my afternoon’, she wrote on 2 July, ‘and if it were not too much to ask—later on—if it were possible I should so like to come down again.’ Darwin tried to satisfy her with an autograph, which she requested to accompany her presentation copy of Insectivorous plants (letter to D. F. Nevill, 15 July [1875]). Such visitors from the upper ranks of society could be especially taxing. As Emma remarked in a letter to William on 1 May, they required Darwin to be ‘so friendly & adoring (if possible)’ (DAR 219.1: 89). The most eminent of Darwin’s guests was Francis, duke of Teck, a German prince married to a granddaughter of George III. Darwin had hoped to arrange for the meeting to take place at Lubbock’s home, High Elms, so that he could get away quickly: ‘I do not see how I could get a sort of living Royal Duke out of my house within the short time I can talk to anyone’ (letter to John Lubbock, 3 May [1875]). Finally it was arranged for the duke to stop at Down on 19 August before going on to Lubbock’s for lunch. Another aristocratic visitor, Lady Derby, prompted a crisis when she proposed coming on the same day as the Darwins were hosting the Russian explorer Nikolai Alekseevich Severtsov and the ornithologist Henry Eeles Dresser. ‘The horror was great’, Henrietta Emma Litchfield wrote to her brother Leonard on 14 September, ‘& special messengers had to be sent off to stop them’ (DAR 258: 1646). There was no reprieve, however: the Derbys, who had rented a house nearby at Keston, placed their home at the disposal of Thomas Carlyle, who visited Down no less than three times over the summer. Darwin later recalled how the dour sage ‘sneered at almost every one. One day in my house he called [George] Grote’s History “a fetid quagmire, with nothing spiritual about it”… his expression was that of a depressed, almost despondent, yet benevolent man’ (‘Recollections’, p. 407). Even scientific colleagues could be trying at times. In March, Darwin began corresponding with the Birmingham surgeon Lawson Tait, a specialist in gynaecology. Darwin was interested in his work on ovarian tumours, which Tait believed originated in bud-like tissue through a process that was best explained by Darwin’s hypothesis of pangenesis. Over the next few months, Tait wrote a series of long letters on various subjects, suggesting, for example, that bushy tails had evolved as a protective layer for animals to curl up in, and that the shape of the umbilical cord was

xxvi

Introduction

analogous to the spiral form of twining plants (letters from Lawson Tait, 16 March [1875] and 27 March [1875]). ‘As I am not hampered by worldly exigencies,’ he declared on 27 March, ‘I do not devote myself to the drudgery of medical life and therefore have time for science.’ Tait gave occasional public lectures, presenting himself as a follower and defender of Darwin’s theories. In August, he published a favourable review of Insectivorous plants for the Spectator, and took up the subject himself, focusing on the digestive secretions of Dionaea (Venus fly trap), Drosera (sundew), and Nepenthes (tropical pitcher-plant). He announced that he had isolated a pepsinlike compound from the fluid of Drosera dichotoma (the forked-leaf sundew), and sent details of his observations and procedures. His letters came more frequently, even two a day, though sometimes with the proviso that they need not be answered. Darwin could not keep up, and on 22 July, he had Francis reply: ‘My Father desires me to say that he is so much engaged with other subjects that he cannot attend to Drosera at present … He desires me to thank you much for your kind desire to help him.’ Tait’s research not only overlapped considerably with Darwin’s, but also with that of Hooker, who had worked periodically on the digestive properties of Nepenthes since 1873. ‘You are aware that Dr Hooker has worked hard at Nepenthes & will soon publish’, Darwin warned on 17 July 1875. But Tait was undaunted. He completed a paper in October and asked Darwin to submit it to the Royal Society on his behalf. Darwin complained to Hooker on 13 October, ‘It is not at all nice in the confounded man (who has bothered me almost out of my life) to write on Nepenthes when he & all the world know that you have taken up the subject. What had I better do?’ Darwin felt obliged to Tait, partly because of his public support for pangenesis and Insectivorous plants, but he had reservations about the paper’s merit. He confessed to Hooker two days later, ‘after agonies of doubt I found that I cd. not endure to refuse … he has been here & wishes to do everything to oblige me, But he is a coarse impudent fellow.’ Darwin pleaded that the paper not be referred to him for review. In the end, it was firmly rejected for its faulty chemical methods, and Darwin had to break the news to the author in 1876 that his Royal Society ambitions had been frustrated. Though Darwin was eventually able to resume observational work on his beloved plants, the year did not end quietly. In December he showed surprising vigour in taking up the cause of Edwin Ray Lankester, who had been blackballed in a bid for election to the Linnean Society. He was the eldest son of Edwin Lankester, a leading microscopist who had assisted Darwin in his work on barnacles (Correspondence vol. 5). Though not yet thirty, he had already had a distinguished career, having studied under George Rolleston at Oxford and Huxley at South Kensington, with visiting positions under Haeckel at Jena and Dohrn at Naples. Darwin had expressed his desire to meet Lankester in July, and had agreed to see him at Down with Thiselton-Dyer (letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 7 July 1875). It was Thiselton-Dyer who nominated Lankester for the Linnean, and he was blackballed on 2 December, the same meeting at which Romanes and Francis Darwin were made fellows. But Thiselton-Dyer had apparently jeopardised his friend’s chances by suggesting to the council that his membership fee be waived, thinking that this was appropriate for so distinguished

Introduction

xxvii

a nominee. Already in 1875, Lankester had been elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and had been appointed professor of zoology at University College, London. Darwin learned about the blackballing from Hooker, who attributed it to political squabbles within the society, especially among botanists who complained that it was always the zoologists who had their fees remitted. Darwin was incensed that such politicking should take precedence over individual merit, and worried that the result would tarnish Lankester’s career. ‘It seems to me the most disgraceful act which any scientific Socy. has done in my time,’ he told Hooker on 12 December. ‘I wish that I knew what the malcontents have to say for themselves.’ Darwin spent the next weeks canvassing members of the society to support Lankester at the next meeting, and even planned to attend himself in order to cast a vote. In the event, the election was postponed until February 1876, and Lankester was duly elected. Darwin was saddened by the deaths during the year of several of his correspondents, including one of his oldest and dearest friends, Charles Lyell. Darwin had learned of Lyell’s failing health from Hooker in 1874 and January 1875. On 22 February, he was notified of Lyell’s death by Lyell’s secretary, Arabella Buckley. Lyell had helped to introduce Darwin to scientific society in London, and offered much advice on his early publications in geology. Replying to Buckley on 23 February, Darwin recalled first meeting Lyell on returning from the Beagle voyage: ‘how full of sympathy and interest he was about what I could tell him of Coral reefs and South America … almost every thing which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works.’ Later in the year, Darwin received word of the death of one his most avid American supporters, the philosopher Chauncey Wright. Wright had published favourable reviews of Darwin’s work, including a defence against Mivart that Darwin had reprinted in Britain. Wright had written to Darwin on 24 February on the lay of hair in eyelashes and on arms, a typically lengthy letter full of personal observations, classical references, and anecdotes of Harvard professors. In September, he died suddenly in his college rooms, and was found at his desk with a copy of Insectivorous plants open beside him, and specimens of Drosera ready for examination. Though unable to complete an article on Darwin’s latest book, Wright did leave his brain to science and on examination it was pronounced to be of a ‘high type’ (letter from Woodward Emery, 17 September 1875).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The editors are grateful to the late George Pember Darwin and to William Darwin for permission to publish the Darwin letters and manuscripts. They also thank the Syndics of Cambridge University Library and other owners of manuscript letters who have generously made them available. Work for this edition has been supported by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Wellcome Trust. The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation provided grants to match NEH funding, and the Mellon Foundation awarded grants to Cambridge University that made it possible to put the entire Darwin correspondence into machine-readable form. Research and editorial work have also been supported by grants from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Bonita Trust, the British Academy, the British Ecological Society, the Isaac Newton Trust, the Jephcott Charitable Trust, the John Templeton Foundation, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Royal Society of London, and the Wilkinson Charitable Foundation. The Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft provided funds to translate and edit Darwin’s correspondence with German naturalists. Funding sufficient to complete the entire edition has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Evolution Education Trust, and the Isaac Newton Trust. We are extremely grateful for this unprecedented long-term support. We particularly wish to acknowledge the role of the Evolution Education Trust, without whose imaginative and generous support so distinguished a consortium could not have been established. Cambridge University Library, the American Philosophical Society (APS), Harvard University, and Cornell University have generously made working space and many services available to the editors; the American Council of Learned Societies has provided invaluable administrative and strategic support. Since the project began in 1975, the editors have been fortunate in benefiting from the interest, experience, and practical help of many people, and hope that they have adequately expressed their thanks to them individually as the work proceeded. English Heritage has responded most generously to requests for information and for material from the collections at Down House, Downe. We are particularly grateful to Cathy Power, senior curator of collections at English Heritage, Annie Kemkaran-Smith, curator of Down House, and Tori Reeve, former curator. The

xxx

Acknowledgments

late Richard Darwin Keynes kindly made available Darwin family material in his possession. The late Ursula Mommens also provided letters and other materials that belonged to her grandfather, Francis Darwin. Institutions and individuals all over the world have given indispensable help by making available photocopies or digital images of Darwin correspondence and other manuscripts in their collections. Those who furnished copies of letters for this volume can be found in the List of provenances. The editors are indebted to them, and to the many people who have provided information about the locations of particular letters. The editors make daily use of the incomparable facilities of Cambridge University Library and have benefited greatly from its services and from the help and expertise of its staff, particularly the staff of the Manuscripts Department. We are especially grateful to the University Librarian, Anne Jarvis, and to her predecessors Peter K. Fox and Frederick W. Ratcliffe, and to the Keeper of Manuscripts and Archives, Patrick Zutshi, for their generous support. Other members of the library’s staff who frequently respond to the editors’ requests are: Marjolein Allen, Wendy Aylett, Jim Bloxam, Frank Bowles, Louise Clarke, Colin Clarkson, Jacqueline Cox, Maureen Dann, John Hall, Morag Law, David Lowe, Peter Meadows, Sue Mehrer, Błazej Mikuła, Ben Outhwaite, Maciej Pawlikowski, Adam Perkins, Ed Potten, Mark Scudder, Nicholas Smith, Anne Taylor, Ngaio Vince-Dewerse, John Wells, and Jill Whitelock. The fetchers in the Rare Books reading room have also patiently dealt with the editors’ often complex requirements, as have the staff of the Map Room. At the American Philosophical Society Library, a splendid collection of Darwiniana and works in the history of science has been available to the editors since the inception of the project. The editors have benefited from the co-operation of the late Whitfield J. Bell Jr, former secretary of the society, the late Edward Carter II, Robert S. Cox, Roy C. Goodman, and Martin L. Leavitt, all of the APS Library. The editors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Rodney Dennis, Jennie Rathbun, and Susan Halpert of the Houghton Library, Constance Carter of the Science Division of the Library of Congress, and Judith Warnement, Lisa DeCesare, and Jean Cargill of the Gray Herbarium of Harvard University, who have all been exceptionally helpful in providing material from the collections in their charge. In Britain, the editors have received assistance from Lynda Brooks (librarian), Gina Douglas (former librarian), and Ben Sherwood of the Linnean Society of London; and from Lorna Cahill, Michele Losse, Virginia Mills, and Kiri Ross Jones of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. We would also like to thank Anne Barrett, college archivist at the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine; successive librarians and archivists of Christ’s College, Cambridge; Simon Chaplin, head of the Wellcome Library, Wellcome Trust; and Sarah Rayner and John Hodgson at The John Rylands Library. We owe a considerable debt to the staff of the American Council of Learned Societies for their help and advice since the Darwin Correspondence Project began.

Acknowledgments

xxxi

We particularly thank the president, Pauline Yu, Steven Wheatley, and Kelly Buttermore, for their generosity and unfailingly warm welcome. Among the others who advise and assist the editors in their work are Nick Gill, Randal Keynes, David Kohn, Carl F. Miller, Jim Moore, Garry J. Tee, John van Wyhe, David West, and Leonard Wilson. The editors are also pleased to acknowledge the invaluable support of the members of the Project’s Advisory Committee. Among the many research resources on which we rely, special mention should be made of the Biodiversity Heritage Library (www.biodiversitylibrary.org), the Darwin Manuscripts Project (www.amnh.org), and Darwin Online (darwin-online.org.uk). Between 2009 and 2013 we were fortunate to work with a number of colleagues based at Harvard under the direction of Professor Janet Browne and supported by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Science Foundation. We thank the History of Science Department for providing space and facilities for the duration of the grants. We are also indebted to Janet Browne for making her time and expertise available, and for her continuing commitment to the Project. For help with particular enquiries in volume 23 the editors would like to thank, besides those already mentioned, Liudmila Bushueva, Jon Cable, Clara Cuccu, Felix Driver, Philip Hardie, Fiona Keates, the Rev. Timothy Kinahan, W. D. J. Kirk, Jamie Maxwell, Veronica Morrison, Kevin Offley, Cornelia Pfordt, Arend Pietersma, Jack Richards, Jonathan Smith, and Roscoe Stanyon. We have relied heavily on expert technical assistance both from external consultants and from colleagues in Cambridge University in developing and maintaining our electronic resources, including our typesetting systems, and in making the correspondence available over the World Wide Web. For past help, we particularly thank Maarten Bressinck, Simon Buck, Anne Clarke, Matthew Daws, Robin Fairbairns, Patricia Killiard, Chris Martin, John Norman, and Martin Oldfield. We are also grateful to Hal Blackburn, Iain Burke, Lesley Gray, Huw Jones, Sultan Kus, Christopher Stokoe, Merina Tuladhar, Tomasz Waldoch, and Grant Young of Cambridge University Library. This volume has been typeset using Adobe InDesign. Thanks are also due to all former staff and associates of the Darwin Correspondence Project, including: Doris E. Andrews, Geoff Belknap, Sarah Benton, the late Charlotte Bowman, Heidi Bradshaw, Pamela J. Brant, Janet Browne, P. Thomas Carroll, Finlay Clarkson, Stefanie Cookson, Henry Cowles, Sheila Dean, Sophie Defrance, Mario Di Gregorio, Rhonda Edwards, Katie Ericksen Baca, Deborah Fitzgerald, Kate Fletcher, Megan Formato, Hedy Franks, Jane Mork Gibson, Nick Gill, Philippa Hardman, Joy Harvey, Arne Hessenbruch, Thomas Horrocks, Dorothy Huffman, Rachel Iliffe, Andrew Inkpen, Zuzana Jakubisinowa Toci, Christine M. Joyner, Thomas Junker, Rebecca Kelley, Joan W. Kimball, Barbara A. Kimmelman, David Kohn, Jyothi Krishnan-Unni, Gene Kritsky, Sam Kuper, Kathleen Lane, Sarah Lavelle, Margot Levy, Robert Lindsey, Jean Macqueen, Nancy Mautner, Anna K. Mayer, William Montgomery, Eleanor Moore, Leslie Nye, Perry O’Donovan,

xxxii

Acknowledgments

Myrna Perez Sheldon, Stephen V. Pocock, Duncan Porter, John A. Reesman, Marsha L. Richmond, the late Peter Saunders, Andrew Sclater, Tracey Slotta, Jessee Smith, Kate Smith, the late Sydney Smith, Alison Soanes, Emma Spary, Alistair Sponsel, Nora Carroll Stevenson, Edith Stewart, Jenna Tonn, Jonathan R. Topham, Tyler Veak, Ellis Weinberger, Béatrice Willis, Sarah Wilmot, and Rebecca Woods, and our project colleagues, Sally Stafford and Charissa Varma. We are most grateful to Margot Levy for providing the index to the current volume. Copyright statement We gratefully acknowledge the families and estates of letter authors for permission to include their works in this publication, and particularly the Darwin family for permission to publish the texts of all letters written by Charles Darwin. We make every reasonable effort to trace the holders of copyright in letters written by persons other than Darwin where copyright permission is required for publication. If you believe you are a rights holder and are concerned that we have published or may publish in the future material for which you have not given permission and which is not covered by a legal exception or exemption, we would be most grateful if you would contact us in writing by post or email. Darwin Correspondence Project Cambridge University Library West Road Cambridge United Kingdom CB3 9DR Email: [email protected] The copyright of literary works by Alfred Russel Wallace that were unpublished at the time of his death and that are published in this book belongs to the A. R.Wallace Literary Estate. These works are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. To view a copy of this visit http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode.

PROVENANCES

The following list gives the locations of the original versions of the letters printed in this volume. The editors are grateful to all the institutions and individuals listed for allowing access to the letters in their care. Access to material in DAR 261 and DAR 263, formerly at Down House, Downe, Kent, England, is courtesy of English Heritage. Material in DAR 274 has been accepted by HM Government in lieu of Inheritance Tax, 2011, and temporarily allocated to Cambridge University Library pending a decision on permanent allocation. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Archives of the Gray Herbarium, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Archives of the New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York, USA Artis Bibliotheek, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, California USA Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, Germany Birmingham Daily Post (publication) Bloomsbury Auctions (dealers) Bonhams (dealers) Boston Public Library (Rare Books), Boston, Massachusetts, USA Bradford Galleries (dealers) British Library, London, England Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, England Christie’s (dealers) Cleveland Health Sciences Library, Cleveland, Ohio, USA Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York, USA Cornford Family Papers CUL. See Cambridge University Library DAR. See Cambridge University Library Sophie Dupré (dealer) EAC Gallery (dealers) Empire Autograph Auctions (dealers) English Heritage, Down House, Downe, Kent, England Ernst-Haeckel-Haus, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany Expression 2d ed. (publication)

xxxiv

Provenances

Fondazione Sella, Biella, Italy Sue and Gerald Friedman (private collection) Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles (dealers) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek, Hannover, Germany Klaus Groove (private collection) Harvard University Archives, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Harvard University, Houghton Library, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Kenneth Hince Book Auctions (dealer) Hull University Archives, Hull History Centre, Hull, England The Huntington Library, San Marino, California, USA Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, England The John Rylands Library, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England C. C. Kohler (dealer) Kotte Autographs GmbH (dealer) Leeds University Library Special Collections, University of Leeds, Leeds, England Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA Library of Congress Manuscript Division, Washington, District of Columbia, USA Linnean Society of London, Piccadilly, London, England James Lowe Autographs Ltd (dealers) Lubbock family (private collection) Lord Lyell (private collection) Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Möller ed. 1915–21 (publication) Nate's Autographs (dealer) National Library of Australia, Canberra, Australia National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland Natural History Museum, London, England Nature (publication) The New York Public Library, New York, USA Norton & Howe 1913 (publication) Parke Bernet (dealers) Max Rambod (dealer) Mrs Sybil Rampen (private collection) Remember When Auctions (dealers) Kenneth Rendell Gallery (dealer) E. D. Romanes 1896 (publication) Josh E. Rosenblum (private collection) Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England Royal Entomological Society, St Albans, Hertfordshire, England St Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SPbB ARAS), St Petersburg, Russia

Provenances

xxxv

Sedgwick Museum of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England Skinner, Inc. (dealers) Smithsonian Libraries (The Dibner Library of the History of Science and Technology), Washington, District of Colombia, USA Sotheby’s (dealers) Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, Germany Taylor Library, Shrewsbury School, Shrewsbury, England Trustees of the Army Medical Services Museum, Ash Vale, Surrey, England Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England UCL Library Services, Special Collections, London, England University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada University of California Los Angeles, Louise M. Darling Biomedical Library, Los Angeles, California, USA The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections, Edinburgh University Library, Edinburgh, Scotland University of London, Senate House Library, London, England University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa University of Virginia Library, Special Collections, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA Wellcome Library, London, England John Wilson Manuscripts Ltd (dealer) Yale University Library: Manuscripts and Archives, New Haven, Connecticut, USA Zacharias 1882 (publication) Zentralbibliothek Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland Zoologische Staatssammlung, Munich, Germany

A NOTE ON EDITORIAL POLICY

The first and chief objective of this edition is to provide complete and authoritative texts of Darwin’s correspondence. For every letter to or from Darwin, the text that is available to the editors is always given in full. The editors have occasionally included letters that are not to or from Darwin if they are relevant to the published correspondence. Volumes of the Correspondence are published in chronological order. Occasional supplements will be published containing letters that have come to light or have been redated since the relevant volumes of the Correspondence appeared. Letters that can only be given a wide date range, in some instances spanning several decades, are printed in the supplement following the volume containing letters at the end of their date range. The first such supplement was in volume 7 and included letters from 1828 to 1857; the second was in volume 13, and included letters from 1822 to 1864; the third was in volume 18, and included letters from 1835 to 1869. Dating of letters and identification of correspondents In so far as it is possible, the letters have been dated, arranged in chronological order, and the recipients or senders identified. Darwin seldom wrote the full date on his letters and, unless the addressee was well known to him, usually wrote only ‘Dear Sir’ or ‘Dear Madam’. After the adoption of adhesive postage stamps in the 1840s, the separate covers that came into use with them were usually not preserved, and thus the dates and the names of many recipients of Darwin’s letters have had to be derived from other evidence. The notes made by Francis Darwin on letters sent to him for his editions of his father’s correspondence have been helpful, as have matching letters in the correspondence, but many dates and recipients have had to be deduced from the subject-matter or references in the letters themselves. Transcription policy Whenever possible, transcriptions have been made from manuscripts. If the manuscript was inaccessible but a photocopy or other facsimile version was available, that version has been used as the source. In many cases, the editors have had recourse to Francis Darwin’s large collection of copies of letters, compiled in the 1880s. Other copies, published letters, or drafts have been transcribed when they provided texts that were otherwise unavailable. The method of transcription employed in this edition is adapted from that described by Fredson Bowers in ‘Transcription of manuscripts: the record of variants’,

Editorial policy

xxxvii

Studies in Bibliography 29 (1976): 212–64. This system is based on accepted principles of modern textual editing and has been widely adopted in literary editions. The case for using the principles and techniques of this form of textual editing for historical and non-literary documents, both in manuscript and print, has been forcefully argued by G. Thomas Tanselle in ‘The editing of historical documents’, Studies in Bibliography 31 (1978): 1–56. The editors of the Correspondence followed Dr Tanselle in his conclusion that a ‘scholarly edition of letters or journals should not contain a text which has editorially been corrected, made consistent, or otherwise smoothed out’ (p. 48), but they have not wholly subscribed to the statement made earlier in the article that: ‘In the case of notebooks, diaries, letters and the like, whatever state they are in constitutes their finished form, and the question of whether the writer ‘‘intended’’ something else is irrelevant’ (p. 47). The editors have preserved the spelling, punctuation, and grammar of the original, but they have found it impossible to set aside entirely the question of authorial intent. One obvious reason is that in reading Darwin’s writing, there must necessarily be reliance upon both context and intent. Even when Darwin’s general intent is clear, there are cases in which alternative readings are, or may be, possible, and therefore the transcription decided upon must to some extent be conjectural. Where the editors are uncertain of their transcription, the doubtful text has been enclosed in italic square brackets. A major editorial decision was to adopt the so-called ‘clear-text’ method of transcription, which so far as possible keeps the text free of brackets recording deletions, insertions, and other alterations in the places at which they occur. Darwin’s changes are, however, recorded in the back matter of the volume, under ‘Manuscript alterations and comments’, in notes keyed to the printed text by paragraph and line number. All lines above the first paragraph of the letter (that is, date, address, or salutation) are referred to as paragraph ‘0’. Separate paragraph numbers are used for subscriptions and postscripts. This practice enables the reader who wishes to do so to reconstruct the manuscript versions of Darwin’s autograph letters, while furnishing printed versions that are uninterrupted by editorial interpolations. The Manuscript alterations and comments record all alterations made by Darwin in his letters and any editorial amendments made in transcription, and also where part of a letter has been written by an amanuensis; they do not record alterations made by amanuenses. No attempt has been made to record systematically all alterations to the text of copies of Darwin letters included in the correspondence, but ambiguous passages in copies are noted. The editors believe it would be impracticable to attempt to go further without reliable information about the texts of the original versions of the letters concerned. Letters to Darwin have been transcribed without recording any of the writers’ alterations unless they reflect significant changes in substance or impede the sense; in such cases footnotes bring them to the reader’s attention. Misspellings have been preserved, even when it is clear that they were unintentional: for instance, ‘lawer’ for ‘lawyer’. Such errors often indicate excitement or haste and may exhibit, over a series of letters, a habit of carelessness in writing to a particular correspondent or about a particular subject.

xxxviii

Editorial policy

Capital letters have also been transcribed as they occur except in certain cases, such as ‘m’, ‘k’, and ‘c’, which are frequently written somewhat larger than others as initial letters of words. In these cases an attempt has been made to follow the normal practice of the writers. In some instances that are not misspellings in a strict sense, editorial corrections have been made. In his early manuscripts and letters Darwin consistently wrote ‘bl’ so that it looks like ‘lb’ as in ‘albe’ for ‘able’, ‘talbe’ for ‘table’. Because the form of the letters is so consistent in different words, the editors consider that this is most unlikely to be a misspelling but must be explained simply as a peculiarity of Darwin’s handwriting. Consequently, the affected words have been transcribed as normally spelled and no record of any alteration is given in the textual apparatus. Elsewhere, though, there are misformed letters that the editors have recorded because they do, or could, affect the meaning of the word in which they appear. The main example is the occasional inadvertent crossing of ‘l’. When the editors are satisfied that the intended letter was ‘l’ and not ‘t’, as, for example, in ‘stippers’ or ‘istand’, then ‘l’ has been transcribed, but the actual form of the word in the manuscript has been given in the Manuscript alterations and comments. If the only source for a letter is a copy, the editors have frequently retained corrections made to the text when it is clear that they were based upon comparison with the original. Francis Darwin’s corrections of misreadings by copyists have usually been followed; corrections to the text that appear to be editorial alterations have not been retained. Editorial interpolations in the text are in square brackets. Italic square brackets enclose conjectured readings and descriptions of illegible passages. To avoid confusion, in the few instances in which Darwin himself used square brackets, they have been altered by the editors to parentheses with the change recorded in the Manuscript alterations and comments. In letters to Darwin, square brackets have been changed to parentheses silently. Material that is irrecoverable because the manuscript has been torn or damaged is indicated by angle brackets; any text supplied within them is obviously the responsibility of the editors. Occasionally, the editors are able to supply missing sections of text by using ultraviolet light (where text has been lost owing to damp) or by reference to transcripts or photocopies of manuscript material made before the damage occurred. Words and passages that have been underlined for emphasis are printed in italics in accordance with conventional practice. Where the author of a letter has indicated greater emphasis by underlining a word or passage two or more times, the text is printed in bold type. Paragraphs are often not clearly indicated in the letters. Darwin and others sometimes marked a change of subject by leaving a somewhat larger space than usual between sentences; sometimes Darwin employed a longer dash. In these cases, and when the subject is clearly changed in very long stretches of text, a new paragraph has been started by the editors without comment. The beginnings of

Editorial policy

xxxix

letters, valedictions, and postscripts are also treated as new paragraphs regardless of whether they appear as new paragraphs in the manuscript. Special manuscript devices delimiting sections or paragraphs, for example, blank spaces left between sections of text and lines drawn across the page, are treated as normal paragraph indicators and are not specially marked or recorded unless their omission leaves the text unclear. Occasionally punctuation marking the end of a clause or sentence is not present in the manuscript, but the author has made his or her intention clear by allowing, for example, extra space or a line break to function as punctuation. In such cases, the editors have inserted an extra space following the sentence or clause to set it off from the following text. Additions to a letter that run over into the margins, or are continued at its head or foot, are transcribed at the point in the text at which the editors believe they were intended to be read. The placement of such an addition is only recorded in a footnote if it seems to the editors to have some significance or if the position at which it should be transcribed is unclear. Enclosures are transcribed following the letter. The hand-drawn illustrations and diagrams that occur in some letters are reproduced as faithfully as possible and are usually positioned as they were in the original text. In some cases, however, it has been necessary to reduce the size of a diagram or enhance an outline for clarity; any such alterations are recorded in footnotes. The location of diagrams within a letter is sometimes changed for typesetting reasons. Tables have been reproduced as close to the original format as possible, given typesetting constraints. Some Darwin letters and a few letters to Darwin are known only from entries in the catalogues of book and manuscript dealers or mentions in other published sources. Whatever information these sources provide about the content of such letters has been reproduced without substantial change. Any errors detected are included in footnotes. Format of published letters The format in which the transcriptions are printed in the Correspondence is as follows: 1. Order of letters. The letters are arranged in chronological sequence. A letter that can be dated only approximately is placed at the earliest date on which the editors believe it could have been written. The basis of a date supplied by the editors is given in a footnote unless it is derived from a postmark, watermark, or endorsement that is recorded in the physical description of the letter (see section 4, below). Letters with the same date, or with a range of dates commencing with that date, are printed in the alphabetical order of their senders or recipients unless their contents dictate a clear alternative order. Letters dated only to a year or a range of years precede letters that are dated to a particular month or range of months, and these, in turn, precede those that are dated to a particular day or range of dates commencing with a particular day.

xl

Editorial policy

2. Headline. This gives the name of the sender or recipient of the letter and its date. The date is given in a standard form, but those elements not taken directly from the letter text are supplied in square brackets. The name of the sender or recipient is enclosed in square brackets only where the editors regard the attribution as doubtful. 3. The letter text. The transcribed text follows as closely as possible the layout of the source, although no attempt is made to produce a type-facsimile of the manuscript: word-spacing and line-division in the running text are not adhered to. Similarly, the typography of printed sources is not replicated. Dates and addresses given by authors are transcribed as they appear, except that if both the date and the address are at the head of the letter they are always printed on separate lines with the address first, regardless of the manuscript order. If no address is given on a letter by Darwin, the editors have supplied one, when able to do so, in square brackets at the head of the letter. Similarly, if Darwin was writing from an address different from the one given on the letter, his actual location is given in square brackets. Addresses on printed stationery are transcribed in italics. Addresses, dates, and valedictions have been run into single lines to save space, but the positions of line-breaks in the original are marked by vertical bars. 4. Physical description. All letters are complete and in the hand of the sender unless otherwise indicated. If a letter was written by an amanuensis, or exists only as a draft or a copy, or is incomplete, or is in some other way unusual, then the editors provide the information needed to complete the description. Postmarks, endorsements, and watermarks are recorded only when they are evidence for the date or address of the letter. 5. Source. The final line provides the provenance of the text. Some sources are given in abbreviated form (for example, DAR 140: 18) but are listed in full in the List of provenances unless the source is a published work. Letters in private collections are also indicated. References to published works are given in author–date or short-title form, with full titles and publication details supplied in the Bibliography at the end of the volume. 6. Darwin’s annotations. Darwin frequently made notes in the margins of the letters he received, scored significant passages, and crossed through details that were of no further interest to him. These annotations are transcribed or described following the letter text. They are keyed to the letter text by paragraph and line numbers. Most notes are short, but occasionally they run from a paragraph to several pages, and sometimes they are written on separate sheets appended to the letter. Extended notes relating to a letter are transcribed whenever practicable following the annotations as ‘CD notes’. Quotations from Darwin manuscripts in footnotes and elsewhere, and the text of his annotations and notes on letters, are transcribed in ‘descriptive’ style. In this method the alterations in the text are recorded in brackets at the places where they occur. For example: ‘See Daubeny [‘vol. 1’ del] for *descriptions of volcanoes in [interl] S.A.’ ink

Editorial policy

xli

means that Darwin originally wrote in ink ‘See Daubeny vol. 1 for S.A.’ and then deleted ‘vol. 1’ and inserted ‘descriptions of volcanoes in’ after ‘for’. The asterisk before ‘descriptions’ marks the beginning of the interlined phrase, which ends at the bracket. The asterisk is used when the alteration applies to more than the immediately preceding word. The final text can be read simply by skipping the material in brackets. Descriptive style is also used in the Manuscript alterations and comments. Editorial matter Each volume is self-contained, having its own index, bibliography, and biographical register. A chronology of Darwin’s activities covering the period of each volume and translations of foreign-language letters are supplied, and additional appendixes give supplementary material where appropriate to assist the understanding of the correspondence. A cumulative index is planned once the edition is complete. References are supplied for all persons, publications, and subjects mentioned, even though some repetition of material in earlier volumes is involved. If the name of a person mentioned in a letter is incomplete or incorrectly spelled, the full, correct form is given in a footnote. Brief biographies of persons mentioned in the letters, and dates of each correspondent’s letters to and from Darwin in the current volume, are given in the Biographical register and index to correspondents. Where a personal name serves as a company name, it is listed according to the family name but retains its original order: for example, ‘E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung’ is listed under ‘S’, not ‘E’. Short titles are used for references to Darwin’s books and articles and to collections of his letters (e.g., Descent, ‘Parallel roads of Glen Roy’, LL). They are also used for some standard reference works and for works with no identifiable author (e.g., Alum. Cantab., Wellesley index, DNB). For all other works, author–date references are used. References to the Bible are to the authorised King James version unless otherwise stated. Words not in Chambers dictionary are usually defined in the footnotes with a source supplied. The full titles and publication details of all books and papers referred to are given in the Bibliography. References to archival material, for instance that in the Darwin Archive at Cambridge University Library, are not necessarily exhaustive. Darwin and his correspondents writing in English consistently used the term ‘fertilisation’ for the processes that are now distinguished as fertilisation (the fusion of female and male gametes) and pollination (the transfer of pollen from anther to stigma); the first usage known to the editors of a distinct term for pollination in English was in 1873 (letter from A. W. Bennett, 12 July 1873 (Calendar no. 8976)). ‘Fertilisation’ in Darwin’s letters and publications often, but not always, can be regarded as referring to what is now termed pollination. In the footnotes, the editors, where possible, have used the modern terms where these can assist in explaining the details of experimental work. When Darwin or his correspondents are quoted directly, their original usage is never altered. The editors use the abbreviation ‘CD’ for Charles Darwin throughout the footnotes. A list of all abbreviations used by the editors in this volume is given on p. xliv.

The Wedgwood and Darwin Families up to 1875 Robert Waring Darwin = Susannah Wedgwood 1766–1848 1765–1817 Henry Parker = Marianne 1788–1856 1798–1858 Robert 1825–1907 Henry 1827–92 Francis 1829–71 Charles 1831–1905 Mary Susan 1836–93 Susan Elizabeth 1803–66

Caroline Sarah = Josiah III (Jos) 1795–1880 1800–88 Sophy Marianne 1838–9 Katherine Elizabeth Sophy (Sophy) 1842–1911 Margaret Susan 1843–1937 Lucy Caroline 1846–1919

Erasmus Alvey 1804–81 Charles Langton = Emily Catherine 1801–86 (Catherine) 1810–66

Charles Robert = Emma 1808–96 1809–82

William Erasmus 1839–1914 Anne Elizabeth 1841–51 Mary Eleanor Sept.–Oct. 1842 Richard Buckley Litchfield = Henrietta Emma (Etty) 1832–1903 1843–1927 George Howard 1845–1912 Elizabeth (Bessy) 1847–1926 Amy Richenda Ruck = Francis (Frank) 1848–1925 1850–76 Leonard 1850–1943 Horace 1851–1928 Charles Waring 1856–8

Josiah Wedgwood II = Elizabeth (Bessy) Allen 1764–1846 1769–1843 Sarah Elizabeth (Elizabeth) 1793–1880 Mary Anne 1796–8 Charles Langton = Charlotte 1801–86 1797–1862 Edmund 1841–75 Henry Allen = Jessie Wedgwood 1804–72 (Harry) Frances Mosley = Francis Louisa Frances 1834–1903 1799–1885 (Frank) (Fanny Frank) Caroline Elizabeth (Carry) 1807–74 1800–88 1836–1916 Godfrey 1833–1905 John Darwin 1840–70 Amy 1835–1910 Anne Jane 1841–77 Cicely Mary 1837–1917 Arthur 1843–1900 Clement Francis Rowland Henry 1840–89 1847–1921 Laurence 1844–1913 Hensleigh = Frances Emma Elizabeth Constance Rose 1846–1903 (Fanny) Mackintosh 1803–91 1800–89 Mabel Frances Frances 1852–1930 (Fanny) Frances Julia (Snow) 1806–32 1833–1913 James Mackintosh (Bro) 1834–64 Ernest Hensleigh 1838–98 Katherine Euphemia (Effie) 1839–1931 Alfred Allen 1842–92 Hope Elizabeth (Dot) 1844–1935

ABBREVIATIONS AL ALS DS LS LS(A) Mem pc (S)

autograph letter autograph letter signed document signed letter in hand of amanuensis, signed by sender letter in hand of amanuensis with additions by sender memorandum postcard signed with sender’s name by amanuensis

CD CUL DAR del illeg interl underl

Charles Darwin Cambridge University Library Darwin Archive, Cambridge University Library deleted illegible interlined underlined TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS

[some text] [some text] [some text] ⟨ ⟩ ⟨some text⟩ ⟨some text⟩

‘some text’ is an editorial insertion ‘some text’ is the conjectured reading of an ambiguous word or passage ‘some text’ is a description of a word or passage that cannot be transcribed, e.g., ‘3 words illeg’ word(s) destroyed ‘some text’ is a suggested reading for a destroyed word or passage ‘some text’ is a description of a destroyed word or passage, e.g., ‘3 lines excised’

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF CHARLES DARWIN 1875 From Francis Darwin   [1875?]1 Down My dear Father I have had two mornings work at Drosera but without success. I got into a very good way of doing it but the plants seem sluggish. The first morning 26″ was the quickest—counting from the beginning of contact of the drop of meat infusion. The second morning they were more sluggish still; ammonia is not so nice to work with as meat; as with meat one is not afraid of evaporation making ones drop weak if one waits a bit—2 The only thing of the slightest interest is that contact for 1′ produced movement in just the same time counting from the beginning as contact for 4″ did; the tentacles were on the same leaf; but of course one experiment isnt much good— I shall try again, because now I can do it accurately— My frog preparations are pretty good—3 I am very glad mother & you are keeping well.4 Thank you for writing about the pamphlets, we have cut up a lot & sorted some— it will be done when you come home— Yr affec son | F Darwin DAR 274.1: 28 1 2 3 4

The year is conjectured from an archivist’s mark on the letter. Francis was writing an article on aggregation in the tentacles of Drosera rotundifolia (common or roundleaved sundew) for the July 1876 issue of the Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science (F. Darwin 1876b). Francis was working on frogs for his article in the October issue of Journal of Anatomy and Physiology (F. Darwin 1875a). In 1875, CD and Emma were away from Down from 31 March to 12 April, 3 June to 6 July, 28 August to 11  September, and 10  to 20  December. Insectivorous plants, which discussed Drosera at length, was published on 2 July. (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II).)

To F. J. Cohn   1 January 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan 1. 75 My dear Sir According to our English fashion “I wish you many happy returns of this day”. I write now to ask you whether I might copy two of your drawings of Aldrovanda, marked by a red cross on the sketch which you were so kind as to send me.1 I should

January 1875

2

like to add one of the quadrifid trichomes if these have been drawn by you.2 I give only woodcuts in my forthcoming work, and I should of course say that they were copied from you. I have not described Aldrovanda, & refer my readers to your work; but my few remarks would hardly be intelligble without these drawings.3 I am going to send my other drawings to the woodcut-engraver immediately; & if you grant me permission, & if I receive your work in time, I will have the drawings copied.4 It would therefore be a great assistance to me if you could send me a proof of the plate. I hope that you will excuse my begging this favour and I remain | dear Sir | with much respect | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS(A) DAR 185: 97 1

2 3 4

Cohn had sent two small sketches of Aldrovanda (the waterwheel plant) and a galley proof of his forthcoming article on Aldrovanda (Cohn 1875a) with his letter of 4 October 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22). CD’s annotated proof copy of Cohn 1875a (not including illustrations) is in DAR 58.2: 35–43; the sketches have not been found. In Insectivorous plants, p. 323, CD reproduced a woodcut of a whorl of leaves of Aldrovanda ‘from Prof. Cohn’; it is from fig. 5 in Cohn 1875a. Aldrovanda is carnivorous, and has only one extant species, A. vesiculosa. On the quadrifid processes of Aldrovanda, see Insectivorous plants, pp. 323–4. There is no illustration of a quadrifid process. CD referred to Cohn 1875a in Insectivorous plants, p. 321 n. The woodcuts for Insectivorous plants were made by James Davis Cooper, from drawings mostly by George Howard and Francis Darwin (Insectivorous plants, p. 3 n.).

To Linnean Society   1 January [1875]1 Jan 1st Gentlemen, I hope that you will permit me to republish in a corrected form my paper on Climbing Plants which appears in the 9th vol (1865) of your Journal.2 I wish it the paper appear as a second Part to a new work, which I shall soon send to press.—3 If you grant my request, I further hope that you will be so good as to allow me to use the 13 woodblocks illustrating the paper; & in this case I request that they may be sent to Mr Murray of Albermarle St., marked as for my intended, volume, Gentlemen | Yours obliged & obed servt | C. D. To the Pres. & Council of | Linn— Soc. ADraftS DAR 97: C12 1 2

The year is established by the reference to Climbing plants (see n. 2, below). ‘Climbing plants’, CD’s paper in the Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany), was also published by Longman in 1865 (Climbing plants). Climbing plants 2d ed. was published in November 1875 (letter from R. F. Cooke, 25 October 1875).

January 1875 3

3

CD originally planned to publish the material on climbing plants as part of his book Insectivorous plants, but later decided to publish Climbing plants 2d ed. as a separate volume (see letter from John Murray, 9 April [1875]).

From Daniel Oliver   2 January 1875 Royal Gardens Kew 2 Jan. 1875. My dear Mr Darwin The generic name Genlisea must of course be maintained for the Utricularioid plants with 5-merous calyx of which we have one species from So. Africa & a few from Brazil. Those of which I sent you fragments under that name you keep as Genlisea.1 From your letter this morning I take it you have already seen Warming’s paper on Utricularia & Genlisea2 Ever very sincerely with all best N. Year wishes,— | Yours D. Oliver DAR 58.1: 115 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Merely to say that fragment sent under name of Genlisea must be so called.’ ink 1

2

Oliver had sent CD fragments of Genlisea (the corkscrew plant) with his letter to 24 December 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22). Oliver had earlier pointed out to CD that Genlisea was ‘simply Utricularia with 5-lobed calyx’ (ibid., letter from Daniel Oliver, 19 December 1874). 5-merous: pentamerous, having five parts. Most species of Utricularia (bladderwort) have two calyx lobes, while some have four. CD’s letter to Oliver has not been found. CD cited Eugenius Warming’s paper on Genlisea and Utricularia (Warming 1874) in Insectivorous plants, pp. 397 n. and 446 and n. For CD’s reply, see the letter to J. D. Hooker, 3 January [1875].

To J. D. Hooker   3 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan 3d Sunday morning My dear Hooker I have not heard from Mr. Mivart & I do not think that there is now a chance of hearing.—2 I shall be anxious to hear what you finally determine to do, & I will not write till I hear from you.— If you consult Allman, perhaps he will not take so strong a view as you do, influenced, I do not doubt by your kind feelings towards me.3 Whatever anyone else may think, I am convinced that the man is a false hypocrite to the core. All this affair must have cost you much time & what is even worse much annoyment.— As I said in a former note, when I told Huxley & you about it, it never for an instant occurred to me that you would take up the affair in so earnest & sympathetic a manner.4 If I had thought so, I ought, perhaps, to have refrained from mentioning it, but I doubt whether I shd. have had sufficient self-restraint.

January 1875

4

I hope before very long that you may hear about your Assist. Secy.—5 Yours affectionately | Ch. Darwin I have just been reading in Nature the first part of your Royal Address, & I have been particularly glad to learn something about the R. Socy.: it was all new to me.—6 If you can remember, thank Oliver for note received to day about Warming; but I have the pamphlet to which he refers. He sent it to me.—7 DAR 95: 363–4 1 2

3

4 5 6

7

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Daniel Oliver, 2 January 1875. CD and Hooker had been debating what action to take about an anonymous attack on George Howard Darwin by St George Jackson Mivart in the Quarterly Review ([Mivart] 1874b, p. 70). Mivart had acknowledged to Thomas Henry Huxley confidentially that he was the author of the article. See Correspondence vol. 22, Appendix V. George James Allman was the president of the Linnean Society of London. Hooker had suggested that Mivart should be removed from his position as secretary of the society (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from J. D. Hooker, 29 December 1874). Huxley had learned about the Mivart affair and communicated with Mivart about it in December 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22). CD had been helping Hooker in his campaign to have an assistant appointed to him at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to J. D. Hooker, 2 December [1874]). CD refers to Hooker’s presidential address to the Royal Society of London, made on 30  November 1874 (J. D. Hooker 1874c); extracts from it were reprinted in Nature, 31 December 1874, pp. 175–8, and 7 January 1875, pp. 196–9, under the heading ‘The present condition of the Royal Society’. See letter from Daniel Oliver, 2 January 1875. CD refers to Eugenius Warming; there is an annotated copy of Warming 1874 in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.

From J. D. Hooker   3 January [1875]1 Kew Jany 3/74. Dear Darwin I have no intention of consulting Allman—but must Huxley, after his letter.2 I have seen the Academy, & do not like it— It is not quite right to make the Review of Haeckel little else but an attack on the Quarterly—3 It is not as if he had brought the Quarterly in incidentally. Further I do not think that it will be quite understood by any outsider.— No doubt it is amazingly able trenchant & drastic. I am writing for your Drosophyllum now it is mild.4 Every one (White tells me) is glad of the Address.5 Ever yrs aff | J D Hooker DAR 104: 1 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, 29 December 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22). Hooker wrote ‘74’ in error. CD, Hooker, and Thomas Henry Huxley had been debating what action to take about an anonymous attack on George Howard Darwin by St George Jackson Mivart in the Quarterly Review ([Mivart] 1874,

January 1875

3

4

5

5

p. 70). In his letter of 29 December 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22), Hooker had suggested that Mivart should be removed from his post as secretary of the Linnean Society, and that George James Allman, the president, would have to be informed before any steps were taken. Hooker may refer to Huxley’s letter to CD of 23 December 1874 (ibid.), in which Huxley said that he hoped neither CD nor Hooker would do anything unless Mivart took the initiative; CD had fowarded the letter to Hooker with his letter of 24 December [1874] (ibid.). Huxley had lambasted ‘the anonymous Reviewer’ in a passage of his review of Ernst Haeckel’s book Anthropogenie (Haeckel 1874) in the Academy, 2 January 1875, pp. 16 and 17: Possessed by a blind animosity against all things Darwinian, the writer of this paper [[Mivart] 1874] outrages decency by insinuations against Mr. George Darwin, well calculated to damage a little-known man with the public, though they sound droll enough to those who are acquainted with my able and excellent friend’s somewhat ascetic habits. … What is not doubtful is the fact that misrepresentation and falsification are the favourite weapons of Jesuitical Rome. Hooker had offered to send CD a specimen of the insectivorous plant Drosophyllum lusitanicum (Portuguese sundew or dewy pine) from Edinburgh (Correspondence vol. 22, letter from J. D. Hooker, 21 December 1874). Hooker’s presidential address to the Royal Society of London was delivered on 30 November 1874 (J. D. Hooker 1874c); extracts from it were reprinted in Nature, 31 December 1874, pp. 175–8, and 7 January 1875, pp. 196–9, under the heading ‘The present condition of the Royal Society’. White: Walter White, assistant secretary and librarian of the society.

To H. E. Litchfield   4 January [1875]1 Jan 4th My dear H. Your letter has led me to think over vivisection2 (I wish some new word like Anæs-section could be invented) for some hours, & I will jot down my conclusions, which will appear very unsatisfactory to you.— I have long thought physiology one of the grandest of sciences, sure sooner, or more probably later, greatly to benefit mankind; but judging from all other sciences, the benefits will accrue only indirectly in the search for abstract truth. It is certain that physiology can progress only by experiments on living animals— Therefore the proposal to limit research to points of which we can now see the bearings in regard to health &c, I look at as puerile. I thought at first it wd be good to limit vivisection to public laboratories; but I have heard only of those in London & Cambridge & I think Oxford; but probably there may be a few others. Therefore only men living in a few great towns could carry on investigation, & this I shd consider a great evil. If private men, were permitted to work in their own Houses, & required a license, I do not see who is to determine whether any particular man shd. receive one. It is young unknown men who are the most likely to do good work.— I wd gladly punish severely anyone who operated on an animal not rendered insensible, if the experiment made this possible; but here again I do not see that a magistrate or jury cd. possibly determine such a point. Therefore I conclude, if (as is likely) some experiments have been tried too often, or anæsthetics have not been used, when they could been, the cure must be in the improvement of humanitarian feelings.—

January 1875

6

Under this point of view I have rejoiced at the present agitation.3 If stringent laws are passed, & this is likely seeing how unscientific the H. of Commons is & that the gentlemen of England are humane, as long as their sports are not considered, which entail a hundred or thousand fold more suffering than the experiments of physiologists— if such laws are passed, the result will assuredly be that physiology which has been until within the last few years at a stand still in England, will languish or quite cease. It will then be carried on solely on the continent; & there will be so many the fewer workers on this grand subject, & this I shd. greatly regret.— By the way F. Balfour, who has worked for 2 or 3 years in the Lab. at Cambridge, declares to George that he has never seen an experiment, except with animals rendered insensible.4 No doubt the names of Doctors will have great weight with the H. of Commons, but very many practioners neither know nor care anything about the progress of knowledge. I cannot at present see my way to sign any petition, without hearing what physiologists thought wd be its effect & then judging for myself. I certainly could not sign the paper sent me by Miss Cobbe, with its monstrous (as it seems to me) attack on Virchow for experimenting on the Trichinæ.—5 I am tired & so no more. | Yours affectionately | Ch Darwin P.S. After what I have said about Balfour I must add that I have this minute heard from Frank, that Klein in the case of frogs does not always use anæsthetics, when he could do so & this is atrocious.6 DAR 185: 36 1 2 3

4 5 6

The year is established by the reference to Frances Power Cobbe’s memorial against vivisection (see n. 3, below). Henrietta’s letter has not been found. In December 1874, Frances Power Cobbe had begun to circulate a memorial to be delivered to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals asking it to bring a bill before Parliament to restrict vivisection (Cobbe 1904, pp. 628–9). The principal paragraphs of the memorial are reproduced in Cobbe 1904, pp. 633–5. The memorial was presented on 25 January 1875 (Cobbe 1904, p. 635). See also The Times, 26 January 1875, p. 7. Francis Maitland Balfour and George Howard Darwin were both fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge. The memorial mentioned Rudolf Carl Virchow’s experiments infecting rabbits with trichiniasis (also called trichinosis), a parasitic disease (Cobbe 1904, p. 634). Francis Darwin had become acquainted with Edward Emanuel Klein while he was studying medicine in London (see, for example, Correspondence vol. 21, letter from Francis Darwin, [1873]).

To F. B. Goodacre   5 January 1875 Down, Beckenham, Kent. Jan 5 1875 Dear Sir I am much obliged for your kind note with the extracts in which you do me much honour.1 I shall be pleased to have your essay dedicated to me; but I fear that I shall

January 1875

7

not be able to give any assistance towards your excellent scheme as owing to the state of my health I am forced to live a very retired life.2 With my thanks I remain dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin Copy DAR 221.4: 201 1 2

Goodacre’s note and extracts have not been found. Goodacre dedicated his essay Hemerozoology (Goodacre 1875) to CD. There is a lightly annotated copy in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL; see also letter to F. B. Goodacre, 20 February 1875. In his essay, Goodacre included a plan for establishing a museum of domestic animals; he had written to CD about this in his letter of 7 February 1873 (Correspondence vol. 21).

From J. D. Hooker   5 January 1875

Athenæum Club | Pall Mall S.W. Jany 5/75.

Dear Darwin Huxley dissuades me so strenuously from writing to Mivart, on the grounds of his being a Fellow of the R.S., & I it’s President, that I suppose I must submit. I must confess that I cannot well see why the Secretary may & the President may not, to which the answer is that the Secretary’s having done it first,—if right—, renders the action of the President secondary—& if not right for the Secretary, it is still less so for the President.1 I must confess that I do not at all like the idea of the Presidentship limiting action in such a matter.— My letter is written, & couched in a strain that is widely different from Huxley’s, but I hesitate to send it if it would at all compromise me in my official position.2 I shall hold my hand till I hear what Bentham says:3 meanwhile I must give Mivart the cold shoulder, if I should happen to meet him. Ever aff yrs | Jos D Hooker DAR 104: 2–3 1

2 3

Hooker had wanted to write to St George Jackson Mivart about Mivart’s attack on George Howard Darwin’s paper on marriage ([Mivart] 1874, p. 70, G. H. Darwin 1873b; see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from J. D. Hooker, 21 December 1874). Thomas Henry Huxley was a secretary of the Royal Society of London. Huxley had circulated a copy of his letter to Mivart to CD and Hooker; see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from T. H. Huxley, 23 December 1874, enclosure. George Bentham, who worked on botany at Kew, had legal training and was a member of the Royal Society (ODNB).

To Friedrich Max Müller   5 January 1875 Down, Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan. 5th 1875 My dear Sir I have just read the few first pages of your article in the Contemporary, & I hope that you will permit me to say that neither I nor my son ever supposed that you were

January 1875

8

the author of the Review in the Quarterly.—1 You are about the last man in England to whom I shd have attributed such a review. I know that it was written by Mr. Mivart, and the utterly false & base statements contained in it in relation to my son, are worthy of the man.2 My son wishes me to add that you have imputed to him a good many criticisms, that are in reality Prof. Whitney’s, & is sorry that you shd. think that he ventured to criticize your writings on his own account.3 I remain | My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin John Wilson (dealer) catalogue 89 (October 2002) 1

2 3

Max Müller had written a paper titled ‘My reply to Mr.  Darwin’ (Max Müller 1875) for the January 1875 issue of the Contemporary Review, in answer to George Howard Darwin’s paper defending CD’s views on language (G. H. Darwin 1874). Müller noted that George’s defence had been inspired partly by comments in an anonymous article in the Quarterly Review ([Mivart] 1874), and denied that he was the author of that article. On St George Jackson Mivart’s review and CD’s response to it, see Correspondence vol. 22, Appendix V. G. H. Darwin 1874 was a discussion of William Dwight Whitney’s essay review of Friedrich Max Müller’s ‘Lectures on Mr. Darwin’s philosophy of language’ (Whitney 1874). CD had attempted but failed to have Whitney 1874 republished in the Contemporary Review (letter from J. T. Knowles, 4 August 1874).

From Joseph Fayrer   6 January 1875

16 Granville Place, 6 Jany 1875

Dear Mr. Darwin I have the pleasure of enclosing the rough notes of some experiments recently made by Dr Brunton & myself on the influence of snake poison (cobra) on ciliary action, and on the Valisneria1   The results are not very definite, but they may interest you. Pray do what you think best with them.2 I hope you are well and have not been inconvenienced by the very inclement weather we have lately had.3 We have just sent in our third and concluding paper on the physiological action of Snake poison to the Royal Society   So you will, I hope, soon see it in the proceedings.4 Believe me | Your’s very truly | J. Fayrer C. Darwin Esqr F.R.S [Enclosure] The following experiments were made at the suggestion of Mr C Darwin with the object of testing the influence of snake poison on ciliary action, especially in reference to its comparative action on vegetable protoplasm—as will be seen by his remarks. June 29th. 1874 Influence of Cobra poison Ciliary action. Expert. 1. Ciliated epithelium from the frog’s mouth was treated with the standard watery solution of Cobra poison & examined under the microscope—

January 1875

9

At 1·35 when examined the action of the ciliæ was vigorous at 1–45 It was much diminished at 1–55 It had entirely ceased Expert 2d. Ciliated epithelium placed under microscope—one part treated with water—the other with the poisoned solution at 2–10 ciliary motion vigorous in both perhaps more so in that subjected to the poisoned solution 2–18. Non-poisoned ciliae active Poisoned ciliae very feeble 2–20. non-poisoned ciliae still active Poisoned ciliae very feeble 2–24 Non poisoned ciliae active Poisoned— " very languid 2–30 Non poisoned ciliae still active 2–30 Poisoned have entirely ceased to act It is evident from this that the poison first stimulates & then destroys the activity of the ciliary action. Expert 5— 14 Aug Frog’s blood placed in salt solution ·75 per cent at 1.25— on warm stage—and then subjected to the action of Cobra poison. At first the amœboid movements of white corpuscles went on vigorously—at 2–P.M they had ceased or very nearly so in all that appeared in the field 2·30 all movement had entirely ceased. The red corpuscles seemed more flattened, the nuclei more visible and the edges better defined assuming a pointed & more oval form, than usual.

Aug 25— 1874

Newts blood examined. under 18th object glass on hot stage white corpuscles moving slowly. Cob poison applied but no perceptible change observed

June 29th. 1874— Action of Cobra poison on muscle Expert 1. A standard solution of cobra poison: ·03 gramme to 4·6 cubic centimetres of water was prepared.—

10

January 1875

PM 1·25 The gastrocnemius of a frog was separated and immersed in this solution in a watch glass— it immediately contracted considerably 1·30 The muscle contracts with current at 11 1·45 The muscle has lost its irritability does not respond to the strongest current— Expert 2d. At the same time, 1·25 the gastrocnemius from the other leg of the same frog immersed in water. Did not immediately contract like that placed in the poisoned solution 1·30 Contracts strongly to current at 15.— more than the poisoned muscle at 11· (at same moment) 1–45. Contracts distinctly at 11– whilst the poisoned muscle has lost all irritability. From this it is evident that the poison first stimulates the muscular fibre to contract, but rapidly afterwards destroys its irritability. Expert 2d. The gastrocnemii of a frog were again treated in the same way as in the previous experiment with precisely the same results 28 June. I made several experiments with cobra poison on ciliated epithelium of frogs mouth & found that it at first accelerated, then destroyed the action of the ciliae Novr. 1874 Expt. XXX A little cobra poison dissolved in water added to a little water containing some of the cells scraped from the mantle of Fresh Water Mussel. Among these was a large ciliated cell which before the addition of the poison had been moving slowly although the cilia were moving actively. Immediately after the addition of the poison the cell began to spin round on its own axis with extraordinary rapidity. In about 3 minutes its motions began to be languid, the ciliary motion ceased, the cell itself elongated contracted & then slowly resumed its former shape & became perfectly motionless. E XXXI. A little water from the interior of F Water Mussel & containing two specimens of paramœcium in active motion was examined. They were rotating with great rapidity. A little cobra poison diluted with water was added. Three minutes after the addition one was discovered with both the cilia & cell body perfectly still. The cilia of the other were still but the cell body was contracted. In about half a minute more it expanded to its normal size & then remained perfectly still. E XXXII A piece taken from the mantle of FW. Mussel was put on a slide & examined at the end of about half an hour. Active ciliary motion could be observed both in the fringe of the mantle itself & in several specimens of Volvox.5 A little dilute poison was added. At first the ciliary motion seemed increased but in about 2

January 1875

11

minutes it became slower & in 6 had become very languid and in 10 minutes stopped altogether in the specimens of volvox but still continued in some of the cilia of the mantle. XXXIII A little dilute cobra poison added to a piece of the mantle of FWM. The cilia began immediately to move much more quickly. This was watched for some time. Ciliary motion not affected, or at all events not arrested after more than half an hour. Decr 10. XXXIV A piece of the gills of F.W. Mussel placed under the microscope & a little cobra poison added at 10·40PM   The cilia were extremely active. At 10·55 still active. 11·5 Several ciliated amœboid masses are now quiet instead of rolling over & over but the cilia on their surface are still moving 11·15. The cilia on these animals have now nearly all stopped. A few are going slowly. Those on the gills are but little affected 11·55. Those on the gills are still quite active. Those on the ciliated bodies are still moving rather more actively than before. 1·30 Those on gills have become much more sharply outlined. Many are standing still though many still move briskly E XXXVI To another specimen a strong solution of cobra poison was added at 10·50— 1·30. cilia still moving. E XXXVII A third specimen was laid in an almost syrupy solution of dried cobra poison at 11·28. At 11·40 no effect observable   1·30. Some have stopped but numbers are still moving quite briskly. In this case the poison seemed not to have any action on the ciliary motion Jany 6– Ex I At 3·40 some diluted cobra poison added to Vallisneria—circulation going on vigorously. About 101 th. gram in three drops of water. 3·58 The movements are unchanged. 5P.M Movements going on as before. Ex no. 2. Added some solution of cobra poison to another specimen of Valisneria at 4pm. 4·10 no change. 4·45. Circulation goes on vigorously. 4·55. Perhaps rather less brisk in their movements DAR 58.2: 71, 73–82, DAR 164: 112 CD annotation Top of enclosure: ‘The chief fact is that it did not entirely arrest the movements of ciliæ of F.W. Unios’6 pencil 1

2

Fayrer sent CD a manuscript copy of notes on experiments by himself and Thomas Lauder Brunton that were later published in Brunton and Fayrer 1875, pp. 272–7. Vallisneria (tape grass) is a genus of freshwater aquatic plants. In Insectivorous plants, p. 208, CD cited Brunton and Fayrer 1875, concluding that cobra poison acted far more injuriously on the protoplasm of animals than on that of Drosera (sundew).

January 1875

12 3 4 5 6

A severe frost around the New Year had been followed by a rapid thaw (The Times, 5 January 1875, p. 11). Brunton and Fayrer 1873–4 (which came in two parts) and Brunton and Fayrer 1875 were published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Fayrer substituted Paramœcium (Paramecium) for Volvox in the published article. Paramecium is a genus in the kingdom Protozoa; Volvox is green algae, in the kingdom Plantae (plants). Unio is a genus of freshwater mussels.

To J. D. Hooker   6 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan 6th My dear Hooker. Many thanks for note from Athenæum.2 As I am an interested party, I can form no judgment on point in question.— I do not feel inclined myself, under altogether different circumstances to refrain from expressing my opinion clearly to Mr Mivart & thus coming to a dead cut.—3 Ever yours affecty | C. Darwin I have just read the few first general chapters of Lubbock’s book & am pleased to find that I like them very much, & I really think that they are well adapted for his object of arousing attention.—4 I am very glad indeed that I speak to L. in favourable terms.— By the Lord what an article that is of Huxley’s in the Academy. I do not believe there is any body in Grt. Britain who can write like him.—5 Many thanks about Drosophyllum: which will be extremely useful.6 Gentisea has proved a wonderful creature7 DAR 95: 365–6 1

2

3

4 5

6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, 3 January [1875]. It is possible that CD had not received Hooker’s letter of 5 January 1875 when he wrote this letter. Hooker may have sent a cutting of the Athenæum review of John William Draper’s History of the conflict between religion and science (Draper 1875; Athenaeum, 2 January 1875, pp. 21–2). Draper had given a paper offering a Darwinian view of the development of Western civilisation at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Oxford in 1860. It was in his reply to this paper that Samuel Wilberforce, the bishop of Oxford, had made his famous attack on CD.  See Correspondence vol. 8, pp. xx–xxi, letter from J. D. Hooker, 2 July 1860, and letter to Asa Gray, 3 July [1860]. In his letter of 3 January [1875], Hooker had written to CD that he was going to consult Thomas Henry Huxley about what action he should take over St George Jackson Mivart’s anonymous attack on George Howard Darwin in the Quarterly Review ([Mivart] 1874, p. 70). John Lubbock’s book was on British wild flowers (Lubbock 1875). In his review of Ernst Haeckel’s Anthropogenie (Haeckel 1874) in the Academy, 2 January 1875, pp. 16–17, Thomas Henry Huxley had criticised the insinuations of the ‘anonymous reviewer’ against G. H. Darwin (see n. 3, above). See also letter from J. D. Hooker, 3 January [1875]. Hooker had offered to try to acquire another specimen of Drosophyllum lusitanicum (Portuguese sundew or dewy pine) for CD from Edinburgh (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 3 January [1875] and n. 4).

January 1875 7

13

CD had been working on specimens of the carnivorous plant Genlisea (the corkscrew plant) sent from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (see letter from Daniel Oliver, 2 January 1875). CD’s notes on G. ornata, G. filiformis, G. africana, and G. aurea are in DAR 60.2: 98–102.

To T. H. Huxley   6 January 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan. 6th/75/ My dear Huxley I have just received the Academy & read with absolute delight your article. What a man you are: I am convinced that all the writers in England could not have written such an article. How grandly you have defended me from the charge of duplicity. You have also greatly honoured George.1 You have indeed been a true friend to me. Yours affectly. | Ch Darwin Though contrary to your advice, I cannot make up my mind not to write to Mr Mivart & tell him with the utmost plainness what I think of his conduct.2 There will then be no doubt, if we ever meet, that I shall cut him dead.— What will his feelings be when he reads your article! I wish the Bishop was alive.—3 Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine Archives (Huxley 5: 313) 1

2

3

In his review of Ernst Haeckel’s Anthropogenie (Haeckel 1874) in the Academy, 2 January 1875, pp. 16–17, Thomas Henry Huxley had criticised the insinuations of the ‘anonymous reviewer’ (St George Jackson Mivart) against George Howard Darwin in the Quarterly Review ([Mivart] 1874, p. 70). In December 1874, Huxley had written to Mivart about his attack on George, but had advised CD not to do anything unless Mivart took the initiative in writing to CD or Joseph Dalton Hooker (Correspondence vol. 22, letter from T. H. Huxley, 23 December 1874). See also ibid., Appendix V. Samuel Wilberforce, the bishop of Oxford, died in 1873. In his article in the Academy, Huxley referred scathingly to an anonymous review of Origin in the Quarterly Review; the review was in fact by Wilberforce and had been suspected to be by Wilberforce almost from the first by CD ([Wilberforce] 1860; see Correspondence vol. 8 and the Wellesley index).

To Daniel Oliver   6 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Jan 6th My dear Prof. Oliver You told me not to speak of troubling you, & by all that is good & bad I am taking you at your word.2 The case stands thus with Gentisea: we find bladders of a quite peculiar structure on the narrow leaves of G. ornata & africana, but not on those of G. filiformis; whereas we find ordinary bladders (like those of U. montana) on the rhizomes of filiformis.3 Now it seems to me very desirable to ascertain whether the same sp. of Gentisea bears two kinds of bladders. Could you therefore spare rhizomes of G. ornata or of G. africana—or more leaves of filiformis? It wd be an extraordinary fact if the same species produces two kinds of bladders, & yet I must think this

14

January 1875

probable, on the supposition that G. filiformis is closely allied to G. ornata & Africana; the latter two having very similar bladders on their leaves.— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin American Philosophical Society (Getz 9803) 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Daniel Oliver, 19 December 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22). In his letter of 19 December 1874, Oliver had written, ‘It is too bad to talk of asking “favours”!’. Oliver had sent CD specimens of Genlisea (the corkscrew plant), from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in December 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Daniel Oliver, 24 December 1874. Utricularia montana is a synonym of U. alpina, the alpine bladderwort. CD discussed G. ornata, G. africana, G. aurea, and G. filiformis in Insectivorous plants, pp. 446–52.

From J. D. Hooker   7 January 1875

Jany 7/75 Dear Darwin The Drosophyllum goes to day, with full instructions about being forwarded by Messenger.1 I dined with Tyndall Hirst & Spencer at the Athenæum & put the matter of my writing to Mivart before them, & they also most strongly dissuaded me from doing so in any shape, on the ground of the Presidentship.2 All I can say is that I am excessively sorry that I did not think of this myself, before saying anything about it, to you especially— I know well that you & George will not think the worse of me for it—but still I am vexed— Their opinion is that without cutting him direct I should avoid him, & if he speaks to me should let him feel it: This of course I shall do Ever yr affec | J D Hooker DAR 104: 4–5 1

2

Hooker had acquired a specimen of Drosophyllum lusitanicum (Portuguese sundew or dewy pine) from Edinburgh (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 3 January [1875] and n. 4). CD had given instructions on sending it in his letter to Hooker of 22 December 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22). Hooker was president of the Royal Society of London. He had consulted John Tyndall, Thomas Archer Hirst, and Herbert Spencer at the Athenaeum Club in London about what action he should take over an attack by St George Jackson Mivart on George Howard Darwin ([Mivart] 1874, p. 70; see Correspondence vol. 22, Appendix V). Tyndall and Hirst were fellows of the Royal Society.

From Friedrich Max Müller   7 January 1875

Elibank, | Taplow. 7 Jan. 1875

My dear Sir, It was very kind of you to write to me.1 I had no idea the article in the Quarterly was so bad as you say.2 I only gathered from your son’s article that he felt induced to write against me on account of what had been said by the writer in the Quarterly,

January 1875

15

and I imagined that he suspected me to be some way or other answerable for what had been said in the Quarterly.3 I have not yet seen that article, and after what you say I hardly care to look at it. I had to write my reply on the very shortest notice, and as the Christmas holidays intervened, the printers would not even let me have a second revise—hence the numerous misprints. I only undertook to answer those arguments which your son had made his own. He does not only report the argument of my American critic, but he speaks of his article “as a powerful attack, and, as we think, successful refutation of the somewhat dogmatic views of our Oxford linguist.”4 I have not seen the original article, and I should never have noticed it, unless your son had brought it so prominently before the English public. I feel towards the writer very much as you feel towards the writer in the Quarterly, and during the many years that he has been attacking me in his own peculiar way, I have never taken any notice of him.5 I hope in the course of the year to be able to place my whole argument before you. Even if I cannot hope to convince you, I trust at least to be able to show to you that there are difficulties connected with the origin of language which deserve careful consideration—which possibly to me may seem greater than to you, but which, I feel sure, you would be the last person to wish to ignore. I can assure you I feel as strongly as any mere layman in natural history can feel it, the impulsive force of your arguments. If I hesitate in following you in your explanation of the last animal metamorphosis, it is not because I am afraid, but simply because I see certain elements in human nature which would remain unexplained. To ordinary observers these elements may seem infinitesimally small and hardly worth a thought: but you know how the infinitesimally small is after all what is really important in evolution. You know better than anybody how infinitely great is the difference between man and animal: what I want to know is the first small and hardly perceptible cause of that difference, and I believe I find it in language & what is implied by language. Believe me, my dear Sir, | Sincerely yours | Max Müller DAR 171: 285 1 2 3

4

5

See letter to Friedrich Max Müller, 5 January 1875. The article in the Quarterly Review was [Mivart] 1874; it contained an attack on George Howard Darwin (see Correspondence vol. 22, Appendix V). Max Müller had written a paper titled ‘My reply to Mr.  Darwin’ (Max Müller 1875) for the January 1875 issue of the Contemporary Review, in answer to George’s paper defending CD’s views on language (G. H. Darwin 1874). Müller noted that George’s defence had been inspired partly by comments in an anonymous article in the Quarterly Review ([Mivart] 1874), and denied that he was the author of that article. In his article (G. H. Darwin 1874), George had drawn attention to William Dwight Whitney’s essay review of Max Müller’s lectures on Darwinism and language (Max Müller 1873) in the North American Review (Whitney 1874). The quotation is from G. H. Darwin 1874, p. 894; the ‘Oxford linguist’ was Max Müller himself. In his letter of 5  January  1875, CD had revealed that the author of the anonymous article in the Quarterly Review ([Mivart] 1874) was St George Jackson Mivart. Whitney and Max Müller had been engaged in a public feud over Sanskrit and general linguistics from the 1850s (ANB s.v. Whitney, William Dwight). See Alter 2005, pp. 181–92.

16

January 1875

To J. D. Hooker   8 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan. 8th My dear Hooker There can be no doubt that the men whom you have consulted are excellent judges, & that it wd be very rash of you not to follow their advice.2 Do not say that you regret having told me of your wish & intentions; for I shall always think of your & Huxleys sympathy & aid with the deepest satisfaction.—3 As you are not to write I am all the more inclined to do so, but my wife & George think (like Huxley) that I had better not, & perhaps I shall succomb. Anyhow I will write a savage letter & that will do me some good, if I do not send it! Drosophyllum has arrived all safe, & I long to see the glands secreting.4 Oliver writes that he is going to send me the dried specimens of Genlisea & I heartily thank him & you.— He tells me of some German paper about Aldrovanda & Utricularia,— if by Cohn I have it.—5 My dear old friend | yours affecty | Ch Darwin I do not think that there is any risk, but it frightens me to imagine the parcel of Genlisea lost on the Railway. DAR 95: 367–8 1 2

3 4 5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, 7 January 1875. John Tyndall, Thomas Archer Hirst, and Herbert Spencer had advised Hooker against writing to St George Jackson Mivart about Mivart’s anonymous attack on an article by George Howard Darwin ([Mivart] 1874, p. 70; see letter from J. D. Hooker, 7 January 1875). Thomas Henry Huxley had written to Mivart, his former protégé; see Correspondence vol. 22, Appendix V. Hooker had acquired a specimen of Drosophyllum lusitanicum (Portuguese sundew or dewy pine) from Edinburgh (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 3 January [1875] and n. 4). Daniel Oliver’s letter has not been found, but see the letter to Oliver of 6  January [1875]. Genlisea (the corkscrew plant), Aldrovanda (the waterwheel plant), and Utricularia (bladderwort) are carnivorous plants. CD’s annotated proof copy of Ferdinand Julius Cohn’s paper on Aldrovanda and Utricularia (Cohn 1875a) is in DAR 58.2: 35–43. See letter to F. J. Cohn, 1 January 1875.

From Alpheus Hyatt   8 January [1875]1 Boston Society of Natural History, | Berkeley, cor. of Boylston St. | Boston, Mass., Jan 8th 1874 Dear Sir Since my return I have several times tempted to write you but refrained because it seemed to me I was not quite ready.2 You will see by the inclosed that I am going ahead a little. I think I have the facts to show the probability of the statements made    That which seems to me most important is the subordination of characteristics, those which are longest inherited

January 1875

17

being the most stable if not entirely independent of all influences of the surroundings, while those which are recently inherited in each group on the other hand seem to represent every geological change. It has also struck me, that this is the reason why the faunæ of any one geological epoch are generally similar; a certain uniformity of the conditions producing a certain uniformity of characteristics in every race however different structurally. But this I am not prepared to follow out yet, though I think I could get a number of facts even now. Then the distinctions made between the representative or parallel forms and the structural characteristics of the groups in which the forms appear, appears to me to be on the right road since it enables me to see clearly for the first time how and to what I can apply the law of natural selection. Perhaps it is all wrong and I have been in too much of a hurry, but I have held myself as long as it was possible and at last fairly gave it up as too difficult. The facts seem to me in their natural arrangment to indicate clearly, that we must divide characteristics into those which are almost independent of the influence of their surroundings, the embryonic; those which are peculiarly under their influence and which are the similarities or representative, or parallel characteristics or forms in distinct structural groups; and those which are evidently the result of natural selection. Of these last I only mention one set, those which constitute the differences of groups, but even these are traceable to varieties of species when followed out carefully. Of course I could not study those finer correspondences and structural characteristics which more immediately affect the life of the species within the time of one single fauna to any great extent and I had to content myself with the coarser materials. Such as it is however I hope it will meet with your favorable notice as my other efforts have done. The paper in full will appear in the Memoirs but may not be out for a year yet so I send this newspaper slip.3 I remember with great pleasure my visit to your house and beg you will present my compliments to Mrs Darwin and your daughter4 Very respectfully | yours | A Hyatt [Enclosure] EVENING TRANSCRIPT 5 | WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1874. BOSTON SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISTORY. | December 16, 1874. Professor Hyatt presented a paper on “Old Age Characteristics among Ammonites, and their bearing upon the question of Parallelisms and the Theory of Evolution.” The speaker traced the history of the evolution of the order of Ammonoids, showing that the characteristics of the first three stages of the embryo were inherited from a very early period. That these became invariable6 in the young as embryonic characteristics only after the lapse of time represented by the Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous periods. The variability of their appearance in the same species in the Silurian showed how recently they were inherited, and their invariable appearance in every individual of the Jurassic showed the result of the long ages of inheritance intervening between that period and the Silurian epoch.

18

January 1875

He then showed that in each subordinate group there were certain invariably occurring forms precisely similar to those found in other groups often widely removed in time and very distinct in the structure of the parts. These parallel7 forms of every group begin with a certain low or open-whorled form and evolve in course of time and by inheritance more and involved or modified whorls. This and the origin of most of the groups from certain single ancestral species of the dicordal or open-whorled forms show conclusively that these forms arise independently in each group. They are the mechanical results of the growth or increase in size of the shell of the common embryonic form of the third stage. This growth is due to the favorable nature of the physical surroundings, primarily producing characteristic changes which become perpetuated and increased by inheritance within the group. Besides these there are other parallel forms in the same groups which may be shown to be due to the inheritance of the old age of these same parallel forms, and, by comparison with similar forms prematurely produced in the different species by disease or local influences, may be attributed to the action of unfavorable surroundings. The word surroundings is now used instead of environment, for the reason that environment covers the whole ground of physical causes which may have either a remote or immediate effect upon the life of the species. The environment or the sum of the physical influences are perpetually immical8 to the prolonged existence of life, and bring about in the individual the retrograde metamorphoses known as old age, and leading to death by the disuse, atrophy and decay of the functions and organs. These changes are in precise correspondence, and evidently acted upon in their transmission from individual to individual, during the decline of a group by the same law of inheritance as the other characteristics. It thus becomes safe to attribute the parallel modifications of forms whether during the progress or decline of the existence of a group to the direct influence of the environment or physical causes. Besides these characteristic forms and structural parts which are parallels, there are many others in each group not classified under the head of similarities but under that of differences, in so far as they distinguish the groups from each other. These may be often followed back to varieties of one species, showing that certain varieties have given rise to the groups. These varieties are few as compared with the whole number of varieties traceable in these original ancestral species. Thus it seems clear that the varieties which have developed into groups, had certain advantageous peculiarities, and that these were the structural differences which distinguished the groups from each other. It may also be shown by Cope’s law of the origination of differences by growth9 that the origin of these differences probably lies in some law of growth under the influence of the physical surroundings, supply of and kind of food, climate, etc. Thus they are due to growth modified and directed by the Darwinian law of natural selection, both of these being directly subject to the influence of10 this environment, or, the sum of all, the physical influences brought to bear upon the organization. DAR 166: 358 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘On Variation of Ammonite in course of time’ ink

January 1875 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

19

The year is established by the date of the enclosure. Hyatt wrote 1874 in error. Hyatt had spent time in 1872 and 1873 near Stuttgart, studying the Steinheim fossils (see Correspondence vol. 20, letters from Alpheus Hyatt, [late] November 1872 and 8 December 1872, and Popular Science Monthly 78 (1911): 142). An abstract of Hyatt’s memoir (longer than the newspaper article) was published in the Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History in 1875 (Hyatt 1874). Hyatt refers to Emma Darwin and to Elizabeth Darwin, who was still living at home. It is not known when Hyatt visited Down. The Evening Transcript was a Boston, Massachusetts, daily paper. ‘invariably’ in the printed text altered to ‘invariable’ by hand. ‘parallel’ inserted by hand. Immical: a misprint for inimical. Edward Drinker Cope explained generic differences between organisms as a consequence of acceleration or retardation of growth. In acceleration, an animal’s growth speeded up, so that more advanced characteristics were passed on to its offspring, and earlier stages might eventually be condensed or omitted; in retardation, growth slowed, so that only earlier stages of development were passed on to offspring (Cope 1871). ‘of ’ inserted by hand over printed comma.

From F. J. Cohn1   9 January 1875 Schweidnitzer Stadtgraben Nro. 26. | Breslau 9 Januar 1875 Hochverehrter Herr Nicht ohne Beschämung erhalte ich Ihren so liebenswürdigen Brief vom ersten Tage dieses Jahres;2 wenn nach altem Glauben der Segen des Weisen Heil bringt, so müssen die freundlichen Wünsche, welche Sie mir entgegengebracht, mir ein glückliches Jahr verkünden. Von ganzem Herzen erwidere ich Ihre Glückwünsche; möge auch in dem neu begonnenen, wie noch vielen folgenden Jahren, Ihnen vergönnt sein, für die Menschheit neue Thatsachen, neue Gedanken zu finden, und sich des Erfolges Ihrer Geistesarbeit, und der Verehrung Ihrer Zeitgenossen in ungetrübter Frische zu erfreuen. Ich bin in diesen Tagen viel beschäftigt gewesen mit den Vorbereitungen zu dem 50 jährigen Jubiläum meines Lehrers und Freundes Prof. Goeppert, der sich, wie kein andrer Naturforscher in unserem Kreise, die Liebe seiner Mitbürger durch seine wahrhaft humane Thätigkeit als akademischer Lehrer zu erwerben gewußt hat.3 Eine große Menge von wissenschaftlichen und anderen Festgaben sind für dieses Fest von hiesigen und auswärtigen Freunden vorbereitet worden, ich selbst schicke Ihnen in den nächsten Tagen eine von mir verfaßte Festschrift, über “die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Gattung Volvox” welche die höchst merkwürdige Organisation und Fortpflanzung dieses mikroskopischen “Zellen staates” schildert, und über die untersten Stufen des Lebens manches Licht verbreitet.4 Bei dieser Gelegenheit möchte ich Sie darauf aufmerksam machen, daß bei einem überaus einfachen lebenden Wesen, das kaum höher organisirt ist als Bathybius,5 der Bautrieb, die Fähigkeit sich ein Haus aus fremden Stoffen zu bauen, sehr entwickelt ist. Ich meine die Gattung Difflugia, eine im süßen Wasser verbreitete, artenreiche Gruppe aus der

20

January 1875

Familie der Rhizopoden, deren Plasmakoerper aber nicht nackt ist, wie bei den Amoeben, noch durch Secretion sich ein hornartiges oder kalkiges Gehäuse baut, wie Arcella6 und die Foraminiferen,7 sondern durch Zusammenkleben von Sandkörnchen, Diatomeenschalen und andren im Wasser vorkommenden Körperchen sich eine Hülle baut, ähnlich wie die Phryganeenlarven.8 Räthselhaft ist eine solche Thätigkeit auf der niedersten Stufe der Organisation Meine Abhandlung über Aldrovanda und Utricularia, obwohl längst gedruckt, ist doch noch immer nicht ausgegeben, weil dieselbe in einem Bande aufgenommen ist, zu welchem ich den Schlußaufsatz (über Bacterien) noch nicht habe vollenden können;9 inzwischen übersende ich Ihnen einen Abdruck der Tafel; es wird mich freuen, wenn Sie von derselben für Ihre Schrift Gebrauch machen wollen, und ich stelle Ihnen dieselbe zu jeglicher Benutzung mit Vergnügung zur Disposition.10 Bei einem Besuch des Botanischen Garten zu Berlin im vorigen Herbst sah ich außerordentlich üppige Exemplare von Darlingtonia und Dionaea, welche unter Glasglocken auf Sphagnum cultivirt waren.11 Nach der Versicherung des Gärtners waren hier keine Insecten zu den Pflanzen gelangt, und doch entwickelten sich dieselben kräftiger, als ich sie je gesehen. Wie ist dies zu erklären? Von der Redaction der “Deutschen Rundschau”, die eine Art “Revue de deux mondes” zu werden bestimmt ist, und in welcher auch der von mir vor einiger Zeit Ihnen zugeschickte Aufsatz “Botanische Probleme” enthalten war, bin ich ersucht worden, einen “Essay” über Ihr in Aussicht stehendes Buch von Drosera zu schreiben, und ich bin gern bereit dies zu thun.12 Sollte ich daher durch Ihre grosse Freundlichkeit zeitig in den Besitz Ihres Buches gelangen können, so würde ich dadurch in den Stand gesetzt, dem grossen Leserkreis der Deutschen Revue durch einen Bericht über Ihre neuen Forschungen bald eine Freude zu machen. Mit der Bitte mir Ihr, mich so hoch ehrendes und erfreuendes Wohlwollen zu erhalten, zeichne ich in Verehrung | Dr. Ferdinand Cohn. DAR 161: 199 CD annotation Top of first page: ‘Extremely interesting letter— | Particles of case Dr Carpenter—13 | Feeding of Dionæa— My experiment on Drosera—14 | —Sheet N Review— | New sp. of Aldrovanda’15 pencil 1 2 3 4

5

6

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. See letter to F. J. Cohn, 1 January 1875. The celebrations in question were held on 11 January 1875 in Breslau, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of Heinrich Robert Goeppert’s doctorate (Cohn 1875b, p. 93 n.). There is a copy of Cohn 1875b (The developmental history of the genus Volvox) in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Volvox is a genus of green algae. Cohn proposed that cytoplasmic bridges in embryonic cells served to channel materials from the somatic cells to the developing embryos. Bathybius was a substance found on the seabed that Thomas Henry Huxley originally thought was a primordial organism; he named it Bathybius haeckelii (T. H. Huxley 1868b; L. Huxley ed. 1900, 2: 295–6; Nature, 19 August 1875, p. 316). See also Rice 1983. Difflugia, Arcella, and Amoeba were genera in the class Rhizopoda; they are currently classified as genera in the subphylum Lobosa (amoebas) in the kingdom Protozoa. The shell of Arcella is produced by the

January 1875

7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

21

organism itself, while the shell of Difflugia is made of mineral particles collected by the organism from the environment. Foraminifera are unicellular marine protozoans; they are typically found near the bottom of the sea. See Lipps et al. 2011. Phryganeidae is the family of giant casemaker caddisflies. The larvae construct cases of plant pieces fastened together with silk. Cohn’s paper on the carnivorous plant Aldrovanda (the waterwheel plant) and Utricularia (bladderworts; Cohn 1875a) appeared in the third part of the first volume of Beiträge der Biologie der Pflanzen, a journal on plant biology edited by Cohn himself. The final two papers were the last two parts of ‘Untersuchungen über Bacterien’ (Cohn and Eidam 1872–5). CD’s proof copy of Cohn 1875a is in DR 58.2: 35–43. Cohn probably sent table 1 from Cohn 1875a: it contained drawings of Aldrovanda and Utricularia. In Insectivorous plants, p. 323, CD reproduced figure 5, a woodcut of a whorl of leaves of Aldrovanda. See also letter to F. J. Cohn, 1 January 1875. Darlingtonia californica, the California pitcher-plant or cobra lily, and Dionaea muscipula, the Venus fly trap, are both carnivorous plants. Darlingtonia and Dionaea are monospecific genera. Sphagnum is a genus of mosses noted for their ability to store several times their dry weight in water. Cohn’s essay on Insectivorous plants, which included a lengthy treatment of Drosera (sundew), appeared in 1876 (Cohn 1876); there is a lightly annotated copy in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. No copy of his ‘Botanische Probleme’ (Botanical problems; Cohn 1874) has been found in the Darwin Archive–CUL. CD’s annotations are notes for a reply to Cohn that has not been found. William Benjamin Carpenter had written an article, ‘On the hereditary transmission of acquired psychical habits’ (Carpenter 1873), in which he discussed the ability of some Foraminifera to construct multiform tests or casings using quartz grains of various sizes (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter to W. B. Carpenter, 21 April [1873]). CD intended to write to Cohn about his book Insectivorous plants, in which he discussed Drosera (sundew) and Dionaea (Venus fly trap) at length. Cohn’s name appears on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). CD may have meant to write to Cohn about Aldrovanda vesiculosa var. australis, which he mentioned in Insectivorous plants, p. 329–30, writing that he was not sure whether it should rank as a variety or a species. He had received a specimen from Daniel Oliver in October 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Daniel Oliver, 20 October 1874.)

To Ernst Haeckel   11 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan 11 My dear Haeckel I have received your very kind present of Hellwald.2 I had no idea that it was so large a book, otherwise I should have scrupled in accepting your kindness. With cordial thanks | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS(A) Ernst-Haeckel-Haus (Bestand A-Abt. 1:1-52/ 33 [9886]) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Ernst Haeckel, 20 December 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22). In his letter of 20 December 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22), Haeckel had offered to send CD a copy of Friedrich von Hellwald’s Culturgeschichte in ihrer natürlichen Entwickelung bis zur Gegenwart (Cultural history

22

January 1875

in its natural development up to the present; Hellwald 1875). There is no copy of it in CD’s libraries at CUL or Down.

To St G. J. Mivart   12 January 1875 Jan 12th 1875 Sir Your article in the Q. R. for July 1874 contains a wholly false & malicious accusation against my son, Mr G. Darwin.1 You had a fair opportunity in the following number of retracting your infamous & explicit accusation, & you did not make even this small reparation.—2 Your article also includes deliberate misrepresentations of what I have published.3 Therefore I refuse to hold for the future any communication with t Sir | Your obed. servt. | Ch. Darwin To | St. G. Mivart Esq ADraftS DAR 97: C36 1

2

3

In an anonymous essay review in the Quarterly Review of works by John Lubbock and Edward Burnett Tylor, Mivart had suggested that an article on marriage by George Howard Darwin spoke in an approving strain of the encouragement of vice to check population (that is, of prostitution; [Mivart] 1874, p. 70, G. H. Darwin 1873). In the October 1874 issue of the Quarterly Review, a letter from George denying Mivart’s accusations appeared, followed by an anonymous note by Mivart in which he said he was glad to find that George did not apprehend the full implications of the doctrines that he had helped to propagate (Quarterly Review 137: 587–9). For a list of comments in [Mivart] 1874b bearing on CD’s work, see Correspondence vol. 22, Appendix V.

To T. H. Huxley   [after 12 January 1875]1 P.S. As I thought it would be most disagreeable to meet Mr. Mivart in London, without a clear understanding of the terms on which we are to stand, I have written him a formal letter, stating his grave offences, and saying that I should never hold any communication with him for the future, and signing “your obedient servant”2 Copy incomplete DAR 145: 276 1 2

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to St G. J. Mivart, 12 January 1875. CD had written to St George Jackson Mivart about an article Mivart had written in the course of which Mivart claimed that George Howard Darwin’s views condoned immorality; see the letter to St G. J. Mivart, 12 January 1875.

January 1875

23

To G. J. Romanes   13 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan 13th. r Dear M Romanes I have received from Berlin a German Journal with several accounts of grafthybrids produced not by cutting two buds in two & joining them but by inserting part of a potato tuber with a bud into a tuber of another kind, the results are clear, and the auther compares them with the results of sexual generation.2 If you wish to see these papers I will lend them; otherwise do not trouble to write Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS American Philosophical Society (461) 1 2

The year is established by the reference to the 17 November 1874 issue of the Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin (see n. 2, below). There is an annotated copy of the 17 November 1874 issue of the Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. At the meeting, Paul Wilhelm Magnus exhibited graft hybrids of two different potato varieties that had been grown by Adolf Reuter, a correspondent of CD’s. He also discussed a number of other graft-hybrid potatoes and compared the mixed coloration of graft hybrids with that of hybrids grown from sexual crosses. See Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 17 November 1874, pp. 104–8. CD mentioned Magnus’s discussion in Variation 2d ed., 1: 422.

To F. P. Cobbe [14 January 1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. My dear Miss Cobbe, I am afraid from your pamphlet that there is much reckless cruelty; but I do not at all know how far the operations to which you refer in the London Hospitals are performed on animals rendered insensible.2 That any experiment should be tried without the use of anaesthetics, when they can be used, is atrocious. I would gladly sign the Report (1870) of the British Assoc. but I could not sign the paper which you sent me before;3 as, judging from other sciences, I believe that Physiology will ultimately lead to incalculable benefits, and it can progress only by experiments on living animals. Any stringent law would stop all progress in this country which I should deeply regret. I admit in the fullest way that acquiescense in one form of cruelty is no reason for not earnestly trying to stop another form; but I cannot but be struck by the injustice with which physiologists are spoken of, considering that those who shoot birds for mere pleasure, cause by wounding them manifold more suffering than do the physiologists (besides the indirect suffering of traps);4 yet the sportsmen are not blamed, while physiologists are spoken of as “demons let loose from hell”.5

24

January 1875

I earnestly wish that some good may arise from the present movement, and believe me | Very sincerely yours | Ch. Darwin. Typewritten Copy Hull University Archives, Hull History Centre (British Union for Anti-Vivisection archives: U DBV/25/1) 1 2 3

4 5

The date is established by the relationship between this letter, the letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875, and the letter from Emma Darwin to F. P. Cobbe, 14 January 1875. Cobbe had written two pamphlets describing experiments on animals without the use of anaesthetics, and calling for the regulation of vivisection (see letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875 and n. 5). A committee was appointed to report on animal experimentation at the 1870 meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (see letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875 and n. 6). Cobbe had requested that CD sign a memorial calling for the regulation of vivisection (see letter to H. E. Litchfield, 4 January [1875] and n. 3). CD had just received another copy of the memorial (see letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875 and n. 1). CD and Emma Darwin were involved in a campaign against steel vermin-traps in 1863 (see Correspondence vol. 11, Appendix IX. The phrase may be from one of Cobbe’s pamphlets (see letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875 and n. 5.

From Emma Darwin to F. P. Cobbe 14 January [1875]1 Down | Beckenham, Kent. Jan. 14. My dear Miss Cobbe, I am sorry to say that Mr Darwin cannot sign your paper, you will see what his reasons are, and in addition to what he says, I may add that he feels that Virchow’s investigations are most important and quite justifiable, and he could not join in casting a slur on him.2 I will copy part of what he said to Henrietta as rather fuller than his letter to you.3 “Your letter has led me to think over vivisection for some hours, and I will jot down my conclusions, which will appear very unsatisfactory to you. I have long thought Physiology one of the grandest of sciences, sure sooner or more probably later greatly to benefit mankind; but judging from all other sciences the benefits will accrue only indirectly in the search for abstract truth”. Therefore he cannot agree in the proposal to limit research to points of which we can now see the bearings in regard to health &c. Mr Darwin is in hopes that some good may be done by inducing all the principal physiologists to join in a petition to Parliament or public manifesto of some sort, and he has written with that view to one of the most important;4 but his chief hope is in the improvement of humane feelings, and in this view he rejoices over the agitation of the subject. I do trust and believe that some good will be done, and that you will be rewarded for all the painful horrors you have had to read and consider. You have got such

January 1875

25

capital signatures that I do not know whether you would care for insignificant ones (men of course) or I might get one or two.5 If I do not hear from you I will conclude that you do not think the mere number of signatures any benefit. Very sincerely yours | Emma Darwin. Typewritten Copy Hull University Archives, Hull History Centre (British Union for Anti-Vivisection archives: U DBV/25/1) 1 2

3 4 5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875. Cobbe had sent CD a memorial on the regulation of vivisection (see letter to F. P. Cobbe, [14 January 1875]). The memorial mentioned Rudolf Carl Virchow’s experiments on rabbits (see letter to H. E. Litchfield, 4 January [1875] and n. 5). Letter to H. E. Litchfield, 4 January [1875]. Letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875. Cobbe’s memorial was eventually signed by about 1000 persons, a large portion of whom were titled members of the British aristocracy, high-ranking clergymen and military officers, and men distinguished in politics, medicine, and literature (Williamson 2005, p. 115). The memorial was published in The Times, 26 January 1875, p. 7; it also appeared in Animal World 6 (1875): 38 with a list of leading signatories.

From J. D. Hooker   14 January 1875 Kew Jany 14 /75. th

Dear Darwin Have you seen the pamphlets I send herewith   I fear that they are hardly worth your attention—1 I have for a fortnight past been on the eve of another official row. Lord Henry Lennox has burked my official application for assistance.—after encouraging me to send it in!— and Galton or I must go— I have told the Treasury that I would prefer retirement to another row, & that I can stand it no longer.2 Mr W. R. Smith, the financial Secretary of the T., who I saw on the subject—told me* that L. S. Northcote, & indeed all the Lords of the T., wished me to know, that they had only indirectly heard from other quarters (of course Farrer) of my great need of an assistant, & that I had officially applied for one.— that my application had never been forwarded from the office of Works,— that if it had it would have been instantly attended to, & that it would have received the most favorable consideration—& he proceeded to talk of Dyer’s appt. & so forth—3 In fact, in so far as the T. is concerned, that matter is as good as granted; & no doubt the T. will send to Lord H., & insist on his forwarding my official application. He spoke in Sir S. Northcote’s & Mr Disraeli’s4 names. Then I proceeded to open my grievance about Galton & he said that if I would write to him privately a brief account of his conduct, he would lay it before Sir

26

January 1875

S. Northcote & Mr D’Israeli—5 this he hinted might “help them much”—for that “the O. of W. was a public scandal that could not be tolerated”. I cannot doubt but that some action is determined on, & that I am not to be the sufferer: & I feel satisfied that I have to thank Farrer for this. I must ask you not to breathe a syllable of it to any one. I shall hear more soon & let you know. Meanwhile I ask myself “Why shoulds’t thou be disquieted Oh my soul”—6 but I am very weary, & begin to look forward to a holiday at Easter as a necessity, with Harriet7 if possible. We have put Reginald to a very nice school at Wimbledon (Miss Palmer’s.)— Charlie will live at home for 6 months, preparing for Prely. Scientific Examination of L.U.—8 I have 15 Committees of the R.S. to attend to—9 I cannot tell you what a relief they are to me—matters are so quietly & ably conducted by Stokes Huxley & Spottiswoode—that to me they are the same sort of relaxation that Metaphysics are to Huxley.—10 I have no sense of wearyness after them— of course I must expect some rows & difficulties in the Society, & they will come when least expected you will say—but meanwhile let me enjoy my illusions.— Ever yr affecte growler | J D Hooker *On entering his room,—he did not know that I was come upon these matters   it was a volunteered statement. DAR 104: 6–8 1 2

3

4 5 6 7 8

9

The pamphlets have not been identified; for more on them, see the letter to J. D. Hooker, 15 January [1875]. Hooker was seeking to have an assistant appointed at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Henry Gordon-Lennox was the first commissioner of the Office of Works, thus Hooker’s immediate superior. See also Correspondence vol. 22, letter from J. D. Hooker, 8 December 1874. Douglas Strutt Galton was director of works and buildings at the Office of Works (ODNB). He had come into conflict with Hooker in 1870, when he insisted that contracts for the new plant houses at Kew be put out to tender, instead of Hooker having his own contractors build them (Endersby 2008, p. 284). Hooker had also been involved in an extended dispute with Acton Smee Ayrton, the previous first commissioner of works (see Correspondence vols. 19 and 20). William Henry Smith was financial secretary to the Treasury (ODNB). CD had written to Thomas Henry Farrer to ask him to intercede with Stafford Northcote, the chancellor of the Exchequer, to have an assistant appointed to Hooker at Kew (see Correspondence vol.  22, letter to T.  H.  Farrer, 29 November [1874]). Hooker had engaged William Turner Thiselton-Dyer as his private secretary in 1872; Thiselton-Dyer became assistant director at Kew in 1875 (Allan 1967, pp. 224, 228; letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 June 1875). Benjamin Disraeli was the prime minister. It is not known what Hooker’s recent dispute with Galton was, but see n. 2, above. Probably an allusion to Psalm 42: 5, ‘Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me?’ Harriet Anne Hooker was Hooker’s eldest daughter. Reginald Hawthorn Hooker was 8 years old; his school was run by Elizabeth Palmer of 5 Lansdowne Road, Wimbledon (Post Office London suburban directory 1868). Charles Paget Hooker was 19, and studying medicine at London University (Allan 1967, p. 225). Hooker was president of the Royal Society of London.

January 1875 10

27

Thomas Henry Huxley and George Gabriel Stokes were secretaries of the Royal Society; William Spottiswoode was treasurer (ODNB). Metaphysics: probably a reference to the Metaphysical Society, which Huxley joined in 1869 (see A. W. Brown 1947, p. 25).

To T. H. Huxley   14 January 1875

Down Beckenham | Kent Jan 14. 75

My dear Huxley I received some time ago a foolish paper from Miss Cobbe about vivisection which I did not sign, & this morning I have received a duplicate asking for my signature, which I shall refuse.1 But I see the paper is now signed by many powerful names, including some doctors.2 It is to be presented to the House of Lords by the Archbishop of York—3 No doubt you have seen the papers, otherwise I would lend them to you. Other papers are likewise in circulation, & from what I see of their effect on sensible & independant people (eg my brother & the Litchfields),4 I fully believe that the House of Commons, being thoroughly unscientific, will pass some stringent law, enough to check or quite stop the revival of Physiology in this country. I am sure you will agree with me that this will be a great misfortune. A pamphlet by Miss Cobbe also makes me think (though the evidence is not quite sufficient) that many demonstrated truths causing great suffering are uselessly repeated;5 & I have reason to believe that experiments are made on animals without the use of anaesthetics, when they could be used, & this I look at as simply atrocious. Though the promoters of the present movement are flagratly unjust towards physiologists, this is no reason why they and all biologists should not do what can be done to save suffering. I think that if they were to present a petition to the House of Commons, signed by eminent physiologists & biologists, praying for reasonable legislation on the subject,—they would not only do direct good, but this would be by far the best way to counteract the passionate appeals of the promoters of the present movement. You know the report of Br Assocn at Liverpool (1870) signed by B. Sanderson, Flower, Humphry & others.6 This I should think would be an excellent model, & I for one should rejoice to sign a petition to the House that this Report should be enforced as far as possible by Law. Regulations known to be passed in conformity with the judgement of eminent physiologists could hardly fail to have at least a moral effect in all Physiological Laboratories in England; & this would be a grand result, I am sure that you will forgive me for troubling you on this subject on the chance of my doing any good. As you live in London & see other Physiologists you could easily gather whether they take at all the same view of the subject as I do. If nothing is done I look at the noble science of Physiology as doomed to death in this country. This letter is very badly expressed but I hope is intelligible. Draft(A) DAR 97: C37–8

28 1

2 3

4 5 6

January 1875

No copy of Frances Power Cobbe’s paper has been found in the Darwin Archive–CUL. In December 1874, she had begun to circulate a memorial to be delivered to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals asking it to bring a bill to restrict vivisection before Parliament (Cobbe 1904, pp. 628–9). The principal paragraphs of the memorial are reproduced in Cobbe 1904, pp. 633–5. According to Cobbe, seventy-eight medical men signed the petition, including William Fergusson, a sergeant-surgeon to the queen (Cobbe 1904, pp. 629, 633). William Thomson, the archbishop of York, had signed Cobbe’s petition to the RSPCA, but he was not one of the party who presented it to the RSPCA on 25 January 1875, and the RSPCA did not present the petition to Parliament (Cobbe 1904, pp. 629, 635.) Erasmus Alvey Darwin, CD’s daughter Henrietta Emma Litchfield, and her husband, Richard Buckley Litchfield. See letter to H. E. Litchfield, 4 January [1875]. Cobbe’s memorial was circulated with two pamphlets written by Cobbe, Reasons for interference and Need of a bill (Cobbe 1904, p. 629). In 1870, at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Liverpool, the general committee asked the biology section to draw up a statement of their views on physiological experiments, and to consider whether any steps could be taken to reduce the suffering caused to animals (Report of the 40th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1870): lxii). The subcommittee appointed to fulfill this request reported at the 1871 meeting. They concluded that anaesthetics ought to be used whenever possible, and that painful experiments should not be used to demonstrate already established facts, should not be performed by unskilled persons, and should not be used for training. The report was signed by six men, including John Scott Burdon Sanderson and William Henry Flower. George Murray Humphry was a member of the subcommittee. (Report of the 41st Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1870): 144.)

From G. J. Romanes   14 January 1875

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.: January 14, 1875.

Dear Mr. Darwin,— I should very much like to see the papers to which you allude.1 A priori one would have thought the bisecting plan the more hopeful, but if the other has yielded positive results, in the case of an eye and tubers, I think it would be worth while to try the effect of transplanting various kinds of pips into the pulps of kindred varieties of fruit; for the homological relations in this case would be pretty much the same as in the other, with the exception of the bud being an impregnated one. If positive results ensued, however, this last-mentioned fact would be all the better for ‘Pangenesis.’2 You have doubtless observed the very remarkable case given in the ‘Gardener’s Chronicle’ for January 2— I mean the vine in which the scion appears to have notably affected the stock.3 Altogether vines seem very promising; and as their buds admit of being planted in the ground, it would be much more easy to try the bisecting plan in their case than in others, where one half-bud, besides requiring to be fitted to the other half, has also to have its shield fitted into the bark. All one’s energies might then be expended in coaxing adhesion, and if once this were obtained, I think there would here be the best chance of obtaining a hybrid; for then all, or nearly all, the cells of the future branch would be in the state of gemmules. I am very sanguine about the buds growing under these circumstances, for the vigour with which bisected seeds germinate is perfectly astonishing. Very sincerely and most respectfully yours, | Geo. J. Romanes.

January 1875

29

P.S.—I have been to see Dr. Hooker, and found his kindness and courtesy quite what you led me to expect.4 Such men are rare. E. D. Romanes 1896, pp. 19–20 1

2

3

4

CD had offered to lend Romanes a copy of a German journal containing accounts of graft hybrids produced by inserting buds from one potato into another rather than by bisecting and joining potatoes (letter to G. J. Romanes, 13 January [1875]). Chapter 27 of Variation, ‘Provisional hypothesis of pangenesis’, outlined CD’s ideas regarding heredity; CD suggested that minute particles (gemmules) circulated in the bodily fluids and were capable of generating new cells, remaining dormant until required. He thought his hypothesis could explain both sexual and asexual reproduction, as well as reversion and the regrowth of body parts. In the Gardeners’ Chronicle, 2 January 1875, p. 21, under the heading ‘Singular sport upon a grape vine’, appeared a description of a vine consisting of a rootstock of one variety with rods of three other varieties grafted onto it. After the rod of one variety was cut off, below the point of union with the rootstock, grapes of that variety began to appear on the rod of another variety, along with grapes proper to that rod. CD had asked Joseph Dalton Hooker to help Romanes with his work on grafting (see Correspondence vol. 22, letters to G. J. Romanes, 16 December 1874 and 23 December 1874, and letter to J. D. Hooker, 20 December 1874).

From W. B. Dawkins   15 January 1875

The Owens College, | Manchester, 15/1/75

My dear Sir, In Variation under Domestication  1. 85, you quote from ‘an early record’ the interesting fact that white Cows with red ears stood to the dark cattle as 100  to 150.1 This point as proving the relative size of the two breeds is very important, and as I am unable to get any original authority for it in the early Welsh records I am compelled to ask you to be kind enough to give me the reference. I cannot also light on Youatts authority for the fine of 400 white cattle in the days of King John.2 If, without very much trouble you can help me to these references, I shall be very grateful: for I have been fishing vainly after them for 4 years, and have kept back an essay on the origin of the British Domestic Cattle which ought to have been printed, till I could get them.3 So far as I know the large white domestic cattle were unknown in Britain till the English invasion,4 altho’ they were of Neolithic age on the Continent. With all good wishes for the year. | I am | My dear Sir | Yours truly | W. Boyd Dawkins Charles Darwin Es F.R.S. DAR 162: 129 1

In Variation 1: 85, CD mentioned an early record of compensation of 100 red-eared cows or 150 dark or black cows being demanded for certain offences against the Welsh princes. The record was described in Youatt 1834, p. 48. CD reasoned that the red-eared cows were probably large white cattle with red ears and that the dark cows were a smaller variety still found in Wales.

30 2

3 4

January 1875

In Youatt 1834, p. 48, William Youatt told the story of a present of 400 cows and a bull, all white with red ears, sent by Maud de Breos (in Youatt’s spelling: she is also known as Matilda de Briouze in ODNB) to King John’s wife, Isabella of Angoulême. Dawkins probably refers to the research he published in Dawkins 1878, pp. xiv–xxi; the first thirty-eight pages of this treatise were written in 1872, according to a note on the first page. English invasion: i.e. the arrival of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the fifth century.

To J. D. Hooker   15 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan 15th My dear Hooker. I have been tremendously interested by your letter, which shall be kept strictly private. By Jove how I do hope you will beat Galton.—2 If he retires, I shd think there ought to be a public dinner to celebrate the event. And on your tombstone there ought to be engraved “the conqueror of Ayrton & Galton”.—3 I do hope that this affair will end well, as it looks now that you will get an assistant Secy, & then your labour will not be so severe. It really looks as if Farrer had done a right good turn.4 I will return pamphlet when looked at.—5 I am slaving away solely at making detestably bad English a very little less bad.—6 I have just put Aldrovanda verticillata of Roxburgh, received from Dr King, to soak, & shall see tomorrow or next day whether the leaves differ.—7 I am getting sick of insectivorous plants; but Genlisea has interested us greatly. All Utricularias in all parts of the world catch lots of creatures.8 Ever your affect | C. Darwin P.S. Many thanks for Pamphlets, I—have been glad to glance at the German one, on grounds of priority. The Bull. Bot. Soc. of France9 must have been sent by mistake. DAR 95: 369–71 1 2 3

4 5 6 7

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 January 1875. Douglas Strutt Galton was director of works and buildings at the Office of Works; the exact basis of Hooker’s dispute with him is not known, but see the letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 January 1875 and n. 2. Hooker had had a long-running dispute with Acton Smee Ayrton, the former first commissioner of works, since 1870 (see Correspondence vols. 19 and 20). Ayrton was transferred to another post in 1873. Galton retired in August 1875 (The Times, 21 August 1875, p. 9). CD had asked Thomas Henry Farrer to use his influence to have an assistant appointed to Hooker at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 January 1875 and n. 3). The pamphlet has not been identified. CD was working on the manuscript of Insectivorous plants and the second edition of Climbing plants (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Aldrovanda, the waterwheel plant, is carnivorous, and has only one extant species, A. vesiculosa. In Insectivorous plants, pp. 329–30, CD discussed what he thought to be a variety, A. vesiculosa var. verticillata, mentioning that it was considered by Nathaniel Wallich to be a species, A. verticillata. Wallich had made additions to William Roxburgh’s Flora Indica (Roxburgh 1820–4), but Aldrovanda was mentioned only in the edition published without Wallich’s additions, Roxburgh 1832. George King, the superintendent of the Royal Botanic Garden, Calcutta, had sent dried specimens of Aldrovanda with his letter of 18 December 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22).

January 1875 8

9

31

CD had corresponded with Hooker’s colleague Daniel Oliver about Genlisea (corkscrew plants) and Utricularia (bladderworts; letter from Daniel Oliver, 2 January 1875, and letter to Daniel Oliver, 6 January [1875]). The pamphlets have not been identified; one of them was evidently from the Bulletin de la Société botanique de France.

To W. B. Dawkins   16 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan 16th My dear Sir I am sorry to say that I can give no more information than that in my Book.2 The words “an early record” are those used by Youatt,3 where he mentions about the 400.— It is where I give it at p. 48 of “Cattle Their Breeds &c. Library of Useful Knowledge 1834.”4 I have generally found Youatt an accurate man, & a very sagacious one, for I knew him personally.— I am very sorry I cannot help you more.— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Bloomsbury Auctions (dealers) (15 May 2008) 1 2 3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from W.  B.  Dawkins, 15 January 1875. Dawkins had asked CD for a reference for a remark CD had made in Variation 1: 85 about the relative size of white and dark cattle (letter from W. B. Dawkins, 15 January 1875). William Youatt. Youatt 1834.

From J. D. Hooker   16 January 1875

Jany 16/75 Dear Darwin Galton is to go, & “my Lord” (H. Lennox) has 24 hours given him to say whether he prefers to behave himself or to go too.— I have seen the letter from the Treay. to the latter—& if he holds office after it he must be as craven a spirit as he is a false loon—1 Galton is trying hard to succeed Col. James! & the T. are inclined to the arrangement as an easy way of how to dispose of him— I have written very strongly urging them to weigh well what they are about—for that the Ordnance Survey will justly complain, at a retired Capt. R.E. who has been turned out of 3 first class posts in succession viz under B. of Trade, War office & O. of Works is put over the head not only of a Lt. Col. like Clarke (a man of first rate ability & standing) but of a body of the elite of the Army.2 I am most anxious to save the Govt such a fiasco— better to pension G. at once— Er yr affec | J D Hooker I called on Murray yesterday & emptied my spleen on the Quarterly   I told him that the Review was disgraced, that I should give the cold shoulder to the Editor—as well as to author & that having carefully read the whole thing I regarded the attack

32

January 1875

on George & yourself “as base as it was baseless”.3 Poor Murray shuddered again & again— I begged him to tell his Editor my opinion of his share in it—as I shall when I meet him DAR 104: 9–10 1

2

3

The specific offences committed by Douglas Strutt Galton, the director of works and public buildings at the Office of Works, and Henry Gordon-Lennox, the first commissioner of the Office of Works, are not known. The Daily News, 19 January 1875, p. 5, announced that the Treasury had appointed a committee to inquire into the respective provinces and relative authority of the secretary of the Office of Works (Algernon Bertram Mitford) and Galton, without Gordon-Lennox’s knowledge, and that this had led to an animated controversy. The disagreement may have concerned Hooker’s request for an assistant at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 January 1875). Galton retired in August 1875 (The Times, 21 August 1875, p. 9). Galton had been an officer in the Royal Engineers, a member of the railway department of the Board of Trade, and assistant permanent under-secretary of state for war (ODNB). Henry James was director of the Ordnance Survey, which came under the supervision of the Office of Works, and resigned owing to ill health in August 1875 (ODNB). Alexander Ross Clarke was head of the trigonometrical branch of the survey. The post of director of the Ordnance Survey was taken by John Cameron, a major-general in the Royal Engineers. In 1874, St George Jackson Mivart had made an anonymous attack on George Howard Darwin, as well as making critical remarks about CD, in the Quarterly Review ([Mivart] 1874). On Mivart’s article, see Correspondence vol.  22, Appendix V.  John Murray was the publisher of the Quarterly Review. The editor of the Quarterly Review was William Smith.

From A. G. Dew-Smith   17 January 1875

24 Green St | Cambridge. Jany 17th 1875

My dear Sir Dr Foster has asked me to send the accompanying letter &c to you, and to ask you if you approve its being printed & a copy sent to each of the Naturalists who signed the first Circulating letter and also to each of the persons who gave a donation. The letter I have copied, was sent by Dr Dohrn to Dr Foster for this purpose, & the latter thinks it better to print it exactly as it stands, rather than to modify some few of the expressions wh Dr Dohrn has rather unskilfully used. A List of the Donors & the amounts will be appended if you approve of its being done.1 I have recently returned from Naples and left everything going on very satisfactorily. Sixteen out of twenty possible Tables are let, & are expected soon to be filled.2 Three assistants are now at the Station, to provide the Students with what they require, and to dredge the bay, & so ascertain at what times animals are in the best condition for investigation. Dr Dohrn also contemplates collecting animals for sale & in this way partly if not wholly to pay the expenses of the fishermen. In a letter I recieved from Dr Dohrn this morning he says “I can now tell you, that the German Government has not disappointed me. The 1500£ are ours, and given without restriction, or condition as a well merited “cadeau’”’3 This will pay off the Contractor & so allow the Station to try what it can do on its own earnings.

January 1875

33

Will you kindly let me know if you approve of the enclosed Circular &c Believe me | Very faithfully | A. G. Dew-Smith. To | C. Darwin Esq. DAR 162: 174 1

2 3

The original letter and circular sent by Dew-Smith have not been found, but see the letter from Michael Foster, 30 January 1875. The original letter concerned the successful appeal for funds for the Zoological Station in Naples that Anton Dohrn had founded. The appeal had been organised in Britain by Michael Foster. For one of the letters circulated in 1874, see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Michael Foster, 17 June [1874]. Dohrn raised money for the Zoological Station by letting tables, or research space (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from Anton Dohrn, 7 June 1873). Cadeau: present (French). On the German government grant, see Heuss 1991, pp. 159–60.

To J. D. Hooker   17 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan 17th My dear Hooker I have been more astonished at your note received this morning even that at your last. It is grand about Galton.— It was very bold of you to venture to remonstrate about the Ordnance survey.2 It will indeed be a horrid shame if he is sent there to breed quarrels & trouble. By Jove, if you set to work you could turn out d’Israeli himself.—3 Your attack on Murray & Smith is superb. My thirst for vengeance is now quite satisfied: I always feared that they never would hear what gentlemen thought of the conduct of the Review.4 I feel now like a pure forgiving Christian! I forgot in my last note to tell you that I wrote a formal letter (my women wd not let me send a savage one) to Mr Mivart, just enumerating his offences, as my reason for never speaking to him again.5 I did so, because it would have been so disagreeable to have met him on doubtful terms. He has taken no notice of my letter, & this was his best course. How he will pitch into me anonymously whenever he can.— Farewell you best of friends | Ch. Darwin P.S. | Mr Romanes was greatly pleased by your reception of him.—6 I shall copy part about Murray, & send it off to George.7 DAR 95: 372–3 1 2

3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, 16 January 1875. Hooker had heard that Douglas Strutt Galton, with whom he had had disagreements, was to lose his post at the Office of Works, and was trying to get a post at the Ordnance Survey (letter from J. D. Hooker, 16 January 1875 and n. 2). Benjamin Disraeli was the prime minister. In his letter of 16 January 1875, Hooker had told CD of his visit to John Murray, the publisher of the Quarterly Review, to criticise Murray’s conduct and that of William Smith, the editor, over an anonymous

34

5

January 1875

attack on George Howard Darwin by St George Jackson Mivart published in the Quarterly Review in 1874 ([Mivart] 1874, p. 70). See letter to St G. J. Mivart, 12 January 1875. Henrietta Emma Litchfield, CD’s eldest daughter, wrote to her brother Leonard on 8 January 1875 (DAR 258: 1643): Also we’ve been concocting a letter for Father to write to Mivart. Everybody has had a shy at it & a word from everybody’s fuel has been patched together & I think has made a good letter. His reason for writing it is that he wants to be sure that Mivart will agree to a cut—for if not & they were to meet in the Linnean or anywhere else & Mivart was to come & shake hands with him he should hurck him down & go into a tremendous passion & I think he wd.

6 7

CD had asked Hooker to help George John Romanes with his work on grafting (see letter from G. J. Romanes, 14 January 1875 and n. 4). The copy is in DAR 210.1: 2.

To George Bentham   18 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan 18th My dear Mr. Bentham I am greatly obliged to you for having sent me your Report on Systematic Botany, which I have read with great interest & admiration at your wisdom & deliberate judgment.—2 But I ought not out of common modesty to have used these latter words, considering the way in which you speak of my book; & it was to tell you with what a glow of satisfaction I read these very words, as coming from you, which make my excuse for writing at all.3 With sincere respect, I remain, my dear Mr. Bentham | Yours very truly | Charles Darwin Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (GEB/1/3: Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree-Dyer, (1830–1884) 719) 1 2

3

The year is established by the reference to Bentham 1874 (see n. 2, below). There is an offprint of Bentham’s report to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, ‘Recent progress and present state of systematic botany’ (Bentham  1874), in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. In Bentham 1874, p. 33, Bentham wrote that CD’s Origin, with its doctrine of the evolution of species, made it possible to ascend the ‘higher summits’ of systematic botany.

From T. H. Huxley   18 January 1875

4 Marlborough Place Jny 18th 1875

My dear Darwin I quite agree with your letter about vivisection as a matter of right & justice in the first place, & secondly as the best method of taking the wind out of the enemy’s sails1   I will communicate with Burdon Sanderson2 & see what can be done. My reliance as against that ‘foolish fat scullion’3 & her fanatical following is not in the wisdom & justice of the House of Commons but in the large number of Fox-hunters therein— If Physiological Experimentation is put down by law—hunting fishing & shooting against which a much better case can be made out will soon follow

January 1875

35

Have you seen Mivarts wriggle?4 Of course he could be easily exposed but I doubt if he is worth more powder & shot— What say you? I have had a horrid influenza & gone deaf in one ear—I am afraid permanently— but I am picking up again The Litchfields5 were with us last night & I was glad to hear good news of all at Down Ever | Yours very faithy | T H Huxley DAR 166: 338 1

2 3 4

5

In his letter to Huxley of 14 January 1875, CD had suggested pre-empting Frances Power Cobbe’s campaign against vivisection by encouraging physiologists and biologists to put forward their own petition on the subject. John Scott Burdon Sanderson. Huxley quotes from Tristram Shandy (Sterne 1760–7, 5: 45). St George Jackson Mivart had published a letter in the Academy, 16 January 1874, p. 66, signing himself ‘The Quarterly Reviewer of 1874’, responding to Huxley’s remarks on his anonymous reviews in the Academy, 2 January 1875, pp. 16–18 (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 3 January [1875] and n. 3). In the letter, he reiterated his statement that CD had kept back his (CD’s) views on the bestiality of the origins of the human species when he (CD) published Origin, and repeated his regret at the misapprehension of his remarks about George Howard Darwin. Richard Buckley Litchfield and Henrietta Emma Litchfield, CD’s eldest daughter.

To A. G. Dew-Smith   19 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan 19th My dear Sir I am very much obliged for your interesting letter with an account of the Zoological Station at Naples. Will you tell Dr Foster that I quite agree with him that it would be best to publish Dr Dohrn’s letter just as it stands, together with his circular   I think also it would be best to publish a list of the donors with the amounts subscribed; for I remember on two or three occasions having subscribed for some object & feeling disappointed at never receiving any news of the success of the movement2 In the present case I think that all the subscribers will feel highly satisfied at the result My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS American Philosophical Society (462) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from A. G. Dew-Smith, 17 January 1875. With his letter of 17 January 1875, Dew-Smith had sent a draft circular about the successful appeal for funds for Anton Dohrn’s Zoological Station at Naples. For the final version of the circular, see the letter from Michael Foster, 30  January  1875; it did include a list of subscribers and amounts subscribed.

36

January 1875

To Alpheus Hyatt   21 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan. 21st Dear Sir I am much obliged for your kind & interesting note, & printed extract, which latter however is not very clear.2 I will consider all that you have suggested & shall be extremely glad to read at some future time your valuable memoir when published.—3 I remember your visit here with much pleasure,4 & remain with all good wishes | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin Maryland Historical Society (MS 1007) 1 2 3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Alpheus Hyatt, 8 January [1875]. See letter from Alpheus Hyatt, 8 January [1875]. An abstract of Hyatt’s memoir on Jurassic ammonites (Hyatt 1874) was published in 1875. It is not known when Hyatt visited Down.

From T. H. Huxley   22 January 1875 Athenæum Club | Pall Mall S.W. Jny. 22. 1875 My dear Darwin I write on behalf of the Polar Committee of the Royal Society to ask for any suggestions you may be inclined to offer us, as instructions to the Naturalists who are to accompany the new Expedition1 The task of drawing up detailed instructions is divided among a lot of us; but you are as full of ideas as an egg is full of meat and are shrewdly suspected of having, somewhere in your capacious cranium, a store of notions, which could be of great value to the Naturalists— All I can say is that if you have not already ‘collected facts’ on this topic it will be the first subject I ever suggested to you on which you had not— Of course we do not expect you to put yourself to any great trouble—nor ask for such a thing—: but if you will jot down any notes that occur to you we shall be thankful— We must have everything in hand for printing by March 15th— Ever | Yours very faithy | T H Huxley DAR 166: 342 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Hot Spring’2 pencil 1

In December 1874, the British Government announced its intention to despatch an expedition to reach the North Pole and to explore the coasts of Greenland and adjacent lands. The Royal Society of London, of which Huxley was a secretary, recommended naturalists for the expedition and undertook the

January 1875

2

37

editing of a scientific manual. (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 24 (1875–6): 77–8.) The manual was published as Thomas Rupert Jones ed. 1875. CD had contributed the chapter on geology to the Admiralty’s Manual of scientific enquiry (Herschel ed. 1849; see Correspondence vol. 4). CD’s annotation is a note for his reply to Huxley of 27 January [1875].

To Linnean Society   23 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan. 23d My dear Sir I am much obliged for your note & beg you to thank the Council for their kindness. I did not know that the right to reprint papers was a recognised one; but had I known it, I shd. have thought myself to have asked the consent of the Council2 My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin Linnean Society of London 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Linnean Society, 1 January [1875]. CD’s work on climbing plants was first published in 1865 as a paper in the Journal of the Linnean Society (‘Climbing plants’), then as a book published in 1865 by Longman (Climbing plants); the second edition was published in November 1875 by John Murray.

To B. G. Wilder   26 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan 26. Dear Sir I have much pleasure in stating that I have read several of your papers, & have been much struck by the ability shown in many of them, as well as by your great energy in the pursuit of Natural Science. One of your latest investigations, that on the brain of dogs, appears to me particularly valuable.1 As I do not know who your competitors are for the Chair of Comparative Anat & Physiology in Harvard University, I cannot of course express any opinion of your claims to fill it but you have my good wishes for your success in all ways. I remain dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin To | Dr Burt G. Wilder. LS(A) Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library (Burt Green Wilder papers, 1841–1925: Box 1, Folder 5) 1 2

The year is established by the reference to the chair of anatomy and physiology at Harvard (see n. 3, below). There is an annotated copy of Wilder’s paper on cerebral variation in domestic dogs (Wilder 1873), along with other papers by Wilder, in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. CD cited Wilder 1873 in Variation 2d ed. 1: 35 n. 56.

38 3

January 1875

The Hersey Professorship of anatomy had been held by Jeffries Wyman, who died in September 1874 (ANB). The chair was left vacant until 1885 (Harvard University catalogue).

To T. H. Huxley   27 January [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jan 27 My dear Huxley I have no suggestions to offer except about glacial phenomena, to which, if I were on the expedition, I should particularly attend.2 It would I think be important to choose a naturalist who has studied this subject.3 I have given my reasons for attending to certain points, as a better guide to any observer; but whether this is desirable I know not. The fact about the pebbles standing vertically rests on my own observations; & as far as I know has not been observed by others I would suggest your instructing the Naturalist carefully to observe what organisms are found in any hot springs, and to ascertain carefully its temperature: I was astonished to find that the thermometer was forgotten by the Challenger Expedition at the Azores.4 Ever yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin I hope that my suggestions are intelligible, but I cannot say much for their style— [Enclosure] (1) As a standard of comparison with the beds of detritus which are supposed to have been formed in England during the glacial period, it seems desirable that the deposits on Arctic shores, which would be exposed to the constant action of an open sea, were it not for the frequent presence of ice, should be carefully studied. It should be observed how large a proportion of the stones are angular or sub-angular, & whether they are approximately of equal size or very unequal. It might even be worth while to collect illustrative specimens. If there is reason to believe from lines of erosion or other evidence, that the land has been recently upraised, beds of detritus adjoining the shores should be studied with equal care under the same point of view. (2) As no one has hitherto succeeded in pointing out clear distinctive marks by which it can be told whether a rocky surface has been ground & scored by glaciers or by floating coast-ice or by icebergs, the shores & any low promontory projecting into the sea ought to be examined during low water. If the land has been recently elevated, such observations would be particularly valuable if made on a hilly & rocky promontory. The size & depth of the scores should be noted & their direction; for instance whether in the case of a promontory, they extend almost horizontally & parallel to the present coast, or rise up its sloping flanks & cross in its straight lines its summit. Do icebergs or coast-ice wear the rocks into rounded bosses like those so commonly formed by glaciers? Does coast-ice ever leave erratic boulders perched in the summits of the rocks in sitû, or on narrow ledges along their sides?

January 1875

39

(3). If almost level & thick fields of perpetual snow should be met with abutting against steep land, from which during the short summer streams of water descend, it would be desirable to observe whether small fragments of stone are thus carried to some distance over the frozen surface. In this case the general character, that is the depth, width & extension or length of the channels cut by the streams in the snow should be observed & the nature of any detritus in their beds. From the drifting of the snow during the winter it seems improbable that such streams would during the next summer deposit their detritus in the same channels as before; so that in the course of time detritus would tend to accumulate over a wide extent of the frozen surface and at different levels. Observations on this head would perhaps throw light on the origin of the interstratified beds of ice & of gravel containing the bones of mammals, which have been observed in Eschscholtz Bay & in N. Siberia.5 Light also would perhaps thus be thrown on the extensive beds of angular shingle which in some parts of England cover the surface of the land irrespective of its present outline, & which there is reason to believe was accumulated during the Glacial Period. In the beds of shingle just referred to, many elongated pebbles & angular fragments of rock are embedded in an almost vertical position; & this fact apparently indicates that the whole bed has sunk down in a slow & irregular manner. Such sinking would follow during the slow melting of buried snow at the close of the Glacial Period if the shingle had originally been deposited on its surface. LS(A) DAR 92: A48–53 1 2

3 4

5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from T. H. Huxley, 22 January 1875. Huxley had asked CD for suggestions for the scientific manual for a planned polar expedition (letter from T.  H.  Huxley, 22  January 1875). The part on glacial observations was Thomas  Rupert  Jones ed. 1875, pp. 74–7, written by Andrew Crombie Ramsay and John Evans. The naturalists appointed to the expedition were Henry Chichester Hart and Henry Wemyss Feilden. See Thomas Rupert Jones ed. 1875, p. 66; this section was written by Joseph Dalton Hooker. The HMS Challenger expedition was an oceanic survey that took place between 1873 and 1876; since one of its main purposes was to measure ocean temperatures, it was well supplied with thermometers. The naturalists on the expedition visited the hot springs at San Miguel in the Azores in July 1873. See Tizard et al. 1885, pp. 176–7. No other reference has been found to their not having a thermometer; however, the visit to the hot springs was acknowledged to be ‘totally unscientific’ and ‘a few days of complete relaxation’, given the lack of time available (Thomson 1873, p. 402). Eschscholtz Bay is in Alaska. On the finds of large animal carcases in Siberia and bones, horns, and hair in Eschscholtz Bay, see J. Richardson 1854, pp. 1–8.

To E. B. Tylor   [28 January 1875] Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. My dear Sir I have forwarded the certificate to Sir J.  Lubbock. As I do not know Col: Fox personally I could sign only from general knowledge & this I have done with much pleasure.1

40

January 1875

You will remember the review on your works in the Quarterly last year. This article contained a deliberately false & malicious attack on my son George.2 I am justified in saying this as Huxley Hooker & others compared my son’s Article with the Review, & as Hooker told Mr Murray it was “as base as it was baseless”.3 I know positively that this article was written by Mr Mivart & I wish to take every opportunity of saying how false a man I consider him to be My dear Sir | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS Postmark: JA 28 75 British Library (Add MS 50254: 81–2) 1

2

3

Augustus Henry Lane Fox became a member of the Royal Society of London in 1876. John Lubbock was also a member of the society. Applications for fellowship of the Royal Society had to be signed from personal or general knowledge of the candidate. In  1874, St George Jackson Mivart had published an anonymous essay review of anthropological works by Tylor and Lubbock in the Quarterly Review ([Mivart] 1874). In the course of this work he made critical remarks about George Howard Darwin’s article on marriage (ibid., p. 70). See also Correspondence vol. 22, Appendix V. See letter to T. H. Huxley, 6 January 1875 and n. 1, and letter from J. D. Hooker, 16 January 1875. John Murray was the publisher of the Quarterly Review.

To Asa Gray   29 January [1875]1

Down Jan. 29th.

My dear Gray I cannot remember whether any address besides Cambridge, is necessary for Mr. Chauncy Wright, will you kindly let him have the enclosed.2 Your’s very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Copy DAR 153: 165 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Chauncey Wright, 21 September 1874 and 29 January 1875 (Correspondence vol. 22). In a postscript dated 29  January  1875  to his letter to Wright of 21  September  1874 (Correspondence vol. 22), CD explained that the letter had been returned to him because of a mistake in the address, and that since he could not remember whether ‘Cambridge’ was sufficient address, he was forwarding the letter via Asa Gray. Wright lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

From E. B. Tylor   29 January [1875]1

Athenæum Club | Pall Mall Jany 29

My dear Sir I did no more than glance at the Q.R. & observe that it was what one may call an “eclectic review”, picking the one point in the reviewer’s favour & leaving the

January 1875

41

ninety & nine that told against him. It is only lately that I have noticed the part that shows how faithfully Mr Mivart has followed the ancient tactics of his Church against heretics.2 May I take this opportunity of asking you about Brehm’s “Thierleben”. I have suggested that if there is no English translation, perhaps my wife might undertake one. Knowing how occupied you are, I will ask you if you think the scheme desirable, to let me know, otherwise I shall understand that you do not think it worth doing.3 Believe me Dear Sir | Yours very truly | E B Tylor Charles Darwin Esq DAR 178: 203 1 2

3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to E. B. Tylor, [28 January 1875]. See letter to E.  B.  Tylor, [28  January  1875]. In  1874, St George Jackson Mivart had published an anonymous essay review of anthropological works by Tylor and John Lubbock in the Quarterly Review ([Mivart] 1874). Mivart was a Catholic. CD had received an enquiry about translation from the publisher of Alfred Edmund Brehm’s Illustrirtes Thierleben (Illustrated animal life; Brehm et al. 1864–9) in 1867 (Correspondence vol. 15, letter from H. J. Meyer, 30 July 1867). The first English translation of part of Brehm et al. 1864–9 was Cassell’s book of birds (Thomas Rymer Jones trans. [1869–73]. Tylor’s wife was Anna Rebecca Tylor. No reply to this letter has been found.

From George Brownen   30 January 1875 Laboratory | Savory & Moore, | Chemists to the Queen. 143, New Bond Street | London | W. Jany 30th. 1875 Chas Darwin Esq MA, FRS. &c Sir, Hearing from some friends that you were engaged on a work on “Carnivorous Plants” I have taken the liberty of calling your attention (if not already drawn) to the Hyoscyamus Niger as a plant of a peculiar & as I think carnivorous type.1 My attention was drawn to two large overblown plants about the middle of last August by the skeletons of insects & flies on & around them. Unfortunately it was too late in the season, the plants were too large, & I was far from my home on a journey so that my observations were few & indecisive— still I saw insects dead or dying amid the viscid (peptic?) hairs & this induced me to secure portions of the plants & a number of ripened fruits that I might be able to study the plant more carefully this year As soon as it was convenient I removed some of the glandular hairs from the plant & placed them in a little water & added a small quantity of hard boiled white of egg in thin slices— these slices dissolved (digested?) after a few hours. If this plant requires a portion of animal food it is probably our largest British carnivorad and

42

January 1875

it explains somewhat why the Hyoscyamus is rather difficult to cultivate & that it luxuriates on rubbish, in corners & other unlooked for places—the haunts of insects. I thought these notes might probably interest you— hoping however I may be forgiven if I have trespassed on your time or written on a subject already known to you as true or otherwise. I am | yours respectfully | Geo Brownen FCS DAR 160: 336 1

CD published Insectivorous plants in July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Hyoscyamus niger (henbane) can be toxic to animals. CD had tested Drosera rotundifolia (common sundew) with extract of hyoscyamus and concluded that it did not act on the plant as a narcotic or poison (Insectivorous plants, p. 206). He did not discuss Hyoscyamus as an insectivorous plant.

To B. A. E. Cookson   30 January 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Jany. 30th 1875 rs Dear M Cookson George tells me that you would like to have my autograph; & I am proud to send my signature for this purpose.1 I wish it was rather more ornamental. Pray believe me, Yours very sincerely | Charles Darwin Cleveland Health Sciences Library (Robert M. Stecher collection) 1

George Howard Darwin had spent time with the Cookson family in 1874; see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from G. H. Darwin, 6 [August] 1874 and n. 8.

From Michael Foster   30 January 1875 Trinity College, Cambridge, January 30, 1875. Dear Sir, You will be pleased to hear that the appeal which was sent to you some time ago, on behalf of the Zoological Station at Naples, and to which you kindly responded, has been so far successful that, as you will see by the enclosed list, £850 were raised, of this, £750 has been forwarded to Dr Dohrn, and the remaining £100 he is about to receive.1 The accompanying letter from Dr Dohrn will shew of how great assistance the money has been to the Station. Mr Dew-Smith, who has just returned from a short stay at Naples, during which time he has been working in the Station, tells me that all the arrangements are rapidly becoming complete, and that now everything promises well for the future. You may therefore feel sure that we have really afforded material help to a thoroughly valuable Institution. Yours very truly, | M. Foster.

January 1875

43

Stazione Zoologica, | Naples. Dear Mr Foster, I think Scylla and Charybdis are now safely behind me, and behind the Zoological Station. Since five weeks I am back to Naples and I feel that everything has become more consolidated, everything is in working order, everybody has got his place and sphere, where he is responsible, and the whole works very well together. This is my impression, and I think you will be glad to hear that it is completely shared by all those who have worked in the Station since this summer. There is, of course, much still to be done; in fact, an Establishment of so new a kind may perhaps never get out of a state when there is still much to be done. But the broad foundation is laid, and I believe it is now strong enough to bear a good deal of weight, which the following years may throw upon it. I think, Mr Foster, this would be the best thanks which I could say to all those who were so generous as to help the Station out of its difficulties. Fair statements of these difficulties have been told, therefore I should very much thank you if you would be good enough to forward these better news to all who have helped, to those eminent Naturalists who signed the circulating letter with their names, as well as to the Ladies and Gentlemen who contributed to the Fund. Since the Zoological Station has grown into a Public, even an International Institution, I may hope that its future fate may become known to its friends through the usual way of publicity; if it were not so, I should always feel bound to give at least once a year a larger Report about what has been going on, what have been the achievements, and what is the prospect of the new Establishment. Ever yours faithfully, | Anton Dohrn. December 20th, 1874 Subscriptions. C. Darwin, Esq. W. E. Darwin, Esq. G. Darwin, Esq. F. Darwin, Esq. F. M. Balfour, Esq. A. G. Dew-Smith, Esq. Marlborough R. Pryor, Esq. Sir Charles Lyell G. Busk, Esq. E. A. Darwin, Esq. Sir J. Whitworth Francis Galton, Esq. W. Spottiswoode, Esq. Professor Newton2 T. T. C. Jodrell, Esq.3 Lord Rayleigh4 Lord A. Russell

s. 100 20 10 10 50 50 50 25 10 10 10 5 5 5 10 10 10

d. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

£. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

January 1875

44 J. P. Gassiott, Esq. Jun. John Evans, Esq. P. L. Sclater, Esq. Edward Backhouse, Esq. Mrs Pryor5 A. Balfour, Esq. G. W. Balfour, Esq. R. S. Newall, Esq. Miss A. B. Balfour Miss E. Balfour G. W. Childs, Esq. J. Young, Esq.6 H. Darwin, Esq. The Royal Society The Zoological Society

20 10 5 5 10 100 10 10 50 5 20 10 5 100 100

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Printed circular DAR 162: 215/1 1

2 3 4 5 6

For the appeal on behalf of Anton Dohrn’s Zoological Station at Naples, see Correspondence vol. 22, letters from Michael Foster, 7 April [1874] and 17 June [1874], and letters to Michael Foster, 23 April [1874] and 9 May [1874]. See also letter from A. G. Dew-Smith, 17 January 1875. Alfred Newton. Presumably Thomas Jodrell Phillips-Jodrell. John William Strutt. Elizabeth Caroline Pryor. J. Young has not been identified.

From A. W. Malm   31 January 1875 Goteborg 31 Januari 1875. My eminent Charles Darwin! | England. My dear Sir I am very much obliged for your extremely kind letter of the 25th October 1874.1 I never vill forget yours testimonium for my working in the service of the science. Adressated to J. E. Gray at London send I in this days another little broschure from the meeting at Kopenhague in the Year 1873. I have therei read on several cranes of Man from that so named stone-period, who, cranes I for several years toback have found hear in Bohusländ, circa 50 Engl. miles north from Göteborg.2 In these paper have I especially spoken on the by me supposed using of the stoneinstruments in the named period; but I have even at the pagina 2 touched that interesting fenomen by this crane, consisting, therin that the bone-masse is so extremely developed. My declaration on this fact is shortly this, that the named developement of the animal-facultes depend of that, that the Man at that time not have had artificial instruments for finer parting of the nourishments, no knife

January 1875

45

and fork. For  33  years toback I was, send by the Academy of Sciences at Stockholm, 134 years, winter and summer, in the northest Lappland, Enare and Utsjoki; there have I learned much, living with this relative unkultivated people; and therefore my reading on the use of the stone instruments in the earlier period of the kultur of Man.3 In the named sending will You even find a paper of my Sohn on the developement of Syngnathus, d: Siphonostoma typhle Yarr. Thise paper is his first opus, d: his dissertatio pro gradu philosophico.4 He is living here at Göteborg, as lector by the Realgymnasium. He has even his eyes opened for higher vues in the continuated workings of the nature; for Darwianismus! and every wher— who eyes hat, can not se the world from another side;5 and the chambre-philosophy in Germany will in short time only exist in the—tradition. Have you read my observations (printed in the “Goteborgs Kgl. Vet. och Vitt. Samhalles Handlingar, part 8, Goteborg 1863, pag. 34) on the Scaeva ribesii Sc. topiaria and Sc. vitripennis, of wich the first named and of Linnéus as Musca ribesii is on of the most common diptera in our country.6 I have, by my studies on diptera and especially on Syrphica, quickly learned that a correct determinating of named “3 species” not in many cases were to bi found. By all my researches in the nature I every with data have significated all subjects. I have at least collected and preservated a tousand specimens of thise “3 species. At least clearned it up. Sceva ribesii is in our period the centrum and is the forma æstatis. Sceva vitripennis is the forma autumnalis and therfor lesser and not so higely colorated; Scaeva topiaria is at least the forma veris, for the intensity of ligth mor darkly colorated than the others and as common by diptera, ex. gr. Eristalis (spec. in temp. vernal. vigent.) with the eyes more dense hirti. Only exeptionaly Kan man find vitripennis and topiaria in the summer season.7 These facts are by my meaning of great value. But, that is thereby a common fact, that individuals, developed in dissimilar years-times, so much are diverging, that chambre-naturalist by mean of such fenomens are creating “god species”, figthing for an “illustrated name”, but not for the veracity. J’a, illustrious Darwin, when I was power to writing the english language I have many thing to tell you. My soul is from my first days open for the nature. The nature is the best book in the world, free from errata, but in many cases dificult in deschifrating, therefor, that oft are been deluded or deceived by printed books, in many cases dictated by a tradition, unknown for the scientia vera.8 Yours very sincerely | A. W. Malm. DAR 171: 32 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Photograph’ blue crayon 1

CD’s letter to Malm has not been found.

46 2

3 4

5 6

7

8

February 1875

Malm’s paper on findings from an ancient tomb in Sweden and the use of stone tools (A. W. Malm 1874) was read at the eleventh meeting of Scandinavian naturalists in Copenhagen in 1873. He also refers to John Edward Gray. Cranes: i.e. crania, skulls. Bohuslän is a province in south-west Sweden. Malm worked in Finnmark, a Norwegian province that is part of Lapland, from January 1841 until September 1842 (SBL). Malm’s son, August Hugo Malm, received his PhD in 1874  with a dissertation on the broadnosed pipefish (A. H. Malm 1874; SBL s.v. Malm, August Wilhelm). Syphonostoma typhle is a synonym of Syngnathus typhle. Malm alludes to the passage in Jeremiah 5:21, ‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.’ Malm’s study of the hoverflies (Syrphidae) of Scandinavia and Finland was published in Götheborgs Kongl. Vetenskaps och Vitterhets Samhälles Handlingar (A. W. Malm 1863). Scaeva ribesii is a synonym of Syrphus ribesii, the common banded hoverfly; the Linnaean name, Musca ribesii, is the original combination. Scaeva topiaria and S. vitripennis are synonyms of Syrphus vitripennis, the glass-wing hoverfly. Malm believed that the hoverfly species mentioned were only varieties of the same species, which exhibited different seasonal forms. Forma aestatis: summer form; forma veris: spring form; forma autumnalis: autumn form (Latin). Ex. gr. Eristalis (spec. in temp. vernl. vigent): for example, Eristalis (species flourish in springtime). Eristalis is another genus of hoverfly; the spring form of some common species in this genus is often darker. Both seasonal and sexual dimorphism are characteristic in many hoverfly species. Scientia vera: true science.

To Francis Darwin   [c. February 1875?]1 My dear F. I beg ten thousand pardon & more— my notes on U. amethytina are on the same paper with those on U nelumbifolia, so am safe—2 Your old deluded Father | CD DAR 271.4: 8 1 2

The date is conjectured from the subject matter. CD was correcting the chapter on Utricularia (bladderwort) for Insectivorous plants in February 1875 (letter to D. F. Nevill, 15 February 1875). CD’s notes on Utricularia amethystina (Florida purple bladderwort) and U. nelumbifolia are in DAR 59.1: 141, 145–6.

To ?   [February 1875 or earlier?]1 Down [The Variation of Animals & Plants under Domestication is out of print and, having only one copy himself, he explains how to try to obtain one.] Sotheby’s (dealers) catalogue p. 192 (20 July 1989) 1

The date is conjectured from the fact that a second edition of Variation was planned in February 1875 (see letter from John Murray, 17 February [1875]. In September 1873, John Murray, CD’s publisher,

February 1875

47

had twenty-six copies left of the first edition (Correspondence vol. 21, letter from John Murray, 25 September [1873]), and by February 1875, copies were evidently not available to buy (letter to John Murray, 16 February [1875].

From D. Appleton & Co   1 February 1875 Sales of “Origin of Species”1 to February 1/7〈5〉 by D Appleton & Co for a/c of Chas Darwin 1874  Feby 1. Aug 1875. Feby 1.

On hand 775 Printed  500 Ed over 4 On hand 212 Sold 1067

5% on $ 2 $ 106.70

“Expression of Emotions”2 1874. Feby 1. On hand 1832 Feby 1/75 " 1564 Sold  268

10% on $ 350 93.80

Descent of Man 3 Feby 1/74  On hand 728 Apl. Printd vol 1 & 2 1000 Feby 1/75. On hand 132 Sold  1596

10% $ 2

319.20 $519.70

Value in sterling Exch 110 Gold 115    £ 92.8.94 DAR 159: A94 1 2 3 4

D. Appleton & Co. published the third US edition of Origin (from the sixth London edition) in 1873. The London edition of Expression was published in November 1872, and the US edition in December 1872, although the date given on the title page is 1873 (Freeman 1977). The US edition of Descent was published in 1871. Appleton published a second American edition in 1875. CD recorded the receipt of this amount in his Account books–banking account (Down House MS) on 11 March 1875.

From G. G. Bianconi1   1 February 1875 Monsieur! Une observation trés-juste qu’on m’a adressée sur la raison mécanique du type articulé m’a conduit à une addition que j’ai àjoutée á la traduction italienne de mon

48

February 1875

livre.2 Une telle addition n’étant enfin qu’une ampliation de l’argument même auquel vos célèbres travaux ont donné occasion, j’ai vu que sans manquer à un dévoir je ne pouvais me dispenser de vous en faire hommage; et j’ai conçu l’espérance que vous voudrez aussi accueillir avec bonté l’adresse que j’ai l’honneur de vous faire aujourd’hui. J’avais espéré recevoir vos savantes observations, ainsi que me l’annonçait votre honorée lettre 31. Oct.  1873;3 certes elles m’auraient fourni le moyen de rectifier et d’éclaircir quelques parties de mon travail. Elles pourraient cépendant m’être précieuses encore, car je tacherais de les utiliser dans une seconde édition francaise à la quelle je travaille à présent.4 J’aime à croire que dans cette nouvelle circonstance vous ne trouverez pas trop mal la discussion que j’ai dû suivre, car elle est, je crois, entiérement et uniquement scientifique. Comme je l’ai dit a pag. 3. = Voi cercate la verità in buona fede: e anch’io la cerco sinceramente. Sopra questo terreno potremo intenderci5 = Cette disposition à nous nous entendre est sans doute bien assurée, car outre la recherche de la verité, j’ai de mon coté pour guide encore la haute et sincére estime que je vous professe, et le respect avec le quel je suis | Monsieur! | votre très devoué serr | J. Jos. Bianconi. Bologne 1. Febr. 1875 DAR 160: 181 1 2

3 4 5

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. La teoria Darwiniana e la creazione detta indipendente. Lettera al signor Carlo Darwin (The Darwinian theory and the independent creation. Letter to Mr Charles Darwin; Bianconi 1875) is a translation of the original French version of Bianconi’s work (Bianconi 1874). CD’s annotated copy of Bianconi 1874 is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 58–9).  His copy of Bianconi  1875  is in the Darwin Library–Down. Bianconi added a new section to the Italian edition, ‘Gli animali articolati e la dottrina teleologica’ (articulated animals and the doctrine of teleology; Bianconi 1875, pp. 363–434). CD’s letter has not been found, but see Correspondence vol 21, letter from G. G. Bianconi, 28 November 1873. The second edition of Bianconi’s work was published in Italian (Bianconi 1879). You seek the truth in good faith: and I too seek it sincerely. On this ground we can understand one another. (Italian.)

To Gustav Jäger   3 February 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Feb 3d. 1875 Dear Sir I received this morning a copy of your work “contra Wigand”, either from yourself or from your publisher; & I am greatly obliged for it.— I had, however, before bought a copy & have sent the new one to our best Library, that of the Royal Socy.—1 As I am a very poor German sholar I have as yet read only about 40 pages, but these have interested me in the highest degree. Your remarks on fixed & variable species deserve the greatest attention; but I am not at present quite convinced, that there are such independent of the conditions to which they are subjected.2

February 1875

49

I think you have done great service to the principle of evolution, which we both support, by publishing this work.— I am the more glad to read it, as I had not time to read Wigands great & tedious volume.—3 With my best thanks for the honour which you have done me, & with the greatest respect | I remain Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin P.S If Herr Koch sent me the volume perhaps you will be so kind as sometime to give him my thanks.—4 Facsimile Hildegard Jaeger (private collection) 1

2

3

4

A copy of Jäger’s In Sachen Darwin’s insbesondere contra Wigand (Darwin considered particularly contra Wigand; Jäger 1874), with CD’s signature, is in the archive of the Royal Society of London. CD’s annotated copy of the work is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 429–31). The publisher of the work was E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung, which was headed by Eduard Koch, and also published CD’s own works in German. In his discussion of the species concept (Artbegriff ), Jäger maintained that there were some species that were unchangeable, either persisting despite changing circumstances or dying out, but never giving rise to anything new ( Jäger 1874, p. 5ff). Parts of this discussion are scored in CD’s copy (see Marginalia 1: 429–31). The first volume of Albert Wigand’s Der Darwinismus und die Naturforschung Newtons und Cuviers (Darwinism and the natural science of Newton and Cuvier; Wigand 1874–7) was published in 1874. CD’s copy of the three-volume work is in the Darwin Library–Down. For more on Wigand’s critique of Darwin, see Montgomery 1988, pp. 94–7, and Junker 2011, pp. 235–73. See n. 1, above.

From Anton Bachmaier1   4 February 1875 Anthropologische Gesellschaft in München Geehrter Herr! Es hat sich bezüglich der in Ihrem Werke—: “das Variiren der Thiere und Pflanzen im Zustande der Domestication, Cap XII Vererbung.” erwähnten Fälle von Reproduction amputirter überzähliger menschlicher Finger- und Zehen-Glieder in der Discussion in unserer Gesellschaft über dieses hochinteressante Thema, das Ergebniss herausgestellt, dass von keinem der lebenden ersten Chirurgen Deutschlands solche Reproductionserscheinungen beobachtet wurden.2 Indem ich diese Thatsache Ihnen hochgeehrter Herr mittheile, bitte ich Sie um gefällige Mittheilung, ob über die erwähnten Fälle noch lebende Zeugen existiren. Die Münchener anthropologische Gesellschaft würde sich eine besondre Ehre daraus machen, die Richtigkeit der in Ihrem Werke citirten Angaben auch in weiteren Kreisen zu vertreten.— Dagegen wurde von Professor Dr. Rüdinger an einem Salamander die Reproduction des linken Vorderfusses vorgezeigt; soweit sich der reproducirte Vorderarm sammt den Zehen an dem lebenden Thiere beobachten laesst, sind alle einzelnen Abschnitte, wie bei der ersten Entwicklung des Thieres aus dem Ei, vollkommen wiederhergestellt worden.3 Die Muskeln, die Sehnen, die Gelenke scheinen wieder

50

February 1875

mit grosser Vollendung neu entstanden zu sein, denn die Gebrauchstüchtigkeit der reproducirten Extremität ist eben so gross, als jene der ursprünglich enstandenen, nur ist sie in dem Umfange etwas zurück geblieben. Sie werden hoch geehrter Herr durch Ihre Erwiederung [ünser] Gesellschaft zu groesstem Danke verpflichten. Mit ausgezeichneter Hochachtung | Ihr ganz ergebenster Diener A. Bachmaier | Secretair der anthropologischen Gesellschaft. München, Herrnstrasse 21. | 4. Februar 1875. DAR 160: 10 CD annotations 3.1 Dagegen … geblieben. 3.8] crossed pencil Top of letter: ‘Case of Salamander that regenerated its amputated leg—perfectly joints & all— I suppose Amphibian.’ ink del blue crayon and pencil; ‘Address For copy of Var. under domestication’ blue crayon End of letter: ‘This is the man who wrote to me about amputated fingers’ blue crayon 1 2

3

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. In Variation 2: 14–15, CD described cases of the regrowth of a supernumerary digit in very young children. Bachmaier may refer to either the first or the second German edition of Variation (Carus trans. 1868, Carus trans. 1873). Nicolaus Rüdinger gave a talk, ‘Wiederersatz verlorener Extremitäten bei niederen Wirbelthieren’ (Regeneration of lost limbs in lower vertebrates), at the January 1875 meeting of the Munich Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory (see Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Urgeschichte 1 (1876): 100). The journal of the society began publication in 1876 and only a brief summary of the proceedings of meetings from its beginning in 1870 up to 1875 were included in the first volume (Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Urgeschichte 1 (1876): 97–101). No printed version of Rüdinger’s talk has been found, but CD was evidently sent one that he later passed on to Lawson Tait (Correspondence vol. 24, letter to Lawson Tait, 28 March 1876).

From J. V. Carus   5 February 1875 Leipzig Febr 5th. 1875. My dear Sir, The printing of the new German edition of the “Descent of Man” will soon be finished.1 As I shall then begin to translate the “Journal of Researches”, may I ask you if you have to make some alteration or addition to it. I have the edition of 1860 and you would oblige me by telling if this is the newest.2 The “Journal” will form the first Volume of our new Edition of your works3   In the mean time your book on Insectivorous Plants will be ready.4 Would you kindly let me know, when it will be out and how large it will be? I proposed to the Publisher to bring all your botanical papers into one volume, viz, that on Climbing plants, on Orchids, on Di- and Trimorphism and on Drosera and Dionea   The last one, of which you were kind enough to write me about eighteen months ago, is most likely the new one on In-

February 1875

51

sectivora5   Wouldn’t these papers be too large for being collected into one volume? If so, could you give me perhaps a hint, what other papers I could take to make two botanical volumes? In a few weeks I shall have the pleasure to send you the concluding volume of my Zoology.6 The Index is now in print. I subjoin a list of some Errata in the Descent, which you will alter perhaps in a new print7 Believe me, | My dear Sir, | Yours ever sincerely | J. Victor Carus DAR 161: 99 1 2 3

4 5

6

7

The third German edition of Descent was a translation of Descent 2d ed. (Carus trans. 1875a). Journal of researches (1860) was a reprint of Journal of researches 2d ed., published in 1845; another reprint had been issued in 1870 ( Journal of researches (1870)). Carus’s translation of Journal of researches (Carus trans.  1875b) is the first volume of Ch. Darwin’s gesammelte Werke (Ch. Darwin’s collected works; Carus trans. 1875–87). The publisher was E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung. Carus’s translation of Insectivorous plants was published in 1876 (Carus trans. 1876a). Carus refers to Climbing plants and Orchids, and probably to CD’s papers ‘Dimorphic condition in Primula’, ‘Three forms of Lythrum salicaria’, and ‘Illegitimate offspring of dimorphic and trimorphic plants’. Much of the material from these papers was reworked in Forms of flowers, which was included in the German edition of CD’s collected works. Carus evidently intended to refer to Insectivorous plants, not the former order of insect-eating mammals, Insectivora. See Correspondence vol. 21, letter to J. V. Carus, 2 August [1873]. CD discussed Drosera (the genus of sundews) and Dionaea (Venus fly trap) in Insectivorous plants. Carus refers to the second part of the first volume of Handbuch der Zoologie (Carus und Gerstaecker 1863– 75); the volumes appeared out of sequence, the second volume having been published in 1863, while the first part of the first volume appeared in 1868. Carus had written all of the first volume and part of the second. CD’s copy of the first volume of the Handbuch is in the Darwin Library–Down. The list has not been found.

From Albert Günther   6 February 1875 British Museum | Zoological Department Febr. 6. 1875 My dear Mr. Darwin You have always taken such a friendly interest in my progress in life that I cannot allow a day to pass without giving you the news of my appointment to the keepership.1 It is a step which will be the last & most important in my life, as the post will give me as much work as I am able to perform, and as much honour as satisfies my ambition. Fred. Smith is to be my successor; and if a man ever merited recognition by faithful service, he is F. Smith.2 With kind regards to Mrs Darwin | Yours ever truly | A Günther DAR 165: 256

52 1 2

February 1875

Günther was promoted from assistant keeper to keeper of zoology at the British Museum following the retirement of John Edward Gray (ODNB). Frederick Smith had chosen not to compete against Günther for the post of assistant keeper in 1872, which Günther had regarded as an act of unselfishness on Smith’s part (see Correspondence vol. 20, letter from Albert Günther, 14 May 1872).

To J. V. Carus   7 February 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Feb. 7. 75 My dear Sir Many thanks for all the errata which your sharp eyes have detected—1 I hope to begin printing my book on Insectivorous Plants, (the 2nd Part of which will include my paper on Climbing Plants corrected,) in two or three months.2 I really do not know at all how big a book it will make, but from the appearance of the pile of MSS, I fear that the two parts together will make a large book; tho’ I shall print the details in small type.3 It will I think be impossible for you to include anything else in the same volume. My next work will give all my experiments on the good effects of crossing, together with my republished papers on Di & Tri morphic plants. But I have to add new researches on this subject.4 I cannot form any idea how big the book will be; but I should think that the Orchid book might possibly be added to it. As I hear that all copies of this latter book are sold, I suppose before long there must be a new Editn., which I fear will require some correction.5 My book of Travels is stereotyped & has never been touched since it was first printed in 1845.6 I am very much obliged for your promised to send me the concluding volume of your Zoology.7 I hope your health is fairly good, & that its failure is not the cause of your not lecturing at Edinburgh8 Believe me | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Slg. Darmstaedter Lc 1859 Darwin, Charles, Bl. 131–132 1 2 3 4

5

Carus had sent a list of errata for Descent 2d ed. with his letter of 5 February 1875; it has not been found. Insectivorous plants was published in July 1875; Climbing plants 2d ed. was published in November 1875 (Publishers’ circular, 16 July 1875, p. 498, and 16 November 1875, p. 932). CD had used a smaller typeface for some of the more technical parts of his earlier book, Variation, in order to reduce the size of the work (see Correspondence vol. 15, letter to John Murray, 8 January [1867]). Carus had proposed publishing some of CD’s botanical work in a collection (see letter from J. V. Carus, 5 February 1875). In Cross and self fertilisation, published in 1876, CD gave the results of his experiments comparing the vigour of seedlings grown from cross-fertilised and self-fertilised plants over several generations. In Forms of flowers, published in 1877, CD revised some of the material from earlier papers such as ‘Dimorphic condition in Primula’, ‘Three forms of Lythrum salicaria’, and ‘Illegitimate offspring of dimorphic and trimorphic plants’. Orchids 2d ed. was published in 1877; it contained many revisions based on new material CD had received from correspondents, especially on foreign species that were not available to him.

February 1875 6 7 8

53

Book of travels: Journal of researches 2d ed. See letter from J. V. Carus, 5 February 1875 and n. 2. Handbuch der Zoologie (Carus and Gaerstaecker 1863–75). See letter from J. V. Carus, 5 February 1875 and n. 6. Carus suffered from bronchial problems. His health had improved while he was in Edinburgh, where he gave a course of lectures in the summers of 1873 and 1874, replacing Charles Wyville Thomson, who was head of the civilian scientists on the oceanographic survey ship HMS Challenger from 1872 to 1876 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from J. V. Carus, 19 January 1874). Thomas Henry Huxley took over from Carus in the summer of 1875 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from J. D. Hooker, 25 November 1874, and this volume, letter to J. V. Carus, 19 April [1875]).

From Anton Dohrn   7 February 1875 Naples. Palazzo Torlonia. 7.2.75. Dear Mr. Darwin! This time Your birthday does not overtake and force me to use electric means to arrive in time with my sincerest felicitations.1 I have long waited for this date to be entitled to write to You,—(the origin of this title, of course, is a mere usurpation)—and to tell You, that thanks to Your generous and quick help in a most dangerous moment both the Zoological Station and its founder have returned back to health and are, if not vigorous, but well enough to venture further on upon their old courses.2 In fact, the Zoological Station is flourishing and the last rocks have been safely got over by a new grant of the German Empire amounting to another £.1500.3 This new subvention is not only a great step in a financial point of view, but it proves, that the Government at Berlin is well disposed towards the young Institution, and I am happy to add, that public opinion in Germany is quite in favour of the idea, that the Government once may enter into possession and take the administration of the Zoological Station, should I be forced to abandon it. This is a great satisfaction for me; it was one of my worst feelings during the two years of nervous depression, that after all I had only worked “pour le roi de Prusse” but not for the true one. If I therefore succeed in developing the Station further and further, I may once,—say in three or four years—have to put my name under an arrangement, which secures for a long period to the young Institution the powerful help of the Berlin-Government.4 It is therefore with a feeling of double satisfaction, that I look out for the next British Association, to come once more to the cherished island and speak loudly my thanks, and then I will ask Your permission to pay a visit also to Yourself, if Your health will permit You to receive me.5 When I was last time in England,—or I believe before last time—I made some allusions to a very much differing view of mine, regarding the question of ancestry of Vertebrates. I have now embodied some of my opinions in a little pamphlet, entitled: “The Origin of Vertebrates and the Principle of Succession of Functions” which I hope I may be able to send to You before the end of this month.6 It seems

54

February 1875

rather likely to me, You will not be pleased with it,—but then, I have been troubling my brains with these thoughts for more than seven years, and at last thought it best, to bring them out, when I got a pamphlet of Prof. Semper, wherein a strong justification of my general view was arrived at, and together with it a very shortsighted range of speculations.7 To annull these and to open the way for a new series of theoretical questions, I ventured upon the ocean of printed paper,— who knows whether I shall have a better fate than so many other “Polar” Expeditions?! As far as I can see, there will be no friend for my little book, and though I have kept away from any polemics, I feel rather sure, that an outcry shall be raised against me. Happily I am living here with the grandest view possible, before my windows, and the cry of the Napolitans (—and they have the greatest mouth-cavities I ever saw—) does not reach up to my mountain-palace.8 I have thus accustomed my eye to long distances, and the echo of a gun takes very long before it comes back to the place where the gun was fired off. Therefore I hope I may quietly wait for the echo of my little gun, but shall be only impatient, what You will say to it. As I hope next to speak publicly, also in English Journals, of the Zoological Station, I don’t tell You now any particulars and conclude this letter with my heartiest wishes for Your health.9 With kindest regards to Yourself and Your family | Very faithfully Yours | Anton Dohrn DAR 162: 215 1 2

3 4

5

6

7

CD’s birthday was 12 February. Dohrn had sent a telegram in 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, telegram from Anton Dohrn, 12 February 1874). CD and several other British researchers had organised a subscription to raise money for the Zoological Station at Naples, of which Dohrn was the founder and director (see letter from Michael Foster, 30 January 1875). Dohrn had received a grant of 30,000  Reichsmarks from the German Empire in November  1874 (Heuss 1991, pp. 160–1). The idea that the imperial German government might take over the station was first suggested by Helmuth von Moltke in 1874 (Heuss 1991, p. 159). For more on the role of the German government in the support of the station, see Heuss 1991, pp. 159–61, 190–9. ‘Pour le roi de Prusse’: for the king of Prussia (French); in France, ‘to work for the King of Prussia’ meant to work for nothing. Dohrn’s remark played on the literal and figurative sense of the phrase. The forty-fifth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science took place in Bristol in August 1875. Dohrn had been a corresponding member of the association since 1870. Dohrn did not visit CD in 1875 (see letter from Anton Dohrn, 29 July 1875). While in England in the summer of 1872, Dohrn had outlined his view that the ancestors of vertebrates were annelids (segmented worms; see Correspondence vol. 20, letter from Anton Dohrn, 28 August 1872). CD supported the competing theory that vertebrates were descended from ascidians (sea squirts; see Descent 1: 205–6). CD’s copy of Dohrn’s monograph (Dohrn 1875) is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. In his recent work ‘Die Stammesverwandtschaft der Wirbelthiere und Wirbellosen’ (The genealogical relationship of vertebrates and invertebrates; Semper 1874), Carl Gottfried Semper had argued that the segmented excretory tubules found in embryonic sharks were homologous with the nephridia (segmented excretory tubes) of annelids. For more on annelid theory as proposed by Dohrn and Semper, see Bowler 1996, pp. 157–62.

February 1875 8 9

55

Dohrn lived at Palazzo Torlonia, the home of Maria Dohrn’s family in Naples, from 1871  to 1875 (Groeben 2008, p. 150). The building was near the small port of Mergellina at the foot of Posillipo Hill. The formal inauguration of the Zoological Station took place on 11 April 1875. A description of the event with highlights of Dohrn’s inaugural address and a summary of the work of the station appeared in Nature, 6 May 1875, pp. 11–13.

From J. D. Hooker   [7 February 1875]1 Kew Sunday.

My dear Darwin You have no doubt heard of Col. Lyells death   Harriet & I have just called on Mrs Lyell—who tells me that he died of inflammation of the lungs, which seems to be a not uncommon result of Paralysis.2 he was ill only 2 days & did not suffer. Sir Charles has borne the shock with great composure, as old men happily do— Miss Lyell was there & said her brother was decidedly better—3 I saw him a week ago, very feeble, in bed, with speech very indistinct:—but mind as active as ever, & as clear. I suppose we shall see the Drosera paper soon— we are all impatience4 Nothing is yet settled at my office, but I have Mr W. H. Smiths assurance that if my Lord does not send up my application with the Estimates, the T. will send to him for it5 I dined at Huxley’s two days ago, only to meet Nares, who appears to be a fine intelligent fellow, full of life & has very evidently profited much by the Science of the Challenger:6 he speaks most warmly of Thomson, Sulivan & Murray:7 Huxley is full of Globigerina & is quite at a loss to explain the red clay of the deep sea bottom—8 His lecture at the R. S is said to have been excellent, I hear that he utilized my long forgotten observations on the diatom sea-bottom of the Antarctic—& paid me the compliment of calling it a philosophical treatise!9 No small honor from him.— he is beginning to look over-worked & I fear smokes too much. We are all well, but Harriet is doing too much. & I am in doubt what to do— I have long ago promised to take her to Algeria on a visit to Col & Mrs Playfair10 this spring, & I need not say she has set her heart on going—but I find I can only get away from 16 April (day after Soirée)11 till 24th. May. & I shall not be able to travel fast with her, so I am thinking of accepting an offer of Lady Jardine12 (a great friend of her’s) to take her to Cannes next month, & I would then pick her up at Marseilles—in April. We both of us want a holiday very badly, but I can’t get away, with my arrears of work pressing, & Bentham craving for Gen. Plant.!13 I met two Ladies in the Garden yesterday who accosted me from having met me at Down— one is a Mrs or Miss Forster,14 (a Lady with a very long nose)— pray is she Mrs or Miss— please send Post Card as Harriet has to write to her, she is staying with Lady Leven at Roehampton—15 Ever yr affec | J D Hooker DAR 104: 11–13

56

February 1875

CD annotation 7.2 pray … her, 7.3] double scored ink 1 2 3 4 5

6

7 8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15

The date is established by the reference to the death of Henry Lyell, who died on 5 February 1875 (The Times, 10 February 1875, p. 1). The Sunday following 5 February 1875 was 7 February. Harriet Anne Hooker was Hooker’s eldest daughter; Henry Lyell’s widow was Katherine Murray Lyell. Charles Lyell had been in poor health since the end of 1874; Marianne Lyell had lived with Charles since the death of his wife, Mary Elizabeth Lyell, in 1873 (K. M. Lyell ed. 1890, 2: 438–9). CD’s research on Drosera (sundew) was published in Insectivorous plants, which was published in July 1875 (Publishers’ circular, 16 July 1875, p. 498). Hooker had asked for an assistant to help with his work at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; the gardens were under the jurisdiction of the Office of Works, whose head, the first commissioner of works, was Lord Henry Gordon-Lennox (ODNB). William Henry Smith was financial secretary to the Treasury (ODNB). Thomas Henry Huxley had written on some of the early results of the Challenger expedition (see n.  9, below). George Strong Nares was captain of HMS Challenger from December  1872  until November 1874, when he was recalled to lead the Arctic expedition of 1875–6 (ODNB). The Challenger expedition was mounted under the auspices of the Royal Society of London; the ship was modified to provide on-board laboratories and a dredging platform, and new equipment was used to explore deeper into the ocean than had been done before. Charles Wyville Thomson, Bartholomew James Sulivan, and John Murray (1841–1914), the naturalist to the Challenger expedition. Globigerina is a genus of marine foraminifer, which has a calcareous test or shell; the name globigerina ooze was used by Murray to characterise sediment on parts of the ocean floor containing shells of this and related genera. Murray discussed red clay pelagic deposits in J. Murray and Renard 1891, pp. 253–4. Huxley had given a lecture at the Royal Institution of Great Britain (not the Royal Society) on 29 January 1875, entitled ‘Some results of the Challenger expedition’ (L. Huxley ed. 1900, 1: 442). A printed version, including long passages quoting Hooker’s observations on the distribution of Antarctic Diatomaceae, appeared in the Contemporary Review in March 1875 (T. H. Huxley 1875, pp. 642–4). Diatoms are mostly pelagic unicellular or colonial algae, characterised by siliceous cell walls. Robert Lambert Playfair was consul-general in Algeria; his wife was Agnes Playfair (ODNB). The Royal Society annual soirée took place on 7 April 1875 (The Times, 8 April 1875, p. 5). Hyacinth Jardine. George Bentham and Hooker were co-authors of Genera plantarum (Bentham and Hooker 1862–83). Laura May Forster. Sophia Leslie-Melville, countess of Leven and Melville, lived at Roehampton House, Roehampton.

To Anton Dohrn   [after 7 February 1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. r My dear D Dohrn Many thanks for your most kind letter. I most heartily rejoice at your improved health & at the success of your grand undertaking, which will have so much influence on the progress of Zoology throughout Europe.2 If we look to England alone what capital work has already been done at the Station by Balfour & Ray Lankester.3 By the way I was sorry to see the attack on the latter by Fol.4 In about another years time you will have another promising young naturalist with you

February 1875

57

from this country namely Mr Romanes.5 When you come to England I suppose that you will bring Mrs Dohrn, & we shall be delighted to see you both here   I have often boasted that I have had a live Uhlan in my house!6 It will be very interesting to me to read your new views on the ancestry of the Vertebrates. I shall be very sorry to give up the Ascidians to whom I feel profound gratitude; but the great thing as it appears to me, is that any link whatever should be found between the main divisions of the Animal Kingdom.7 I am working very hard in getting ready for the Press a book on Insectivorous Plants;8 & the experiments on their power of digestion are I think interesting With the most sincere good wishes | I remain my dear Dr Dohrn | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München (Ana 525. Ba 1120) 1 2 3

4

5 6

7

8

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Anton Dohrn, 7 February 1875. See letter from Anton Dohrn, 7 February 1875 and nn. 2 and 3. Dohrn had reported that the Zoological Station at Naples was on a better financial footing. Francis Maitland Balfour had studied the development of elasmobranch fishes (sharks and dogfish) while at the station in 1874; Edwin Ray Lankester had worked on embryonic development in cephalopods and gastropods, and the histology of a marine worm, Sipunculus nudus, in 1871–2 (see Balfour 1874 and Lankester 1873a and 1873b). In an article on the development of pteropods (Fol 1875), Hermann Fol had been critical of some of the observations on embryonic development in Lankester 1873a; see Fol 1875, pp. 34, 88, 93. Pteropods, or sea butterflies, are marine gastropods in the class Opisthobranchia. No record of George John Romanes’s visiting Naples has been found. Dohrn’s wife was Maria Dohrn. In the summer of 1870, Dohrn served in an Uhlan (cavalry) regiment of the Prussian army. In September of that year he met CD, who asked what an Uhlan was. Dohrn replied that an Uhlan was standing in front of him. CD revealed he had imagined Uhlans were tribal people from the eastern frontier of Germany. See Heuss 1991, p. 108. See letter from Anton Dohrn, 7 February 1875 and nn. 6 and 7. Dohrn argued that vertebrates originated from annelids (segmented worms) while CD favoured the view that they were descended from ascidians (sea squirts). CD had interpreted discoveries about embryological similarities in ascidian and vertebrate larvae as demonstrating a clear genealogical link between vertebrates and their invertebrate ancestors (see Descent 1: 205–6). Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

From G. H. Darwin to James T. Knowles   8 February 1875 Trinity College | Cambridge Feb. 8. 1875 Dear Sir, Prof. Whitney has written to my Father with respect to my review of his article in the Nov. Contemp. Rev, & Max Müller’s reply.1 He is anxious to have a short reply

58

February 1875

in the Contemp. Review, and I much hope that you will admit one.2 He has sent the enclosed letter to you to my Father, but did not know to whom to address it.3 As Prof. Max Müller does not profess to have read Whitney’s article &, as I gather, only skimmed mine, Whitney certainly seems to have had rather hard measure in so severe an article.4 I have no doubt that Prof Whitney will have expressed in his letter to you, as he has in his letter to my Father, that he does not wish you to bind yourself to admit his answer until you had seen it. Believe me Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | G. H. Darwin Jas. Knowles Esq | Messrs. Strahan’s | 2 Paternoster Row5 DAR 210.2: 46 1

2 3

4 5

William Dwight Whitney’s letter has not been found. George’s article ‘Professor Whitney on the origin of language’ (G. H. Darwin 1874) appeared in the November 1874 issue of the Contemporary Review. In it, George defended CD’s account of the origin of speech against the views of Friedrich Max Müller and St George Jackson Mivart. Max Müller’s article, ‘My reply to Mr. Darwin’, appeared in the Contemporary Review, January 1875 (Max Müller 1875). For more on the background of the article and the views of those involved, see Alter 2005, pp. 184–92. Whitney’s reply, ‘Are languages institutions?’, appeared in the Contemporary Review, April 1875 (Whitney 1875). Whitney’s letter to Knowles has not been found. This letter from George to Knowles was sent to CD to use as a cover letter when he forwarded Whitney’s; he had already done so, however, and George’s letter remained with CD’s papers. See letter to G. H. Darwin, 10 [February 1875]. Max Müller wrote that he had not previously read Whitney’s ‘Lectures on language’ (a reference to Language and the study of language (Whitney 1867); see Max Müller 1875, p. 307). The publisher of the Contemporary Review, Alexander Stuart Strahan, had premises at 12 Paternoster Row, London (Post Office London directory 1875). His original company, Strahan & Co., had forced him out in 1874, when the firm was changed to Isbister & Co.; Strahan had retained the copyright to the Contemporary Review and other publications (ODNB).

To J. W. Clark  9 February 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Feb 9 75 Dear Sir I am very much obliged to you for so kindly sending me the information on the action of fear in the iris.,—a subject about which I formerly felt great doubts1 Dear Sir | Yrs faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley (BANC MSS 74/78 z) 1

In Expression, pp. 303–4, CD discussed claims that fear caused the pupils to dilate, but admitted he did not have much evidence of the phenomenon. A note was added to Expression 2d ed., p. 321 n. 37, referring to information received from T. W. Clark of Southampton in letters of 25 June and 16 September 1875 on the dilation of dogs’ and cats’ pupils due to fear. The writer was, in fact, Joseph Warner Clark; see letters from J. W. Clark, 25 June [1875] and 16 September 1875.

February 1875

59

To Albert Günther   9 February [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Feb 9 My dear Dr Günther I rejoice at the news in your letter, and heartily congratulate you in being fixed I hope for a long life in so honourable & important a position.2 Be so kind as to give my sincere congratulations to Mr F. Smith.3 Believe me to remain | Yours very truly | Ch. Darwin LS Taylor Library, Shrewsbury School 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Albert Günther, 6 February 1875. Günther had recently been appointed keeper of zoology at the British Museum (see letter from Albert Günther, 6 February 1875). Frederick Smith was appointed assistant keeper (see letter from Albert Günther, 6 February 1875 and n. 2).

From J. T. Knowles 9 February 1875 from | The Hollies | Clapham Common | S.W Feby 9th. 1875 My Dear Sir/ I lose no time in assuring you that we shall be delighted to reserve space in the April rev: of the “Contemporary Review” for Prof: Whitney’s article (on the terms mentioned so kindly in his letter)—.1 Perhaps you will be so kind as to suggest to him that we should be glad to put as much as 20 pages at his disposal & would prefer a substantive paper of some such extent to the brief essay he seems to contemplate— if it would be agreeable to himself to let us have his longer article.2 I need hardly say that should you yourself be at all persuadable to write a few introductory pages—or even paragraphs—we shall feel as much honoured by them as Prof: Whitney would be benefitted—3 I am my dear Sir | Yours sincerely & | respectfully | James Knowles To/ Charles Darwin Esq— Yale University Library: Manuscripts and Archives (William Dwight Whitney family papers (MS 555) Box 22, folder 584 1875 Feb. 8-11) CD annotation 2.1 I . . . benefitted— 2.3] brace to left of paragraph, line to ‘This is nonsense | C.D.’ pencil 1

William Dwight Whitney’s letter to CD, in which he enclosed a letter to Knowles asking whether he might respond to an article by Friedrich Max Müller (Max Müller 1875), has not been found (see letter to G. H. Darwin, 10 [February 1875] and n. 2). CD sent this letter to Whitney along with two brief notes, which have not been found (see letter to G. H. Darwin, 10 [February 1875]).

60 2 3

February 1875

Whitney’s article, ‘Are languages institutions?’ (Whitney 1875), was published in Contemporary Review, April 1875, and was twenty pages long. In 1874, Knowles had tried to persuade CD to write an article for the Contemporary Review, but CD declined (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to J. T. Knowles, 5 August 1874). In the event, CD did not write an introduction to Whitney 1875.

To J. S. Burdon Sanderson   10 February 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Feb. 10. 75 My dear Dr Sanderson Do you by any chance know whether animals can digest or decompose phosphat of potassium so as thus to obtain phosphorus? I ask because the phosphates of soda, lime, & ammonia act most powerfully on Drosera, wheras phosphate of potassium is as innocent as gum or sugar.1 I wrote some little time ago to Huxley, suggesting that Physiologists & Biologists should petition the H. of Commons to pass a reasonable act on vivisection, in the spirit of the Liverpool Brit: Assoc: resolutions.2 He said he would consult you; & I hope that you think well of the suggestion, & that something of the kind, or something better, will be done.3 I feel very anxious on the subject, for the sake of the grand Science of Physiology, & especially as an enactment advised by leading Physiologists would have much more influence on students & others. Pray believe me | Yours very sincerely | Charles Darwin LS(A) University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (I.xxi) 1

2 3

CD described his experiment applying a solution of phosphate of potassium to leaves of Drosera rotundifolia (common sundew) in Insectivorous plants, p. 180. He did not specify what form of the compound was used. See letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875. See letter from T. H. Huxley, 18 January 1875.

To G. H. Darwin   10 [February 1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. 10th My dear George Immediately on getting Whitney’s letter I wrote to Knowles; but it was very good of you to think of saving me the trouble.—2 I got a most civil answer from Knowles this morning, hoping that W.s’ article wd. be a long one.— I have despatched it to Whitney with your note, & a short one from self.—3 I am very very sorry you give so poor an account of yourself.—4 Do not force your mind to activity: I am absolutely certain that you will never be idle, when you ought to exert yourself.— I know well the feeling of life being objectless & all being vanity of vanities. But this will wear away all the sooner for not trying to work too soon.— There were a lot of things in your letter which have interested me, especially about

February 1875

61

H. Sidgwick5 & spiritualism & on ethics.— I guessed about C. Leslie,6 & it rejoiced me.— We have ordered the F.R.7 which you shall have.— We heard this morning a terrible piece of news, the sudden death of Arthur Williams, so that poor Margaret is a widow.—8 I am quite tired so good bye | C. Darwin DAR 210.1: 44 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8

The month and year are established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from G. H. Darwin to J. T. Knowles, 8 February 1875. Neither William Dwight Whitney’s letter to CD nor CD’s letter to James Thomas Knowles has been found; Whitney had written to CD enclosing a letter to Knowles requesting the opportunity to respond to a recent article by Friedrich Max Müller that was critical of Whitney’s views on language. George had written a letter to Knowles that he intended CD to use as a cover letter (see letter from G. H. Darwin to J. T. Knowles, 8 February 1875 and nn. 1, 3, and 4). See letter from J. T. Knowles, 9 February 1875. The two notes have not been found George had evidently enclosed his letter to Knowles of 8 February 1875 in a letter to CD; that letter has not been found. Henry Sidgwick. Thomas Edward Cliffe Leslie was an economist who challenged the purely deductive approach to economic analysis. George had published an article, ‘The theory of exchange value’, in the February issue of the Fortnightly Review (G. H. Darwin 1875d). Margaret Susan Vaughan Williams was CD’s niece; her husband was Arthur Charles Vaughan Williams.

To J. D. Hooker   10 February [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Feb. 10th My dear Hooker I was very glad to get your letter for I had been wishing to hear from you.— It seems to me an excellent plan, you & Harriet going to Algeria, as it will be so complete a change for your mind & a sort of rest for your body.2 How slow the government is about your affair of the Assist. Secy; I wish it could have been all arranged & that you had Dyer before your journey.—3 I saw in the newspaper that Lord H. had eaten dirt,— that is that he had arranged affairs, & wd. remain in office.—4 I did not tell you before, but the Edinburgh Drosophyllum arrived, owing no doubt to the carelessness of the Railway, with the pot above & below both smashed: we thought the plant was not much hurt, but it never rallied & very slowly died & is now stone dead.5 This is very provoking, but no care was spared.— You ask about my book & all that I can say is that I am ready to commit suicide: I thought it was decently written, but find so much wants rewriting, that it will not be ready to go to Printers for 2 months & will then make a confoundedly big book.— Murray will say that it is no use publishing in the middle of the summer, so I do not know what will be the upshot; but I begin to think that everyone who publishes a book is a fool.6 —Horace showed me a paragraph in the Engineer, with an abstract of an account from Alp De Candolle of what seems a very curious case, of earth which

62

February 1875

has been covered with slag from the silver mines of Laurium for 1400 years, when uncovered, producing many plants of a Glaucium of an unknown form—ie var or species.— This sounds like a good case in favour of the belief, which I am ready to swear to.— Have you seen any such account.?7 Thank you for telling me about poor old Sir C. L.—8 I feared that after paralysis & epilepsy his mind wd. have been a mere wreck.— Have you ever come across Mivart?9 Ever yours affect | C. Darwin DAR 95: 374–6 1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8 9

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, [7 February 1875]. Hooker was hoping to travel abroad with his daughter Harriet Anne Hooker; see letter from J. D. Hooker, [7 February 1875]. See letter from J.  D.  Hooker, [7  February  1875] and n.  5. Hooker hoped to have William Turner Thiselton-Dyer appointed as his assistant. The first commissioner of works, Henry Gordon-Lennox, had threatened to resign after a cabinet committee, against his wishes, upheld the authority of the secretary over the director of works (Port 1995, p. 70). A report on the disagreement between the Board of Works and the Treasury noted that the ‘severance of Lord Henry Lennox’s connection with the Government’ had been satisfactorily arranged (Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 7 February 1875, p. 11). The newspaper article that CD saw evidently related to the controversy, but it has not been identified. In his letter to Hooker of 8 January [1875], CD had reported that the plant of Drosophyllum lusitanicum (Portuguese sundew of dewy pine) that Hooker had forwarded from the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, had arrived safely. CD’s publisher, John Murray, often preferred to bring out books close to November, when he held a sale dinner for the book trade (J. Murray 1908–9, p. 540). Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). The Engineer, 5 February 1875, p. 93, contained a brief notice, which had originally appeared in the Athenæum, 31 October 1874, p. 581, about the germination of ancient seeds. The article referred to Alphonse de Candolle’s discussion of the influence of solar energy on the germination of seeds that had been buried under a slag heap for more than 1500 years. The original report was made in Gartenflora 22 (1873): 323–4 by Theodor von Heldreich, who described the plants grown from the seeds as belonging to a new species, Glaucium serpieri (now considered to be a synonym of G. flavum, the yellow horned poppy). Laurium (now Lávrion) was an industrial town in Greece, famous in antiquity for its silver mines. After 1860, franchises were granted to Greek, French, and American companies to rework ancient slag heaps for the extraction of lead, cadmium, and manganese (EB). Charles Lyell. See letter from J. D. Hooker, [7 February 1875]. Hooker had promised to give St George Jackson Mivart the cold shoulder if he happened to meet him. He had been dissuaded from writing to Mivart about Mivart’s attack on George Howard Darwin’s paper on marriage ([Mivart] 1874, p. 70, G. H. Darwin 1873). See letters from J. D. Hooker, 3 January [1875] and n. 2, and 5 January 1875 and n. 1.

From Mary Treat   11 February 1875

Vineland, N.J. Feb. 11, 1875.

Dear Mr. Darwin, Some weeks ago I obtained from the ponds, simply, the long white stims of Utricularia.1 Freezing had divested them of all leaf stems. Very soon the new branches

February 1875

63

began to make their appearance, and I found, that the species that I am observing, is perfectly circinate—when the branch is wholly unrolled that is the end of its growth. These branches send off secondary branches, and then again divide and sub-divide, and with the bladders scattered among the leaves and branches, it takes but a little stretch of the imagination to make this plant equal the animal vascular system. Look at some of the flukes—for instance, Amphistoma conicum,2 the vascular system of which, under the microscope, looks very much as this plant appears to the naked eye. Yours gratefully | Mary Treat. DAR 178: 177 1 2

Treat had sent CD her initial observations on Utricularia (bladderwort) in a letter of 2 December 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22). Amphistoma conicum (now Paramphistomum cervi, rumen fluke) is a parasitic flatworm that infects ruminants such as sheep and cattle.

From J. S. Burdon Sanderson   12 February 1875 49, Queen Anne Street. | W. Feb. 12, 75 Dear Mr. Darwin, Potassium phosphate is certainly decomposed in the animal body.1 A double decomposition no doubt takes place between it and common salt which is always present, by virtue of which Potassium chloride & sodium phosphate are produced. It appears to me likely that the reason why potassium phosphate does not act upon Drosera is this—that it is present in considerable proportion in the juices of plants & consequently probably in Drosera.2 I think it would be found that to those salts which are present in the plant it is indifferent, even though it may be excited by others which are chemically closely allied to them. With reference to the subject of experiments on animals, I have after conversation with Mr Huxley prepared a memorandum intended to serve as the basis of a Petition.3 It is now in his hands. I have lately been considering very carefully the whole question and am of course very anxious that if anything is done, it should be done in such a way as to promote rather than to hinder the progress of science. Believe me, Dear Mr Darwin | Very truly yours | JB Sanderson University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (II.xiii) 1 2

See letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 10 February 1875. Potassium is one of the elements essential for the growth of plant cells and is therefore always present in plant tissue. In his letter to Burdon Sanderson of 10 February 1875, CD had noted that phosphates other than potassium phosphate caused a powerful reaction in the leaves of Drosera (sundew).

64 3

February 1875

See letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 10 February 1875 and nn. 2 and 3. Mr Huxley: Thomas Henry Huxley. For more on the background to the debate on vivisection and CD’s role, see Feller 2009.

To Gustaf Retzius   12 February 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Feb 12th 1875 Dear Sir I am very much obliged to you for your great kindness in having sent me your valuable “Anat. Untersuchungen”, I have as yet only looked at the illustrations, & these seem to me admirable.1 With my best thanks for the honour which you have done me, I beg leave to remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin K. Svensk Vetenskaps-Akademien Stockholm, Sweden 1

CD’s copy of Anatomische Untersuchungen (Anatomical investigations; Retzius 1872) is in the Darwin Library–Down. The work included five plates, illustrating the anatomy of the semicircular canals in the auditory system of bony fish.

To Gustavus Fritsche   13 February 1875 February 13 18751 I shall be happy to see you here, but I am sorry to say that the state of my health seldom allows me to convene with anyone for more than half an hour.2 If next Tuesday (the 16th) will suit you, I would suggest your coming by the train which leaves Charing Cross at 10:35, & I will send my carriage to Orsington to meet you. We will lunch at one o’clock & you can return by the train leaving Orpington at 2 47. Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin P.S | If you cannot come on Tuesday Wednesday would suit me equally well but in that case be so kind as to let me know LS incomplete3 Skinner, Inc. (dealers) (15 November 2009) 1 2 3

The date is given in the sale catalogue. Fritsche visited CD but the date of the visit was not recorded (see letter from Gustavus Fritsche, 23 October 1875). The original letter is complete and is described in the sale catalogue as being two pages long. The second page, from ‘you can return’, has been transcribed from a facsimile. The rest of the transcription, described as being a full quotation, is from the sale catalogue. ‘Convene’ should probably read ‘converse’; ‘Orsington’ should read ‘Orpington’. According to the 2010 Literary and Historical Manuscripts Catalogue of Michael Silverman (London), the letter is on paper with the Down letterhead.

February 1875

65

From J. C. Douglas   14 February 1875 No 12 Kyd Street | Calcutta | East Indies. February 14 1875. C. Darwin Esqre. etc; Dear Sir In reading your works on the descent of Man Expression of the Emotions and Origin of species the following remarks and observations occured to me and I take the liberty of of troubling you with them.—1 Expression of the Emotions.— The fact that a horse shews his teeth, keeping them together and raising his lip, when intensely pleased seems to be connected in some manner with the se〈xu〉al instinct, there can be no 〈dou〉bt when greatly pleased 〈the ho〉rse does uncover his teeth   I observed this in a poney I had; this animal had mange badly, and when the front of its neck and chest was scratched it stretched its neck and after a short time shewed its teeth.2 This is not necessarily attributable to the fact that the horse would use his teeth for the purpose of scratching himself, I believe the stallion does this when he sees a mare at a distance; this expression is observed in the bull when a cow is brought near him.— I was buying a bull and wished to examine his teeth but this he would by no means allow, the natives suggested that a cow should be brought, on seeing the 〈c〉ow the bull immediately 〈stre〉tched his neck and opened 〈his〉 lips so as to expose his teeth producing the same expression as I observed in the poney. I consider this expression has some other explanation than you have given it, it would probably be found very general, and in the case of the bull it is readily produced. The bull in the case I refer to was humped, and the practice of bringing a cow to make a bull shew his teeth is a general one in India.— Descent of Man. If man’s progenitors used the feet as prehensile organs, I thought it highly probable if the sole of an infant’s foot were gently touched the foot would tend to curl on the object touching it in the same manner as the hand closes on the finger or 〈    〉 small object placed in its palm.3 I accordingly tried the experiment on several infants and found the result as I anticipated; on gently placing the finger across the sole of the foot near the toes, being careful not to tickle the foot, the toes and instep curl round as if to seize the finger. It was objected that this was due to the foot being tickled, but on tickling the foot of a child nearly 12 months old the toes were retracted strongly and the leg drawn up, the same child contracted the foot immediately it was gently touched. The infants varied in age between 2 or 3 months and 12 months.— Effects of Climate etc in alter〈ing〉 Mans physical const〈itution〉4 On looking over the Cuvier Museum (The anatomical Museum at the Jardin des Plants Paris)5 I was much struck with the likeness between the models heads of north American Indian chiefs and the typical Yankee as usually represented particularly by comic artists; the likeness between the European modified by the climate of N America, and the N American Indian, is well worthy of notice some of the casts (one in particular) of N A Indian Chiefs heads would serve equally well as

66

February 1875

representations of Yankee heads if the co〈     〉 were changed to represent 〈      〉 of Europeans, I allude particularly to the physiognomy.— I remain | Dear Sir | Yrs truly | John C. Douglas. Certificated Science Master (Physiology & Physics).  author of a work on Telegraph Construction.6 Officiating Superintendent of Telegraphs E.  I.  Govt Telegraph Department.— DAR 162: 239 CD annotations 1.1 In reading … with them.— 1.3] crossed pencil 3.2 when … teeth 3.4] double scored pencil 3.2 seems … teeth 3.4] double scored pencil 4.1 Descent of Man] pencil line across top of paragraph 6.1 On looking … physiognomy.— 6.8] crossed pencil 1 2 3 4 5

6

Douglas refers to Descent, Expression, and Origin. In Expression, p. 45, CD described horses uncovering their teeth when being scratched or combed. CD discussed prehension in the feet of apes and humans in Descent 1: 139–43. CD had expressed doubt about whether climate or other external conditions had produced a direct effect on the anatomy of humans (see Descent 1: 115–16). The comparative anatomy collections in the Muséum d’histoire naturelle were arranged by Georges Cuvier according to his own classificatory scheme, and, from 1817, housed in a building attached to Cuvier’s residence in the Jardin des plantes, Paris (Appel 1987, p. 35). Douglas’s book, A manual of telegraph construction: the mechanical elements of electric telegraph engineering (Douglas 1875) was published in December 1874 (Publishers’ circular, 31 December 1874, p. 1176).

From D. F. Nevill   14 [February 1875]1 Dangstein. Petersfield 14th My dear Sir I am coming up to London, I hope, on the 20th for about 10 days    Is there any chance of our meeting— I should so extremely like and appreciate a personal acquaintance with yourself tho I much fear you will find me dreadfully wanting—for I have to mix so much in a frivolous world that tho my delight is in studies like those you undertake yet I cannot give very much attention to them therefore if we do meet I hope you will make full allowance for my shortcomings and blunders— I have begun to read your sons article in the “Fortnightly” but it appears to me, tho very interesting, abstruse—2 perhaps later on I might understand it   Lady Hawkshaw who is a neighbour of ours and in some way connected with your family tells me that you generally come to London in Feby and that is why I propose seeing you.3 I would call on you—anywhere or at any hour—if you would prefer it Ys most truly | D Nevill DAR 172: 30

February 1875 1 2 3

67

The month and year are established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to D. F. Nevill, 15 February 1875. George Howard Darwin’s article ‘The theory of exchange value’ (G. H. Darwin 1875d) appeared in the February issue of the Fortnightly Review. Ann Hawkshaw’s country home was Hollycombe near Liphook, Hampshire (Post Office directory of Hampshire, Dorsetshire, and Wiltshire). Liphook is about six miles from Nevill’s estate at Dangstein, West Sussex. Her daughter Mary Jane Jackson Hawkshaw had married Godfrey Wedgwood in 1862 and her son Clarke Hawkshaw had married Cicely Mary Wedgwood in 1865. The Darwins often visited London in February or March, but had no fixed time when they went (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)).

From J. W. Draper   15 February 1875 New York | University Washington Square Feb 15th 1875 My Dear Sir Will you permit me to introduce to your friendly notice Mr N. Jovanovitch of Belgrade, Servia.1 He desires to have a conversation with you respecting the translation of some of your works into Servian. And being a friend of Professor Meta Rakitch of the Servian Literary Society who has already translated one of my books (History of the Intellectual Development of Europe) into that language,2 I would earnestly commend him and the object he has in view to your courteous attention I am dear Sir | Your obedient Servant | Jns W Draper. Library of Congress, Manuscript Division (John William Draper Family Papers (Mss18986), Box 3) 1 2

N. Jovanovitch has not been identified. Draper’s book (Draper 1864) was translated into Serbian (‘Servian’ was an alternative spelling at this time; OED) by Mita Rakić (Draper 1871–4). Rakić was elected a member of Srpsko Učeno Društvo (Serbian Learned Society) in 1872 (Milićević 1888–1901). A Serbian translation of Origin, made by Milan Radovanović and authorised by CD, was published in 1878 (Radovanović trans. 1878; see Correspondence vol. 24, letter to Milan Radovanović, 25 August [1876]).

To D. F. Nevill   15 February 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Feb 15. 75 Dear Lady Dorothy Nevill I am much obliged for your Ladyship’s very kind note; but I am sorry to say that I shall not be in London, till later in the spring.1 I am working so hard at my book on Insectivorous Plants that I cannot at present spare the time. This very morning I was correcting the Chapter on Utricularia & had the pleasure to acknowledge my obligations to you.2 You will probably be in London later in the season, & I then hope to have the honour of seeing you. I beg leave to remain your Ladyship’s very faithfully, | Charles Darwin LS American Philosophical Society (463)

February 1875

68 1 2

See letter from D.  F.  Nevill, 14 [February  1875]. CD next visited London from 31  March until 12 April 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). CD acknowledged Nevill for giving him a plant of Utricularia montana (a synonym of U. alpina, alpine bladderwort) in Insectivorous plants, p. 431. The plant is native to northern South America.

To John Murray   16 February [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Feb. 16th My dear Sir On account of a Polish Translation, forming a part of a series of all my books, I much want to know whether you think it worth while to bring out another Edit of the “Variation of Animals & Plants under Domestication”.2 In this case I would prepare (as soon as my present book is printed) notes for each Chapter, but I will not undertake this considerable labour merely for the Polish Edit.— If you cannot give me a definite answer, I will write & tell the Translator. What he is to do for a copy to translate, I do not know, for I do not remember to have seen a copy on sale in any second-hand list— My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin Does the new Edit. of the Descent sell at all well?3 National Library of Scotland (John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 314–15) 1 2

3

The year is established by the reference to Descent 2d ed. (see n. 4, below). The first Polish translation of Variation appeared only in 1888–9 (Freeman 1977). Charles Darwin’s gesammelte Werke (Carus trans. 1875–87) was the only collected edition of CD’s works in any language produced in the nineteenth century. Descent 2d ed. was published in November 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22, letter from R. F. Cooke, 12 November 1874).

From ?   [16 February 1875] The learned Darwin states that Moses taught confusion For Man, he boldly says, descends from Ape or Monkey— I, having read his book, am come to this conclusion Darwin (at least himself) descends from Ass or Donkey DAR 140.4: 25 CD annotation Verso of letter: ‘An anonymous compliment | received Feb 16th 1875.—’ ink

February 1875

69

From J. D. Hooker   17 February 1875 Kew Feby 17/75.

Dear Darwin I write chiefly to say that I called at the Lyell’s last Saturday, but that Sir. Chas. was too unwell to see me— I had a talk with Miss L. who told me that he had been poorly for some days, weaker & that his mind was confused, so that he could not even have Miss Buckley with him for long.1 I am awfully sorry to hear of the fate of the Drosophyllum, & wish I had let it go straight to you from Edinburgh— Smith told me that on its arrival here he did not unpack it, but as a precaution he added another wrap to it.—2 I have not seen Mivart, except at the R. S. twice— he left both times before the meeting was over   I wish he was at Jehanum3 The Huxleys spent Monday eveng with us— he looks worn again & lacking in energy— I am sure that he is not taking care enough of himself:4 Of course I must not turn up my nose at the Glaucium story, nor at anything that DeCandolle believes as to new varieties of Glaucium, (of which no two specimens are alike)—5 We are all much the same: Harriet is quite poorly, & I hope to send her abroad next month— I shall not get to Algeria except I get a secretary—6 Lord Henry has not put the necessary sum in the Estimates—has in fact burked my application without saying a word to me about it— I must wait to see what the Govt. intend to do with that contemptible idiot. The row in the Office between him & the Treasury is disgraceful.— He has cut his 1st. Secretary dead. they have no personal communication—& the official business is conducted through the 2d Secretary, who is forbidden to mention the 1st. Seys name in his presence!— His brother the D. of Richmond is a very different cut of man. & declines I hear to support him.7 Ayrton enjoys it all & laughs in his sleeve—at the mischief he has made.—8 The whole thing is contemptible. Ever yr affec | J D Hooker DAR 104: 14–15 1 2

3

4

Hooker refers to Charles Lyell, his sister Marianne Lyell, and his secretary Arabella Burton Buckley. Hooker had forwarded a plant of Drosophyllum lusitanicum (Portuguese sundew or dewy pine) from the Edinburgh botanic garden, but it was damaged in transit and died (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 10 February [1875] and n. 5). John Smith was curator at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. See letter to J. D. Hooker, 10  February [1875] and n.  9. St George Jackson Mivart was a fellow of the Royal Society of London; Hooker was president of the society. Jehanum (now transliterated from Arabic as Jahannam): Islamic equivalent of hell (Encyclopaedia Britannica, britannica.com, accessed 8 August 2014). Thomas Henry Huxley had suffered a breakdown from overwork in 1873; some of his friends, including CD and Hooker, had raised a subscription so he could take time off (see Correspondence vol. 21). Huxley’s wife was Henrietta Anne Huxley.

70 5 6

7

8

February 1875

See letter to J. D. Hooker, 10 February [1875] and n. 7. Alphonse de Candolle had written about Glaucium plants germinating from long-buried seeds. Glaucium is the genus of horned poppies. Hooker was planning to visit Algeria with his daughter Harriet Anne Hooker but was waiting to see whether his application to have a secretary appointed for him would be successful (see letter from J. D. Hooker, [7 February 1875] and n. 5). Henry Gordon-Lennox was first commissioner of works, in charge of funding for the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; his brother, Charles Henry Gordon-Lennox, sixth duke of Richmond, was leader of the House of Lords and president of the Council. The first secretary at the Office of Works was Algernon Bertram Mitford and the assistant secretary was Robert John Callandar. On the ‘row’, see letter to J. D. Hooker, 10 February [1875] and n. 4. When Acton Smee Ayrton was first commissioner of works, he had come into conflict with Hooker over the running of Kew. The dispute lasted until Ayrton was transferred from his position in August 1873 (for more on the Ayrton affair, see Correspondence vols. 19–21).

From John Murray   17 February [1875]1

50, Albemarle S.t | W. Feby 17

My Dear Sir I shall have no hesitation in sending a new Edn of your “Variation under Domestication” to Press whenever it suits your convenience to revise it.2 We must print it to conform with the last Editions of your other Books & I will make calculations as to page & type3   There has been no great move in ‘the Descent” since my Sale   The Stereo-Plates have been sent to Appleton4 I am | My Dear Sir | yours very sincerely | John Murray Chas Darwin Esq I have sold about 1300 of the Descent. Mr Cooke was quite right in telling you that the 2000 Copies when all sold will not produce more than £100" profit. I shall be happy to send you a cheque for £66" Thus you see cheap Editions involve some pecuniary sacrifice!5 DAR 171: 444 1 2

3 4

5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to John Murray, 16 February [1875]. See letter to John Murray, 16 February [1875]. Variation 2d ed. was published in the second half of February 1876, but the title page gives 1875 as the year of publication (see Publishers’ circular 1 March 1876, p. 168, and Freeman 1977). Later editions of CD’s works were stereotyped so that new impressions could be issued when required. CD had asked about sales of Descent 2d ed. in his letter to Murray of 16 February [1875]. Murray refers to the annual sale dinner he held for the book trade ( J. Murray 1908–9, p. 540). D. Appleton & Co. published the second edition of Descent in New York in 1875 (Descent 2d US ed.), using stereotype plates supplied by Murray for £50 (see Correspondence vol 22, letter to D. Appleton & Co., 5 November 1874). When stereotype plates were made, the cost of re-setting the type for subsequent printings was eliminated. Murray had published a cheap edition of Origin in 1872 (Origin 6th ed.) and a cheap edition of Descent in 1874 (Descent 2d ed.). CD was informed by Robert Francis Cooke that cheap editions were more profitable if the print run was 5000 copies and if the edition was stereotyped to reduce the cost of future printings (see Correspondence vol. 22, letters from R. F. Cooke, 16 June 1874 and 12 November 1874). The last extant letter from Cooke before this time was that of 17 November 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22). The letter from Cooke suggesting a profit of less than £100 has not been found.

February 1875

71

From G. C. Robertson   17 February 1875 6 Lorton Terrace | Ladbroke Rd. W. 17 Feb. 75

Dear Sir, Mrs Litchfield,1 to whom I happened to mention that I had addressed a letter to you at Beckenham, has been good enough to send me word (after seeing you) that you were almost sure you had not received anything from me, adding your proper address in case I wished to write again. I trouble you accordingly with this note, to explain that what I sent was not a letter but a printed prospectus of the projected psychological and philosophical journal ‘Mind’, without any indication from whom it came. Though I can hardly doubt that you received the paper in due course, I will make sure and enclose another copy.2 Perhaps too you will let me take the opportunity of adding that the project is one in which I venture to hope you may take some interest. It is being started with a strong sense of the difficulties to be surmounted before such a journal can be established, but also not without some hope that they may be overcome. To secure high-class work, provision has been made for the regular payment of contributors at an adequate rate, and there is already a good prospect of co-operation from the foremost workers, both English & foreign, on the wide field of Mind. Being charged with the conduct of the journal, I would fain hope that you also may from time to time proffer some assistance. Any notes by you on points of psychological interest would always be most welcome, and possibly you may be induced to make such more readily when you know of a journal at all times open to receive them. I am, with great respect, | Yours truly | G Croom Robertson C. Darwin Esq. DAR 176: 186 1 2

Henrietta Emma Litchfield. The prospectus for the journal Mind has not been found in the Darwin Library–CUL. The journal began publication in 1876; for more on the journal and its scope, see Staley 2009.

To ?   [after 17 February 1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. My dear Sir I am very much obliged for the note which you have forwarded to me, as I shall soon have to prepare a new Edit. of my Variation.2 I am not quite sure whether you meant me to return it, if so please send me a Post-Card & I will have it copied. Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Wellcome Library MS.7781/31 1

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from John Murray, 17 February [1875].

72 2

February 1875

The note has not been identified. John Murray had informed CD that he was willing to bring out a new edition of Variation (see letter from John Murray, 17 February [1875]). Some of CD’s notes for Variation 2d ed. are in DAR 193.

To G. C. Robertson   19 February [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Feb 19. Dear Sir I did receive the circular but had no idea that it came from you.2 The plan of the new Journal seems excellent, & I hope it may be successful. I have so much work in Nat: History half-completed & which I desire to finish, that I am sorry to say I have resolved not to turn to any other subject, so that it is extremely improbable that I can ever be a contributer to your Journal.3 Believe me dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin LS UCL Library Services, Special Collections (Croom Robertson: MS ADD 88/9–15/11) 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from G. C. Robertson, 17 February 1875. Robertson had sent a second copy of a prospectus for the journal Mind (see letter from G. C. Robertson, 17 February 1875 and n. 2). CD published an article in the July 1877 issue of Mind, ‘Biographical sketch of an infant’.

To F. B. Goodacre   20 February 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Feb 20 1875 Dear Sir, I am much obliged for your essay and the honour of the dedication.1 I quite agree with all that you say & I have read the whole with interest. A collection such as you propose would be eminently useful to men like Prof. Boyd Dawkins & Rütimeyer in Switzerland, who have especially attended to the domesticated animals of the prehistoric races of man.2 Under a strictly scientific point of view in reference to zoology the collection could be chiefly useful, I think, in throwing light on the laws of variation.3 But I am not sanguine of success, as I hardly ever meet a naturalist who cares in the least about domesticated productions. A strong remnant of the feeling yet survives that there is a marked distinction between varieties and species, & naturalists regard only the latter. Some years ago a most remarkable animal, namely the masked pig of Japan was exhibited in the Zoological Gardens, but it was not allowed to remain there because it was thought to be a mere variety!4 With sincere hopes for your success & with best thanks | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin Copy DAR 221.4: 202

February 1875 1

2 3

4

73

See letter to F. B. Goodacre, 5 January 1875. CD’s lightly annotated copy of Goodacre’s pamphlet Hemerozoology (Goodacre  1875) is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.  The dedication reads, ‘Dedicated (by permission) to Charles Darwin’. William Boyd Dawkins and Ludwig Rütimeyer were both interested in fossil mammals associated with early human settlements. In his pamphlet, Goodacre included a plan for establishing a museum of domestic animals, which would include fossils, breed diagrams, and mounted specimens of both domestic animals and wild progenitors, as well as hybrids (see Goodacre 1875, p. 14). CD had discussed the Japanese or masked pig in Variation 1: 69–70. The Japanese pig exhibited at the Zoological Gardens, London, in 1861 (see Bartlett 1861), was described as a distinct species by John Edward Gray (Sus pliciceps; J. E. Gray 1862).

From G. G. Bianconi1   22 February 1875 Signore! Io vi debbo ringraziare per la gentile vostra letta. 8. corrente e per l’accoglienza con cui avete onorato il libro che vi diressi.2 Dallo studio delle vostre Opere io aveva già ben conosciuto quanto voi foste persuaso del principio di evoluzione, e quindi non mi ha sorpreso la vostra fede in esso, della quale mi dà conferme la stessa vostra lettera. Ma voi avrete senza dubbio avvertito che le molte prove enumerate nel mio libro mi rendono persuaso della creazione indipendente. Così abbiamo entrambi cercate sinceramente la verità, e solo gli studi futuri potranno dire a quale dei due lati essa si trovi. Io spero tuttavia che questa divergenza non verrà punto a turbare la buona relazione che per mio onore è nata fra noi. Apprendo con pena che la vostra salute sia debilitata; in causa senza dubbio delle soverchie fatiche da voi sostenute. Desidero, e vi auguro che possiate ricuperarla interamente: perchè se la Scienza vi deve molto pel passato, attende anche molto da voi per l’avvenire. Conservatemi la vostra grazia, e credetemi con sentimenti di stima e di ossequio | vostro dev.mo servitore | G. Giuseppe Bianconi. Bologna 22. Febbo. 1875 DAR 160: 182 1 2

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. CD’s letter has not been found, but see the letter from G. G. Bianconi,1 February 1875 and n. 2. Bianconi had sent his book La teoria Darwiniana e la creazione detta indipendente (The Darwinian theory and the independent creation; Bianconi 1874).

To A. B. Buckley   23 February 1875

Down Beckenham Feb. 23. 1875

My dear Miss Buckley I am grieved to hear of the death of my old and kind friend, though I knew that it could not be long delayed, and that it was a happy thing that his life should not

74

February 1875

have been prolonged, as I suppose that his mind would inevitably have suffered. I am glad that Lady Lyell has been saved this terrible blow.1 His death makes me think of the time when I first saw him, and how full of sympathy and interest he was about what I could tell him of Coral reefs and South America.2 I think that this sympathy with the work of every other naturalist was one of the finest features of his character. How completely he revolutionised Geology; for I can remember something of pre-Lyellian days.3 I never forget that almost every thing which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works. Well he has had a grand and happy career, and no one ever worked with truer zeal in a noble cause. It seems strange to me, that I shall never again sit with him and Lady Lyell at their breakfast.— I am very much obliged to you for having so kindly written to me.4 Pray give our kindest remembrances to Miss Lyell,5 and I hope that she has not suffered much in health from fatigue and anxiety. Believe me, my dear Miss Buckley, | Yours very sincerely | Charles Darwin Copy DAR 143: 178 1 2

3 4 5

Charles Lyell died on 22 February 1875; his wife, Mary Elizabeth Lyell, had died in 1873 (ODNB; see Correspondence vol 21, letter from E. A. Darwin to Emma Darwin, 24 April [1873]). CD first met Lyell on 29 October 1836 in London, having just returned from the Beagle voyage (see Correspondence vol. 1, letter to J. S. Henslow, [30–1 October 1836]). Lyell encouraged him to work on the geology of South America and commented on his paper ‘Elevation on the coast of Chili’ before it was read before the Geological Society of London (see Correspondence vol. 1, letter from Charles Lyell, 26 December 1836). Lyell was enthusiastic about CD’s theories on the formation of coral reefs (see Correspondence vol. 2, letter from Charles Lyell, 13 February 1837). For more on CD’s early contact with Lyell, see J. Browne 1995, pp. 348–54. CD refers to Lyell’s belief in gradual change in geology, a view that came to be known as uniformitarianism. For more on Lyell’s impact on geology in the nineteenth century, see J. A. Secord 1997. Buckley’s letter has not been found. Marianne Lyell.

From James Gibb   23 February 1875 5 Mount Pleasant Road | Lewisham. Feb 23. ’75 Sir. I think I have seen in the conduct of my little son, 7 months old, the origin of the shake of the head, as signifying “no”. Within the last few days, for the first time in his life, he has been unwell, & has refused food at meal hours. When the mouth-piece of the bottle has been put to his mouth he has turned from it as far as possible, & when it has followed his mouth he has turned his head in the opposite direction. He saw that the result of turning thus from the bottle was that the bottle was taken away; & after two days of illness as soon as he saw the bottle (if he did not want it) he shook his head; & now, within

Commemorative postcard of Charles Lyell. DAR 157a: 107. By permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library.

76

February 1875

a week of the action being first observed, he uses it (exactly as if he had been taught by those about him) to let it be known he does not wish to eat, or be taken up or put down, as the case may be.1 The nod may have come to signify assent either from the action & the sentiment being both the reverse of the shake & dissent, or it may be a corruption of the bow of submission I do not know whether any explanation of these universal signs has been published. Yours faithfy | Jas Gibb. C. Darwin Esq DAR 165: 35 1

In Expression, p. 273, CD had discussed the lateral head movements of infants refusing food and the forward head movements in accepting food. CD concluded that the nod of affirmation and shake of negation were instinctive, even though not universally employed in all cultures (ibid., pp. 274–7). Gibb’s son was James Glenny Gibb.

To J. D. Hooker   23 February 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Feb 23 1875 My dear Hooker I have just heard from Miss Buckley of Lyell’s death.1 I have long felt opposed to the present rage for testimonials; but when I think how Lyell revolutionized Geology, & aided in the progress of so many other branches of Science I wish that something could be done in his honour. On the other hand, it seems to me that a poor testimonial would be worse than none; & testimonials seem to succeed only when a man has been known & loved by many persons; as in the cases of Falconer & Forbes.2 Now I doubt whether of late years any large number of scientific men did feel much attachment towards Lyell; but on this head I am very ill fitted to judge. I should like to hear sometime what you think, & if any thing is proposed, I shd particularly wish to join in it. We have both lost as good & as true a friend as ever lived. My dear Hooker | yours affectly | Ch. Darwin LS(A) DAR 95: 377–8 1 2

Arabella Burton Buckley’s letter to CD has not been found, but see the letter to A. B. Buckley, 23 February 1875. Charles Lyell died on 22 February 1875. A memorial fund of close to £2000 was raised after the death of Hugh Falconer in 1865, providing for a marble bust of him in the Royal Society of London; a memorial fellowship in his name was also founded in the University of Edinburgh to encourage the study of palaeontology and geology (DNB). CD contributed ten guineas (£10 10s.) to the fund (see Correspondence vol. 13, letter to George Busk, 20 February 1865 and n. 1). After the death of Edward Forbes in 1854, a memorial fund of £452 was raised (CD contributed £5); it was used to fund a bronze medal and book prize for natural history at

February 1875

77

the Royal School of Mines, London, and a bust of Forbes, placed in the Museum of Practical Geology in London (‘Memorial of Professor Edward Forbes’, Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine Archives). Another bust was placed in the Edinburgh Museum (DNB).

To Thomas Belt   24 February 1875

Down Feb. 24, 1875.

My dear Sir I did not answer your kind note, as I waited until I should come to London.1 This however will not be for some weeks, when I hope to have the real pleasure of making your acquaintance My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin. Copy DAR 143: 81 1

Belt’s letter has not been found. CD often visited London in February, but had postponed his visit because he was finishing Insectivorous plants (see letter to D. F. Nevill, 15 February 1875). CD recorded that he finished the manuscript of Insectivorous plants on 29 March 1875 and was in London from 31 March until 12  April (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). CD was a great admirer of Belt’s The naturalist in Nicaragua, which he described as the best natural-history book of travels ever published (Belt 1874a; see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to Fritz Müller, 1 January 1874).

From J. D. Hooker   [24 February 1875]1

Kew Wednesday

Dear old Darwin I feel Lyell’s loss most keenly, he was father & brother to me; & except yourself, no one took that lively generous hearty deep & warm interest in my welfare that he did.—2 I cannot tell you how lonely I begin to feel, how desolate, & how heavily the days, & worse still, the nights, hang on my mind & body.— Well! it is all for the best, i.e. the best that man is born to, poor lot as that may be it is one that no one really wishes to exchange for an unknown one: & we are hence logically driven to the conclusion that the sum of life is more happiness than the reverse. Assuredly the sum of happiness derived from having known & loved Lyell is greatly in excess of the pain felt at his loss: the gap he filled has to be compared with the chink his mere absence for the rest of lives opens. I have arranged for his burial at Westminster Abbey. On Monday I got up a petition signed by some 50 Fellows of the Royal, Geological, & Linnean & at Stanley’s suggestion & promise that it should be attended to, (communicated to Spottiswode), I sent it in yesterday.3 It was by mere accident I went to town on the Monday to vote at the Athenæum, heard of Lyell’s death & was enabled to secure so many voters to sign the petition). which had to be sent to the Dean last night!4

78

February 1875

Yesterday I saw the family, who were pleased with the prospect. Lyell had left no instructions as to his burial; & Lady Lyell5 had hinted hopes that her husband might be thought deserving of the Abbey. The expence will be about £300: the funeral will in so far be private, that there will be no public procession from the House. I have suggested that the invited persons all meet at the Jerusalem Chamber not in Harley Street.—6 As to any other testimonial, I think that this is so incomparably beyond any other that none need be thought of— any other would in my eyes dim the lustre of his memory— his Principles must live for ever—7 they will no more be forgotten than Plato’s, or Faradays8 works; they will always be classical: The idea of a testimonial being in any way required seems to me rather an underrating of the durability his works. Then too there is immense force in what you say of such testimonials only succeeding in cases of strong personal attachment, which Lyell did not succeed in obtaining. Even in Falconers case it took a huge pull to get the money, & his brother’s share was not the least!9 Lyell leaves no family connection to pull at people’s pursestrings. I do not yet know when the funeral is to be, but hope to hear today— if before I close this I will let you know I have arranged I hope to send Harriet to Algiers straight I hope early next month to stay with Mrs Playfair till I come, which will be about middle of April, after the R. S. Selection of Candidates— I must be back on 26 May for “Reception”— at B. House.10 Harriet is far from well & I am ordered to send her abroad. I shall be glad to get away too. for I have a frequent load on the chest just underneath the sternum— I suppose dyspepsia. it comes on when I get anxious I find, & then remains. I am of course worried—& am now again complaining of “my Lord”— he has received a petition to open the Garden in the forenoon, from this neighbourhood & appointed tomorrow to receive a deputation on the subject, & never told me of one or the other!11 I do not suppose he will sanction it; if he does I must resign— As it is I am sending him a vigorous remonstrance & shall Report his conduct privately to the Treasury.12 I have stood 5 years of this worry & am sick of it.— Mitford & I pull together—. My Lord has cut him, does all business (as he calls it) through the 2d. Secy, & commands the latter never to mention Mitford by name in his presence! Ayrton is at the bottom of it all, & chuckling over it.13 Galton of course supports my Lord, I am told by the 2d Secretary, who is a staunch friend to me that Galton has pooh-poohed the idea of a Secretary for me;14 but as nothing is too bad to be attributed to Galton, I will not quite believe so bad of him on an Enemys Evidence— The Royal Socy is my “great consolation” everything there is smooth & pleasant so far.15 Ever yr affec | J D Hooker. DAR 104: 16–19

February 1875 1 2 3

4

5 6

7

8 9 10

11 12

13

14 15

79

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to J. D. Hooker, 23 February 1875. In 1875, the Wednesday following 23 February was 24 February. Charles Lyell had died on 22 February 1875; see letter to J. D. Hooker, 23 February 1875. Hooker refers to the Royal Society of London, the Geological Society of London, and the Linnean Society of London. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley was the dean of Westminster Abbey; William Spottiswoode was treasurer of the Royal Society (ODNB). The Athenaeum Club, a social club for leading literary, scientific, and artistic men, voted periodically to elect new members from a waiting-list of applicants. CD, Hooker, Stanley, and Spottiswoode were all members (Waugh [1888]). Mary Elizabeth Lyell. The Jerusalem Chamber is a room in Westminster Abbey where bodies were sometimes laid before burial (www.westminster-abbey.org, accessed 22 August 2013). Lyell’s residence was at 73 Harley Street, London (Post Office London directory). Lyell’s major work Principles of geology (C. Lyell 1830–3) had gone through several editions; the twelfth edition was published after Lyell’s death at the end of 1875 (C. Lyell 1875; Publishers’ circular, 18 January 1876, p. 13). Michael Faraday. For more on the testimonial for Hugh Falconer, see the letter to J. D. Hooker, 23 February 1875 and n. 2. Falconer’s brother was Charles Falconer. Hooker had already mentioned his plan to send his daughter Harriet Anne Hooker to Algeria, where she would stay with Agnes Playfair. Hooker himself had to be present at the Royal Society annual soirée in April (see letter from J. D. Hooker, [7 February 1875] and nn. 10 and 11). Burlington House in London was the headquarters of the Royal Society at this time. Henry Gordon-Lennox, first commissioner of works, had jurisdiction over the running of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. The Office of Works was part of the Treasury department. Hooker had already spoken to the financial secretary of the Treasury, William Henry Smith, and received support from Stafford Northcote, the chancellor of the Exchequer (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 January 1875). The first secretary at the Office of Works was Algernon Bertram Mitford and the assistant secretary was Robert John Callandar. Hooker’s disputes with the Office of Works began with Gordon-Lennox’s predecessor, Acton Smee Ayrton, in 1871 (see Correspondence vols. 19–21). Douglas Strutt Galton was director of public works and buildings in the Office of Works; he retired in August 1875 (DNB). Hooker had become president of the Royal Society in 1873 (Record of the Royal Society of London).

To Thomas Woolner   24 February 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Feb 24 1875 My dear Mr Woolner I am much obliged to you & your friend for having kindly told me about the Azalea but it so happens that I had already seen the account.1 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS The New York Public Library. Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations. Manuscripts and Archives Division. (Montague Collection of historical autographs) 1

Woolner’s friend has not been identified. The account mentioned has not been identified but may have concerned the fly-catching ability of some azaleas. An article, ‘Azalea viscosa, a fly-catcher’ in the American Naturalist, September 1874, pp. 517–18, discussed the sticky glandular hairs of the swamp

80

February 1875

azalea (now Rhododendron viscosum) and the small insects trapped by them. CD subscribed to the journal and his copy of this issue is in his collection of unbound journals in the Darwin Archive–CUL.

From Chauncey Wright   24 February 1875 Cambridge Feb. 24 1875 Dear Mr Darwin Your letter of last Sept. after its long wanderings reached me at length through Dr Gray in time to serve as a Valentine; and gave me much pleasure; of which not the least part was from the release it gave me from the discipline of a doubt whether my long letter of last summer was properly mailed, or ever reached you.1 It seemed to me,—and this was my chief motive in writing,—that a letter to one interested especially in some of the many points of investigation which lay loose in my mind would serve to give them a greater degree of coherency, with sufficient freedom, than the more rigorous requisites of an essay. I have found that writing in any other style is apt to crystallize one’s meditations into opinions too fixed for clear open thought. I was quite willing to submit them, however, as comparative crudities to so friendly a critic; and I am much gratified that you found so little to object to in the letter.2 I had thought a little upon the point you make that the two motions of the head,—that 〈o〉f denial and that of inspection,—are widely different, and had conceived of their grading into each other in the expression of the mixed mental states. I have since made a sort of geometrical analysis of them as extremes of a series of movements. Thus, placing and holding fixedly the tip of the forefinger on the top of the head, the head can only move on an axis through this point and the turning point in the neck. This is one extreme, the gesture of denial, refusal, warning, &c. By placing the finger successively on the forehead, the tip of the nose and the chin, the axis of rotation is successively brought forward by stages toward the horizontal direction it has in the most neutral of critical considerations. But already at the forehead there is a decided element of consideration introduced into the gesture, according to my instincts of interpretation. Prof. Lowell is unable to recall distinctly the character of the movement like our negative, which he saw in Southern Italy, and learned to understand as an affirmative one;3 but he is so far interested in the question that he has offered to make inquiries of Signore Monti, an Italian gentleman, a native of Sicily, who formerly taught the Italian language in this college.4 If, as I hope, he gets the true gesture from him, I will preserve and transmit to you as accurate a description of it as I can. Very lately reading for the first time in my life the Memorabilia of Xenophon in translation I came to a passage near the beginning of Chap  4, Book I, where Socrates gives an interesting statement of the argument from the appearance of design for the existence of the gods; and I was struck with this sentence “Is it not,” he asks, “like the work of forethought” … “to make the eyelashes grow as a screen that the winds may not injure it, (the eye,)? To make a coping on the parts above the eyes

February 1875

81

with the eye-brows, that the perspiration from the head may not annoy them?”5 It was with the latter query that I was most struck for it was a new suggestion to me and seemed truer than the first. I found that the idea of this use was in the minds of several of my friends; but whence they derived it they could not tell; whether from literature or direct experience. One gentleman, formerly much devoted to athletic exercises, told me that in rowing the perspiration was often annoying from running into the outer corners of his eyes. His eyebrows are rather thin and short. Dr. W. James, Instructor in Physiology in the College, who went with Prof. Agassiz on his first expedition to South America,6 says that he spent several hours a-day in a part of the expedition fishing in the Amazon under a scorching sun; and that the sweat running from his forehead and drying into a brine irritated his eyes excessively, so that he was obliged to bathe them frequently in the river. Fishing under a broiling sun in a tropical stream seems not far removed from the conditions of existence of primeval man! I thought that if you had referred to this use of the eyebrows I should have remembered it; but I made a cursory though fruitless search for it. I have lately read, by the way, the principal additions and corrections in your new edition of the “Descent of Man”; and your less qualified adoption of Mr. Wallace’s views on the use of the lay of the hair on the gorilla’s forearms gave me another hint toward the little speculation on uses, which I venture to propound at the risk of making another long letter.7 The surviva〈l〉 of the panniculus carnosus8 in the human forehead and scalp, (the latter partially rudimentary,) the development of the corrugator muscles, the survival or perhaps even the development of the eye-brows, and the length of the hair on the head, all seem to me related to the denuding of the forehead, which doubtless was by sexual selection, or for ornament. The arrangement of the hair on the foreheads of most hairy animals and in the eye-brows, as well as in the eyelashes, (which do not serve, as Socrates thought, for screens against the wind;) seems to be adapted to keep the rain and perspiration out of their eyes; or to serve for shedding water. Now the loss of this use in the hair on the forehead would have been a considerable expense for beauty, if the correlative adaptations made for it below and above, in the retention or increase, perhaps, of the hair on the brows, and the increase of length in the hair on the head (to serve as a parting thatch for shedding rain, in place of the old shingles,) had not taken its place and laid the foundations for later developments of beauty. The prototypes of the long hairs or vibrissae in the eyebrows of some families perhaps served the same use. (I have met with an instance of this occurring in three successive generations at least.) But the eyebrows are sometimes curly, and may serve, (as a friend suggests, who has curly ones, and is one of the three who have had vibrissae,) to catch the perspiration and rain; which strokes of the hand would remove from time to time. It occurred to me, that in the same way a negro’s woolly mat might serve to catch a tropical shower, and hold it till he has an opportunity to shake it out. Perhaps the panniculus of the scalp served for the latter purpose. The reversal of direction in the hair bordering the forehead in some monkeys may be for a similar service. (The above suggested use of the panniculus could be experimentally determined in this case)    The cowlicks on the

82

February 1875

foreheads of many children may be relics of, or reversions to a similar normal arrangement in the straight-haired varieties or races of primeval men. The vibrissae of the brows, especially in curly ones, would have served in former times as gargoyles; as in the nose they apparently ser〈v〉e for forming drops and extending the conducting and evaporating surfaces of the nasal passages (thus promoting the circulation of the lachrymal ducts.) Other features serving the same important end in vision of shedding water I have hinted at above; namely, the muscles which produce the transverse and vertical furrows of the forehead. Their non-appearance or slight development in childhood indicates the lateness of their acquisition by the race. That these furrows have been serviceable as drains or water courses, taking the place of arrangement in the hair formerly on the forehead, is not inconsistent with the uses of the grief-muscles which you seem to me to have fully made out.9 To compress the eye-ball in the more energetic action of the corrugators and to shade the eyes from excessive light by their lesser action seem to be unquestionable uses. That they should also serve this other use, and that their development has largely depended on this use, are to me none the less credible and even probable views. The inquiry as to which of several real uses is the one through which natural selection has acted for the development of any faculty or organ, or stands and has stood in the first rank of essential importance to an animal’s welfare in the struggle for life, has for several years seemed to me a somewhat less important question than it seemed formerly, and still appears to most thinkers on the subject. The reasons you give why sexual selection should have had much to do with several of the features, of which I have spoken, I still believe are perfectly valid. The uses of the rattling of the rattle-snake, as a protection by warning its enemies and as a sexual call, are not rival uses; neither are the high-reaching and the far-seeing uses of the giraff’s neck rivals; but are in the most intimate conspiracy to the same effects. Furthermore it seems to me presumable that in a long course of development, even in cases of highly specialized faculties, coexisting uses have risen in succession or alternately to the place of first importance, as in the various uses of the hand. This principle of a plurality of coexisting uses involves a very important influence in secondary uses, whether these are incidental and correlative acquisitions or are the more or less surpassed and superseded ones. They serve to connect in some cases the action of natural selection with the inherited effects of habit and exercise. An animal may for a comfort or convenience which bears but little reference to its essential welfare be indirectly furthering through exercise certain faculties, which though rarely called into exercise in functions of prime importance may nevertheless have, or may come to have such functions. Thus the constant or frequent use of the corrugators for forming vertical furrows and draining the forehead into the lachrymal ducts, or down the nose; or drawing the brows together for shading the eyes, may have been a preparation of them for their rarer but more important surgical service of quickly correcting the circulations of the eyes, and thus keeping the vision keen in conditions of exposure to danger. There is nothing in this principle which is really new or different from what you have set forth in your works, except the emphasis or

February 1875

83

prominence I am inclined to give it. The value of a plurality of coexisting uses in making the principle of natural selection and that of the inherited effects of habit cooperate in a larger number of cases and to a greater degree than could otherwise happen, ought to raise the principle from the rank of a scholium to that of a main theorem in the development doctrine. At least my present interest in one of its possible illustrations makes the matter seem so to me. It is, no doubt, a very interesting inquiry how any given organ or faculty is specially related to essential conditions of an animal’s existence; but it is not so important to the theory of natural selection as it would be if the efficacy of this process depended solely or generally on a single or permanent relation of this sort. The aid, too, which sexual selection gets and gives from such an association with habits and natural selection, or through a plurality of uses, is worthy of consideration. I do not conceive the question whether in a given case the coloring of an animal is protective or sexually attractive is a question of alternatives, of which only one can be true. Sexual selection may in one case take up what natural selection has laid down; as in lengthening the hair beyond its value as a thatch for keeping the rain from the forehead and eyes. Or this agency having perhaps elaborated, in another case, the woolly mat of the negro, the hair may then have curled still closer than taste demanded, from its value in holding water; and then, later, sexual selection would return to the artificial cultivation of the African savage’s coiffure. Among the multitude of topics in my head last summer one, for which I had no space from the length of my letter, related to a class of gestures used in reflection, meditation and, I may add, continuous thought or speach under distracting circumstances. To some of these gestures you refer where you say, “Why the hand should be raised to the mouth or face in deep thought is far from clear”.10 I came to this question from the speculations of which I wrote; and I hope, since it would make this letter too long to do so now, to discuss it with you at some other time. But I may state here one general conclusion which I had reached. The service on which many gestures seem to be founded appears to be to prevent the attention from wandering by turning it to something upon which it can readily be kept, and from which it can as readily be recovered. This prevents its wandering too far or into the swamp of vague uncontrollable feelings such as those of self-attention, visceral sensations and the reflexes from involuntary movements. The great sensibility of the face, especially about the mouth, seems to me to explain the gesture to which you especially refer; and even the pressure of the hand 〈on〉 the forehead appears to relate rather to vague sensations in it, thus controlled by the hand, than to any direct effect of the pressure on the action of the brain. But the full justification of these conclusions is a long argument into which I will not here enter. I send in the same mail with this letter a number of the “Nation”, which contains a couple of “Notes” by me about books on evolution. They begin at the foot of page 113.11 Very sincerely yours | Chauncey Wright. DAR 181: 173 fos. 1–5

84 1

2 3

4 5 6 7

8

9 10 11

February 1875

See Correspondence vol. 22, letter to Chauncey Wright, 21 September 1874 and 29 January 1875. CD’s letter had been incorrectly addressed and was returned to him; he sent the letter again, care of Asa Gray. CD had suggested that Wright should publish his views on head movements (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to Chauncey Wright, 21 September 1874 and 29 January 1875). James Russell Lowell had mentioned to Wright that he noticed, when in southern Italy, a shake of the head similar to a negative one expressed deliberative assent rather than simple affirmation. See Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Chauncey Wright, 3 September 1874. Luigi Monti was an instructor in Italian at Harvard University from 1854 to 1859 (Appleton’s cyclopaedia of American biography). The quotation is from Memorabilia 1.4.6. William James accompanied Louis Agassiz on the Thayer Expedition to Brazil as a student volunteer. For more on James’s experience, see Machado ed. 2006. In Descent 2d ed., pp. 151–2, CD expanded a discussion of the direction of hair in apes and humans, including for the first time remarks about gorillas made by David Livingstone. In his original discussion of the topic (Descent 1: 193), CD had referred to observations of Alfred Russel Wallace on the orangutan, which suggested that the direction of hair growth could help in throwing off rain. Livingstone’s observations supported Wallace’s view. The panniculus carnosus is a thin sheet of striated muscle embedded in the lowest skin layer of many mammals; it produces local movement of the skin. In humans, only vestigial remnants remain. See Landau ed. 1986. CD discussed the panniculus carnosus in Expression, pp. 101, 298. CD discussed the muscles and expressions associated with grief in Expression, pp. 178–97. Expression, p. 230. CD’s annotated copy of the unsigned article in the Nation, 18 February 1875, pp. 113–14, is in DAR 226.2: 181. Wright divided books on evolution into two categories, the scientific and inductive, represented by CD’s own books, and the speculative and philosophical, such as the works of Herbert Spencer.

To George Cupples   25 February 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Feb 25. 75 My dear Sir Last night it suddenly occurred to me that I had not sent you the last Edition of the Descent of Man published in November.1 How I could have forgotten & what made me think of it last night is beyond my comprehension. I have written to Murray2 to send you a copy; not that I suppose that you will care much about it, but I do care very much that you should not think me ungracious & ungrateful. The case about the greyhounds almost broke down3 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS Max Rambod (dealer) December 2001 1 2 3

CD refers to Descent 2d ed. John Murray. Cupples had provided CD with information on the proportion of sexes preserved in litters of greyhounds (see Descent 2d ed., p. 258 n. 99, and Correspondence vol. 22).

February 1875

85

To J. D. Hooker   25 February [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Feb. 25th My dear Hooker Your letter so full of feeling has interested me greatly. I cannot say that I felt his death much for I fully expected it, & have looked for some little time at his career as finished.2 I dreaded nothing so much as his surviving with impaired mental powers. He was indeed a noble man in very many ways,—perhaps in none more than in his warm sympathy with the work of others. How vividly I can recall my first conversation with him, & how he astonished me by his interest in what I told him.3 How grand, also, was his candour & pure love of truth. Well he is gone, & I feel as if we were all soon to go. But I believe your grief is largely owing to all that you have lately suffered; & in part to the mental fatigue & annoyance which you have undergone.—4 I do most truly rejoice that you will soon leave England for a short time, & do not, I beg you, work your body too hard. I am certain that you are mind & body worn out, & one of the two can not rest if the other is still worked.5 I am deeply rejoiced about Westminster Abbey,—the possibility of which had not occurred to me when I wrote before.6 I did think that his works were the most enduring of all Testimonials (as you say) to him; but then I did not like the idea, of his passing away with no outward sign of what scientific men thought of his merits. Now all this is changed, & nothing can be better than Westminster Abbey. Mrs Lyell has asked me to be one of the pall-bearers; but I have written to say that I dared not, as I shd so likely fail in the midst of the ceremony & have my head whirling off my shoulders.—7 All this affair must have cost you much fatigue & worry, & how I do wish you were out of England.— I never could have believed in such conduct as that of Lord. H. about the Kew deputation.8 I fear from what you say that Harriet is much ailing, & I shd. think the Doctors were quite right. And now my head is rocking, so farewell my dear old friend | Yours affecty | Ch. Darwin DAR 95: 379–81 1 2 3 4

5 6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, [24 February 1875]. See letter from J. D. Hooker, [24 February 1875]. Hooker had written about how deeply he felt the loss of Charles Lyell, who died on 22 February 1875. CD first met Lyell on 29 October 1836 (see letter to A. B. Buckley, 23 February 1875 and n. 2). Hooker’s wife, Frances Harriet Hooker, had died suddenly on 13 November 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to J. D. Hooker, [17 November 1874] and n. 3). Hooker had lately been in a dispute with Henry Gordon-Lennox, the first commissioner of works, over an application to have a secretary appointed to him (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 17 February 1875 and n. 7). Hooker was planning to visit Algeria with his daughter Harriet Anne Hooker (see letter from J. D. Hooker, [24 February 1875]). Hooker had arranged to have Lyell buried at Westminster Abbey (see letter from J. D. Hooker, [24 February 1875]).

86 7 8

March 1875

CD’s letter to Katherine Murray Lyell has not been found. Gordon-Lennox had planned to receive a deputation concerning a petition to open the botanic garden in the mornings, but had not informed Hooker (see letter from J. D. Hooker, [24 February 1875]).

From George Cupples   1 March 1875 The Cottage, | Guard Bridge | Fifeshire N.B. March 1/75 Dear Mr Darwin, Pray accept of my warm thanks for your very very kind remembrance of me, and for the copy of the 2d. edition of “The Descent of Man”.1 I see it contains additions of great interest, and have read the preface and begun to go over the text. I cannot help being struck by the notion that some “od force” of a psychical kind—or current of “animal magnetism”2—from my side, has tended to bring me this welcome renewal of your favour, otherwise so disproportionate to its very trifling deserts. It seems to me a curious coincidence that I had been three or four times on the point of writing to you on some slight pretext—each time deterred by the thought of troubling you. The night before I got your note, I had brought my courage to the decision of doing so that very morning, with the extract from a newspaper which I now send in the idea that it may amuse you, if you have not already chanced to see it. It appears to me immensely good. I venture to ask that you would return it at your leisure.3 It has to my mind a value beyond the mere fun of the occasion. I had seen it stated that you were about to publish some other new work—(which was one of the occasions above referred to, for wishing to ask how your health stood under so wonderful a continuance of labour.) Another was the reported movement of the St Andrew’s University, near here, to endeavour to have their Rectorship made known in the world by connection with your name4—(which, however, was felt to be too much to aspire to, considering the relative positions—though it is certainly extraordinary to what heights of self-assurance a Scotch constituency will rise, since Edinburgh first attempted to make Macaulay its delegate to Parliament, as I well remember.).5 If it had seemed anything more than a Utopian imagination on the part of the students and Professors, I was desirous to have written to you a word or two in favour of the country hereabouts—hyperborean though it is—in the hope that you might at least think of it for an actual visit. As to the Greyhound business6—I waited and waited in vain for the promised returns of my Irish correspondent, Mr [Magahan], breeder of the famous “Master Magrath”—notwithstanding a reminder from me, after his cordial offers (which might have been called really “gushing”.7 An English coursing-man of noted position (whose name I forget) failed me in a similar way, though professedly willing. So did a third authority, on whom I had counted. In fact, this union of desire with incapacity, and the ultimate refuge taken in utter silence—are singularly characteristic of sporting men. One intelligent gamekeeper like Rayner—whose well-meant

March 1875

87

but inadequate attempts were given to the object8—is worth a dozen of them—for no false shame has to be dealt with in cases like his. For my own part, I must say I was ashamed to write further to you about it—at all events had nothing to justify writing again. Would it not be desirable to take every opportunity, in published works on Natural History, of pressing upon sporting men, on their gamekeepers also, and their other servants—and on stock-breeders and others in that line—that they should not only observe carefully, but keep accurate records; being assured of the fact that these latter may at any time become important. This habit has scarcely begun yet. Your works have laid the foundation for its exercise. In this connection I may say that if there is any point on which statistics are specially required, I know of several persons in various parts of the world who would gladly look out for them. In particular, I have had visits lately from two young Science Professors going out to the new Otago University—whose services could be commanded.9 In haste for post | yours ever truly— | George Cupples to Chas. Darwin, Esqre. P.S. Kindest regards from my wife to Mrs Darwin and yourself.10 DAR 161: 303 1 2

3 4

5 6

7

8 9

10

See letter to George Cupples, 25 February 1875. CD had arranged to have a copy of Descent 2d ed. sent to Cupples. ‘Od’ was the name given by Karl von Reichenbach to the vital or life-force pervading all nature and accounting for various physical and psychological phenomena (OED). The term ‘animal magnetism’ was used to describe an invisible force that could have physical effects, such as the transference of thoughts from one person to another. For more on the concept, see Winter 1998. The newspaper extract has not been identified. A report in the Pall Mall Gazette, 22 September 1874, p. 7, stated that students of the University of St Andrews had started a movement to elect CD as rector. CD had earlier been proposed as a candidate for rector of the University of Aberdeen, but declined to stand because of ill health (see Correspondence vol. 20, letter to J. S. Craig, 7 November 1872). Thomas Babington Macaulay was invited to stand as parliamentary candidate for Edinburgh and was elected in June 1839 (ODNB). In his letter of 25 February 1875, CD remarked that the case about greyhounds almost broke down. Cupples had provided CD with information on the proportion of sexes preserved in litters of greyhounds (see letter to George Cupples, 25 February 1875 and n. 3). James Galwey was the breeder of the famous coursing greyhound Master McGrath (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from George Cupples, 12 March 1874 and n. 2). Mr Magahan has not been identified. With his letter of 21 February 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22), Cupples had enclosed a letter from Frederick Rayner on greyhound breeding. Otago University in Dunedin, New Zealand, was founded in 1869 and opened in July 1871. The professors have not been identified, but many early faculty members were recruited from Scotland. (See Morrell 1969.) Cupples’s wife was Anne Jane Cupples.

88

March 1875

From Oswald Heer1   1 March 1875 Mein geehrtester Herr! Ihre freundlichen Zeilen vom vorigen Jahr, die ich Ihnen, obwal spät, bestens verdanke, ermuthigen mich Ihnen den dritten Band meiner Flora fossilis arctica zu übersenden u. demselben einige Zeilen vorauszuschicken.2 Ich habe das Buch einer Sendung an unsern gemeinsamen Freund, Dr. Hooker,3 beigelegt u. hoffe, dass dasselbe in nächster Zeit Ihnen zukommen werde. Es enthält dasselbe eine Darstellung der Kreide=Flora der arctischen Zone, welche theils in Grönland zwischen 70. u. 71o N. Br., theils in Spitzbergen bis 78o N. von Prof. Nordenskiöld4 gesammelt worden ist. Glücklicher Weise wurde in Grönland eine ältere Kreideflora, welche aber wahrscheinlich dem Urgon angehört, zugleich aber auch eine jüngere Flora, die ins Cenoman einzurechnen ist, entdeckt. Die erstere besteht fast ausschliesslich aus Cryptogamen (voraus Farn), Cycadeen u. Coniferen u. hat ein Subtropisches Gepräge.5 Von angiospermen Dicotyledonen konnte eine einzige Art nachgewiesen werden, ein Populus, der zu einer Gruppe von Pappeln gehört, die in der obern Kreide u. im Tertiär in mehreren Arten erscheint u. in der Pop. euphratica den ähnlichsten lebenden Repraesentanten hat.6 Es ist diess die älteste, bis jetzt bekannte dicotyledon. Pflanze. (natürlich mit Ausschluss der Gymnospermen, welche von den ächten Dicotyledonen sehr verschieden sind).7 Es fehlen in Europa die Dicotyledonen in der untern Kreide ebenfalls; dagegen treten sie in der obern Kreide u. zwar schon im Cenoman, in Europa u. Amerika in grosser Verbreitung auf, u. ebenso erscheinen sie zu dieser Zeit in Nordgrönland u. zwar nicht etwa nur in einzelnen wenigen Typen, sondern in einer ganzen Reihe von Arten, welche Familien angehören, die im System weit auseinander liegen, wie Pappeln, Ficus, Myrica, Diospyros,—Araliaceen, Magnoliaceen, Myrtaceen, Leguminosen u.a.m.8 Mehrere dieser Familien sind nicht allein in den Blättern, sondern auch in den Früchten uns erhalten, so Ficus, Myrica, Panax,9 Magnolia.— Es mag nun allerdings sein, dass einzelne dieser Gattungen schon in der untern Kreide ihren Anfang nahmen u. vielleicht da noch entdeckt werden. Allein wenn wir auch mit der untern Kreide die Dicotyledonea beginnen lassen wollen, müssen wir doch zugeben, dass diese Abtheilung des Pflanzenreiches, die die Hauptmasse der Vegetation der jetzigen Zeit bildet, erst relativ spät auftritt u. in (geologisch gesprochen) kurzer Zeit eine grosse Entfaltung erhielt. Vom Devon an bis zur Kreide haben wir einen unendlich langen Zeitraum, während dessen, so viel wir bis jetzt wissen, die Pflanzenwelt nur in Cryptogamen, Coniferen & Cycadeen und einigen wenigen Monocotyled. erscheint.10 In der obern Kreide aber geht auf einmal eine grosse Veränderung in der Pflanzenwelt vor sich u. überall wo bislang fossile Pflanzen in derselben gefunden wurden: in Mähren, Boehmen, Sachsen, am Harz, bei Quedlinburg, in Westphalen, bei Aachen, in Südfrankreich, in Rüssland, in Grönland, in Nebraska u. im tropischen Afrika (von wo ich neuerdings von Dr. Schweinfurth11 aus der obern Kreide Diospyros-Früchte erhielt), erscheinen nun zum ersten Mal die (angiosperm.) Dicotyledonen u. geben in relativ kurzer Zeit der Pflanzenwelt eine ganz andere Physiognomie. Im Eocen haben wir dann eine weitere Entwicklung dieser Formen. Es

March 1875

89

hat eine unendlich lange Zeit gedauert bis die ersten Dicotyledon. entstanden u. wie diese gebildet, fand eine rasche Entfaltung derselben statt. Damit scheint mir eine andere wichtige Erscheinung in Verbindung zu stehen. Abgesehen von den kleinen Säugethieren des Jura, die wahrscheinlich von Insekten gelebt haben, treten die omnivoren u. herbivoren Mammalia erst im Eocen auf. Wir dürfen wohl sagen, dass in allen frühern Perioden, von dem Carbon bis zur mittlern Kreide die Pflanzen für die Säugethiere keine Nahrung geliefert haben würden. Keine Säugethiere leben von Farn, Equiseten u. Lycopodien u. auch die Cycadeen u. Coniferen12 geben für sie eine sehr kärgliche Nahrung, deren sich die der Jetztwelt nur im Nothfall u. bei Hungersnoth etwa bedienen. Die Hauptnahrung, die sie aus dem Pflanzenreich beziehen, liefern die Dicotyledonen u.  die Gramineen.13 Nun treten allerdings einzelne Gramineen mit den Dicotyledon.  Schon in der Kreide auf und somit entstanden auch schon zu dieser Zeit die Lebensbedingungen für dieselben, doch müssen sie schon eine gewisse Verbreitung gehabt haben, um als Grundlage ihres Lebens dienen zu können. Da schon im Untereocen Paridigitata u. Imparidigitata14 vorkommen, mögen wohl einzelne Typen schon in der obern Kreide entstanden sein, doch zeigen uns die Säugethiere im Eocen dieselbe Erscheinung, wie die Pflanzen in der obern Kreide, indem auch bei ihnen in dieser Zeit eine auffallend rasche Entwicklung eintrat. Wie zur Zeit der obern Kreide, so bestand auch zur Eocenzeit in Europa die Pflanzenwelt grossentheils aus Baümen u. Sträuchern mit steifen, lederartigen Blättern es fehlten noch die von Gräsern gebildeten Wiesengründe u.  das aus weicherm Laub gebildete Buschwerk. Die Säugethiere werden daher vorherrschend von Pflanzenwurzeln u. von den Früchten den Bäume gelebt haben, von den Früchten von Ficus, Quercus,15 Diospyros u.s.w., die uns aus dieser Zeit bekannt sind. Sie waren daher Omnivoren, worauf auch der Zahnbau der eocenen Säugethiere weist. Erst von der untern Miocen-Zeit an begegnet uns ein grösserer Reichthum von Gramineen u. zahlreiche Bäume u. Sträucher mit fallendem, weichem Laub (so Acer, Ulmus, Carpinus, Corylus, Alnus, Fraxinus Robinia u.s.w.).16 Von dieser Zeit an war daher das Land mit Wiesengründen bedeckt u. mit Baum- u. Strauch-werk bewaldet, das durch seine Blätter zur Ernährung der Säugethiere dienen konnte. In diese Zeit fällt nun aber gerade eine grosse Umwandlung in der Säugethierwelt, indem die Wiederkauer zu den dominirenden Waldthieren werden u.  die Omnivoren mehr zurücktreten. Es hat Kowalevsky gewiss mit vollem Recht in seiner interessanten Monographie der Anthracotherien auf diese Erscheinung hingewiesen, nur hat er auf die Gramineen einen zu grossen Werth gelegt, indem er ihnen allein eine solche Bedeutung zuschreibt.17 Es leben die Wiederkäuer keineswegs nur von Gramineen, ja wir sehen, dass manche nahe verwandte Arten in dieser Beziehung grosse Verschiedenheit zeigen (so Schaaf u. Ziege) u. viele leben mehr vom Laub der Bäume u. Sträucher als vom Gras. Durch den Tod Lyells ist mir eine grosse Freude zu nichte geworden.18 Ich habe ihm das Buch per Post zugesandt, es hat ihn aber nicht mehr bei Bewustsein getroffen. Ich habe an ihm einen lieben, vortrefflichen Freund verloren, dessen ich stets in herzlichster Dankbarkeit u. Liebe gedenken werde!

90

March 1875

Noch habe ich eine grosse, vielleicht unbescheidene Bitte an Sie. Es wäre mir eine grosse Freude Ihre Photographie zu besitzen u. möchte Sie um dieselbe bitten. Mich Ihnen bestens empfehlend | verbleibe | in grösster Hochachtung | Ihr ergebenster | Oswald Heer. Zürich | 1 März 1875. Es macht mir zwar keine Mühe das Englische zu verstehen, wohl aber es zu schreiben, daher ich so frei bin Ihnen einen deutschen Brief zu senden. [Contemporary translation] Your friendly lines of last year … encourage me to send you the third vollume of my Flora arctic fossils, & to write you a few lines beforehand. I have put the book in a parcell to our common friend Dr. Hooker, & hope it will soon reach you. The same contains a representation of the chalk-Flora of the arctic zone, which has been collected partly in Greenland between 70o & 71 N. partly in Spitzbergen in 71o by Professer Nordanswöld. Happily there was discovered in Greenland an older Chalkflora, which probably belongs to the Urgon at the same time also a younger flora which is to be derived from Cenoman. The first consists almost entirely of Cryptogama, (first Forna) Cycadeen? Coniforen etc & has a sub tropical character. A single speciës of angiospermen Dicotyledonen could be pointed out, a Populus which belongs to a group of Pappela which appears in the upper chalk & in the tertiary in many species, & in the possenphratica has the same living representatives. This is the oldest as yet named dicotyledon plant. Of course with the exception of the gymnopermen, (which are very .... from the real Dicotyledonen. The Dicotyledonen in the lower chalk of Europe are missing, but on the contrary they appear in the upper chalk, & even in the Cenoman far spread in Europe & America & they appear in this part (i.e. upper chalk) in North Greenland, & not in single types but rather in a whole row of Species, which belong to families which vary from each other in system widly as Pappela, Fious, Myrica, Diospyros—Araliaceen, Magnouliaceen, Myrtaceen, Leguminosen; etc. Many of these families we have received not alone the leaves of but also the fruit, as Fious, Myrica, Panax, Magnolia. It may certainly be, that single ones of these species had their beginning already in the lower chalk, , & per haps were discovered. But even if we allow that the Dicotyledonen begin with the lower chalk, we must own that this division of the plant kindgom which forms the chief mass of the vegitation In the upper chalk a great change however appears all at once in the Flora, and especially where ?hitherto—fossile plants are found in it; in Mähren ?Moravia Bohemia Saxony in the Harz mountains, at Quedlinburg in Westphalia in Greenland, in Nebraska & in tropical Africa (whence I have lately received Diospyros seeds from Dr. Schweinfurth from the upper chalk) appear now for the first time the (angiosperm)

March 1875

91

Dicotyledons & impart in a relatively short time to the flora an entirely new physiognomy. then In the Eocene we have a further development of these forms. An immensely long time has passed up to the time when the first Dicotyledons arose, and when these were formed, a rapid development of them took place. Only one other important appearance stands in relation therewith. Setting on one side the little mammals of the Jura, which probably lived on insects, the omnivorous & herbivorous mammals first appear in the Eocene. We may well say that in all earlier periods, from the coal up to the middle chalk, plants afforded no sustenance to mammals. No mammals live on fern, Equisetaceæ & Lycopods, and further the Aseadeæ (or Cycadeæ) & Conifers afford a very scanty nourishment, which at the present time is only used slightly in necessity & famine. Dycotyledons & Gramineæ afford the chief vegetable food. The Gramineae now appear too one by one, with the dicotyledons. Simultaneously in the chalk the conditions of life for them arise; yet they must have already have had a certain dissemination so as to be able to serve as a basis for their existence. Then in the under Eocene paridigitata & imparidigitata arise; & even altho’ isolated types had appeared in their upper chalk, yet the mammals in the Eocene show us the same appearances, as the plants in the upper chalk, since amongst them also a strikingly rapid development took place during this period. Just as in the upper chalk period, so also in the Eocene    In Europe the flora consisted for the most part of trees & shrubs with stiff leathery leaves, and meadows formed of grasses were wanting, as also was wanting bushes with soft leaves. The mammals were supported principally from roots of plants & on fruits seeds of trees, fruits of the Ficus, the Cluerous (??) the Diospyros &c, which are known to us as belonging to this period. That they were omnivorous on all these fruits, the teeth structure of the Miocene Mammals proves to us. From the lower Miocene period onwards a greater wealth of Gramineæ meets us, and numerous trees & shrubs, with falling soft leaves (as Acer Ulmus Carpinus Corylus, Alnus Fraxinus Robinia (?) &c) From this time on, the country was covered with meadows which were wooded with trees & shrubs, which might serve by their leaves to nourish mammals. At this period a great change appears in mammal fauna, whilst the chewers of cud become the dominating forest animals, and the omnivorous retire more & more into the background Kovalevsky has certainly in his interesting monograph correctly established (???) the Anthracothercia on this appearance, only he has built a too great a structure on the Gramineæ, because he ascribes to them alone so great a significance. The chewers of cud live by no means entirely on Graminea; observe indeed, that many nearly allied Species exhibit great differences in this respect (for example sheep & goats) and many live more on leaves of trees & twigs than on grass. Lyell’s death has destroyed a great pleasure for me   I sent him the book by post, but it did not reach him alive. I have lost in him a dear excellent friend, whom I shall always think of in the most heartfelt thankfulness & love.

92

March 1875

I have yet a great, perhaps forward (immodest) request to make you. It would be a great pleasure for me to possess your photograph, & might I request it | O. Heer. DAR 166: 130 CD annotations19 End of contemporary translation: ‘Lyell— last time I saw him he was talking with The greatest interest about you & when he last saw you’ pencil; ‘Photograph’ brown crayon; ‘(Yourself)’ pencil; ‘My new Book— | It is most wonderful case— on whatever view of evolution is taken I shd be inclined to speculate on that head   plants, having been developed in an isolated area then spread’ pencil; ‘Many as have been the wonderful discussions in Geology during last years none have exceeded or equalling yours about the N. Flora— | Your Book’ ink 1 2

3 4 5

6

7 8

9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. A contemporary translation of the letter, with annotations by CD, is included above. Heer sent the third volume of his seven-volume work on fossil flora of the Arctic regions (Heer 1868– 83). CD’s copies of volumes 3–6 are in the Darwin Library–CUL. His copy of the first part of the second volume is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Joseph Dalton Hooker. Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld. Urgonian refers to a series of massive limestones of the Lower Cretaceous system as developed at Orgon in the Durance valley, France; Cenomanian refers to a subdivision of the Upper Cretaceous period, corresponding to the Lower Chalk and Upper Greensand of British geologists (OED). Cryptogamia was a Linnaean order that included all plants with concealed reproductive organs. Although the name is no longer a valid taxon, the descriptive term cryptogam is still used to refer to plants that reproduce by spores. Dicotyledoneae is a former class of flowering seed-plants or angiosperms characterised by the presence of two embryonic seed-leaves or cotyledons; it is now subsumed within the class Magnoliopsida. Populus euphratica, the Euphrates poplar, belongs to the family Salicaceae. Gymnosperms (infradivision Gymnospermae), or non-flowering seed-plants, may have anywhere from two to twenty-four embryonic leaves or cotyledons, and the number may vary within some species. Ficus is the genus of figs; Myrica is the genus of bayberry; Diospyros is the genus of persimmons. Araliaceae is the family of ginseng and ivy; Magnoliaceae is the family of magnolias; Leguminosae (the alternative name Fabaceae is now often used) is the family of peas and legumes. Panax is the genus of ginseng. The time interval separating the end of the Devonian period from the beginning of the Cretaceous period had not been determined. Charles Lyell had attempted to quantify the length of geological periods in the tenth edition of his Principles of geology (C. Lyell 1867–8, 1: 300–1), but had removed the estimates from later editions (see Burchfield 1998 for more on estimates of geological time during this period). Monocotyledoneae is a former class of flowering seed-plants or angiosperms characterised by the presence of one embryonic seed-leaf or cotyledon; it is now subsumed within the class Magnoliopsida. The present superorder Lilianae includes all the monocots. Georg August Schweinfurth. Equisetaceae is the family of horsetails; Lycopodiaceae is the family of club mosses; Cycadaceae is the family of cycads; Coniferae was formerly the class of conifers (now Pinopsida). Gramineae (the alternative name Poaceae is now often used) is the family of grasses. Paridigitata and Imparidigitata were former subdivisions of herbivores roughly equivalent to the modern orders Artiodactyla and Perissodactyla (even-toed and odd-toed ungulates). Quercus is the genus of oaks. Acer is the genus of maples; Ulmus: elms; Carpinus: hornbeams; Corylus: hazels; Alnus: alders; Fraxinus: ashes; Robinia: locust trees. In his monograph on Anthracotherium (a genus of ungulates that became extinct by the late Miocene period), Vladimir Onufrievich Kovalevsky had discussed changes in dentition in ungulates from the

March 1875

18 19

93

Miocene to the present day, arguing that the principal cause for the changes was the shift to a graminivorous diet (Kovalevsky 1873–4, pp. 272–3). He concluded that most ungulates that could not shift from an omnivorous to a graminivorous diet had gradually died out (ibid., p. 274). Charles Lyell died on 22 February 1875 (ODNB). CD’s annotations are notes for his reply to Heer of 8 March [1875].

From Moritz Traube1   2 March 1875 Breslau, | Junkernstr 7. 2. Maerz 1875 Hochgeehrter Herr! Gestatten Sie mir, Ihnen inliegend zwei Abhandlungen von mir zu überweisen.2 Es ist mir gelungen, einige bisher für spezifisch gehaltene, der physikalischen Forschung scheinbar unzugängliche Lebensprozesse, die Bildung der Zellhaut, ihres Wachsthums durch Intraposition der Moleküle (Intussusception) u.  verschiedene Wachsthumserscheinungen der Zellen überhaupt durch physikalisch- chemische Experimente zu erläutern u. zu zeigen, daß auch unorganische Massen unter gewissen Bedingungen die Gestalt von Zellen annehmen, die in Bezug auf Form u. Wachsthum ähnliche Erscheinungen aufweisen, wie die lebenden Zellen selbst,— selbstverständlich ohne deren sonstige Lebens-Eigenschaften zu besitzen.3 Die bereits 1866  veröffentlichten Versuche haben zwar endlich vor Kurzem bei einem unserer bedeutendsten Pflanzenphysiologen, H. Professor Julius Sachs in dessen Lehrbuch der Botanik (erste Auflage 1873. S. 580–88)4 eine mir sehr erfreuliche Anerkennung gefunden, aber auch gleichzeitig einige Einwendungen erfahren, die ich in der zweiten Abhandlung (vorgetragen in der vorjährigen Naturforscherversammlung in Breslau) widerlegte.5 Im Übrigen sind diese Versuche auch in Deutschland nur wenig, in England wohl gar nicht bekannt geworden u. da jeder wissenschaftliche Fund als nicht existirend anzusehen ist, so lange er keine genügende Anerkennung gefunden, so würde es mir zu hoher Freude gereichen, wenn Sie, Hochverehrter Herr, die so gewichtige Autorität in Fragen des organischen Lebens, diese Versuche der Beachtung werth fänden u. die Überzeugung gewinnen würden, daß sie in der That zur Aufhellung einiger wichtiger organischer Probleme beizutragen geeignet sind. In gewisser Beziehung haben meine Versuche einen Zusammenhang mit Ihrer Entwicklungstheorie. Ihre erfolgreiche Bemühung, die Mannigfaltigkeit der organischen Natur von dem Wunder unzähliger, besonderer Schöpfungen zu befreien u.  auf natürliche Ursachen zurückzufüren, ist offenbar eng verwandt mit jener naturwissenschaftlichen Richtung, die bemüht ist, die für spezifisch gehaltenen Lebensprozesse als einfach physikalisch-chemische Vorgänge zu erweisen. Jeder Erfolg in der letzteren Richtung ist eine neue Stütze für die Entwicklungstheorie, insofern er beweist, daß die bei fortschreitender Entwicklung der organischen Welt neu auftretenden Lebenseigenschaften nur auf einer besonderen Anwendung bereits vorhandener anorganischer Kräfte beruhen. In diesem Sinne könnte man aus meinen Untersuchungen schließen, daß die Organismen, die zuerst mit von einer

94

March 1875

Membran umgebenen Zellen auftreten, diese Fähigkeit, Zellen zu bilden, nicht als neue Kraft zuerstlich erhielten, sondern aus der unorganischen Natur entlehnten. Es zeichnet | mit größter Hochachtung | ergebenst | M. Traube. [Contemporary translation] Breslau | Ju(?)nkerstr. March 2nd. 1875

Highly honoured Sir— Permit me to offer you the two enclosed treatises of mine. I have succeeded by physico-chemical experiments in explaining some life- processes which till now were considered organic, (spezifisch) and (were) apparently inaccessible to physical enquiry; (viz.) the formation of the cell wall, its growth through the intraposition of Molecules, (intussusception.) and other general phenomena of the growth of cells, and in showing that under certain circumstances inorganic matter takes the form of cells which as to shape and growth present phenomena resembling those of living cells—of course without their life properties. These experiments, published as early as 1866, have at last (a short time ago) been recognized in a very satisfactory way by one of our foremost botanical physiologists Prof. Julius Sachs in his Handbook of Botany. (1st. Ed. 1873 pp. 580–88) At the same time some objections were raised against them which however I refuted in my second treatise (lecture) delivered at last year’s Conference of Naturalists at Breslau. But this excepted, these experiments have been little noticed even in Germany; & in England have probably remained quite unknown. And as every scientific discovery is to be considered as not in existence as long as it has not met with sufficient recognition, it would be a great satisfaction to me if you, highly honoured Sir, who are so weighty an authority in questions respecting organic life, should find these experiments worthy of your attention, and were to be convinced that they are indeed of a kind to assist in the clearing up of/throwing light upon some important life problems. In a certains sense my experiments are related to your theory of development. Your successful endeavour to free the complexity of organic nature from the miracle of many separate creations and to trace it back to natural causes is evidently closely related to that tendency of Natural science which strives to prove life processes— until now considered organic (spezifisch)—to be simply physico-chemical processes. Every success in this direction is a new confirmation of the theory of development in as much as it proves that the first appearance of life properties in the organic world as it progressively developed, are based only on a special employment/determination? of already existing organic forces. In this sense one might conclude from my investigations that the organisms which first appeared with cells surrounded by a membrane did not receive the faculty of forming cells as a new power but borrowed it from inorganic nature. I sign myself | with greatest respect | devotedly | M.T. DAR 178: 176 

March 1875 1 2

3

4

5

95

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. A contemporary translation found with the letter is included above. Traube enclosed his papers ‘Experimente zur Theorie der Zellenbildung und Endosmose’ (Experiments on the theory of cell formation and endosmosis; Traube  1867), and ‘Experimente zur physikalischen Erklärung der Bildung der Zellhaut, ihres Wachsthums durch Introsusception und des Aufwärtswachsens der Pflanzen’ (Experiments on the physical explanation of the formation of the cell membrane, its growth through introsusception and the upward growth of plants; Traube 1874). CD’s copies are in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. In his earlier paper (Traube 1867), Traube had described several experiments in which he was able to create an artificial precipitation membrane using colloidal and even crystalloidal solutions with osmotic properties similar to those of plant cell membranes. Traube argued that artificial membranes exhibited differential permeability (endosmosis) similar to that in plants, and grew upwards in a similar way that could also be accounted for by simple physical processes. He explained that as water passed through the membrane, it was pushed by osmotic pressure to the top of the cell because of its lower specific gravity than the rest of the interior solution. The membrane at the upper end would become thinner (i.e. the interstitial spaces between the membrane molecules would become enlarged) as the pressure between interior and exterior solutions equalised at this part of the membrane. In this state molecules of the interior solution would pass through, allowing the two solutions to interact and the precipitation reaction to resume. New membrane was then formed by intussusception. The process worked best when the difference between the interstitial spaces of the membrane and the size of the membrane molecules was greatest (ibid., pp. 131–3). Traube refers to pages from the third, not the first, edition of Lehrbuch der Botanik (Textbook of botany; Sachs 1873, pp. 580–4), which is the first edition in which Traube’s research is discussed. CD’s annotated copy of Sachs 1873 is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 727–8). CD’s copy of the French translation of Sachs 1873 (Sachs 1874a) contains annotations referring to Traube (see Marginalia 1: 728–30). After repeating Traube’s experiments using a concentrated solution of copper chloride in a weak solution of potassium ferrocyanide, Sachs argued that the artificial membranes did not, in fact, grow by intussusception but rather by eruption (Sachs 1873, pp. 583–4). In his lecture to the meeting of German naturalists and physicians, Traube countered that the strength of the cell membrane was such that a simple change in the specific gravity of part of the interior solution could not cause a rupture at the top of the cell, noting that according to the laws of hydrostatics, pressure would be equal on all parts of the membrane (Traube 1874, p. 199).

To Moritz Traube   5 March 1875 Down, Beckenham Kent | Railway Station | Orpington S.E.R. Mar. 5 1875 Dear Sir I am much obliged to you for having sent me your two essays, which I am sure, from a hasty glance, will interest me greatly.1 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Library of Congress Manuscript Division (Francis Storr Correspondence (Mss2304)) 1

Traube had sent two essays on artificial cells, Traube 1867 and 1874. See letter from Moritz Traube, 2 March 1875 and n. 2.

96

March 1875

To [M. T. Masters?]   7 March 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. March 7. 75 My dear Sir I do not know whether you are the Author of the Article on me in the Gardeners’ Chronicle, but suppose so.1 Whoever the Author may be, I am much pleased with & grateful for the honour conferred on me in it. I wish that I deserved half of what is said. My dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin LS American Philosophical Society (464) 1

An editorial article on CD appeared in Gardeners’ Chronicle, 6 March 1875, pp. 308–9. Masters had been editor of the magazine since 1865. The article praised CD for his contribution to horticulture through his work on plant physiology, citing his research on variation, inheritance, reversion, bud variation, acclimatisation, carnivorous plants, climbing plants, and descent as the basis of rational classification.

To Oswald Heer   8 March [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. March 8th My dear Sir I thank you for your very kind & deeply interesting letter of March 1 received yesterday; & for the present of yr work which no doubt I shall soon receive from Dr Hooker.2 The sudden appearance of so many Dicotyledons in the Upper Chalk appears to me a most perplexing phenomenon to all who believe in any form of Evolution, & especially to those who believe in extremely gradual Evolution, to which view I know that you are strong〈ly〉 opposed.3 The presence of even one true Angiosperm in the Lower Chalk makes me inclined to conjecture that plants of this great Division must have been largely developed in some isolated area; whence owing to Geographical changes they at last succeeded in escaping & spread quickly over the World. But I fully admit that this case is a great difficulty in the views which I hold. Many as have been the wonderful discoveries in Geology during the last half Century I think none have exceeded in interest your results with respect to the plants which formally existed in the Arctic regions. How I wish that similar collections could be made in the Southern Hemisphere for instance in Kerguelen’s Land.4 The death of Sir C Lyell is a great loss to Science, but I do not think to himself, for after parlysis & epilepsy it was scarcely possible that he could have retained his mental powers, & he would have suffered dreadfully from their loss.5 The last time I saw him he was speaking with the most lively interest about his last visit to you & I was grieved to hear from him a very poor account of your health.6 I have been working for some time on a special subject namely insectivorous plants; I do not know whether the subject will interest you but when my book is published I will have the pleasure of sending you a copy.7

March 1875

97

I am very much obliged for your photograph & enclose one of myself. With the highest esteem | I remain my dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Zentralbibliothek Zürich (Nachlass Oswald Heer 213.2) 1 2 3

4

5

6

7

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Oswald Heer, 1 March 1875. See letter from Oswald Heer, 1 March 1875 and n. 2. Heer had included a copy for CD of the third volume of his work on fossil flora (Heer 1868–83) in a parcel he sent to Joseph Dalton Hooker. See letter from Oswald Heer, 1 March 1875. In his earlier studies of Tertiary floras (Heer 1855–9), Heer had argued that sudden, inexplicable change and the appearance of monstrosities were causal factors in the production of new species. CD had argued that the existence of so many coadaptations in plants and animals was evidence against Heer’s view (see, for example, Correspondence vol. 11, letter to Asa Gray, 31 May [1863]). CD had an interest in the flora of Kerguelen Island because of its close relation to the flora of the geographically distant Tierra del Fuego (see, for example, Correspondence vol. 5, letter to J. S. Henslow, 17 November [1854]). Kerguelen is the largest of the three hundred Kerguelen Islands, in the south Indian Ocean, over 3000 miles south-east of the southern tip of Africa (Columbia gazetteer of the world). Charles Lyell died on 22 February 1875 (ODNB). He had been in poor health since the end of 1874 (K. M. Lyell ed. 1890, 2: 438–9). Hooker had reported to CD in mid-February that Lyell was too unwell to see him and that his mind was confused (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 17 February 1875). CD’s last recorded visit to Lyell was on 4 December 1874 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Heer suffered from pulmonary disease and from the early 1870s worked mostly from home ([A. Gray] 1884, p. 558). Heer’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV).

From G. A. Wolfe   9 March 1875

81 Uppr. Leeson St— | Dublin March 9. 1875

Sir, I have just been reading with the deepest interest yr. “Descent of Man”   It has been the means of rendering many nights of suffering more endurable May I venture to hope you will forgive me for addressing you on one or two subjects of wh. you treat? I have lived much in the country surrounded by animals, & for many years took an active part in the formation of a large collection of insects, very many of wh. we reared fr. the eggs. During a long residence on the continent we collecte〈d〉 numberless specimens of the horn〈ed〉 beetles, wh. if I understand you righ〈tl〉y you say are not provided with these appendages for the purpose of battle.1 We found very many with their horns broken, & some with broken legs—especially the front legs— The Musk beetle wh. abounds at the Baths of Lucca2 we also often found with brok〈en〉 antennæ, as if they had been engaged in fighting—sometimes with one almost pulled out. Requiring a little gum when set, one summer—when they were more numerous than usual, we had some difficulty in getting perfect specimens

98

March 1875

The subject of transmitted tendencies has always interested me much. Yr. work brought to my recollection a curious instance When moving across a room not long ago I was startled by an exclamation of surprise fr. my Mother3 who roused me to the fact, quite unnoticed by me that I had taken up my chair with both hands & had carried it across with me against my back. t d She then told me that my g. g .mother (my gd.father’s mother) who 〈die〉d long before I was born had 〈this〉 habit, & that having seen me do it when quite a child, she had at once prevented me acquiring the trick. I was nearly fifty when this seemingly forgotten tendency once more appeared. Since then I have more than once stopped myself preparing so to convey my chair—& to my amusement I discove〈re〉d only the other day the same pe〈cul〉iarity in a distant relation her gd.father having married my gt. gdmother’s sister—so she was not even closely related. Will you think me very audacious if I venture to say, I seem to see a greater likeness between our dear faithful companion the dog—when arrived at maturity—& ourselves, than even between the embryo wonderful as that is. I think dogs are capable of deep thought or contemplation— they seem at times quite in a state of abstraction—. I have seen an old terrier apparently so lost in some deep meditation as to be quite unconscious that she was called to take a walk. & I have had to rouse he〈r〉 fr. her reverie, when the pleasure shewed convinced me her unusu〈al〉 disregard of the summons was not caused by disinclination to move. Nor was she asleep at the time, for I had seen her instinctively move when the servant had brushed passed her, a liberty she always resented more or less according to her humor4 I believe she not only reflected but harboured many passions feelings supposed not to be shared with us by animals— On one occasion I threatened her with a light driving whip— I simply laid it across her back   it cd. scarcely have tickled her, she quietly & deliberately walked out of the hall door & hid herself among the laurels, just to vex me—& it was not till 12 oc.l at night that the groom found her. Her attachment to me was extreme, but for ten days after this, she took no more notice of me than if I had not existed   She took no food offered by me, she ignored t one day, hapme, & never seemed to see 〈o〉r hear me— She kept up this punishm. till pening to meet her on the stairs, I sat down 〈b〉elow her put my arms round her & 〈tried〉 to coax her— she resisted at first, but when by degrees she felt herself drawn into her old resting place, her delight at finding herself there was too strong for her   she suddenly relented & for many days did not let me out of her sight for a moment, but clung to me with greater fondness than ever—. She seemed to act with the deliberate intention of punishing me— That same terrier having been beaten by a servant, for chasing the hens when a pup, on becoming a mother used to sit on a step overlooking the poultry yard, to watch her pups who early shewed her fondness for the chase—& when they transgressed she wd. catch them by the hind leg & drag them away thus teaching them herself—in order to prevent their being beaten— Surely here reasoning power was displayed— not called forth by any accidental circumstance arising at the moment—but connected with what had taken place long before—& wh. must have been remembered

March 1875

99

& thought over carefully & in her treatment of me there seems to have been not only anger, for what she looked upon as an indignity, but something in her—wh. resented what she must have argued out to herself to have been an act of injustice. I thought she had been out all the afternoon—& had often seen her punished for a like offence— it turned out she had only been at the gate with the groom— While speaking of animals resenting supposed injuries I cannot but call to mind an instance of a favourite thoughbred mare— She was perfectly gentle, but fiery if not carefully handled. She was trained by our own groom a peculiarly gentle man with animals, who had never touched her with a whip, one day he happened to have one when exercising her & on her refusing to stand for a moment when near home, he gave her one cut with it. At the time she merely gave a slight brisk jump, but when in her loose stall— after the saddle & bridle had been removed, just as the groom was leaving the stable—she deliberately walked after him seemed to measure her distance turne〈d〉 & kicked him, without any show of temper— her ears were not put back. Nor did she repeat the kick nor cd. she have intended to hurt him much—as if she had—she might 〈h〉ave injured him severely— This was the only time the mare kicked him or anybody else. Was not this the fruit of thought? I cannot but think too that dogs have some kind of 〈c〉onscience— by conscience, I understand not that, wh. teaches us what is right, but that within us, wh.  tells us whether our actions are in accordance with those laws wh. we believe—whether rightly or wrongly—to be binding on us.— We had a water spaniel of rare intelligence, he understood Italian well, as well as English, & we had not had a french servant long till he understood him perfectly— this dog was an unmitigated thief & very self willed— Although he knew a beating wd. surely follow a theft, he invariably came to tell us of his delinquencies & it was his confession wh. generally first brought the loss of the meat or fish to our knowledge, he wd. crawl into the room & put himself down at my feet, sighing audibly. I fancy on these occasions the beat〈ing〉 was of a mild character, yet it seemed to hurt his feelings so mu〈ch〉 that he wd. retire into private lif〈e〉 for the rest of the day & remain below stairs in company with the servant wh. he never did any other time. He used to lay regular traps & devise strategems to get himself let out— his favourite plan was to retch violently. When all the occupants of the drawingroom wd. fly to the door— once outside his whole demeanour suddenly changed—& as plainly as dog could do, he laughed at us all as he scampered off out of reach—generally stopping at the foot of the stairs to give one defiant bark. I do believe he felt genuine sorrow— when his thieving propensities got the better of him—& though on his return from his excursions we never beat him—having let him out ourselves—he used to appear s horribly ashamed & if possible wd. creep in unobserved—5 I cd. fill vol. with the exr traordinary traits I have observed in animals, those 〈of〉 y works I have read have interested 〈me〉 very much—Natural history in all its branches having always been a favourite study with me, during a long period of enforced illness— I trust this may plead my excuse for inflicting these lines upon you. Would not yr influence do much to prevent the wanton & unnecessary torture of those animals that are our faithful friends & companions & that—it may be—possess

100

March 1875

higher faculties than most people give them credit for— I wd. not purchase freedom fm. my pain—& I know b〈ut〉 well—what pain is—at the cost of harming one poor animal whe〈n〉 subject to vivisection—unless under conditions, wh. would render the experiment painless6 I remain | yrs faithfully | Gould. A. Wolfe Since writing this, I have read with delight one passage in Mr. Gregs’ ‘Enigmas of Life’. He speaks of a possible future for some animals a belief wh. as you know was at any rate not condemned by Luther7 DAR 181: 135 1

2 3 4 5 6

7

In Descent 1: 371–2, CD noted that the horns of male beetles did not seem well adapted for fighting and cited Henry Walter Bates’s observation that no evidence had been found to support the view that the horns were used for fighting. CD maintained that the horns were ornamental. Bagni di Lucca, in Tuscany, Italy, is a resort with hot mineral springs (Columbia gazetteer of the world). Wolfe’s mother was Isabella Offley. Other relatives mentioned have not been identified. CD discussed abstraction in animals in Descent 1: 62–3, and added more examples in Descent 2d ed., pp. 83–4. CD mentioned conscience in dogs in Descent 1: 78. CD was involved in formulating a petition to get laws on vivisection enacted that would not hinder scientific work, but ensure humane treatment of animals (see, for example, letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 10 February 1875). For more on the background to the debate on vivisection and CD’s role, see Feller 2009. William Rathbone Greg had argued that some animals were more richly endowed with intellectual and moral qualities than many men, and quoted an anonymous author’s suggestion that immortality might be possible for those animals that attained ‘that moral stage whereat man becomes an immortal being’ (Greg 1872, pp. xiv–xv). Martin Luther, referring to his own dog, Tölpel, reportedly said that animals would inhabit heaven (see Ickert 1998, p. 91).

To P. P. C. Hoek   11 March 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. March 11/75 Dear Sir I am much obliged for your very kind letter & the gift of your work.1 I am extremely glad that you have taken up the study of the Cirripedia. I am sorry to say that I cannot read your language, but one of my sons has already translated to me parts of your book, & I feel sure that you will do excellent work.2 I am aware that I fell into several great errors, as about the ovaria and from my ignorance of Histology I was quite unfitted to investigate one chief subject of your book, namely the formation of the ova.3 With the most sincere hope & expectation of your success I remain dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Artis Library (P.P.C. Hoek Archive, Darwin correspondence) 1

Hoek’s letter and the work he sent have not been found, but he probably sent a copy of his doctoral thesis, Eerste bijdrage tot een nauwkeuriger kennis der sessile cirripedien (First contribution to a more accurate knowledge of sessile cirripedes; Hoek 1875).

March 1875 2 3

101

CD probably refers to Francis Darwin, who had been his secretary since 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to W. D. Fox, 11 May [1874]). In Living Cirripedia (1851), pp. 57–8, CD identified the two gut-formed masses near the ventral edge of the peduncle as ovaria rather than salivary glands and then postulated a connection between the ovarian tubules and the cement ducts. He was also unable to trace the oviduct to the opening at the base of the first pair of cirri, and consequently identified that aperture as an acoustic organ. Later researchers were able to trace the oviduct and identify the female genital aperture (for more on these observations, see Newman 1993, pp. 368–71).

From A. W. Bennett   12 March 1875 6 Park Village East, | Regent’s Park, | London N.W. March 12th. 1875. My dear Sir In a paper which I read before the Belfast meeting of the Brit. Ass. on the form of pollen-grains; I alluded to the difference between the size of the grains in the two forms of the dimorphic Primulas, & described those of the long-styled form as being always smaller than those of the short-styled form.1 This was in accordance with observations made the previous spring on the primrose, cowslip & polyanthus. I was aware that you had also noticed this difference, but, before reading the paper, had not turned to your observations. On doing so subsequently, I was surprised to find that your statement in the Journal Lin. Soc. vol X, p. 393 is exactly the reverse!2 Suspecting naturally that I had made some mistake, I have been repeating the observations (but in the case of the primrose only), & with the same result as before. This I find to be nearly uniformly the relative size (drawn under the camera ×250 long-styled  short-styled Can you tell me whether you think there is any possibility of an error having crept into your description, or whether there is really this remarkable variation in different localities? I see that Sir John Lubbock, in his little book on Wild Flowers & Insects (p.35) confirms my statement; but I suspect his information is drawn from my Belfast paper.3 He suggests however what seems to me a probable explanation, that the longstyled form requires longer pollen-tubes, which are provided in the large grains of the short-styled form. Apologizing for troubling you, believe me | very truly yr. | Alfred W. Bennett C. Darwin Esq. F.R.S. DAR 160: 143 1

2

3

A summary of Bennett’s paper ‘On the form of pollen-grains in relation to the fertilisation of flowers’ was published in the Report of the 44th meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1874), Transactions of the sections, p. 133. In his paper in the Journal of the Linnean Society of London (Botany), CD wrote, ‘In the latter [long-styled form] the pollen-grains are almost always of larger size than in the short-styled form’ (‘Illegitimate offspring of dimorphic and trimorphic plants’, p. 393). See Lubbock 1875, p. 35.

102

March 1875

From Lawson Tait   12 March [1875]1 7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. Mar 12 Dear Sir, I have had previous occasion to correspond with you on subjects bearing on evolution, and there is one more little matter on which I should like your opinion.2 As one of your disciples it has been my object to try the doctrine of evolution by survival of fitness at every possible point and amongst other things I have speculated on the origin of tails For every tail I got a satisfactory reason, save for the bushy tail of such animals as the civet cat,3 some dogs, wolf &c. That variety long puzzled me until the accidental observation of a favourite white cat, who is perfectly deaf, solved the riddle to me On him I can perform experiments by reason of his deafness, without arousing his suspicion and I find that he uses his tail as a respirator to keep up his temperature. I catch him asleep before a German stove, lying at full length on his side with tail & limbs stretched out to enjoy the full heat. Then I intercept the heat by a screen & without waking he gradually coils himself up so as to cover as much surface as possible to save loss of heat. Then when I drive a current of cold air on him from a pair of bellows he twines his tail round him & buries his nose completely in the fur between it & the thigh, thereby establishing a natural respirator which must conserve his temperature to a very marked extent Birds do the same thing when they bury their noses in their wings. I cannot find a bushy tailed animal which cannot curl itself up. If I could my theory would be spoilt I mentioned this to my friend Prof Haughton4 of Dublin a few days ago when on a visit to him, and on a very cold morning we started round the Zoological Gardens to examine for the point. We found the civet cat & others coiled up & their noses covered with the fur. I do not know whether the observation is an original one or not, but it is at any rate interesting   I purpose communicating a short note on it to the Birmingham Natural History Society and previous to that I should like to know your opinion of my theory.5 Yours faithfully | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 2 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘30£’ pencil 1 2 3 4 5

The year is established by Tait’s reference to his communication to the Birmingham Natural History Society (see n. 5, below). The only earlier extant correspondence with Tait is the letter to Lawson Tait, 8 October 1871 (Correspondence vol. 19); it concerns the supra-condyloid foramen of the humerus. The civet cat is Civettictis civetta, the African civet; it is not a cat, but a member of the family Viverridae. Samuel Haughton. Tait lectured on the subject of animals’ tails at the Birmingham Natural History Society on 5 April 1875; a summary of his remarks, including part of CD’s response to this letter, appeared in the Birmingham

March 1875

103

Daily Post, 8 April 1875, p. 6, and later in Hardwicke’s Science-Gossip, June 1875 (Tait 1875a). See letter to Lawson Tait, [13–15 March 1875].

To Lawson Tait   [13–15 March 1875]1 Your view is new to me, and has only to be suggested for its probability to be recognised.2 I presume that of course you would thus account only in part for the retention of a tail and for its modification. Your view does not preclude the conjoint use of the tail for other service, as for gliding through the air when flattened, as in the squirrel, or as a signal to beasts of prey, in accordance with Mr. Betts’s ingenious suggestion in his Nicaraguan travels, with respect to the great bushy and conspicuously-coloured tail of the skunks.3 I wish we knew the use of the extraordinary tail of the yak, which inhabits such cold regions, whether it serves solely as a fly-flapper.4 If poor Dr. Falconer5 had been alive he could have told us. Incomplete Birmingham Daily Post, 8 April 1875, p. 6 1 2 3

4 5

The date range is established by the relationship between this letter and the letters from Lawson Tait, 12 March [1875] and 16 March [1875]. See letter from Lawson Tait, 12 March [1875]. Thomas Belt suggested that skunks did not need obscure coloration for concealment because of their ability to spray a foetid fluid at any assailant (Belt 1874a, pp. 249–50). In Descent 2d ed., p. 543, CD referred to Belt’s observation that the white bushy tail served as a conspicuous warning. In Variation 2: 206, CD mentioned a report that Mongolians bred yaks (Bos grunniens) with white tails and sold the tails to Chinese mandarins as fly-flappers. Hugh Falconer had sent CD his notes on yak and cattle hybrids, made on a trip to Tibet in 1837 and 1838 (see Correspondence vol. 7, Supplement, letter to Hugh Falconer, [before 8 March 1846]). The notes were published posthumously in C. Murchison ed. 1868, 1: 581–2.

To Chauncey Wright   13 March 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. March 13. 75 My dear Mr Wright I write today so that there shall be no delay this time in thanking you for your interesting & long letter received this morning.1 I am sure that you will excuse brevity when I tell you that I am half killing myself in trying to get a book ready for the press.2 I quite agree with what you say about advantages of various degrees of importance being co-selected, & aided by the effects of use &c. The subject seems to me well worth further developement.3 I do not think I have any where noticed the use of the eyebrows, but have long known that they protected the eyes from sweat. During the voyage of the Beagle4 one of the men ascended a lofty hill during a very hot day; he had small eyebrows & his eyes became fearfully inflamed from the sweat running into them

104

March 1875

The Portuguese inhabitants were familiar with this evil as I well remember from a ridiculous incident; they immediately brought a woman who was suckling a baby to squirt milk from her breast into his eyes; but he “skedaddled” in dismay. I think you allude to the transverse furrows on the forhead as a protection against sweat; but remember that these incessantly appear on the forheads of Baboons.5 With many thanks believe me to be Yours sincerely | Charles Darwin P.S. I have been greatly pleased by the notices in the Nation6 LS American Philosophical Society (B/D25.277) 1 2 3 4 5

6

See letter from Chauncey Wright, 24 February 1875 and n. 1. CD was making corrections to the manuscript of Insectivorous plants until 29  March  1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). In his letter of 24 February 1875, Wright suggested that adaptations could have several functions, and that the principal use or benefit might change over time. CD spent five years on the Beagle voyage, from 1831 to 1836 (see Journal of researches and Correspondence vol. 1). In Expression, p. 139, CD described the incessant movement of the eyebrows and ridges of the foreheads of baboons when they were excited or angered. In his letter of 24 February 1875, Wright described how William James suffered from irritated eyes when fishing in the Amazon. Wright also noted that the furrows of the brow were useful as drains or watercourses. See letter from Chauncey Wright, 24 February 1875 and n. 11. Wright sent CD a copy of his article on books about evolution; it was published in Nation, 18 February 1875, pp. 113–14.

From W. B. Dawkins   14 March 1875 The Owens College, | Manchester, 14/3/75 My dear Sir, It is a great satisfaction to me to hear that you are pleased with my imperfect, and to a great extent uncorrected and crude book, written under great pressure and with the idea that it was better to put it forward now, rather than wait for the polish and style of the future, which might never come.1 From your letter and its reception in America, and its translation into German,2 I am very happy in inferring that it has not been written in vain. I have to thank you also for your note about Oxen—3 Before I wrote I had persecuted Freeman, Stubbs and Green, and read Howel Dha, and the Records of the Kings Council, as far as Henry VII, in vain.4 I cannot guess where Youatt5 found it: but it must have been in some Monastic roll or other. As you are interested in the question of the northern extension of the Iberians or Basques the last discussion before the Anthropological Institute is not without point.6 The philologers in the Sat. Rev. Athenæum etc have been laying down the law that language is a test of race, and have assumed that, as I did not take up its evidence on the Basque question, language had been altogether ignored in the enquiry.7 On the question being put to Prince Lucien Buonaparte, Sayce, Rhys, and Van Eys8 the

March 1875

105

other evening, “whether they considered that the Ethiopian could change his skin and whole physique as easily as his speech?”, the answer was obviously “no”. So that as the case stands at present three distinguished philologers hold that language is not a test of race, and consequently the argument as to the Basques—the only argument urged against the Basque theory—falls to the ground. It further appeared in the debate that the Basque tongue has not been written more than two or three centuries, and that it is full of latin and gothic words. Since the debate Rhys and Sayce have been following up the point which I urged “that the Finns are indistinguishable physically from the Celts,” and have met with fragments of Ugric grammar in Welsh and Erse—9 Probably something of great value will be found out in this quarter— — but I must ask pardon for so long a letter | from | Yours very truly | W. Boyd Dawkins Charles Darwin Esq F.R.S. | Down. DAR 162: 130 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Plant which catches moths like Apocynum’ blue crayon 1

2 3 4

5 6

7

8 9

CD’s letter has not been found, but he had evidently written to comment on Dawkins’s book Cave hunting: researches on the evidences of caves respecting the early inhabitants of Europe (Dawkins 1874a). Dawkins had sent CD a copy in October 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to W. B. Dawkins, 18 October [1874]). CD’s lightly annotated copy is in the Darwin Library–Down (see Marginalia 1: 188). The German translation of Cave hunting was published in 1876 (Dawkins 1876). See letter to W. B. Dawkins, 16 January [1875]. Edward Augustus Freeman, William Stubbs, and John Richard Green were historians. The laws of Hywel Dda (Cyfraith Hywel) are a system of native Welsh law named after the medieval Welsh king who was credited with the codification (see Law of Hywel Dda). The records of the King’s Council date from 1386 to 1540, after which they are called records of the Privy Council (for more on these records, see the National Archives, ‘Privy Council since 1386’; www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/ research-guides/privy-council-correspondence.htm). William Youatt. See letter to W. B. Dawkins, 16 January [1875]. Dawkins refers to a discussion at the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland on 9 February 1875, following the presentation of ‘The Basque and the Kelt’ (Webster 1875). The printed paper included a detailed account of the discussion (Webster 1875, pp. 20–9). It was a critique of Dawkins’s paper ‘The northern range of the Basques’, which had appeared in the Fortnightly Review in September 1874 (Dawkins 1874b). CD mentioned having read Dawkins’s paper in his letter to Dawkins of 18 October [1874] (Correspondence vol. 22). An unsigned article, ‘Mr. Dawkins on the Basques’, appeared in the Saturday Review, 12 September 1874, pp. 336–7. The reviewer, while accepting the anthropological evidence that Dawkins had highlighted, maintained that language remained an important tool for determining the migration of populations. Dawkins may also allude to a review of Etruscan researches (I. Taylor 1874) in the Athenæum, 9 May 1874, pp. 625–6, in which the reviewer argued that when conflicting interpretations arose, philological evidence should outweigh ethnological evidence. Louis Lucien Bonaparte, Archibald Henry Sayce, John Rhŷs, and Willem Jan van Eys. In the discussion following Webster 1875, Dawkins countered the argument in ‘Mr. Dawkins on the Basques’ that the Basques might be of Finnish stock, by noting that Finns were a tall, fair, broad-headed race, physically indistinguishable from Kelts (see Webster 1875, p. 21). Finnish belongs to the FinnoUgric language family.

106

March 1875

From John Fiske   15 March 1875 Harvard University, | Cambridge, Mass. March 15, 1875. My dear Mr. Darwin; Pray excuse my long delay in answering your very kind letter and in thanking you for the welcome present of your “Descent of Man”, which I received sometime ago.1 As I was too busy at the time to read the new edition, I let Mr.  Chauncey Wright take it home with him, & he has kept it until now; but I am promising myself the pleasure of reading it carefully in my coming summer vacation when I can give my whole mind to it. It gives me great pleasure to receive such commendation of my work from one whose opinion I rate so highly as yours.2 Indeed I consider the mere fact that you have found it worth while, amid your many occupations, to read my big book through, to be the very highest praise the book has received from any quarter,—praise that is worth more than reams of eulogy from the most critical of reviews. I often think with great pleasure of our lunch at your daughter’s in London, & our brief chat afterwards.3 I wish I could have seen you more, and had some such good talks as I afterwards had quite frequently with Mr. Huxley.4 But I don’t think you were again in town while I was there. I left England in February and had a delightful journey in France, Italy, & Switzerland, getting back to England & sailing for home about the 1st of June. Indeed, I enjoyed myself so much that life has seemed a trifle dull since I have got back into harness. When I last saw Dr Gray,5 some little time ago, he said that you were much interested in “carnivorous” plants. I wonder if you are going to publish anything on the subject. It seems to me that the question of “sensitiveness” in certain plants is highly interesting and important,—i.e. how far the “sensitiveness” in these cases is like the “sensitiveness” of an animal without any specialized nervous matter; for there we seem to get near to the crudest beginnings of psychical life.6 Thanking you again, my dear sir, for your kind words, I remain, with regards to your family | Ever truly yours, | John Fiske. DAR 164: 126 1 2

3

4 5 6

CD sent Fiske a copy of Descent 2d ed. in December 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to John Fiske, 8 December [1874]). In his letter to Fiske of 8 December [1874] (Correspondence vol. 22), CD had praised Fiske’s work, Outlines of cosmic philosophy based on the doctrine of evolution (Fiske 1874), noting especially Fiske’s ability as an expositor of difficult philosophical doctrines. Fiske met CD on 13  November  1873  at the home of Henrietta Emma Litchfield (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter to John Fiske, 3 November [1873]). For an account of the meeting, see J. S. Clark 1917, 1: 478–9. Thomas Henry Huxley. Asa Gray. In Insectivorous plants, pp. 223–5, CD discussed the parallels between some reactions in Drosera (sundew) and reactions in animal nervous systems. In ibid., pp. 229–61, he investigated the localisation of sensitiveness of leaves and the lines of transmission of the motor impulse.

March 1875

107

From E. J. Johnston   16 March 1875 Sir, Having gathered from notices and articles in several periodicals, that you were engaged upon the investigation of insect-capturing plants, I am reminded of a very curious case which came within my own knowledge many years ago.1 My observations should long ago have been anticipated; but, so far as I can find, no account of the matter has hitherto been published. I therefore proceed to place the facts before you; my object in so doing being to have the whole matter thoroughly examined into and elucidated. The plant I alluded to is the Araujia sericofera of Brotero, Trans. Linn. Soc. xii.– xiii.—1818. p. 62.2 In the north of Portugal, where I was residing at the time I refer to, (viz., the summer of 1856) this plant grows very well in the open air, and produces seeds in abundance. The flowers have a rather heavy, sweetish scent, and are frequently visited by butterflies and moths, which are attracted by the melliferous poses of the corolla. In passing by the plant, it struck me that the insects remained rather longer than usual upon particular flowers, and that they did not fly away when I came nearer. Upon this, looking more closely, I found that they were caught by their trunks3 between the two horns of the stigma, which, diverging in the middle, meet again near their apices, and then turn back, so as to form a figure something like a lyre. On separating these horns a little, they show their elasticity by springing back to their original position of contact, as soon as released, with a slight but distinctly audible snap. I found cabbage butterflies, hawk moths, and sometimes the Gamma moth,4 caught in the above mentioned way, and vainly fluttering or struggling to break loose. I recollect on one occasion having plucked a flower in which a hawk moth was caught, and having carried it away and shown it to some relatives with its captive caught by the trunk, but suspended in the air (above the flower I held) by the vibration of the wings. How the insects were caught, is the interesting question, to which, not having been able to pursue the matter otherwise than imperfectly, I cannot give a definitive answer. My conjecture is, that the insects, after alighting on the flower and extracting the honey from the four nearest pores, passed their trunks through the opening between the two stigmatic horns, in order to reach the fifth pore without the trouble of going round; and that in withdrawing their trunks obliquely upwards, they became caught like a wedge in a tree. Knapp, in his “Journal of a Naturalist”, says that the Apocynum androsæmifolium catches flies by their trunks.5 According to his illustrative plates, the two stigmas, (or two divisions of one stigma), diverge at a considerable angle, and close upon the trunk of the insect when it gets between them. But no such movement was detected in the Araujia sericofera. The divisions of the stigma were never found apart, but always closely pressed together. (I ought to add that some of the flowers had very large stigmas, while in others they were very small. Possibly the latter were abortive.) However,

108

March 1875

as no dead insects were found on the flowers, it would seem that the stigmas after a time lose their elasticity. This of course is merely conjecture. The case would appear to be different with the Apocynum androsæmifolium, which is described by Knapp as not relaxing its hold upon its insect captives until they are dead from sheer exhaustion. I have mentioned the case of this Apocynum, because it belongs to the same natural order as the Araujia;6 and because, in spite of my negative results, their botanical affinity leads me to suspect that there may be something common to these two plants in their mechanism of capture. Brotero’s figure does not exactly correspond with the plant I saw, as it is taken from a branch in which none of the flowers were more than half expanded.7 The leaves of my plant were mostly long, and almost triangular, but sometimes they were heart-shaped at the base, as in his figure. I suppose, though it did not occur to me at the time, that the detention of the insects would in some way or other contribute to the fertilization of the flowers. In this country the Araujia sericofera would doubtless require a hothouse or conservatory. That would in a great measure prevent the visits of Lepidoptera. But if grown in a pot or box, and placed in the open air when in flower, the sight of the captive and struggling insects would certainly attract attention. Should you feel disposed to examine into this matter, my friends in Portugal will, I am sure, gladly co-operate with me in rendering any assistance in their power. I apprehend, however, that there would be no difficulty in procuring living specimens. A rough sketch which I made bears the date of August, 1856; so that the season of flowering would allow ample time for preparation. The plant I saw flourished without cultivation, being merely planted at the foot of a wall with a western aspect, and, after a little preliminary training, left to attach itself to other plants that grew out of the stones above it. I am, Sir, | Your obedient servant, | Edwin J. Johnston Jr. Charles Darwin Esq. My address is— 14 Wycliffe Grove, | Lavender Hill, | Wandsworth Road | S.W. 16th March 1875. DAR 168: 74 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Plant which catches moths like Apocynum’ blue crayon 1

2

Although CD had not yet published any of his research on insectivorous plants, references to his ongoing work had appeared in science journals. See, for example, Hooker 1874b and Burdon Sanderson 1874a. Félix de Avellar Brotero had first described Araujia sericofera in a paper read on 7 November 1815 (Brotero 1815); in the published paper in the Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 12 (1817–18): 62–70, the

March 1875

3 4 5 6 7

109

spelling of the species epithet was given incorrectly. The accepted name is Araujia sericifera (common moth-vine or cruel plant; for more on the synonymy of this species, see Forster and Bruyns 1992). Johnston uses the word ‘trunk’ to refer to the proboscis of the insects. The cabbage white butterfly is Pieris brassicae; the gamma moth, now more commonly known as the silver Y, is Autographa gamma. Hawk moths belong to the family Sphingidae. John Leonard Knapp described the destructive powers of Apocynum androsaemifolium (fly-trap dogbane) in [Knapp] 1829, pp. 81–2, and figured its capture mechanism in plate I, fig. 5. Both Araujia sericifera and Apocynum androsaemifolium belong to the family Apocynaceae. Apocynaceae is described as a natural order of Gentianales in Lindley 1853, p. 594. For Brotero’s figure, see Brotero 1815, tab. 4, facing p. 69.

From Lawson Tait   16 March [1875]1

7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. March 16

Dear Sir, Thanks for your kind note. I shall send you a copy of my little paper.2 I am keeping a number of white mice to try to unravel the use of the peculiar tail of mice & rats but I am completely beaten3 My view does not preclude any other modification or use of the tail: but it seems to me to be important as illustrating how correlation of growth (that is thick fur leading to a bushy tail) will bring out a new circumstance favourable to survival & truly lead to a total alteration of some important habits—as the curling up of these animals when going to sleep4 Yours faithfully, | Lawson Tait PS. I had missed the Yak in my search for animals with a bushy tail.5 But he has a long abdominal fringe of hair nearly touching the ground. When he lies down with his limbs drawn up to or under him, as all ruminants do, his tail & fringe would act as a railway rug, preventing loss of heat from the limbs & damage to them from frost bite—as the tissue outside the bone is thin & there is nothing but a rather weak circulation to resist loss of heat. He lives close to the line of perpetual snow—the very condition under which such an epithelial appendage would conduce to survival L.T. DAR 178: 3 1 2

3

4 5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Lawson Tait, 12 March [1875]. No copy of the paper Tait delivered at the Birmingham Natural History Society has been found in the Darwin Archive–CUL, but a summary was published in the Birmingham Daily Post, 8 April 1875, p. 5, and later reprinted in Hardwicke’s Science-Gossip in June 1875 (Tait 1875a); it included CD’s remarks from his letter to Tait of [13–15 March 1875]. Tait wanted to determine the use of tails in different animals (see letter from Lawson Tait, 12 March [1875]). In the published summary, Tait concluded that he had yet to find a reasonable explanation for the tails of rats and mice (Tait 1875a, p. 127). In his letter to CD of 12 March [1875], Tait hypothesised that the bushy tails of some animals helped to retain heat when the animal was curled up. In his letter to Tait of [13–15 March 1875], CD had mentioned the hairy tail of the yak, wondering whether it served any purpose other than as a fly-flapper.

110

March 1875

From J. D. Hooker   17 March 1875 Kew March 17/75 Dear Darwin Mrs Barber’s last address is Kimberley Gold fields.  Whither the old Lady has gone prospecting! If you will send me the copies I will put them in the Govt. despatch bag & send one to Sir H Barkly who will be interested in it.1 Harriet & Willy are gone to Algiers, whither I hope to follow them on 15th April, returning about 20th May.2 I have an aunt with her son & daughter staying with me—Mrs Turner—My Liverpool Uncle’s wife— he is ill has had to throw up his school & is going a long voyage for his health—3 she is very nice & fond of reading Spencer!, Greg4 & so forth— I was getting so dreadfully hungry for conversation at table—Harriet & the boys being no readers or thinkers.5 Harriet could not shake off her mother’s death, & was very poorly, every one (Sibson, Paget &c) advised my sending her away & as a visit to the Playfair’s in Algiers had long been promised I took advantage of it—.6 No Secretary yet but I have a private note from Disraeli “asking” if Prof Dyer is the “person I recommend.” which looks as if the matter was taken clear out of my Lords’ hands.7 Curiously enough by the very same post came a letter from Galton, asking me to back Ld. Henry in contesting the Treasury—to prevent the new Secretary (Mitford) being made head of the Office.!8 I sent him a scratching answer that nonplussed him. I can’t conceive what they are about: it is impossible my Lord can be kept on— complaints are pouring in from the other public Offices— By Jove, ingenious wriggling in official administration beats our’s!—9 I am in despair over my work & have taken up the Primer as being the least pressing of my duties—or rather no duty at all— it distracts the brain.10 I am bothered with Lumbago, bronchitis headache & disordered stomach. one off & the other on, up & down, not very bad of any—just enough to grumble at. Ever yrs affec | J D Hooker. DAR 104: 20–1 1

2

3

4 5

CD had communicated a paper by Mary Elizabeth Barber to the Entomological Society of London; the paper, ‘Notes on the peculiar habits and changes which take place in the larva and pupa of Papilio nireus’, was read at a meeting in November 1874 and published in the society’s transactions (Barber 1874; see Correspondence vol 22, letter from H. W. Bates, 1 October 1874). Henry Barkly was the governor of Cape Colony (South Africa). Kimberley is now in Northern Cape province, South Africa; for more on Barber’s involvement in prospecting, see Cohen 2000. For more on Hooker’s plans to visit Algeria with his elder daughter, Harriet Anne Hooker, and his eldest son, William Henslow Hooker, see the letter from J. D. Hooker, [24 February 1875] and n. 10. Algiers, the capital of Algeria, was then under French rule. Ophelia Turner, Effie Elizabeth Turner, and Dawson Fyers Duckworth Turner lived with Hooker until 1876 (see Allan 1967, pp. 225–7). Dawson William Turner, Hooker’s uncle, had been headmaster of the Royal Institution School, Liverpool (ODNB s.v. Turner, Dawson). Herbert Spencer and William Rathbone Greg. Hooker’s sons were William Henslow Hooker, Charles Paget Hooker, Brian Harvey Hodgson Hooker, and Reginald Hawthorn Hooker.

March 1875 6

7

8 9 10

111

Frances Harriet Hooker died in 1874. Francis Sibson was the Hooker family physician; the surgeon James Paget was a friend of the family. Robert Lambert Playfair was consul-general in Algeria; his wife was Agnes Playfair (ODNB). Hooker had applied to have an assistant appointed to help with his work at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. The Botanic Gardens were under the jurisdiction of the Office of Works, whose head, the first commissioner of works, was Lord Henry Gordon-Lennox (ODNB). Gordon-Lennox had impeded Hooker’s application, so Hooker had taken his case to Gordon-Lennox’s superiors at the Treasury (see letters from J. D. Hooker, 14 January 1875 and [7 February 1875]). Benjamin Disraeli was prime minister. William Turner Thiselton-Dyer worked part-time as Hooker’s private secretary from 1872 until September 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from J. D. Hooker, 15 September 1874). Douglas Strutt Galton was director of public works and buildings in the Office of Works. Algernon Bertram Mitford was appointed secretary to the Office of Works in May 1874 (ODNB). Joseph Dalton Hooker and CD had long joked about CD’s ability to ‘wriggle’ out of difficulties; see, for example, Correspondence vol. 18, letter to Asa Gray, 15 March [1870]. Hooker was writing Botany (Hooker 1876) for Macmillan and Co.’s ‘Science primers’ series.

From Lawson Tait   17 March [1875]1

7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. March 17

Dear Sir, Another matter I should like to draw your attention to. I send by this post a short essay which I wrote a few months ago and I should like you to read pp 58–632 I think there is a pathological interest in the curious tumours mentioned there which bears on evolution The more I think over some of the problems of pathology the more I lean towards the view that their solution will be aided by regarding them from a “Darwinian” point of view.3 When you have read the passage referred to and have leisure I should be much gratified by having your opinion about it. “Hypererchetic”, coined from “υπεrεrχομαι I act over or beyond” gives it more meaning.4 Yours truly, | Lawson Tait I suppose I may include the contents of your letter about “tails” in my note on the subject?5 DAR 178: 4 CD annotation 7.1 I suppose … subject? 7.2] scored red crayon 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Lawson Tait, [13– 15 March 1875]. Tait sent his essay The pathology and treatment of diseases of the ovaries (Tait 1874); CD’s annotated copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. In Tait 1874, pp. 58–63, Tait discussed the formative origin of such structures as teeth, bone, and cartilage in what he referred to as ‘dermoid cysts’ of the ovary. He argued that the development of these structures in the cysts could only be accounted for by CD’s theory of pangenesis (Tait 1874, p. 60). CD had outlined his provisional hypothesis of pangenesis (hereditary transmission) in Variation 2: 357–404.

112 4

5

March 1875

Tait hypothesised, ‘It may be that the ovum has in it the origin-buds of certain tissues, and that, under exceptional hypererchetic action, they may go on to the rudimental formation of these tissues without a fusion with the male germ’ (Tait 1874, p. 60). Tait’s transcription of the Greek word included two Roman letter ‘r’s rather than the Greek letter rho (‘ρ’). Tait quoted from CD’s letter to him of [13–15 March 1875] in Tait 1875a, p. 127.

From R. F. Cooke   19 March 1875

50A, Albemarle Street, London. W. March 19 1875

My dear Sir It is rather curious about the alteration in the reprint of yr Variations.1 I have a copy at home & will refer to it tonight & see if it be different & let you know by post. In the meantime, we have examined the Waste sheets, we have in our Warehouse & I send you 2 copies of the sheet in which p 375 appears, & by the different colour of the paper, we think must be a sheet of the 1st. & the 2nd. edition, but the note is alike in each!!!2 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke C. Darwin Esq Can you give me the proper address of D.r Kowalewski who is in our debt for Plates to the Expressions.3 DAR 171: 445 1

2

3

John Murray had recently agreed to produce a second edition of Variation (see letter from John Murray, 17 February [1875]). No letter from CD to Murray or Cooke mentioning an alteration in the second printing of the first edition has been found. On changes to the second printing of the first edition of Variation, see Correspondence vol. 16 and Freeman 1977. Page 375 of the first volume of Variation was unchanged between the first and second printing. In the second volume, the text on page 375 was altered, but the note was unchanged. The text was altered from ‘Nearly similar views have been propounded, as I find, by other authors, more especially by Mr. Herbert Spencer;29 but they are here modified and amplified.’ to ‘Views in some respects similar have been propounded, as I find, by other authors.29’, possibly to accommodate a lower heading on the previous page. In the second edition (2: 370), the text was altered to ‘Views in many respects similar have been propounded by various authors.’ and the note was substantially altered. Vladimir Onufrievich Kovalevsky had translated Expression into Russian ([Kovalevsky] trans. 1872). His brother, Alexander Onufrievich Kovalevsky, had directed the translation. It is not certain which of the brothers is referred to by Cooke.

From F. M. Balfour   [20 March – 14 April 1875]1

Stazione Zoologica | Napoli Dear Mr. Darwin I have given your message to Claus and also the specimens.2 The only suggestion which he can make about the one with a central disc from wh. rays pass out, is that it may be the statoblast of some fresh water Polyzoon.3 He does not however feel at all confident about it.

March 1875

113

He thinks that the other organism, consisting of a sculptured test open at one end, is the shell of some Rhizopod probably one of the Arcellidae—4 He refers for figures to an article of Schultze’s in the tenth volume of the Archiv. fùr Micro. Anatomie.5 Professor Claus also begged me to send you his kind remembrances; & to tell you that he hopes soon to send you a copy of a paper upon ‘the Anatomy & development of Argulus foliaceus’, & also of a work on the ‘Phylogeny of the Crustaceans’.6 I was unwell for nearly a week after my arrival here, & unable to go to the station or I would have written you earlier about these organisms. I remain | Yours very truly | F. M. Balfour DAR 58.1: 149 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘(Keep)’ pencil 1 2 3

4 5

6

The date range is established by the reference to Carl Friedrich Claus, who visited the Naples zoological station from 20 March until 14 April 1875 (Groeben 1982, p. 104 n. 18). The message from CD and the specimens have not been identified. Polyzoa, a former class of compound animals, is roughly equivalent to the modern phylum Ectoprocta (bryozoans). Statoblast was the name coined by George James Allman to describe the reproductive gemmae of some Polyzoa, which were surrounded by an opaque investment (Allman 1855, p. 118). Arcellidae is a family of rhizopods in the class Lobosa (amoebas). Franz Eilhard Schulze’s two-part paper ‘Rhizopodenstudien’ appeared in the Archiv für mikroskopische Anatomie 10 (1874): 328–50, 377–400. Figures appeared in tables 26 and 27, some of which showed the rough ovoid test or shell with encrusted grains of sand and an opening at one end (tab. 26, figs. 8–10). CD’s copy of Claus’s paper, ‘Ueber die Entwickelung, Organisation und systematische Stellung der Arguliden’ (On the development, organisation, and systematic place of the Argulidae; Claus 1875), is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. His copy of Claus’s book, Untersuchungen zur Erforschung der genealogischen Grundlage des Crustaceen-Systems (Research towards the discovery of the genealogical foundation of the Crustacea; Claus 1876), is in the Darwin Library–Down. Argulus foliaceus (the carp louse) is a species in the parasitic crustacean family Argulidae (fish lice).

From Horatio Piggot   20 March 1875 20, Broadwater Down | Tunbridge Wells Sir May I be allowed to suggest for your consideration in any future Edition of your work on the structure & distribution of Coral Reefs, the great advantage that would accrue to Students of accurate Drawings colored, if necessary, of the different Coral producing Zoophytes mentioned in your work.1 or some of the most important of them: Works on Coral are not often accessible in the Country: Believe me | Yrs sincerely | Horatio Piggot 20 March 1875 Charles Darwin Esq | &c &c &c DAR 69: 73

114 1

March 1875

Coral reefs 2d ed. was published in 1874. The book contained three folding maps and several woodcuts, all of which were geological. There were no illustrations of corals (class Anthozoa) or other fauna associated with reefs.

To Horatio Piggot   20 March [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. March 20. Dear Sir Your suggestion is a very good one, & should there ever be a new Edition I will consider its adoption.2 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS Smithsonian Libraries (Special Collections, Dibner Library MSS 405 A. Gift of the Burndy Library) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Horatio Piggot, 20 March 1875. In his letter of 20  March  1875, Piggot suggested that Coral reefs include illustrations of corals (class Anthozoa). There were no further editions in CD’s lifetime.

To Lawson Tait   20 March [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. March 20 Dear Sir I have read with much interest that part of your essay which you point out, & I hope hereafter to read the whole. I have not knowledge enough to form an opinion of any value of your view   But the facts which you give about these tumours, such as the enclosed teeth &c (tho’ I had never heard of the more wonderful cases you refer to) seem to me highly favourable to some such notion as that of pangenesis; for they indicate that there must be independant germs for each part.2 I cannot remember that there was any thing in my last note worth giving, but you are welcome to use any statement made by me3 Dear Sir | yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek, Hannover (Noviss. 450: A 48) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Lawson Tait, 17 March [1875]. Tait had recommended that CD read Tait 1874, pp. 58–63 (see letter from Lawson Tait, 17 March [1875] and nn. 2 and 3). CD made several annotations in this section of his copy of the article, which is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Tait had pointed out that the development of structures like teeth or hair in some ovarian cysts could be accounted for by CD’s theory of pangenesis (Tait 1874, p. 60).

March 1875 3

115

Tait quoted from CD’s letter to him of [13–15 March 1875] in Tait 1875a, p. 127.

From Anton Bachmaier1   21 March 1875 Anthropologische Gesellschaft | in | München. Hochverehrter Herr! Empfangen Sie den verbindlichsten Dank für Ihre so interessante Zuschrift vom 11. März worin Sie die Güte hatten die Autoritäten aufzuführen für die erwähnten Fälle von Wiederproduction amputirter überzähliger menschlicher Finger und Zehen.2 Man wird dadurch die Forschung mächtig anregen und ich werde nicht verfehlen Ihnen es mitzutheilen, wenn man in Deutschland aehnliche Faelle findet. Ich erlaube mir Ihnen einen kleinen Vortrag “über Sprache” zu überreichen.3 Es wäre mir sehr interessant zu hören, welche Beobachtungen vorliegen über Lautverstaendigung bei der Thierwelt. Es ist kein Zweifel dass die Thiere “Schmerz, Furcht, Liebe durch Laute kundgeben können. Welche Beobachtungen existiren darüber? namentlich über die dem Menschen am naechsten stehenden Thierarten? Sie würden mich sehr verbinden durch Hinweisung auf dieselben.— Welcher Jaeger kennt nicht, wie die Gemse durch ihren Pfiff auf die drohende Gefahr aufmerksam macht. Wer kennt nicht das heitere und das klagende Gebell des Hundes? U.S.W. Alles Lautbenützungen zum Verstaendnisse.— Unser Grosser Denker Herder nahm schon im vorigen Jahrhunderte die Entstehung des Menschen in einem Thierkörper an, war ein Prophet dessen, wofür Sie später mit Beweisen auftraten.—4 Auffallend ist auch, dass die edle Seelenempfindung der Treue im Hunde eine die Menschenwelt gerade zu beschämende ist.— Sie haben durch Ihre Forschungen die Thierwelt erhoben ohne das Menschenthum zu erniedrigen.— Mit dem Ausdrücke größter Verehrung Ihr ganz ergebenster Diener | Anton Bachmaier | Secretair der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft. München | 21/III 75. DAR 160: 11 1 2

3

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. CD’s letter has not been found, but was a reply to the letter from Anton Bachmaier, 4 February 1875. CD’s letter was read at the March 1875 meeting of the Munich Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory (see Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Urgeschichte 1 (1876): 101). Bachmaier evidently sent a copy of a lecture delivered at the February 1874 meeting of the Munich Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory, ‘Einiges über Sprache’ (A few things on language; see Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Urgeschichte 1 (1876): 99). CD’s copy has not been found and no extant printed version has been identified. The journal of the society began publication in 1876 and only a brief summary of the proceedings of meetings from its beginning in 1870 up to 1875 were included in the first volume (Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Urgeschichte 1 (1876): 97–101).

116 4

March 1875

Johann Gotfried Herder, in his essay on the origin of language (Abhandlung über den Ursprung der Sprache; Herder 1772, p. 6), argued that humans had common origins with animals.

From E. J. Johnston   22 March 1875 14 Wycliffe Grove, | Lavender Hill, | Wandsworth Road. | S.W. 22nd March 1875. Dear Sir, I duly received your letter of the 17th, and would have acknowledged it sooner, had I not been hindered by engagements in town.1 I shall have great pleasure in writing to a botanical friend in Oporto for seeds of the Araujia sericofera.2 If you will only investigate the matter when you have leisure, my design in writing to you will be fully accomplished. Since receiving your letter, I was discoursing about the Araujia to a friend who has lived in Portugal. I asked him whether he had ever actually witnessed the capture of an insect, and he replied that he had not, but that on one occasion he came very near it. He was approaching the plant, and, when quite close to it, he saw a hawk-moth flying before him in the same direction. By the time he had arrived at the spot, the insect was firmly caught by the trunk. It was making great efforts with its wings to escape, but without success. The capture was the work of a moment. He spontaneously compared the shape of the part by which the insect was caught (viz., the stigma) to the figure formed by the two large feathers in the tail of the lyre bird.3 I note with much interest the subject which you are now investigating, and am glad to find that what Knapp says of the Apocynum androsæmifolium is, (in part at least) confirmed by your own later observations.4 I shall write to you again when I have a reply from my botanical friend. In the mean time I remain, | Yours faithfully, | Edwin J. Johnston Jr. DAR 168: 75 1 2

3

4

CD’s letter has not been found, but see the letter from E. J. Johnston, 16 March 1875. Johnston’s friend has not been identified. CD evidently wanted to grow specimens of Araujia sericifera in order to observe how flowers of this species caught insects (see letter from E.  J.  Johnston, 16 March 1875 and n. 2). Araujia sericifera is the common moth-vine or cruel plant; ‘sericofera’ was an incorrect spelling that had appeared in publication. Johnston uses ‘trunk’ to refer to the proboscis of the moth. Hawk moths are in the family Sphingidae. The moth is trapped when its proboscis becomes wedged between the rigid anther wings of the flower. Male lyre-birds (genus Menura) have distinctive tail feathers, the two largest of which resemble a lyre. In his letter of 16 March 1875, Johnston had compared the trapping mechanism of Araujia sericifera with a similar feature in Apocynum androsaemifolium (fly-trap dogbane) as described by John Leonard Knapp. CD may have informed Johnston that he had observed A. androsaemifolium in his father’s garden and noted its fly-trapping ability (see Correspondence vol. 8, letter to Daniel Oliver, [21 November 1860], and letter from Daniel Oliver, 23 November 1860). CD had suggested to Fritz Müller that he observe fly catching in the Apocynaceae, noting that he had never determined a purpose for the phenomenon (Correspondence vol. 14, letter to Fritz Müller, [9 and] 15 April [1866]).

March 1875

117

From Oswald Heer1   23 March 1875 Zürich 23 März 1875. Mein geehrtester Herr! Empfangen Sie meinen wärmsten Dank für Ihren freundlichen Brief vom 8ten. März, welcher mir eine sehr grosse Freude gemacht hat.2 Es ist für mich eine grosse Aufmunterung zu sehen, dass Sie so warmen Antheil an meinen Arbeiten über die arctische Flora nehmen u. wünsche nur, dass die neuen Beiträge zur fossilen Flora Spitzbergens, für welche gegenwärtig die Tafeln lithographirt werden, geeignet seien, diess Interesse zu erhalten.3 Sie bringen die eigentliche Carbon Flora u. Jura Flora Spitzbergens und füllen damit eine grosse Lücke in der Entwicklungsgeschichte der hoch nordischen Pflanzenwelt.4 Gewiss wäre es im höchsten Grade wünschenswerth ähnliche Sammlungen von der Südlichen Hemisphaere zu erhalten. Die Aussichten dafür sind aber nicht günstig. Doch gieng mir wenigstens ein lebhafter Wunsch in Erfüllung, nemlich fossile Pflanzen aus der Tropenwelt zu erhalten. Ich habe Ihnen in diesen Tagen eine kleine Abhandlung über tertiäre Pflanzen Sumatras übersandt.5 Seither erhielt ich eine zweite reichere Sendung von da, welche der frühern etwa 20 neue Arten hinzufügt, so dass wir doch schon einige wichtigen Fingerzeige über das Aussehen der Flora Indiens zur Tertiarzeit bekommen.6 Sie zeigen uns, dass die Tertiär Flora Sumatras der jetzt dort lebenden sehr ähnlich ist, sich also zu derselben ganz anders verhält als die Tertiär Flora der Schweiz zu der Jetztlebenden oder gar als die Tertiäre arctische Flora zu der Jetzt über den Norden verbreiteten Pflanzenwelt. Wir sind daher wohl zu dem Schlusse berechtigt, dass das Klima von Sumatra zur Tertiärzeit im grossen ganzen nicht verschieden war von dem Jetztigen, dass dasselbe also in der Tropenwelt sich gleich geblieben u.  die grossen Aenderungen in demselben nur die gemässigte u.  die Kalte Zone betreffen. Diese Aenderung scheint aber erst mit der obern Kreide begonnen zu haben u. in der unendlich langen Zeit von der Steinkohlenperiode bis zur obern Kreide scheint über die ganze Erde ein ähnliches Klima geherrscht zu haben, wie die Pflanzen u. Thiere der Unter=Carbon, der Carbon, der Trias, der Jura u. der untern Kreide von Grönland u. Spitzbergen zeigen. Wir können daher wohl sagen, dass das tropische Klima das Normalklima der Erde war u. es sich erst in relativ später Zeit auf die Länder zwischen den Wendekreisen zurückzog. Dass der Rückgang ein allmäliger war zeigt das Verhalten der Flora der obern Kreide u.  das Miocen der arctischen Zone, indem sie für das Miocen von Spitzbergen bei 78oN. Br. auf eine mittlere Jahrestemperatur von 8-9o.C. schliessen lässt. Derselbe erreichte sein Maximum zur Gletscherzeit, während welcher die Tropenzone wohl schmäler war als gegenwärtig. Doch wird unter dem Aequator auch damals eine hohe Temperatur geherrscht haben, so dass wir wohl annehmen dürfen, dass Sumatra von den ersten Zeiten organischen Lebens bis Jetzt ein tropisches Klima besass u.  die Umbildungen in der Pflanzen u. Thierwelt nicht durch die Aenderungen des Klima bedingt wurden. Es wird daher wohl die Entwicklung der

118

March 1875

organischen Welt unter den Tropen vielfach eine andere gewesen sein, als in der gemässigten u. in der kalten Zone, wo seit der obern Kreidezeit so ungeheuer grosse Umänderungen in den äussern Lebensbedingungen statt gehabt haben. Hier waren die Pflanzen u. Thiere genöthigt sich den neuen Verhältnissen anzupassen, während unter den Tropen diess Motiv wegfällt. Es hat neuerdings Hr. Belt eine früher schon vielfach ausgeprochene Hypothese mit Geschick vertheidigt, dass die Klima- Aenderungen durch eine Aenderung der Stellung der Erdachse zur Sonne bedingt worden sei.7 In frühern Perioden soll die Sonne immer über dem Aequator gestanden haben, in Folge dessen habe die jetztige gemässigte Zone ein subtropisches, die arctische aber ein warmes Klima gehabt. Dann sei die Neigung der Erdachse entstanden u. in Folge dessen die Länder ausserhalb der Wendekreise kälter geworden. Diese Hypothese würde allerdings die oben besprochenen Thatsachen erklären, wenn die Angabe des Hrn. Belt von der Wirkung dieser Aenderung in der Stellung der Erdachse richtig wäre. Diess scheint mir aber gar nicht der Fall zu sein. Würde die Sonne immer über dem Aequator stehen, so würden ohne Zweifel die gemässigte u. kalte Zone einen viel wärmern Winter, anderseits aber einen kältern Sommer erhalten, es würden eben die Jahreszeiten ausgeglichen, aber die mittlere Jahrestemperatur würde wohl kaum geändert, so dass ich nicht absehen kann, dass auf solche Weise das grosse Räthsel gelöst weren kann. Ich habe mit grossen Interesse den Vortrag unseres Freundes, Dr. Hooker über Ihre Untersuchungen betreffend die Insectivoren Pflanzen gelesen u.  bin auf Ihr Werk sehr gespannt, daher ich Ihnen für dasselbe zu grossem Dank verpflichtet sein werde.8 Sie aufs freundlichste begrüssend verbleibe | in grösster Hochachtung | Ihr ergebenster | Oswald Heer Meinen besten Dank für Ihre Photographie. Sie hat mir grosse Freude gemacht. DAR 166: 131 1 2 3 4

5

6

7

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. See letter to Oswald Heer, 8 March [1875]. Heer had sent CD the third volume of his collected work on fossil flora (Heer 1868–83; see letter to Oswald Heer, 8 March [1875] and n. 2). Heer’s work, ‘Beiträge zur fossilen Flora Spitsbergens’ (Contributions on the fossil flora of Spitsbergen; Heer 1875), was first published in August 1875 in Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar. Heer evidently did not send the monograph when it first appeared, since CD’s copy of the work, in the Darwin Library–CUL, forms the first part of volume 4 of Heer’s collected work on fossil flora (Heer 1868–83), which was published in 1877. CD’s copy of ‘Ueber fossile Pflanzen von Sumatra’ (On fossil plants of Sumatra; Heer 1874) is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Heer noted that he had been sent the specimens by Rogier Diederik Marius Verbeek, the superintendent of the Geological Survey of Sumatra (ibid., p. 3). Verbeek published an account of the geology of Sumatra in the Geological Magazine in October 1875, and briefly discussed the fossil plants he collected (Verbeek 1875, p. 481). In 1883, Heer published a description of the collections sent by Verbeek in 1874 and 1875 (Heer 1883). In ‘An examination of the theories that have been proposed to account for the climate of the glacial period’, Thomas Belt argued that a great increase in the obliquity of the ecliptic of the earth’s

March 1875

8

119

orbit would produce colder temperatures while a great decrease would produce warmer temperatures (Belt 1874b, pp. 461–3). Joseph Dalton Hooker had discussed CD’s research on insectivorous plants in his address to the Department of Botany and Zoology at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Hooker 1874a). The address was also published in Nature (Hooker 1874b).

From John Murray   23 March [1875]1 50, Albemarle S.t | W. Mar 23 My Dear Sir Enclosed you will find my cheque for 66 Guis being estimated current cheap Edition of your Descent of Man— (2000 copies)2 My Dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | John Murray

2ds 3

profit on the

Chas Darwin Esq DAR 171: 446 1 2

The year is established by the reference to Descent 2d ed. (see n. 2, below). The second edition of Descent was published in one volume, priced at 9s. (Publishers’ circular, 18 December 1874, p. 1142). CD recorded the receipt of £66 3s. on 25 March 1875 in his Account books–banking account (Down House MS). Murray evidently intended to write 63  guineas, equivalent to £66 3s. Murray’s ledger entry (National Library of Scotland, John Murray Archive, Ms. 42732, p. 398) was for £66 3s.

From J. P. Thomasson   23 March 1875 Alderley Edge | Manchester Mar 23. 75 Dear Sir, May I venture to suggest that the following passage in the “Descent of Man &c” 1871, though modified in a later edition by the addition of the words “or conceal their nests”, still conveys a wrong impression: Part II. Page 170. “The two sexes of the common flycatcher (Muscicapa grisola) can hardly be distinguished, whilst the sexes of the pied flycatcher (M. luctuosa) differ considerably, & both build in holes”. I have found many nests of both species & my experience is, as far as I can remember, & after reading over my notes on both, that with Musc. luctuosa (atricapilla), the English pied flycatcher, the nest is well protected or concealed, whereas with Musc. grisola it is not concealed at all, or very imperfectly.1 Mr. John Gibson quoted by Hewitson in his “Eggs of British Birds” 3rd. Edition says that the hole chosen (by Musc. atricapilla) is generally too small to admit the hand,2 which quite agrees with my experience, but I do not remember an instance where I could not place the hand in the nest of Musc. grisola, which is often built upon a branch of a pear tree against a garden wall, in a hole where a brick has fallen out, in ivy or in any small hollow against the trunk of a tree &c. I have also found it

120

March 1875

on the top of a tree root under a river bank, and against the side of a stump in an open space. I do not doubt however that the nest is sometimes inaccessible to the hand, as the bird will build almost in any hole or corner, but I have not found it in small holes— I may perhaps mention that the eggs of these nearly allied species, contrary to the usual rule, differ much in colour, those of Musc. grisola being marked with red on a light ground, while those of Musc. atricapilla are of a light greenish blue. Mr. Hewitson states however that he has seen eggs of Musc. grisola in the collections of Mr. Wilmot & Mr. Salmon of a clear spotless blue—3 Musc. grisola is a widely distributed species, Musc. atricapilla much more local in its habitat, though abundant in some districts. Do not trouble to reply to this letter. With respect to consanguineous marriages I may mention, though isolated facts are probably of little value, that my wife’s Brother was born deaf & dumb, and her parents were second cousins. He has two children, none of whom are affected—, nor are the three children of my wife—4 Mr. Samuel Smith, Chaplain to the Royal Association in aid of the Deaf & Dumb has a strong opinion that “the marriage of first cousins is undoubtedly the most prolific cause of congenital deaf-mutism known”, and in a late letter to the Times gives several lamentable instances in support of it.5 yours very truly | John P. Thomasson Charles Darwin Esq P.S. You may probably find the nest of Musc. grisola in your own garden early in June. Posted 29 Mar. 75 DAR 178: 109 1

2 3 4

The passage in Descent 2: 170 reads ‘The two sexes of the common fly-catcher (Muscicapa grisola) can hardly be distinguished, whilst the sexes of the pied fly-catcher (M. luctuosa) differ considerably, and both build in holes.’ In Descent 2d ed., p. 455, CD wrote, ‘The two sexes of the common fly-catcher (Musicapa grisola) can hardly be distinguished, whilst the sexes of the pied fly-catcher (M. luctuosa) differ considerably, and both species build in holes or conceal their nests.’ The misspelling of Muscicapa was corrected in later reprints of the second edition. Muscicapa grisola is a synonym of M. striata, the spotted flycatcher. Muscicapa luctuosa and M. atricapilla are synonyms of Ficedula hypoleuca (the European pied flycatcher). William Chapman Hewitson cited John Gibson of Tyrril, Penrith, for the information on nests of pied flycatchers in Hewitson 1856, 1: 76. Hewitson 1856, 1: 74; Hewitson referred to Joseph Pratt Wilmot and John Drew Salmon. Thomasson’s wife was Katharine Thomasson; her brother was Samuel Bright Lucas, and their parents were Samuel Lucas and Margaret Bright Lucas. The Thomassons’s children were Lucas, Beatrice, and Franklin Thomasson. Samuel Bright Lucas’s children were Charles Duncan and Margaret Elizabeth Lucas. In Descent 2: 403, CD wrote: ‘When the principles of breeding and of inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining by an easy method whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man.’ CD

March 1875

5

121

had attempted unsuccessfully to have a question about consanguineous marriage added to the census for 1871 (see, for example, Correspondence vol 18, letter to John Lubbock, 17 July 1870). George Howard Darwin’s paper on the subject was read at the Statistical Society of London on 16 March 1875 and published in June (G. H. Darwin 1875a). A shorter version was published in the July issue of the Fortnightly Review (G. H. Darwin 1875b). Smith’s letter to the editor was published in The Times, 19 February 1875, p. 7.

To Lawson Tait   25 March 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. March 25th Dear Sir I am much obliged by your kind note.1 I should be very glad to make your personal acquaintance & no introduction was in the least necessary. I fear however that we cannot meet just at present. I have long been much out of health, & lately I have been working very hard & am quite knocked up; at the best of times I cannot converse with any one for more than half an hour or so; & at present I should be incapable even of this much exertion. Therefore I beg you to propose some future Sunday. But I am going on the 31st or 1st for a week to my brother’s house 6 Queen Anne St Cavendish Square, for complete rest,2 & expect that two or three days will set me up. Down is rather an awkward place to reach, & if it would suit you better to come to London on the 4th or on one of the few succeeding days, I should have great pleasure in seeing you. I would suggest your coming to luncheon, & then we could have some talk afterwards   But in this case please to inform me that I may keep myself fresh My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS John Wilson (dealer) catalogue 62 (July 1989) 1 2

Tait’s letter has not been found but was probably a reply to the letter to Lawson Tait, 20 March [1875]. CD stayed at the home of Erasmus Alvey Darwin from 31 March to 6 April 1875, and then at the home of Henrietta Litchfield; he returned to Down on 12 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR242)).

From Thomas Burgess   26 March 1875 Rainow March 26th 1875 Dear Sir— I have often times thought that I should very much like your Portrait as a remembrance of respect during the time I was on Board the Beagle, when she was Surveying the South West Coast of Chili and Peru, commanded by Captian Fitzroy, for four years, and you was in connection with the Survey on Board the Beagle the whole time.1 For instance, do you renemder me calling you upon Deck one night, when the Beagle Lay in Chiloway, to Witness the Volcanic Eruption of a Mountain when I

122

March 1875

was on Duty on the Middle Watch, and you Exclaimed, O my God, what a sight, I shall never forget.2 Another Instance, when whe walked eleven miles from the—River Santa Cruz, and returning Back, you had forgot your Compass and whe had to make our way Back without them;3 Also, do you remember me giving you my Water on our returning to the Vessel when you was—exausted with thirst. I hope I may have said sufficent as to convince you that I am not an imposter, But one that wishes to have in remembrance of those Happy Days I spent with you on Board the Beagle, that his, the presence of your Portrait. I trust you will not think me presumtious in asking for the—small favour of respect, Because, I can assure you, I ask from the purest of motives. With my kind wishes to you | I Remain | yours most obdet | Thomas Burgess to Doctor Darwin | Down Bromley | Kent LS DAR 106: D15–16 1 2

3

Burgess was a royal marine on the voyage of HMS Beagle from 1831  to 1836; Robert FitzRoy was captain (‘Beagle’ diary). CD described the eruption of the volcano of Osorno seen from the bay of San Carlos in Chiloe on the night of 19 January 1835 in Journal of researches 2d ed., p. 291; the sentry CD referred to in his description must have been Burgess. CD described the voyage up the Santa Cruz river, Argentina, in Journal of researches 2d ed., pp. 177–88.

From Lawson Tait   27 March [1875]1 7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. March 27 Dear Sir, It would not be fair in me to intrude when you are at rest in London, so that I would rather visit you after your return to Down, say on the 11th. 18th. or 25th.2 For years I have been working at details of the great scheme you have sketched out and of course the more I get in to it, the more vast & intricate it becomes yet the more universally applicable seem the laws. As I am not hampered by wordly exigencies, I do not devote myself to the drudgery of medical life and therefore have time for science. I am at present preparing a paper for the Royal Society on the Umbilical cord, and some of the conclusions to which I am led have so startled me that I merely hint at them in this preliminary note (to the R.S.).3 Thus the spiral form of the cord, which has been passed by as a mere anatomical curiosity seems to me to bear strongly on the evidence of the descent of man & here I want your advice & assistance. It has further led me to a hypothesis for the spiral growth of plants—and therefore the spiral growth of everything, which I wish to submit to your criticism

March 1875

123

I shall endeavour not to weary you. Please do not answer this note, save to fix one of these Sundays or some still later on, at Down. Yours faithfully, | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 5 CD annotations Top of p. 2: ‘5o, 2′’ pencil End of letter: ‘am 10° 30′ | 3o. 17′ | arrive at 4° | Leave Orping 8° 32’4 pencil 1 2 3

4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Lawson  Tait, 25 March 1875. Tait visited CD on Saturday 17 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Tait’s paper, ‘Preliminary note on the anatomy of the umbilical cord’ (Tait  1876), was received on 28 April 1875 and read at the 17 June 1875 meeting of the Royal Society of London. CD’s annotated copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. CD’s annotations refer to train times at Orpington station (the closest to CD’s home in Down), and may relate to Tait’s planned visit.

To J. D. Hooker   30 March [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. March 30th My dear Hooker I write solely for the sake of congratulating myself, for I have at last finished correcting M.S. of Insectivorous Plants & recorrecting Climbing Plants.2 This has taken me exactly 3 months! Mere correction! It has been an awful grind, & has almost done me up. It is lucky for authors in general that they do not require such dreadful work, in merely licking what they write into shape. Ill-luck to it my M.S. makes a very big bundle, which I take up tomorrow to Murray & then for the tiresome job of correcting the press.3 I have, also, to congratulate myself that Mr. Ouliss finished my picture yesterday & means to send it to the Academy.4 I look a very venerable, acute melancholy old dog,— whether I really look so I do not know.— We go to 6. Queen Anne St. tomorrow & shall be there for about 6 days, & then perhaps shall go for few days to Henrietta at 2 Bryanston St.—5 I fear there is no chance of your being in London, & wanting Luncheon; but if the fates are propitious do come. I see by your last note that you will be off on the 15th & I am very very glad of it.6 Now do not travel too quickly or exert yourself in any way too much; try & get some rest. I shd. think the private note from Disraeli must make Dyer’s appointment certain.—7 I hope that “Primer” makes some progress.—8 Farewell | dear old friend | Yours affect. | Ch. Darwin DAR 95: 382–3 1

The year is established by the reference to Insectivorous plants (see n. 2, below).

124 2 3 4

5

6 7

8

April 1875

CD recorded that he finished working on the manuscript of Insectivorous plants and recorrecting Climbing plants on 29 March 1875 (see ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). CD went to London on 31 March 1875; he received proof-sheets of Insectivorous plants on 18 April 1875 (letter to J. V. Carus, 19 April [1875]). Walter William Ouless exhibited his portrait of CD at the Royal Academy summer exhibition in 1875. The portrait remained in the family until the mid twentieth century; it is now in Darwin College, Cambridge ( J. Browne 2009, pp. 552–3; see frontispiece). CD and Emma Darwin stayed at the home of Erasmus Alvey Darwin from 31 March to 6 April 1875, and then at the home of their daughter Henrietta Emma Litchfield; they returned to Down on 12 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR242)). See letter from J. D. Hooker, 17 March 1875 and n. 2. Hooker was planning to join two of his children in Algiers. Hooker had received a letter from the prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, asking whether William Turner Thiselton-Dyer was the person Hooker would recommend for the post of assistant at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 17 March 1875 and n. 7). Hooker was writing Botany (Hooker 1876) for Macmillan and Co.’s ‘Science primers’ series.

To Thomas Belt   31 March [1875]1

6, Queen Anne St. | Cavendish Square March 31

My dear Sir I have just come to London for a week or so. Will it suit you to come to luncheon here at 1 o’clock, some early day?2 It will give me great pleasure if you will; and in this case please send me a line fixing the day so that I may be at home. My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin. Copy DAR 143: 82 1

2

The year is established by the address; CD stayed at the home of Erasmus Alvey Darwin from 31 March to 6 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). There is no other year when he stayed at Queen Anne Street on 31 March. Belt may have proposed a meeting with CD in February (see letter to Thomas Belt, 24 February 1875). No record of a meeting during CD’s stay in London has been found.

To G. H. Darwin   2 [April 1875]1

6 Queen Anne St— Friday 2d

My dear G. I have thought you wd like to hear about the £100 seance yesterday, (April Fool day) at Hensleigh’s, & I have another motive for writing.2 As far as I could make out—one girl was put in dark room with hands tied & sealed—& tied & sealed to floor. The other girl was in the partly lighted room in a trance on the sofa & not tied, with all the spectators.— All that happened was that the spirits talked & chattered much, & Hope3 thinks that she saw lips of girl on sofa moving— There was only one appearance of a spirit & even Hensleigh admitted that it presented no distinct appearance: Hope (who believes in spirits) says it might have been merely

April 1875

125

a white handkerchief, waved through opening of curtain from the tied girl in the other room, as she was placed near the curtain. One of the spirits first asked who & how many were present, & made each one give his honour that he wd not try of seize hold of any spirit! No doubt this was done because there were unknown people present.— Now in the dark room with the tied girl a sort of stand was pulled down so it lay at & almost on the tied girl, & all the music books were scattered about. Now here comes curious point: after Hensleigh had gone away this morning I said to Fanny4 that I thought that the girl must have slipped out of her fastenings & then it came out that the seal by which she was fastened to the floor was broken!! & Hensleigh evidently thought this so unimportant that he never even alluded to it!— Now be sure you do not betray me, but I shall be very curious to hear if Sidgwick5 mentions this circumstance of the broken seal;; so get him to give you full details of the seance of April 1.—without alluding to what you have heard.— Hensleigh made some point about the risk of girl having had her legs hurt by the prostrate stand, & Erasmus thinks this position of the stand was chosen to account for the broken seal.6 Good Heavens what rubbish the whole does seem to be.— Yours affect | Ch. Darwin Heaven knows whether you will be able to read or understand this— DAR 210.1: 45 1

2

3 4 5 6

The month and year are established by the reference to ‘April Fool day’ (1 April), and by the fact that CD visited his brother, Erasmus Alvey Darwin, at 6 Queen Anne Street, London, from 31 March to 5 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). In 1875, 2 April was a Friday. George had attended a seance hosted by Hensleigh Wedgwood in 1874 (see letter from T. H. Huxley, 27 January 1874). Wedgwood became spiritualist later in life and contributed articles to the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research; on Wedgwood’s and his family’s interest in spiritualism, see Wedgwood and Wedgwood 1980, pp. 305 and 324–5, and J. Browne 2002, pp. 404–6. Hope Elizabeth Wedgwood. Frances Emma Elizabeth Wedgwood. Henry Sidgwick. CD had attended a seance hosted by Erasmus in 1874 (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 18 January [1874]).

To W. E. Darwin   [2 April 1875] Let Strickland know that Cartmell has proposed him in place of Buckle, so that I have seconded him in place of Th. Mayo, who is now dead or not a member of the Club.1 C. D 6. Queen Anne. St. (Friday) ApcS Postmark: Ap 2 75 DAR 210.6: 140

126 1

April 1875

Sefton West Strickland had been a contemporary of William Erasmus Darwin at Christ’s College, Cambridge (Alum. Cantab.). The club mentioned was the Athenaeum Club; CD and James Cartmell were members ([Waugh] 1888). Henry Thomas Buckle and Thomas Mayo had been members but had died in 1862 and 1871 respectively (ODNB). Membership of the Athenaeum was limited and waiting lists were long; if the original proposer or seconder died or left the club before a candidate could be balloted, the rules provided for a new proposer or seconder to be inserted into the Book of candidates at least one month before the ballot was held (Athenæum: rules and regulations, and list of members). Strickland was elected in 1876 ([Waugh] 1888).

From Thomas Belt   3 April 1875

Cornwall House Ealing April 3 1875

Dear Mr Darwin, Mr Codrington’s paper is on the “Superficial deposits of the South of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight” and is published in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society Vol. XXVI P. 528.1 It is one of the most admirable descriptions of the gravels I have seen— I visited the cutting on the railway near here this afternoon and found that more than three fourths of the pebbles are broken— Some action, violent I think, has cleared them from off the hills above 400 feet above the sea and spread them out in wide sheets below 200 feet— Mr Farrer has given me some most interesting information respecting the absence of flints over the surface of the greensand in the neighbourhood of Abinger and I am much elated to find it fits in beautifully with my glacial theory—2 Yours very truly | Thomas Belt Charles Darwin Esqre | 6 Queen Anne Street | Cavendish Square | London DAR 160: 129 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Reference to’ pencil 1

2

No letter has been found in which CD asked Belt about Thomas Codrington’s paper (Codrington 1870), but the two probably discussed it in person; see the letter to Thomas Belt, 31 March [1875], in which CD proposes a meeting. Thomas Henry Farrer lived at Abinger Hall, Reigate, Surrey. Belt’s glacial theory was presented in Belt 1874b; see also letter from Oswald Heer, 23 March 1875 and n. 7. On Belt’s visit to Abinger, see the letter from T. H. Farrer, 3 April 1875.

From T. H. Farrer   3 April 1875

Abinger Hall, | Wotton. Surrey 3 April/75

My dear Mr Darwin Payne says that it is now too late to strike new cuttings of the vine.1 But he has already three or four which will in three weeks time be rooted & hardened off. & be

April 1875

127

fit for sending   If therefore he (or I) does not hear from you again the little plants shall be packed in a box in about 3 weeks & sent to Dunskeith.2 I suppose the address does for parcels as well as for the post We have had Belt here to meet Huxley—3 a very pleasant modest man & interesting to talk to. He is much moved about the denudation of the Weald—and writes to me at length on the difficulty of knowing what has become of all the flints if the chalk has been removed from our valley by mere rain water.4 Our party of wise men was very pleasant and Mrs Grote says Effie is fit to manage a Theatre from the tact she shewed in getting a pretty girl Miss Ritchie for the philosophers to talk to5 Sincerely yours | T H Farrer DAR 164: 78 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Vines Ready’ pencil 1 2

3 4

5

George Payne was the gardener at Abinger Hall in Surrey. George John Romanes was undertaking grafting experiments for CD (see letter from G. J. Romanes, 14  January  1875). Romanes spent his summers at Dunskaith House, Nigg, Scotland (E.  D.  Romanes 1896, p. 14). Thomas Belt and Thomas Henry Huxley. In support of his argument that there had been enough time to allow for change through natural selection, CD, in Origin, p. 287, estimated the denudation of the Weald of south-eastern England to have occurred over 300 million years. Criticisms led him to halve the time period in the second edition (p. 287) and remove the entire discussion from the third edition. CD later remarked on the gradual decomposition of flints by atmospheric agencies in Earthworms, p. 245 n. See also letter from Thomas Belt, 3 April 1875. Harriet Grote was the widow of the historian George Grote, and edited his collected works. Effie: Katherine Euphemia Farrer, Farrer’s wife. ‘Miss Ritchie’ was probably Emily Marion Ritchie.

From W. E. Darwin   [4 April 1875]1 Bassett, | Southampton. Sunday My dear Father, I will write & let Strickland know, and he will be very much obliged to you.2 If you go to Athenaeum again would you mind asking if I was put down at the end again when I came on for election some years ago; as it is possible in a few years time I might like to try my luck to get in.3 If you are not naturally there I could get a line introducing me to the Secretary who would tell me.4 I hope you find London suits you & that Mother is getting over her headaches. I am enjoying Belt5 very much indeed. Your affect son | W. E. Darwin Cornford Family Papers (private collection)

128 1 2 3 4 5

April 1875

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to W. E. Darwin, 2 [April 1875], and by the fact that 4 April 1875 was a Sunday. See letter to W. E. Darwin, 2 [April 1875] and n. 1; Sefton West Strickland was seeking election to the Athenaeum Club. See letter to W. E. Darwin, [5 April 1875] and n. 1. James Claude Webster was secretary of the Athenaeum club ([Cowell] 1975, p. 108). Thomas Belt’s The naturalist in Nicaragua (Belt 1874a).

From T. H. Huxley   [4 April 1875]1 4 Marlborough Place | N.W Sunday af.t My dear Darwin I set to work immediately after you left this morning & excogitated the following— If you & Paget & Sanderson would deal with it as you think fit—it strikes me it might form a basis for a petition such as we talked about2 Ever | Yours faithfully | T H Huxley DAR 166: 337 1

2

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875]. CD was in London from 31 March to 12 April 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). There were two Sundays during this period, 4 and 11 April. However, in his letter to Burdon Sanderson of [11 April 1875], CD does not mention having seen Huxley that morning. CD had asked Huxley to consult physiologists in London about presenting a petition to regulate vivisection to the House of Commons (see letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875). Huxley’s enclosure has not been found; however, a copy of the draft petition is in DAR 139.17: 19 (see Appendix VI). Huxley refers to James Paget and John Scott Burdon Sanderson.

To W. E. Darwin   [5 April 1875] Eras. says your name was put at bottom.—1 Our visit very prosperous— we go to day to 2. Bryanston St.2 C. D. ApcS Postmark: Ap 5 75 DAR 210.6: 141 1

On 8 April [1875], Erasmus Alvey Darwin (CD’s brother) wrote to William Erasmus Darwin: ‘I looked to make sure that you had been entered at the Athenæum & I find your name Nº 5656 1868 so you will probably come on in five or six years. You must remember before that to get a Seconder & it will be as well to mention that you have been entered twice as in the Index your name is scratched out the first time & entered again near the end with no cross reference’ (DAR 210.7: 4). On the process of election to the Athenaeum, see the letter to W. E. Darwin, [2 April 1875], n. 1. A proposer’s name had to be given when the candidate’s name was listed in the Book of candidates, but the seconder’s name did not have to be given until the week before the ballot was held (Athenæum: rules and regulations, and list of members). William was elected in 1884 ([Waugh] 1888).

April 1875 2

129

The Darwins stayed with Erasmus in London from 31 March to 5 April; they then stayed with their daughter Henrietta Emma Litchfield until 12 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)).

From John Lubbock   5 April [1875]1 15, Lombard Street, E.C. 5 April (Copy) My dear Mr. Darwin Having occasion to write to Mr. Ffinden2 about another matter, I incidentally expressed my regret at the coolness between you, & my conviction that it must arise from some misapprehension on his part. In reply Mr. Ffinden expressed his regret that there should be any want of harmony between himself & one “so highly gifted both intellectually & morally,” but he refers to two matters, the first being your having written to the education department about the school, which he considered an intentional slight. The second was that you ordered five pounds worth of repairs to the Infant school whereas the Committee only sanctioned an expenditure of £4, & he thinks that in this also you intended to slight him.3 I have already assured him that as regards the first case I was sure that you intended no discourtesy, & I understand that if you confirm this he would be quite satisfied in his mind on that point. I need hardly say that as regards his second complaint I am equally sure that there is some misapprehension, & I should be very glad if I could be the means of restoring harmony for the present state of things must be very unpleasant to you, & far from advantageous to the Parish. I hope you will not think I have been interfering in the matter, & I should be very glad if you would let me know how the matter as regards the Infant school really stands. I hope you are better for your visit to London4 Believe me | Yours most sincerely | John Lubbock Copy DAR 198: 128 1 2 3

4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to John Lubbock, 8 April 1875. George Sketchley Ffinden was vicar of Down. CD had supported the committees of the church in Down for many years, and had assumed more responsibilities in the period before Ffinden’s appointment, when the curates appointed to replace the absentee vicar, John Brodie Innes, had proved incompetent (see Moore 1985 and White 2010). In 1873, the Darwins and the Lubbocks were involved in a dispute with Ffinden over the use of the Down schoolroom as a winter reading room; see Correspondence vol. 21, letter to Down School Board, [after 29 November 1873]. CD was in London from 31 March to 12 April 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

130

April 1875

From J. S. Burdon Sanderson   7 April [1875]1 Wednesday, April 7 Dear Mr Darwin I send you a fair copy of the Memorial.2 We have made another copy, so that I am ready to proceed, but I think I shall do nothing more until I hear from Paget3 & have again seen you. I will, if you will allow me call tomorrow morning. Very truly yours | J Burdon Sanderson University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (II.iv) 1 2 3

The year is established by the reference to the memorial (see n. 2, below). CD had worked with Thomas Henry Huxley to draft a petition to regulate vivisection (see letter from T. H. Huxley, [4 April 1875] and n. 2). James Paget.

From J. D. Hooker   7 April 1875 Kew April 7/75 Dear Darwin I like all the enclosed—but might you not add “& the lower animals” where I have pencilled at the very end1 Ever aff yrs | Jos D Hooker DAR 104: 22 1

Hooker refers to a draft petition to regulate vivisection (see letter from T. H. Huxley, [4 April 1875] and n. 2).

To G. J. Romanes   7 April [1875]1 2 Bryanston St. | ☞Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Ap. 7th r Dear M. Romanes I have heard from Mr Farrer that his gardener has raised some young plants of the cut-leaved vine, & that they will be hardened off enough to travel in 3 weeks time.—2 Unless I give further instructions, they will be despatched by Ry. to your Scotch address,3 in (now) rather under 3 weeks.— Huxley & probably Lawson Tait will be at Down on the 18th, & if you are inclined to pay me a visit then will you come?4 In this case you had better start on Saturday 17th by the 5° 2′ train from Charing Cross, & I hope to have a carriage at Orpington Station to meet my guests by this train; or if not able to send, you can take a fly: : the distance is 4 miles.— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin

April 1875

131

P.S. When in presence of my ladies do not talk about any experiment on animals, as they will be horrified.—5 American Philosophical Society (465) 1 2 3 4 5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from T.  H.  Farrer, 3 April 1875. Thomas Henry Farrer’s gardener was George Payne; see letter from T. H. Farrer, 3 April 1875. Dunskaith House, Nigg, Scotland. Thomas Henry Huxley, Lawson Tait, and Romanes visited Down on 17 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). CD was discussing a vivisection bill with physiologists; see letter to E. H. Stanley, 15 April 1875 and n. 2. Romanes had considered doing animal experiments to test CD’s theory of pangenesis (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to G. J. Romanes, 27 December 1874).

From Federico Delpino1   8 April 1875 Pontassieve | per | Vallombrosa 8. Aprile 1875 Celeberrimo uomo! Mi onoro di spedirle l’ultima parte delle mie osservazioni sulla Dicogamia.2 Ella vedrà che quasi ad ogni pagina figura il suo nome; nome che tanta orma ha lasciato in questo genere di ricerche. Nella conclusione del lavoro, a pag. 336, dichiaro la mia piena adesione alla teoria transformista propugnata dal primo naturalista del secolo. Ho scoperto un singolare fenomeno di dimorfismo in una specie anemofila, nel noce.3 Non so se Ella troverà giuste le mie idee sul vero significato funzionale di quest’ordine di fenomeni, e se approverà la proposta nomenclatura. In questo volume ho cercato di estendere un quadro possibilmente completo degli adattamenti delle piante a pronubi viventi (zoidiofile).4 L’argomento è interessante all’estremo, ma non so se sono riuscito nell’intento. Spero che altri proseguirà e compirà l’opera mia. Vi sono quà e là delle osservazioni mie inediti. Fra gli apparecchi florali più singolari che ho studiato ultimamente sono quei del Lilium Martagon e del Lilium croceum, con bellissimi adattamenti alle sfingi.5 In quanto alla mancanza di nettare nei nettarii del genere Orchis le mie osservazioni coinciderebbero con quelle di Sprengel.6 Ho rilevato che Wächter fino dagli ultimi anni del secolo passato aveva argutamente osservato e interpretato il processo d’impollinazione nella Mieottia Nidus avis.7 Ho riportato fra gli apparecchi a carcere, l’apparecchio a bagno involontario segnalato dal Crüger nei Coryanthes.8 La Cephalanthera ensifolia si deporta da noi molto diversamente della C. grandiflora (p. 149)9 Finalmente ho steso i caratteri di 47 tipi florali diversi. Con molta fatica e con non minore convincimento ho elaborato questo lavoro; ma non so se trascinerò la convinzione degli specialisti. Lo spero ad ogni modo, e spero altresì che altri in seguito farà meglio di me.

132

April 1875

È da un pezzo che non ho nuove della di Lei preziosa salute. Spero ch’Ella si trovi egregiamente, e che possa fruire ancora per lunghi anni dei segni di reverenza e di rispetto, dovuti a Lei da tutti naturalisti Pieno di ammirazione e di affetto verso di Lei sono | suo ossequentissimo discepolo | Federico Delpino DAR 162: 152 CD annotation End of letter: ‘p118 False nectaries 323 Lilium martagon 211’10 pencil 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8

9

10

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. A heavily annotated copy of both parts of Ulteriori osservazioni sulla dicogamia nel regno vegetale (Further observations on dichogamy in the vegetable kingdom; Delpino 1868–75) is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 191–2). An appendix on dimorphism in the walnut species Juglans regia is in Delpino  1868–75, 2: 337–42. Anemophilous: wind-pollinated (Chambers). Zoidiophilous: pollinated by the agency of animals (Jackson 1900). Lilium martagon is the Turk’s cap lily, and Lilium croceum (now Lilium bulbiferum) is the tiger lily. Delpino may be referring to the phototropic style of the flowers; for details, see Brantjes and Bos 1980. Christian Konrad Sprengel described orchids as ‘Scheinsaftsblumen’ or false-nectar flowers, because their nectaries contained no fluid (Sprengel 1793, p. 403). See Delpino 1868–75, p. 150 n. Johann Karl Augustin Wächter discussed the role of insects in the fertilisation of Ophrys nidus (probably Neottia nidus-avis, bird’s-nest orchid) in Wächter 1801, pp. 211–13. See Delpino 1868–75, p. 150 n. Hermann Crüger had noted how the pollen-mass of Coryanthes was secured onto the back of the bee (Euglossa) as it tried to force its way out through a passage after falling into a ‘bucket’ of nectar; when the bee next fell into the bucket of the same or another flower, the pollen was deposited on the stigma as it tried to leave (Crüger 1864, p. 130). For previous correspondence with Delpino on this subject, see Correspondence vol. 17, letters from Federico Delpino, 9 October 1869 and 1 November 1869. Coryanthes is the genus of bucket orchids. See Delpino 1868–75, p. 149 n. Cephalanthera ensifolia (sword-leaved helleborine) is a synonym of C. longifolia; the plant is pollinated by solitary bees. Cephalanthera grandiflora (white helleborine; now C. damasonium) is self-pollinating. The page references are to Delpino 1868–75; for the topics see nn. 6 and 7, above. They may be notes for CD’s reply, which has not been found.

To John Lubbock   8 April 1875 2 Bryanston St.— Portman Sq. April 8th. 1875 My dear Sir John You are quite right in believing that I never had any intention to slight Mr. Ffinden; nor have I slighted him.1 When I wrote to the Privy Council I had never heard of the rule that School Boards should correspond solely through the Chairman; but I cannot believe that a parishioner may not independently ask a question with respect to a subject not as yet

April 1875

133

brought before a School Board, or a voluntary Committee, as in our case.2 Had this been the rule, I should either have received a reprimand or been answered through the Chairman. The affair about the repairs is simply ridiculous. I sent a message to Mr. Town, asking him to complete the repairs as soon as possible, that the room might be used, and was told that they would cost £5.3 I assumed, but without making any enquiry, that this higher estimate had been agreed on, and when Mr. T. sent me his bill for £5, I told him to apply to the School Committee. After a considerable interval he informed me that only £4 had been paid; and then I learnt, for the first time, that I had ordered repairs beyond the agreement, and of course immediately paid the extra £1 myself.—4 This happened several weeks ago. It is very good of you to endeavour to restore peace in the village, and you are at full liberty to say that I had never any intention of showing any disrespect to Mr. Ffinden; but I cannot apologise, for I do not think any apology is due on my part. Mr. Ffinden accused me in the vestry of having made false statements, and when asked what they were, answered that I said that the Schoolroom had been previously lent as a Reading Room for one year less than had really occurred: so that I merely understated my grounds for repeating the request. On the following day he wrote officially to Mrs. Darwin, and again affirmed that I had made several mistatements.5 This is conduct which a man does not commonly pass over without some sort of apology.— Nevertheless if Mr. Ffinden bows to Mrs. Darwin or myself we will return it; but I fear under present circumstances that we can take no further step. I have troubled you with a very long letter on this paltry affair. | My dear Sir John | Yours sincerely | Charles Darwin Copy DAR 146: 129 1

2

3 4 5

See letter from John Lubbock, 5 April [1875]. In 1873, the Darwins and the Lubbocks were involved in a dispute with George Sketchley Ffinden over the use of the Down schoolroom as a winter reading room; see Correspondence vol. 21, letter to Down School Board, [after 29 November 1873]. CD’s letter to the Privy Council has not been found. However, see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from G. S. Ffinden to Emma Darwin, 24 December 1873, in which CD is said to have ‘addressed the Education Department’. Daniel Town was a carpenter in Down. CD’s Classed account books (Down House MS) record a payment to Town of £1 on 9 March 1875. See Correspondence vol. 21, letter from G. S. Ffinden to Emma Darwin, 24 December 1873.

From Lawson Tait   8 April [1875]1 7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. April 8th. Dear Sir, Thanks for your kind note. I shall visit you on the 18th.2

134

April 1875

I am sorry that I cannot get to Down the previous evening as I have to take the chair at a public dinner. But I can reach Orpington at 8.36 a.m. on Sunday morning, no doubt in time for breakfast It will give me great pleasure to meet Prof. Huxley, with whom already I have a slight personal acquaintance.3 Thanks for your offer of the carriage. As the hour on a Sunday morning would be very inconvenient for your man, and as there might be no flies about then I should be glad if you would order one for me. Yours faithfully, | Lawson Tait I enclose a newspaper account of my little paper4 DAR 178: 6 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Tail of Mouse Henslow’; ‘Order Fly’ pencil 5 1 2 3 4

5

The year is established by the reference to Tait’s visit to Down (see n. 2, below). Tait visited Down on 17 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Thomas Henry Huxley and George John Romanes also visited Down on 17 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). A notice of Tait’s lecture, ‘The use of tails in animals’ (Tait 1875a), appeared in the Birmingham Daily Post, 8 April 1875, p. 6. See letter from Lawson Tait, 16 March [1875] and nn. 2–4. The lecture cited the letter to Lawson Tait, [13–15 March 1875], and referred to the letter from Lawson Tait, 16 March [1875]. The annotation probably connects Tait’s work on tails with the earlier work done by John Stevens Henslow on the tails of mice; see letter to Lawson Tait, 11 June [1875] and n. 6. CD also made a note to order a fly (a horse-drawn carriage used as a cab) to transport Tait from Orpington station to Down House.

From John Murray   9 April [1875]1 50, Albemarle S.t | W. April 9 My Dear Sir Your Twining & Climbing Plants” seems to me a very curious book & I am quite willing to publish it for you on the conditions adopted in your previous publications—I taking all risque I return the MS with this as I believe you propose making some alterations in the MS—now that it is to come forth as a separate volume2 My Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | John Murray Chas Darwin Esqr DAR 171: 447 1 2

The year is established by the reference to Climbing plants 2d ed. (see n. 2, below). Climbing plants 2d ed.  was published in November  1875 (Publishers’ circular 1875); CD had originally planned to publish it as part of Insectivorous plants (letter to J. V. Carus, 7 February 1875). The first edition was published as a double issue of the Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) (‘Climbing plants’) and as a book (Climbing plants) published by Longmans and Williams & Norgate.

April 1875

135

From J. S. Burdon Sanderson   10 April 1875 April 10 1875 Dear Mr Darwin, If the alterations as I have made them seem to you sufficient I think we may make them without consulting any of those who have already signed, for they involve no change even of words—only change of order & arrangement. The changes are however sufficient I think to avoid risk of misconstruction.1 I am afraid that I shall not be at home tomorrow after 10.30 but I will come and see you before that time or at one oclock if it appears to you desirable. If in passing you will leave a card for me with the hour on it I will understand.2 very truly yours | J B Sanderson University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (II.xiv) 1 2

CD had sent Burdon Sanderson a fair copy of a petition to regulate vivisection (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 7 April [1875] and n. 2). CD was staying at his daughter Henrietta Emma Litchfield’s house at 2 Bryanston Street, London, from 6 to 12 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)).

To John Murray   10 April [1875]1 2. Bryanston St. | Down, | Beckenham, Kent. April 10th

on Monday home My dear Sir I have received the M.S all right & am very glad that you will publish it as a separate little book.2 I most heartily hope that it may not prove a loss. I know that some persons have been much interested in it, though it has been read by very few.— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin National Library of Scotland (John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 f. 313) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from John Murray, 9 April [1875]. Murray had returned the manuscript of Climbing plants 2d ed.; see letter from John Murray, 9 April [1875] and n. 2.

To J. S. Burdon Sanderson   [11 April 1875]1 2. Bryanston St Sunday afternoon My dear Sanderson We have not a day to lose if our Bill or our petition is to do any good. Mr Shaen has been here, a solicitor & excellent man, & in closest communication with the zealots of the Cruelty Soc.—2 He says the Soc. makes no rapid progress, but that Admiral Elliott has had a bill drafted, & this has been examined & approved by Ld Coleridge,

136

April 1875

& that the Tory whip of the H. of Commons, Hart Dyke, has taken up the subject strongly.—3 The physiologists & naturalists like Flower4 who think all will blow over are mad. Yours most sincerely | Ch. Darwin It was really curious to see how profoundly ignorant Mr Shaen was about any benefit to mankind from physiology.— I will just jot down remarks as they occur to me.— G. Lushington (Legal adviser to Home office) has been working at Litchfields paper & the Ladies are making 2 copies, one for your consideration, & one for Lushington to consider more deliberately.—5 They both think no time to be lost, & if you could get half-a dozen good names to agree to the desirability of such a bill, & you had better tell them how forward the opposite party is, we had better endeavour to get an interview with a minister. L. & Lushington thinks Ld. Derby wd be a very good man, & he has always been very friendly towards me, as if he wd. regard my opinion.6 It wd be for those whom you consult to settle whether they wd go in a body or appoint one or more.— I shd. rather dread going alone, but will do it willingly & would write to Ld Derby for an appointment, & come up to town any day.— I shd. think, however, it would be better if we went in a small body, with some better man than myself as spokesman. All will depend on some half-dozen 9 or 12 men agreeing on the bill.— The Litchfields have seen Huxley & reported what we have been doing & he agrees, but will call on me tomorrow morning & I will report if he says anything important.— I thought it wd be good if I saw Paget7 & succeeded. I find he cares far more for the physiological than for the humanity side & I am not surprised seeing with what flagrant injustice physiologists have been treated; but I do not at all mean to say that he is indifferent to humanity. He ended by saying that he would gladly consider our draft bill. He had intended calling on me tomorrow morning to say that he sat yesterday at dinner by Mr Smith of the Treasury,8 who assured him the Government had not yet had any notice of any motion on subject, & that he felt convinced there cd be no action this session.— Paget seemed to think that if a certain number of men were agreed about a bill, the best plan wd be for me to see Ld Derby & ask his assistance & counsel.— This is an extraordinary heterogenious note & I fear you will hardly read it.— Yours | C.D University of the Witwatersrand Historical Papers (A237f, letters to Sir John Burdon Sanderson) 1

2

3

The date is established by the subject matter and the address. CD was working on the vivisection petition in 1875. He stayed at 2 Bryanston Street, London, from 6 to 12 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). During that time, the only Sunday was 11 April. CD refers to William Shaen and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. CD had worked with Thomas Henry Huxley and Burdon Sanderson to draft a petition to regulate vivisection (see letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 10 April 1875). A bill had been drafted by Thomas Frederick Elliot with the support of William Hart Dyke, the Conservative party whip, and John Duke Coleridge, the lord chief justice (Cobbe 1904, p. 639). This

April 1875

4 5

6

7 8

137

bill was based on a memorial that had been prepared by Frances Power Cobbe and presented to the RSPCA in January (see letter to H. E. Litchfield, 4 January [1875], and letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875). William Henry Flower was professor of comparative anatomy at the Royal College of Surgeons. Godfrey Lushington was the twin brother of Vernon Lushington, a mutual friend of the Darwins and of Richard Buckley Litchfield. Litchfield was the husband of CD’s daughter Henrietta Emma (Correspondence vols. 16 and 19). Edward Henry Stanley, the earl of Derby, was foreign secretary. When the Stanleys rented a house close to Down in 1872, CD had talked with Lady Derby (Mary Catherine Stanley) about Joseph Dalton Hooker’s problems at Kew (see Correspondence vol. 20, letter to J. D. Hooker, 14 June [1872]), and corresponded with her (see Correspondence vol. 20, letter from M. C. Stanley, 4 June 1872). James Paget. William Henry Smith was financial secretary to the Treasury.

From J. S. Burdon Sanderson   [12 April 1875]1 Dear Mr Darwin, I have just read your letter.2 As Mr Huxley is coming to you this morning, it would I think be useful to ask his opinion as to the persons who ought to have the right of certifying the fitness of applicants for Licence.3 I think that all persons who occupy the position of Public Teachers in Institutions recognized by Act of Parliament should have the right to apply to the Lord President for Licence without obtaining Certificate as their fitness.4 Imagine for a moment Dr Sharpey applying for a certificate to the President of the College of Surgeons.5 Very truly yours | J B Sanderson University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (II.i) 1 2 3

4 5

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875]. See letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875]. CD expected Thomas Henry Huxley to call on him on the morning of 12 April 1875 to discuss a draft vivisection bill (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875]). On the proposed certificate and the licensing of persons performing experiments on live animals, see Appendix VI. Charles Henry Gordon-Lennox, the duke of Richmond, was lord president, presiding over the education department. William Sharpey was professor of anatomy and physiology at University College, London. The president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England was James Paget.

From J. S. Burdon Sanderson   12 April [1875]1

49 Queen Anne St April 12

Dear Mr Darwin, I write a line to say that, after seeing Mr. Litchfield this morning (& he was kind enough to call with the copy of the draft bill)2 I went over with it to talk to Mr

138

April 1875

Simon,3 & told him what it was proposed to do. He made a number of suggestions which I will send to Mr. Litchfield. Mr Simon thinks that it wd. best promote the object, if you would see Lord Derby yourself & simply ask him to engage Mr Cross not to commit himself.4 For this purpose it would be sufficient merely to let Lord Derby know that such a bill had been prepared & that it had received the concurrence of scientific men, particularly of those interested in Physiology. Mr Simon thinks that the next step would be to arrange a small Deputation to Mr. Cross, of which Deputation he wd. be glad to be one. I have received the adhesions of Sir R Christison and Prof Turner5 Believe me ever | yours sincerely | J B Sanderson University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (II.iii) 1 2

3 4 5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875]. CD and others had prepared a petition to regulate vivisection, and had then drawn up a draft bill with the legal assistance of Richard Buckley Litchfield (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875]). A copy of the first sketch of this bill is in DAR 139.17: 21 (see Appendix VI). John Simon was on the council of the Royal College of Surgeons. Edward Henry Stanley, the earl of Derby, was foreign secretary; for CD’s connection with Stanley, see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875] and n. 6. Richard Assheton Cross was home secretary. Robert Christison was president of the British Medical Association; William Turner was professor of anatomy at the University of Edinburgh.

From Thomas Burgess   13 April 1875 Rainow April 13th 1875 Dear Sir You will think me very dilatory in acknowledgeing the kindness I received from you on March 26th But the reason is, I wished to return you the same kindness with a many thanks.1 Also I am glad to say that my health is very good considering that I am 65 years old. And now I am going to give you a description of my career since I left the Beagle.2 I purchased my Discharge from the Royal Marines, and whent to Stockport in Cheshire, my native place, Admiral Sir. Sailsbury Davenport3 was then living at Bramhall near Stockport, and he—got me appointed as an Officer in the Cheshire Constabulary force, in which I remained in 32 years and am now Pensioned at thirty two pounds per year. Since then I have sought for no other employment. I am only sorry that the Distance is so great between us, and my means so limited, or I whould come and see you which I should like to do. I can at times picture to myself very clear some of the sights whe had in the

April 1875

139

Beagle, for instance, the coast of Patagonia and TerradelFuego Falkland Islands, Straits of Magallan with Port Famine and Wigwam Cove and Otahite with Dolphin Bay, and Point Venus.4 I fancy at times I can see them. I have not seen one of the crew since I was paid off. I have often heard your name mentioned, and have felt proud that I could say I was with you in the Beagle. But I have never had the pleasure of Reading one of your Works, I should like to have the opportunity in my Lifetime which cannot be so long as the Longest. If you would condesend to send me one with your name as a present to one of the Beagle’s Crew I should think it a small fortune I feel honured by you—sending me your Pothograph and shall Prize it whilst I Live and should you be so kind as to send me a Book and it being too Large for Post, you may convay the same per Rail in the Parcell Department writing me before. With my kind and Best thanks to you I enclose my Likness | Remaining | Yours Ever truly | Thomas Burgess To Doctor Darwin | Beckenham | Kent DAR 106: D17–18 1 2 3 4

Burgess had requested CD’s portrait (see letter from Thomas Burgess, 26 March 1875). Burgess’s portrait has not been found. Burgess served with CD on HMS Beagle (‘Beagle’ diary). Salusbury Pryce Davenport. CD described these places in his Journal of researches. Burgess refers to Tierra del Fuego and the Straits of Magellan. Port Famine is now Ciudad del Rey Don Felipe; Otaheite is now Tahiti.

From Thomas Allen   14 April 1875 42, Connaught Square, | Hyde Park. Apr: 14. 1875. Dear Darwin. I was sorry not to b. able to see you on Sunday. t I now enclose the dr. bill ab.t Vivisection wch. I promised Mrs. Darwin to send you.1 I drew it up hastily when leaving town for the Circuit. I think it might b.  sent to Messrs. Shaen & Roscoe—Bedford Row—who have t taken up the subject, and that they m. set a more xperienced drtsman to work upon 2 it— When completed you and your friends m.t have influence eno. to get it introduced into the Ho. of Commons—or Lords—but I dont think we have. i.e. the Cruelty Society—3 At the same time I think the Society would meet all the xpense of t preparing the bill— I am very glad to hear that you are interested ab. vivisection.

140

April 1875

Our Secry. tells me that from what he has learnt since I went out of town there is plenty of it going on, but of this I shall hear more particulars on Friday—when we t 4 are to have a meeting ab. it. My opinion is that we shall do nothing in the matter, and therefore I am the more anxious that you should try yr. hand at it. Believe me | very truly yours | Thomas Allen DAR 159: 51 1

2

3 4

Thomas Allen was Emma Darwin’s second cousin. There is a handwritten draft in Allen’s hand titled ‘An act for restricting the vivisection of dumb animals’ in DAR 139.17: 20; for a transcription, see Appendix VI. CD had already prepared a draft bill on vivisection with the assistance of Richard Buckley Litchfield (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875], and letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 12 April [1875]). Shaen, Roscoe, Massey & Co were a firm of solicitors based at 8 Bedford Row, London (Post Office London directory 1875). William Shaen visited CD on 11 April (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875]). Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. John Colam was secretary of the RSPCA and part of a subcommittee appointed to investigate the practice of vivisection in England after Frances Power Cobbe had presented her memorial to the society in January 1875 (see letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875).

From J. S. Burdon Sanderson   14 April [1875]1 49 Queen Anne St April 14th 1875 Dear Mr Darwin, I received your letter this morning.2 I should think that it wd. answer the purpose to write to Lord Derby, for all that is important is that the Government should know that a bill is being sketched & that they must not commit themselves.3 I had a note today from Sir Robert Christison4 who after expressing himself very energetically on the subject of the present agitation concludes “There should be no compromise, except to forbid vivisectional demonstrations to classes, which I always thought both useless and cruel” I have not seen Mr Huxley.5 The notion of an Inspector appears to me absurd. It would be in the first place absurd to appoint one man to inspect half a dozen others of at least equal status with himself. There is no comparison between experimentation and anatomical dissection. Every student must dissect, but not one in a hundred need take part in any vivisection. Moreover an Inspector would be of no use in putting a stop to domestic experimentation6 Very truly yours | J B Sanderson University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (II.xii) 1 2 3

The year is established by the reference to the vivisection bill (see n. 3, below). CD’s letter has not been found; see, however, the letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 12 April [1875]). CD was considering whether to call personally on Edward Henry Stanley, the earl of Derby, regarding

April 1875

4 5 6

141

the proposed vivisection bill (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875] and n. 6, and letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 12 April [1875]). See also letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 12 April [1875]. CD had planned to meet with Thomas Henry Huxley on 12 April 1875 to discuss the vivisection bill (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875]). On the proposed licensing and inspection of vivisection, see Appendix VI).

From Francis Galton   14 April 1875 42 Rutland Gate London April 14/75 My dear Darwin George1 told me that you wd. very kindly have some sweet peas planted for me, & save me the produce. I send them in a separate envelope with marked bags to put the produce in, and full instructions which I think your gardener will easily understand. I am most anxious to repair the disaster of last year by which I lost the produce of all my sweet peas at Kew.2 With very many thanks | Yours very faithfully | Francis Galton DAR 105: A78 1 2

George Howard Darwin. Seven of Galton’s friends, throughout the United Kingdom, weighed and measured sweet-pea seeds over successive generations; Galton reported the experiments in his Natural inheritance (Galton 1889, pp. 79– 82, 225–6). The gardener who normally assisted CD in botanical experiments was Henry Lettington.

To J. D. Hooker   14 April [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Ap. 14 My dear Hooker I worked all the time in London on the vivisection question; & we now think it advisable to go further than a mere petition. Litchfield drew up a sketch of a bill, the essential features of which have been approved by Sanderson, Simon & Huxley, & from conversation, will I believe be approved by Paget, & almost certainly I think by Michael Foster2   Sanderson Simon & Paget wish me to see Lord Derby & endeavour to gain his advocacy with the Home Secretary3 Now if this is carried into effect it will be of great importance to me to be able to say that the bill in its essential features has the approval of some half dozen eminent scientific men. I have therefore asked Litchfield to enclose a copy to you in its first rough form; & if it is not essentially modified may I say that it meets with your approval as Pres. R. S.?4 The object is to protect animals & at the same time not to injure Physiology, & Huxley & Sanderson’s approval almost suffices on this head. Pray let me have a line from you soon Yours affectionately | Ch. Darwin

142

April 1875

P.S. I have just read an Italian pamphlet by Delpino on Pitchers; & he says that Dischidia has pitchers & whenever you return to Nepenthes you ought to attend to these;5 for Delpino perceives that all other well know pitchers have something in common. He puts the spathe of Alocasia odora under the same heading, as it catches so many insects. What can he mean by the “sesqui pedali tubi” of Sarracenia drummondii in which he finds nothing but a multitude of moths.6 LS DAR 95: 384–5 1 2

3 4 5

6

The year is established by the reference to the vivisection bill (see n 2, below). CD had prepared a petition to regulate vivisection, and then, with the assistance of Richard Buckley Litchfield, had drafted a bill on the subject (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875]). CD refers to John Scott Burdon Sanderson, Thomas Henry Huxley, John Simon, James Paget, and Michael Foster. Edward Henry Stanley, the earl of Derby, was foreign secretary; Richard Assheton Cross was home secretary (see letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 12 April [1875]). Hooker was president of the Royal Society of London. A lightly annotated copy of Federico Delpino’s paper ‘Sulle piante a bicchieri’ (Delpino 1871) is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Dischidia is a genus of epiphytic plants in the milkweed family, Asclepiadaceae. Hooker had been working on Nepenthes, the genus of tropical pitcher-plants (see Hooker 1874a). Alocasia odora is the night-scented lily; Sarracenia drummondii is a synonym of S. leucophylla (the white pitcher-plant). Sesquipedali tubi (Italian): one-and-a-half foot long tube. The ‘moths’ were probably Exyra semicrocea (the pitcher-plant mining moth).

From E. F. W. Pflüger   14 April 1875

Bonn 14 April 1875

Sir By the same post I have the honour of sending you my last treatise.1 I have given in it a theory of life and how it was generated in the first beginning. Yours very respectfully | E. F. W. Pflüger | Professor of physiology at the Bonn University. DAR 97: C10r 1

An offprint of Pflüger’s paper ‘Über die Physiologische Verbrennung in den lebendigen Organismen’ (On physiological combustion in living organisms; Pflüger 1875) is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.

To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   14 April [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Ap. 14 Dear Mr Dyer I am very much obliged for your present of Sachs.2 I am particularly glad to

April 1875

143

have a copy, for all that I have read of the book has made me a most ardent admirer of it Pray believe me to be | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Miscellaneous Correspondence - Letter from C. R. Darwin to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer) 1 2

The year is established by the reference to Sachs 1875a (see n. 2, below). Thiselton-Dyer had assisted in the translation of Julius Sachs’s Text-book of botany: morphological and physiological (Sachs 1875a). See also letter from Moritz Traube, 2 March 1875 and n. 4.

To E. F. W. Pflüger   [after 14 April 1875]1 I am very much obliged to you for having sent me your last ms in which you attack the greatest of all problems, the theory of life.—2 I feel it a great honour, that you shd have sent me the treatise & with very best thanks & high respect, I remain ADraft DAR 97: C10r 1 2

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from E.  F.  W.  Pflüger, 14 April 1875. Pflüger 1875.

From J. D. Hooker   15 April 1875 April 15/75. Dear Darwin I was uncommonly stupid about the Vivisection Memorial & after all I forgot to put P. R. S. to the autograph which I gave to B. S. for you— pray use my name as you think fit.1 I hope to start on Tuesday morning with Strachey2 for Paris—& Marseilles, where I hope to pick up Harriet3 & take her a little trip,— where to must depend on the weather—if cool along the Riviera: if hot—to Mount Dore & Auvergne. I am very anxious to get away as my head has been rather bad. I find now that any council or Committee (as Atheneum),4 if any thing important is to be done gives me a headache— I shall be away a month. Playfair has very kindly taken upon himself to stand up for Kew & my Assistant, if any objection is taken in the House to the Kew Estimates. & a better man could not be5 Delpino writes rather annoyed at Benthams critique on his Artemisia theory.: it is odd how touchy foreigners are in such matters— I think they are worse than we are.6

144

April 1875

Have you any Botanical suggestions for the Arctic Expedition   if so please let me have them at once— I recommend special attention to insect action & fertilization Hybrids &c sowing earth from Icebergs   Also to try experiments on germination of seeds exposed to various degrees of cold.7 I suppose that you are expecting Leonard soon.8 Ever aff yrs | J. D. Hooker DAR 104: 23–4 CD annotations 1.2 pray . . . fit. 1.3] double scored pencil Top of letter: ‘agrees about Bill’ pencil 1

2 3 4 5

6

7 8

Hooker had evidently signed the petition to call for the regulation of vivisection that CD had prepared with John Scott Burdon Sanderson and others (see letter to E. H. Stanley, 15 April 1875 and n. 2). Hooker was president of the Royal Society of London. Richard Strachey. Harriet Anne Hooker. Athenaeum Club, London. Hooker had applied to have an assistant appointed to help with his work at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 17 March 1875 and n. 7). Lyon Playfair had agreed to support the bid in the House of Commons. The civil service estimates for 1875–6 contain an estimate of £500 for an assistant to the director; this estimate had not appeared the previous year (House of Commons Parliamentary Papers, Estimates for civil services and revenue departments: for the year ending 31 March 1876, 1875 (100-I-VII), XLIX.10). William Turner Thiselton-Dyer was appointed to the post in June 1875 (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 June 1875). George Bentham had criticised Federico Delpino’s classification of the Artemisiaceae (Delpino 1871) for relying exclusively on different pollination mechanisms (Bentham 1873, pp. 342–3). Delpino had previously complained to CD about being misunderstood by Bentham (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from Federico Delpino, 18 June 1873). The family Artemisiaceae is now subsumed within the family Asteraceae (sunflowers). The British Arctic expedition of 1875–6 set sail on 29 May 1875 (Nares 1878, 1: 1). Hooker wrote the introduction to the botany appendix (Nares 1878, 2: 301–10). CD’s son Leonard was visiting the United States and Canada on his way home from the transit of Venus expedition in New Zealand. He returned to Down on 20  June  1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)).

To E. H. Stanley   15 April 1875 Dear Lord Derby, I hope that, you will excuse the liberty which I take in troubling you.– with a long letter. I feel, a deep interest in preventing cruelty to animals & on the other hand am convinced that physiology is one of the most important of all the sciences, & is certain to confer great benefit on mankind, but that it can advance only by experiments on living animals.— I have lately spent ten days in London consulting several eminent physiologists on this subject.1 We first drew up 〈14 of a line〉 This petition has been signed by the Presidents of the Royal Society, College of Surgeons, & of Physicians, & 〈professors of〉 Physiology in

April 1875

145

Oxford, Cambr〈idge〉 Edinburgh. by Prof Owen, Huxley, Sir J Paget Burdon San & myself.; justifying the necessity of occasional experiments on live animals, & praying Parliament to have a due regard in any legislation for the interest of science,2 Since then several of the persons just named have thought it advisable to have a sketch of a bill drawn up, which served to answer the double purpose of protecting animals & science, namely by enacting that experiments shall not be tried on animals without the use of anaesthetic, for the mere purpose of teaching,: that such animals shd be immediately afterwards killed; & that licences shall be granted under certain regulations to men carrying on original research.— Recommendations to the same effect, but not so strict, were passed in 1871 by the British Assoc. for Science; & I hear that they met with the approbation of the Cruelty Prevention Soc.y.3 Now my colleagues are very anxious to interest your Lordship on this subject, & I offered to write to you believing that you would excuse me. We are desirous, unless you see some objection, that you should mention the subject to the proper members of the Cabinet, such as the H. S. or the L. President of the Privy Council, who, I believe is at the head of all the scientific departments science.4 We are informed that no less than three associations of gentlemen who care chiefly or exclusively for humanity; are preparing bills;5 & we hope that the Government will not legislate without due consideration for physiology.— We could soon send our sketch of a bill, or a small deputation would wait on any member of the Cabinet person or we wd do whatever else you think best, if you would be so kind as to give us your counsel. I trust that this letter may be favourably received by your Lordship [illeg] for the sake of humanity & science & I remain your Lordship | very faithfully | Chas Darwin April 15. 75 DAR 97: C22–4 1

2

3

4 5

CD stayed in London from 31 March to 12 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242). He met with James Paget, Thomas Henry Huxley, and John Scott Burdon Sanderson; see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875]. On the draft petition to regulate vivisection, see the letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1874]. Joseph Dalton Hooker was president of the Royal Society of London; James Paget was president of the Royal College of Surgeons; George Burrows was president of the Royal College of Physicians. CD also refers to Richard Owen, Thomas Henry Huxley, James Paget, and John Scott Burdon Sanderson. The representatives from Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh were George Rolleston, Michael Foster, and Robert Christison, respectively (see letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 12 April [1875] and n. 5, and letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 15 and 19 April [1875] and n. 6). On the guidelines for vivisection drawn up in 1871 at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, see the letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875 and n. 6, and Appendix VI. CD refers to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Richard Assheton Cross was home secretary; the lord president of the Privy Council was Charles Henry Gordon-Lennox, who also presided over the education department (ODNB). Apart from CD’s bill, the only proposed legislation about vivisection was that initiated by Frances Power Cobbe (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875] and n. 3); the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals supported Cobbe’s original memorial but did not present a bill (see French 1975, pp 64–70). On the formation of anti-vivisection societies, see Appendix VI.

146

April 1875

To J. S. Burdon Sanderson   15 and 19 April [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. April 15th My dear Sanderson. I despatch by this post a long & I hope clear letter to Ld. Derby at his private House.— I told him of our petition & of those who signed it. I then said that some of us had since had drawn up a sketch of a bill, & I told him very briefly of its main provisions.2 I then asked him to speak, if he did not object, to speak to the proper members of the cabinet, in order to stop hasty legislation versus science & added that we would send our sketch, or a small deputation would wait on any member of the Cabinet or we would do whatever else he advised, if he would give us his counsel for the sake of humanity & Science.— I hope with all my heart I have written judiciously & that we may succeed Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin P.S. If the affair goes on, as I hope it will, & you & Huxley & Paget agree about the bill, I could write to Hooker & with the above guarantee, I feel almost sure that he would allow us to use his name as Pre. R. Socy—3 P.S. (19th) I have opened my letter to say that Huxley saw Lubbock late yesterday & showed him the petition. He was strongly against its being presented, as he felt sure that nothing of any kind would be done this session.4 Huxley forgot to ask him expressly whether he wd. present it, if we determined to have it presented; but the more I think about it, the less desirable does this seem to me, considering our other step of the bill. Litchfield thinks that if the Home Secy. were to wish for a small deputation, this might happen soon, & we ought to be ready.5 Huxley will be away.— You wd no doubt attend & I wd come up.— Litchfield thinks Cambridge & Oxford ought to be represented. He will soon send you copies of new drafted bill & shd you then object, to communicate with Mr Foster & Rolleston,6 & turn over the subject of a deputation in your mind. Litchfield thinks that it wd be advisable for him to attend, as having drawn up the bill so as to explain it.— It seems, however, to me very doubtful whether the Home Secy. would soon wish for any deputation, but it is best to be prepared. C.D. University of the Witwatersrand Historical Papers (A237f, letters to Sir John Burdon Sanderson) 1 2 3 4 5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to E. H. Stanley, 15 April 1875. See letter to E. H. Stanley, 15 April 1875 and nn. 2 and 3. Lord Derby: Edward Henry Stanley. The petition and bill concerned vivisection. Thomas Henry Huxley and James Paget. CD requested the support of Joseph Dalton Hooker as president of the Royal Society of London in his letter to Hooker of 14 April [1875]. John Lubbock was MP for Maidstone (ODNB). Richard Buckley Litchfield had assisted in drafting the bill (see letter to R. B. Litchfield, [24 April 1875]). The home secretary was Richard Assheton Cross.

April 1875 6

147

Michael Foster was praelector in physiology at Trinity College, Cambridge. George Rolleston was a fellow of Merton College, Oxford, and the representative of the university on the General Medical Council (ODNB).

From J. D. Hooker   16 April 1875 Kew April 16/75. Dear Darwin I quite approve the draft. in its essential features.1 I had a talk with Huxley2 about it last night—who is very strongly in favour of a bill. Yes I know the pitchers of one species of Dischidia a native of Malacca—see Linn. Trans. xx. t. 17. 18. in which the roots dip into the hollow of the leaf ! & it would be very curious if it digested leaves.3 I once had the plant at Kew, but it arrived in a dying state. I have just appointed a Gardener to the Straits settlements4 & shall hope to get the plant. The other Dischidias have nothing of the kind! I should fancy that the spathe of Alocasia is to hold insects for fertilization.5 sesquipedalis = a foot & a half & applies to the length of the pitcher. Ever yr aff | J D Hooker DAR 104: 25 1 2 3

4 5

CD had sent Hooker a copy of the draft vivisection bill (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 14 April [1875]). Thomas Henry Huxley. See letter to J. D. Hooker, 14 April [1875] and n. 5. Hooker refers to Dischidia rafflesiana (the ant plant; now D. major) and the plates that accompanied Griffith 1846 and Griffith 1847. Mallaca is a Malaysian state south of the Malay Peninsula, next to the Straits of Malacca. The gardener was Henry James Murton. Alocasia odora is the night-scented lily. See letter to J. D. Hooker, 14 April [1875].

From J. V. Carus   17 April 1875 Leipzig, 17th. April | 1875 My dear Sir Within the next few days you will receive the concluding part of my Zoology, for which I ask a kind acceptance1 I am now busily engaged in translating a new your Journal.2 I need scarcely to say that the work gives me again an extraordinary delight, and I think I never enjoyed a work more than this   Will you kindly excuse my asking you two questions? On p. 148 (about the middle of the page) you say: “Hence it is very hazardous to attempt to drive cattle at this season of the year; for when jaded enough to face the thistles, they rush among them.” Should this perhaps be “goaded”? For, when they are “jaded”, they would not “rush”. Then again p.  173. l.  13–14  from top: “This relationship is shown wonderfully—as wonderfully as between the fossil and

148

April 1875

extinct Marsupial animals.” Of course it must be “fossil and living” or “recent and extinct.” Then, please look on p. 346 and read that betting affair. The miners must have overheard what the owner was talking with his friend   But even then I cannot make out, what you mean by: “the miner by this means watched the very point”. Of course the betting on the race was sham    But, if the miner brought the silver ore to his master, this would have lost his bet, as he would not have been robbed.3 I beg your pardon for being perhaps too scrupulous; but although this place reads quite easily, if one reads the book only, yet it becomes exceedingly hard, if one tries to translate it. It gave me great pleasure to hear that you have delivered a public lecture during the last weeks   I conclude therefore that your health is pretty fair now.4 Believe me | My dear Sir | Yours most truly, | J. Victor Carus DAR 161: 100 CD annotation End of letter: ‘Carnivorous Plants & Climbing Plants’ ink 1

2 3 4

Carus refers to the second part of the first volume of Handbuch der Zoologie (Carus and Gerstaecker 1863–75); see letter from J. V. Carus, 5 February 1875 and n. 6. CD’s copy of the first volume is in the Darwin Library–Down. Carus was translating CD’s Journal of researches into German (Carus trans.  1875b); see letter from J. V. Carus, 5 February 1875. The page references for the quotations are from Journal of researches (1860). No further editions of Journal of researches were produced in CD’s lifetime. Carus was mistaken about CD’s giving a lecture; see letter to J. V. Carus, 19 April [1875].

From J. D. Hooker   17 April 1875 Royal Gardens Kew April 17/75 Dear Darwin I write to say that Griffith has figured glands just like those of Sarracenia within the pitchers of Dischidia, which further contain water & are always full of black ants, many of which are found drowned in the pitchers— see Wallich Plant. As. Rar. v. 2 t. 142.1 From notes in the Herbarium I find that different species of Black ant inhabit different species of Dischidia. We have one species at Kew. that I found in Bengal, but I am not sure that it ever bears pitchers. I am treating it here in a way that will cause their development if they should be so disposed. The said pitchers occupy only certain branches of the plants— I shall get the other kind from Malacca.2

April 1875

149

Our Marcgraavia I have got to assume the leaves that preceede flowering, so I shall hope to get it to flower, but these gigantic climbers are very awkward to manage.3 I am off on Tuesday mg.4 Ever yr affec | J D Hooker DAR 104: 26–8 1

2 3

4

See letter from J. D. Hooker, 16 April 1875 and n. 3. Hooker refers to Griffith 1846, tab. 17, fig. 2, and Wallich 1830–2, 2: pl. 142, fig. 2, opposite p. 37. In Wallich 1830–2, 2: 36, the following passage appears: ‘The bags contain generally a great number of small and harmless black ants, most of which find a watery grave in the turbid fluid which frequently half fills the cavity, and which seems to be entirely derived from without.’ Plant. As. Rar.: Plantæ Asiaticæ variores. Sarracenia is the genus of trumpet pitchers; they have funnel-shaped leaves that secrete a slippery and intoxicating liquid to trap insects and digest them. Hooker worked on Sarracenia in 1874; see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from J. D. Hooker, 17 August 1874. CD discussed Sarracenia in Insectivorous plants, p. 453; he did not discuss Dischidia. Hooker collected several species of Dischidia (see Hooker 1875–97, 4: 49–52). The ‘other kind’: Dischidia rafflesiana (the ant plant, now D. major; see letter from J. D. Hooker, 16 April 1875 and n. 3). Marcgravia umbellata (monkey paws) produces a different type of leaf on the upper branches after flowering; see Correspondence vol. 12, letter from Richard Spruce to J. D. Hooker, 29 July 1864. CD discussed the leaves of M. umbellata and M.  dubia in Climbing plants, p.  105. Marcgravia dubia is a synonym of Monstera dubia. Hooker was going on a trip to France; see letter from J. D. Hooker, 15 April 1875.

From D. F. Nevill   17 [April 1875]1

Dangstein, Petersfield 17th

My dear Sir I hope to be in London on or about the 22nd and it would afford me the greatest pleasure if we could meet   Dr Hooker who was here a short time ago told me you were in London2   I would call on you any time you could appoint or would you pay me a visit—I am generally busy from 1–30 till 3— Yours most truly | D Nevill I live at 45 Charles street | Berkeley Square DAR 172: 31 1

2

The month and year are established by the salutation, which indicates that this letter predates Nevill and CD’s first meeting on 4 May 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242; after meeting him in person, Nevill would have written, ‘Dear Mr Darwin’), and by the times of CD’s visits to London. Nevill did not live at 45 Charles Street before 1873, so the letter cannot date from CD and Nevill’s correspondence in the 1860s. An opportunity to meet might have occurred in December 1874, when CD was in London, but Nevill’s letter from Dangstein on 26 [December 1874] (see Correspondence vol. 22) gives no indication that they had just missed seeing one another. The only other time that CD was in London between the resumption of their correspondence in September 1874 and their meeting on 4 May 1875 was April 1875 (see n. 2, below). Joseph Dalton Hooker was a frequent visitor to Dangstein (Nevill 1919, p. 66). CD was in London from 31 March until 12 April 1875 (see ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

150

April 1875

From E. H. Stanley   17 April 1875 F. O. April 17. 1875. Dear Mr Darwin, I am honoured by your selection of me as the medium of your communication with the Government—and I have sent on your letter to the Home Secretary, in whose department the matter lies.1 Very faithfully yours | Derby C. Darwin. Esq. DAR 162: 162 1

See letter to E. H. Stanley, 15 April 1875. The home secretary was Richard Assheton Cross; Stanley (Lord Derby) was the foreign secretary, and wrote from the Foreign Office. CD’s letter concerned a proposed bill to regulate vivisection.

From Federico Delpino1   18 April 1875 18. Aprile 1875 Uomo celeberrimo La ringrazio delle cortesi parole scrittemi colla pregiata lettera del 13 corrente,2 e non meno la ringrazio per la promessa di farmi avere il suo lavoro sulle piante insettivore; lavoro che, ne son sicuro, sarà degno di essere posto accanto a tutti quegli altri suoi scritti, che tanto giovarono ad allargare il campo scientifico. Farò un estratto di questa nuova sua pubblicazione nell’Annuario scientifico italiano pel 1876.3 L’argomento m’interessa assaissimo, perchè anch’io me ne sono un poco occupato alcuni anni addietro. Ho pubblicato una breve nota “sulle piante a bicchieri” nel nuovo Giornale botanico italiano,4 la quale ha provocato i sarcasmi del Prof. Mantegazza contro di me, mettendo in ridicolo l’idea che esistano piante carnivore. Ma detto Professore non mi pare che abbia un grande criterio. So che ha pure pubblicato infondate e superficiali critiche sul principio della elezione sessuale, principio tanto brillantemente propugnato dalla S.V.  e della cui veracità io sono del tutto persuaso.5 Anzi i dati degli studii dicogamici vengono indirettamente a confermare il surriferito principio.6 Le auguro ottima salute e mi riconfermo colla più sentita gratitudine Suo ossequente discepolo | Federico Delpino DAR 162: 153 1 2 3 4

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. The letter from CD has not been found, but see the letter from Federico Delpino, 8 April 1875. Delpino’s review of Insectivorous plants appeared in Annuario Scientifico ed Industriale 12 (1876): 432–7. Delpino’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). Delpino 1871; see letter to J. D. Hooker, 14 April [1875] and n. 5. Delpino concluded that the function of the pitchers was nutritive (Delpino 1871, p. 175). Sulle piante a bicchieri: on pitcher-plants.

April 1875 5

6

151

Paolo Mantegazza had criticised CD’s theory of sexual selection in Descent, especially the role of female choice (see Mantegazza 1871 and Correspondence vol. 19, letter to Paolo Mantegazza, 22 September 1871). In Descent 1: 260, in the context of sexual selection, CD drew an analogy between the male parts of the flower maturing before the female in dichogamous plants and the early arrival of male birds in their breeding grounds. Delpino published widely on dichogamy, including his Ulteriori osservazioni sulla dichogamia nel regno vegetale (Further observations on dichogamy in the vegetable kingdom; Delpino 1868–75).

To J. V. Carus   19 April [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. April 19th My dear Sir It pleases me greatly that you like my Journal, for I always feel towards this book, like a mother to her first-born child.—2 At p. 148 I did mean jaded or greatly fatigued; for the cattle in this state though too tired to travel much further have strength enough to rush into the wonderful beds of thistles & thus escape.— p. 173—“fossil & extinct” is, as you say, evidently a misprint (& a very stupid one) for “extinct & living” marsupials. There is no mistake (p. 346) about the little story of the ore; but I have not, it seems, made myself clear; the miners were aiding (or acting in concert with) the gentleman who won the bet. The owner of the mine who lost the bet would merely watch which of the two stones rolled furthest, but the miners observed the exact spot & could thus recover the piece of ore. On this occasion the act was done merely as a joke, but on other occasions as a means of stealing. I thank you for your enquiries, & you certainly are the most conscientious of translators. Yesterday I received the proofs of the first 2 sheets of my book on “Insectivorous Plants”. The M.S is so large, that Murray has decided to publish in the autumn “The Habits & Movements of Climbing Plants”, as a separate little book.— You will have to consider whether the Insectivorous Plants is worth translating; I hope so; as soon as some dozen or two dozen sheets are ready, I will send them to you.—3 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Huxley has just been here: he starts at end of this month to Edinburgh to fill your place.4 I was extremely sorry to hear that your health has been worse. I have not lectured; I wish I had the strength; & know not to what you refer.—5 Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Slg. Darmstaedter Lc 1859 Darwin, Charles, Bl. 129–130 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J.  V.  Carus, 17 April 1875. Carus was translating CD’s Journal of researches (1860) (Carus trans. 1875b; see letter from J. V. Carus, 17 April 1875). John Murray published Insectivorous plants in July 1875 and Climbing plants 2d ed. in November 1875 (Publishers’ circular 1875). Carus made German translations of both works (Carus trans. 1876a and 1876b).

152 4

5

April 1875

Thomas Henry Huxley visited Down on 17 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). He had been commissioned to give lectures at the University of Edinburgh in place of Charles Wyville Thomson, who was on the oceanographic survey ship HMS Challenger. Carus had given these lectures in the summers of 1873 and 1874 (see letter to J. V. Carus, 7 February 1875 and n. 8). See letter from J. V. Carus, 17 April 1875.

From W. W. Reade   20 April 1875 Care of H. Sandwith Esq C.B The Old House, | Wimbledon, S.W. April 20/75. My dear Sir, You will be glad to hear that my friends the Sandwiths1 took compassion on my loneliness, and have given me a home in their house till I get convalescent. My chances of recovery are certainly doubled by this kindness on their part. Please don’t trouble to answer this Letter.2 Yours very truly | Winwood Reade DAR 176: 73 1 2

Humphrey Sandwith and his wife, Lucy Anne. Reade died at the Sandwiths’ house on 24 April 1875 (letter from Humphrey Sandwith, 25 April 1875).

From Thomas Burgess   21 April [1875]1 Rainow. April 21 Dear Sir I have received your Letter of the 15 Inst and the Book2   I thank you most kindly for the Handsome manner in which you have wrote to me, considering I am so much benath you in Position   I shall whilst I live Prize the Book and when Dead have Ordered it to given to one of my gransons who is named after me   “I think at times when I look at your Pothograth I can recolect your appearane in the forehead3 I can Also recerlect many of the sights in Terra del Fuego and some that you do not name but we were not Always in Company   you will see that this is another hand writing the other letters were wrote by A Freind who Doubted Some of my Assertions that I had been with you   this is my Own writing I am Sir Your | Humble Servant | Thomas Burgess | Rainow | Macclesfield | Cheshire Charles Darwin Esq DAR 160: 376 1

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Thomas Burgess, 13 April 1875.

April 1875 2 3

153

The letter from CD has not been found, but see the letter from Thomas Burgess, 13 April 1875. The book that CD sent has not been identified, although it is likely to have been Journal of researches. Burgess served on HMS Beagle with CD; he requested a photograph in his letter of 26 March 1875.

From R. F. Cooke   21 April 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London. W. April 21 1875 My dear Sir I hope Messrs. Clowes are getting on as fast as you desire with the proofs of your new work, as the sooner we can publish so much the better.1 You will be glad to hear we have received this morning a remittance from Dr. Kowerskey of S.t Peterburgh with an expression of his regret, at the delay.2 I forgot to mention when you were here, that we have still remaining here about 400 copies of “Mr Wright’s pamphlet” & 450 of “Muller’s Facts”3 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 448 1 2

3

William Clowes & Sons were the printers of Insectivorous plants. Vladimir Onufrievich Kovalevsky had finally paid for the heliotyped plates for the Russian translation of Expression ([Kovalevsky] trans. 1872; see also letter from R. F. Cooke, 19 March 1875). John Murray charged £75 for 1000 plates (Gaisinovich ed. 1988, p. 194); see also Correspondence vol. 20, letter from V. O. Kovalevsky, 8 August [1872]. CD had arranged for John Murray to publish Chauncey Wright’s review of St George Jackson Mivart’s On the genesis of species (Mivart 1871) as a pamphlet (Wright 1871; see Correspondence vol. 19, letter to John Murray, 17 August [1871]). CD had also arranged for Murray to publish a translation of Fritz Müller’s Für Darwin (F. Müller 1864) with the title Facts and arguments for Darwin (Dallas trans. 1869; see Correspondence vol. 17, letter to R. F. Cooke 23 [February 1869]).

From T. H. Huxley   21 April 1875 Council of Education | Kensington Museum April 21. 1875 My dear Darwin The day before yesterday I met Playfair at the Club and he told me that he had heard from Miss Elliot that I was getting up what she called a “Vivisector’s Bill”—& that Lord Cardwell was very anxious to talk with some of us about the matter—1 So you see that there is no secret about our proceedings. I gave him a general idea of what was doing, and he quite confirmed what Lubbock2 said about the improbability of any action being taken in Parliament this session

154

April 1875

Playfair said he should like very much to know what we proposed doing—and I should think that it would be a good thing to take him into consultation On my return I found that Pflüger had sent me his memoir, with a note such as he sent to you—3 I read it last night and I am inclined to think that it is a very important piece of work He shows that frogs absolutely deprived of Oxygen give off Carbonic acid for 25 hours—& gives very strong reasons for believing that the evolution of Carbonic acid by living matter in general is the result of a process of internal re-arrangement of the molecules of the living matter—& not of direct oxidation4 His speculations about the origin of living matter are the best I have seen yet—so far as I understand them   But he plunges into the depths of the higher chemistry in which I am by no means at home— Only this I can see that the paper is worth careful study Ever | Yours faithy | T H Huxley DAR 166: 339 CD annotation 3.2 it would] ‘be a good thing to take him into consultation. | T. Huxley.’ ink 1

2 3 4

Huxley refers to Lyon Playfair, Margaret Elliot, Edward Cardwell, and the Athenaeum Club. CD had been working with Huxley and others to draft a vivisection bill (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 15 and 19 April [1875]). Playfair, the MP for Edinburgh and St Andrews Universities, was known for his advocacy of scientific interests (ODNB). Cardwell was a vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. John Lubbock. Eduard Friedrich Wilhelm Pflüger had sent CD and Huxley a copy of his paper on physiological combustion (Pflüger 1875); see letter from E. F. W. Pflüger, 14 April 1875. See Pflüger 1875, pp. 325–6.

From G. J. Romanes   21 April 1875 April 21, 1875. In returning you —’s papers, I should like to say that the one on ‘Inheritance’ appears to me quite destitute of intelligible meaning.1 It is a jumble of the same confused ideas upon heredity about which I complained when you were at this house.2 How in the world can ‘force’ act without any material on which to act? Yet, unless we assume that it can, the whole discussion is either meaningless, or else assumes the truth of some such theory as ‘Pangenesis.’3 In other words, as it must be ‘unthinkable’ that force should act independently of matter, the doctrine of its persistence can only be made to bear upon the question of heredity, by supposing that there is a material connection between corporeal and germinal cells—i.e. by granting the existence of force-carriers, call them gemmules, or physiological units, or what we please.4

April 1875

155

Lawson Tait says (p.60)—‘The process of growth of the ovum after impregnation can be followed only after the assumption either expressed or unconsciously accepted of such a hypothesis as is contained in Mr. Darwin’s “Pangenesis;”’5 and it is interesting, as showing the truth of the remark, to compare, for example, p.  29  of the other pamphlet—for, of course, ‘Pangenesis’ assumes the truth of the persistence of force as the prime condition of its possibility.6 If ever I have occasion to prepare a paper about heredity, I think it would be worth while to point out the absurdity of thinking that we explain anything by vague allusions to the most ultimate generalisation of science. We might just as well say that Canadian institutions resemble British ones because force is persistent. This doubtless is the ultimate reason, but our explanation would be scientifically valueless if we neglected to observe that the Canadian colony was founded by British individuals. The leaf from ‘Nature’ arrived last night. I had previously intended to try mangold-wurzel, as I hear it has well-marked varieties. The reference, therefore, will be valuable to me.7 Before closing, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking you again for the very pleasant time I spent at Down. The place was one which I had long wished to see, and now that I have seen it, I am sure it will ever remain one of the most agreeable and interesting of memory’s pictures.8 With kind regards to Mrs. Darwin, I remain, very sincerely and most respectfully yours, | Geo. J. Romanes. E. D. Romanes 1896, pp. 20–2 1

2 3 4

The paper on inheritance was probably Edward Lewis Sturtevant’s The law of inheritance; or, the philosophy of breeding (Sturtevant 1875; see nn. 4 and 6, below). A copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. CD evidently visited Romanes while he was in London from 31 March to 12 April 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Romanes was testing CD’s theory of pangenesis experimentally by producing graft hybrids (see Variation 2: 357–404 and letter from G. J. Romanes, 14 January 1875). Sturtevant 1875, p. 15, states: The hypothesis of pangenesis demands the presence of granules or gemmules which are freely circulating through the system, and which are supposed to be transmitted from the parent to the offspring, and which can lie dormant or become developed in the generations that succeed. To me, this is unthinkable, and I prefer to suggest that the law of persistence of force requires that no change can take place in a cell without changing the possibilities of that cell in its multiplication and future development; that each cell is the sum of all the forces which have acted on it in the past and are acting in the present; that the intimate connection of the generative cells with the whole body, arising through their high endowment, stores up in them a greater store of possibilities, brought about by their extreme complexity of environment.

5 6

The quotation is from The pathology and treatment of diseases of the ovaries (Tait 1874). Tait sent the essay to CD with his letter of 17 March [1875]. An annotated copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. In Sturtevant 1875, p. 29,  it is argued: The ideal cell repeats itself through the force which is stored within it. As forces have been received by the parent cell through nutrition, and as force must have been used by this cell

156

April 1875 in the support of the processes which accompany vitality, this cell cannot transmit itself, as itself was when first formed, to its own offspring, but transmits those forces only which itself possesses at the time of the generation or production of offspring.

7

8

CD evidently sent a page from Nature that reported on grafted roots of mangold wurzel (mangel-wurzel), illustrating the transmission of special characters from the graft to the stock (Nature, 1 October 1874, p. 452). Romanes visited Down on 17 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)); see letter to G. J. Romanes, 7 April [1875].

From J. S. Burdon Sanderson   23 April [1875]1 49 Queen Anne St April 23rd. Dear Mr Darwin, I received your letter this morning. I have read & noted the contents of the enclosure which I return to you.2 I will write to Lyon Playfair asking him to see me after he has read the Bill, which you will have sent him3 I think the licensing of places objectionable, but too impractical to be likely to be adopted by Parliament. Places cannot be made responsible, So that licensing them would not prevent abuses, supposing such to be likely to occur.4 I have not yet received Dr Aclands signature. Otherwise we have them all. I cannot (after careful consideration) see that it would be advisable to suppress the petition.5 I have sent some notes to Mr. Litchfield on the section—particularly (4) i.e. the last paragraph.6 It is rather disagreeable to think that these miserable people will be going on agitating till next year. I had a choice anonymous letter the day before yesterday setting forth in the usual style, the penalties & pains of the other world in prospect for me Very truly yours | J B Sanderson University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (II.vi) 1 2 3 4 5

6

The year is established by the references to the draft vivisection bill (see n. 3, below). CD’s letter and the enclosure have not been found; see, however, the letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 15 and 19 April [1875]. Thomas Henry Huxley had suggested consulting Lyon Playfair about the draft vivisection bill (see letter from T. H. Huxley, 21 April 1875). On the proposed licensing of vivisection, see Appendix VI. Prior to drafting the vivisection bill, CD had worked with Thomas Henry Huxley to prepare a petition for which John Scott Burdon Sanderson had been collecting signatures (see letter from T. H. Huxley, [4 April 1875] and n. 2, and letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 7 April [1875]). Henry Wentworth Acland was regius professor of medicine at the University of Oxford and president of the General Council of Medical Education and Registration (ODNB). Richard Buckley Litchfield had helped draft the vivisection bill. Item 4 of the first printed draft (DAR 139.17: 21) contained the terms under which professors or lecturers could hold licenses.

April 1875

157

To J. S. Burdon Sanderson   24 [April 1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. 24th. Evening My dear Sanderson I have seen Sir John. He thinks L. Playfair wd be the best man to present the petition, as he attends to medical subjects; but if Playfair objects on any grounds he will present it.2 He doubts about wisdom of any petition.— I showed him our bill & he thought this a far more important & useful proceeding, & suggested an alteration in Title & Preamble, giving it a more humanitarian aspect, & he thought this not a little important.— I have written to Litchfield & told him Sir John’s suggestion.—3 Sir J.  thinks it wd be better that petition shd be presented to both Houses of Parliament.— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Will you ask L. Playfair? University of the Witwatersrand Historical Papers (A237f, letters to Sir John Burdon Sanderson) 1 2 3

The year and month are established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 23 April [1875]. CD refers to John Lubbock and Lyon Playfair and the petition to regulate vivisection (see letter to E. H. Stanley, 15 April 1875 and n. 2). See letter to R. B. Litchfield, 24 April [1875] and n. 3.

From T. M. Coan   24 April 1875 THE “CENTURY” | 109 East 15th. Street. New York Mr. Charles Darwin, Dear Sir: Since receiving your enquiries of last summer respecting infanticide I have met with two passages upon the subject which I here transcribe, thinking that they may interest you if you have not already come across them.1 The first is from the Journal of Sir James Mackintosh, in his Life (London, E. Moxon, 1834, vol. II, p. 86). “14th. (February, 1811, at Bombay I think:) Captain Williams … is just returned from an extensive survey of Guzzerat. He confirms the account of the destruction of almost all female children, by the Jarejahs, a tribe of Rajpoots, of considerable consequence. They drown them immediately after birth, in milk, poured into a hole in the ground. Some few have been preserved. They procure wives from other tribes of Rajpoots. The motive which produces this barbarous usage is not very satisfactorily explained. They allege, as an excuse, the same combination of pride & poverty which made nuns of all poor gentlewomen in Catholic countries. They say that they destroy these daughters because they are unable to defray those great expenses at marriage which their rank requires. It is observable that here, as in almost all other cases where children are murdered, it is

158

April 1875

immediately after birth. To kill a child of six months old, would require a barbarity, even in a stranger (not to speak of a mother), of which human nature is very rarely capable.”2 The other passage is from J. S. Polack’s “New Zealand”, (London, 1838,) vol. 1, p. 381. He says: “Boys are seldom or never destroyed, except in temporary fits of insane passion”; & in the same chapter, XI, he gives several items of information bearing indirectly upon your question.3 Mr. Polack was in New Zealand between 1831 & 1837. Very sincerely yours | Titus M. Coan. 24th April 1875 DAR 161: 184 1

2

3

CD’s original queries have not been found, but for Coan’s replies, see Correspondence vol. 22, letters from T. M. Coan, 14 February 1874 and 22 June 1874. CD used Coan’s information on infanticide in Hawaii in Descent 2d ed., p. 187. The quotation is from Memoirs of the life of Sir James Mackintosh (Mackintosh 1835, 2: 86–7). Gujarat is a state on the north-west coast of India. Monier Williams was surveyor general of Bombay, and his observations of female infanticide in the Jarejars were recounted in Asiatic Quarterly Review 3d ser. 11 (1901): 260. The Jarejahs were a tribe of the Rajput (a caste claiming descent from the original Hindu military and ruling elite (Chambers)). The reference is from Joel Samuel Polack’s New Zealand (Polack 1838). Infanticide is discussed on pp. 380–3.

To R. B. Litchfield   [24 April 1875]1 My dear L. Many thanks.— I will wait for clean copies for Lyon Playfair & Ld. Cardwell;2 & I return one of yours & keep the other, for I find I have not one.— Burdon Sanderson wishes the petition to be presented, so I shall write this evening to Sir John, to ask whether he will do so.3 Huxley has seen L. Playfair M.P who is anxious to get up subject.— Your affect | C.D.— British Library (Add MS 58373) 1 2

3

The date is established by the relationship between this letter, the letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 23 April [1875], and the letter to R. B. Litchfield, 24 April [1875]. Litchfield was working with CD to prepare a vivisection bill (see letter to J.  S.  Burdon  Sanderson, [11 April 1875]). CD had learned from Thomas Henry Huxley that Lyon Playfair and Edward Cardwell were interested in the bill (see letter from T. H. Huxley, 21 April 1875 and n. 1). A second draft of the vivisection bill, dated 24 April 1875, is in DAR 139.17: 32. Burdon Sanderson advised that, in addition to the vivisection bill, a petition should also be presented to Parliament (see letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 23 April [1875] and n. 5). John Lubbock was MP for Maidstone.

April 1875

159

To R. B. Litchfield   24 April [1875]1 Down | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. April 24th My dear Litchfield I have seen Sir John, who thinks L. Playfair wd be best man to present petition.2 Sir J. read our bill & he thinks it very important for physiology that the first impression given by it shd be on the humanity side, & suggested some such title as “an Act to restrict vivisection (or experiments on animals) (excepting under due conditions) or something of this kind.— Also in the preamble he thought it wd. be much the best to begin with “it is expedient that all useless suffering by animals shd be saved; nevertheless it is for the public advantage &c &c.3 These were not his words but his sense.— He is a very sharp man, & this suggestion may be worth your considering— He thought the bill a far more important & useful step than the petition.— He doubted any use in the latter & I am inclined to agree. But on the other hand, regarding humanity, I cannot but think that the more the subject is stirred up on all sides the better.4 Yours affect, | C. Darwin British Library (Add MS 58373) 1 2 3 4

The year is established by the references to the draft vivisection bill on (see n. 3, below). John Lubbock and Lyon Playfair (see letter to R. B. Litchfield, [24 April 1875] and n. 2). Litchfield amended the second draft of the bill printed on 24 April 1874 with ink annotations (DAR 139.17: 32). For the changes to the title and preamble, see Appendix VI. On the vivisection petition, see the letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 23 April [1875] and n. 5.

To W. R. S. Ralston   24 April [1875]1

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. April 24th

Dear Sir I hope that you will excuse, on the grounds of your friendship with the Litchfields2 my begging a favour of you.— I have received from Russia a bulky Diploma & enclosed letter, of neither of which can I read a word.—3 I shd be very sorry to be so ungracious as not to return my thanks. Will you, therefore, be so very kind as, not to translate the letter, but just tell me what the Diploma is, & who sends it, & whence it comes.— Hoping that you will excuse me, I remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Slg. Darmstaedter Lc 1859 Darwin, Charles, Bl. 218–219 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from W. R. S. Ralston, 26 April 1875. Henrietta Emma and Richard Buckley Litchfield. The diploma is in DAR 229: 41 (see Appendix III); the letter has not been found.

160

April 1875

From Humphrey Sandwith   25 April 1875

The Old House, | Wimbledon, S.W. April 25/75

My dear Sir, As my poor friend W. Winwood Reade often spoke of you during his illness & wished you to be informed of his death, I lose no time in fulfilling this sad duty.1 He died yesterday afternoon about three. We had hoped to have pulled him through the summer at least, but the disease was too strong for us. For the first week of his arrival here he indulged hopes of recovery but during the last five or six days, he gave up all idea of living— I regret to say that his last few hours were physically very painful.2 In one so young Death & Life seem to struggle for mastery in such chronic disorders as his. He preserved his intellect almost to the last & said “I die a philosopher, I have no fear of the future, mark that” I beg to remain, dear Sir, | Very truly your’s | H. Sandwith Chas Darwin Esq F.R.S. | &c &c &c DAR 177: 30 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘To be returned’ pencil 1 2

William Winwood Reade was staying with Sandwith during his illness (see letter from W. W. Reade, 20 April 1875.) Reade died aged 36 from ‘consumption complicated with other organic disease’ (Pall Mall Gazette, 26 April 1875, p. 8).

From W. R. S. Ralston   26 April 1875

8 Alfred Place | Bedford Square | WC April 26. 1875

My dear Sir Imprimis: Pray believe that I am uttering no idle form of complimentary speech, if I say that to do you any such slight service as you now give me the chance of doing, is to me an honour and a pleasure.1 It is part of my reward for busying myself with Russian matters, that I am every now and then able to make myself useful to such persons as yourself— The letter you have forwarded to me is to the effect that—2 “The Society of Naturalists in the Imperial University of Kazan, being well aware of your great scientific merits, and conscious of the immense service which your labours have rendered to the development of Nature-Knowledge, at a sitting on the 22 of May, 1871, chose you as its Honorary Member— While informing you of this, the Society has the honour to forward to you a diploma As Honorary Members President—(illegible) Secretary N. Malieff(?)”3 4 Why they should inform you by a letter dated March 18 30 1875  of what took place in May 1871, no mind but a Slavonian’s can conceive. I was made a member of a

William Winwood Reade. Frontispiece of Martyrdom of man, 19th ed. (London: Kegan Paul, 1910). Reproduced by permission of Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre.

April 1875

162

Moscow Historical Society some years ago, but no diploma has ever reached me. All business is done in Russia at a snail’s pace— The Russian title of the Society is �

“Obshchestvo � Society Estestvoispuitatelei pri � � � � of Nature-investigators in Imperatorskom Kazanskom � � � � the Imperial Kazan Universitetye � � University You can address the President in any language you feel inclined to use. I shall be starting soon for first Germany and then Russia, with the idea of passing the winter in the latter country, and thence returning to establish myself here as a professional journalist— As Russian matters will then be more than ever my specialty, I shall be most happy to act as your dragoman5 in case you need the services of such a functionary at any time in Russian matters. And as my fee I will ask leave to come down some day and see the house in which you live, that I may be able to answer properly when catechized about you and yours by your numerous admirers in Russia— For the scientific Russians pay you a sort of cultus. If they got hold of you in person, I am afraid they would elect you an “Ataman”6 on the spot—a great honour, but involving an initiatory rite terribly similar to that of tossing in a blanket;7 only there is no blanket, merely the hands of admiring electors— Believe me | Yours very truly | W R S Ralston Charles Darwin Esq, FRS. | &c &c &c It is just possible that you may be able to find time to glance at the accompanying paper—8 Please do not trouble yourself about acknowledging its receipt or that of this letter— DAR 176: 4 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘I am obliged for your curious lecture on Popular tales’9 ink 1 2 3

CD had asked Ralston to translate a Russian diploma that he had received (see letter to W. R. S. Ralston, 24 April [1875]). The original letter that accompanied the diploma has not been found. According to the diploma in DAR 229: 41 (see Appendix III), CD was elected an honorary member at a meeting of the society on 22 May 1871, but the diploma itself was dated 17 March 1875. The Naturalists’ Society of the Imperial University of Kazan was founded in 1869. The president was Nikolai Mikhailovich Mel’nikov. The secretary was Nikolai Mikhailovich Maliev.

April 1875 4 5 6 7

8 9

163

The original letter evidently gave both Julian (18 March) and Gregorian (30 March) calendar dates. Dragoman: an interpreter or guide in Eastern countries (Chambers). Ataman: a Cossack headman or general (Chambers). Tossing in a blanket: to administer a rough irregular mode of punishment; literally a ritual in which a person is repeatedly tossed into the air and caught on an open blanket by a group of people who hold the blanket at its edges and stretch and relax it for each toss and catch (OED). Ralston produced a number of articles on Russian, Siberian, and Norse folk stories for the Fortnightly Review, Cornhill Magazine, and Fraser’s Magazine. The article sent to CD has not been identified. CD’s reply to Ralston has not been found.

To Humphrey Sandwith   26 April 1875

[Down] 26 Apr 75

Comments on death of Winwood Reade. ‘… it is best that he should have been relieved from all future suffering, as he was evidently a doomed man’.1 Sotheby’s (dealers) (29 May 1961) 1

Sandwith had informed CD of William Winwood Reade’s last illness and death (see letter from Humphrey Sandwith, 25 April 1875).

To George Harris   27 April 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Ap 27 75 Dear Sir I know of no facts making it probable that animals perceive any qualities which are not perceived by us, tho’ they may do so in a higher degree. A sense of direction perhaps forms an exception, though this is doubtful. I do not believe that any animal knows what herbs are poisonous, except through experience during former generations by which an inherited association or instinct has been acquired against any particular herb. When sheep are turned out into a new country, they often eat poisonous plants, but it is said, at least in parts of Australia they gradually learn to avoid them.1 I wish I could give a fuller answer, but have not time to reflect on the subject Dear Sir | yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS Louise M. Darling Biomedical Library History and Special Collections Division, University of California, Los Angeles (Ms. 10, Letters concerning George Harris’s A Philosophical Treatise on the Nature and Constitution of Man) 1

No letter from Harris to CD on this subject has been found; however, Harris had sent CD proofsheets of his book A philosophical treatise on the nature and constitution of man (Harris 1876; see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from George Harris, 10 February 1874). The book contained a discussion of the sense perception of animals, and Harris cited CD’s letter in his discussion of the view that animals resorted to particular herbs in the event of sickness and could detect and avoid poisons, ‘probably owing to the great acuteness and perfection of their sensorial organs’ (Harris 1876, 2: 253). In Harris 1876, 1: 197, he also cited Descent 1: 36 as support for his view that animals were in their highest state of

164

April 1875

perfection in the wild because they instinctively avoided poisons, while domestic animals often ate poisonous herbs.

From J. S. Burdon Sanderson   28 April [1875]1 49 Queen Anne St Wednesday Ap 28

Dear Mr Darwin, I have put myself into communication with L. Playfair but have not yet received his answer.2 I have taken no further steps about the petition. All who have signed it at my instance have done so on the understanding that it would not be presented unless an objectionable bill were actually introduced.3 In the meantime I will take no further steps without communication with you. I will write again as soon as I have seen L. Playfair Yours very truly | J B Sanderson University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (II.v) 1 2

3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 24 [April 1875]. Burdon Sanderson intended to ask Lyon Playfair to present a vivisection petition prepared by CD and his friends to Parliament (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 24 [April 1875]). Burdon Sanderson was also in contact with Playfair about the vivisection bill (see letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 30 April [1875]). John Lubbock had advised CD that Playfair was the best person to present vivisection petition to Parliament, but he saw the vivisection bill as much more important step (see letter to R. B. Litchfield, 24 April [1875]). ‘Objectionable bill’: probably the rival bill that was being prepared by Frances Power Cobbe (see Appendix VI).

To Edward Cardwell   [before 29 April 1875]1 My Lord I gathered some time ago from Dr. A Clark, & have since heard from others that you Lordship wished to know what physiologists thought on with respect to legislating on the subject of vivisection.2 A sketch of a bill concert with some eminent physiologists we have had a sketch of a bill drawn up, which we think will serve to protect animals from useless suffering, & will at the same time not interfere with the progress of physiology, a science which we are convinced will ultimately be of the greatest service to mankind. I have, therefore thought that your Lordship wd like to see this sketch, which I take the liberty of enclosing.3 I beg leave to remain | obedient servt. C. D. ADraftS DAR 97: C17

April 1875 1 2 3

165

The date range is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Edward Cardwell, 29 April 1875. Andrew Clark was CD’s physician. Thomas Henry Huxley had informed CD of Cardwell’s interest in the vivisection bill (see letter from T. H. Huxley, 21 April 1875). CD probably sent the second draft of the vivisection bill, printed on 24 April 1875 (DAR 139.17: 32). CD said he was awaiting clean copies of the bill to send to Cardwell and Lyon Playfair in his letter to R. B. Litchfield, [24 April 1875].

To Lyon Playfair   [before 29 April 1875]1 Dear Sir I have heard from P. H. that you would like to see the sketch of a bill,2 has been drawn up with the concurrence of some eminent physiologists, & which we think will wd serve to protect animals from needless suffering, & will not prevent the future progress of physiology.— I have therefore enclosed a copy3 & beg leave to remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | C. Darwin L. Playfair ADraftS DAR 97: C18 1

2 3

The date range is established by the date of the second printed draft of the vivisection bill (see n. 3, below) and by the relationship between this letter, the letter from Lyon Playfair, 29 April 1875, and the letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 30 April [1875]. P. H.: Professor Huxley. In his letter of 21 April 1875, Thomas Henry Huxley had informed CD that Playfair wanted to know what was being done about the vivisection bill. CD probably sent the second draft of the vivisection bill, printed on 24 April 1875 (DAR 139.17: 32). CD said he was awaiting clean copies of the bill to send to Playfair and Edward Cardwell in his letter to R. B. Litchfield, [24 April 1875].

From Thomas Allen   29 April 1875

42, Connaught Square, | Hyde Park. Apr: 29./75.

Dear Darwin— The enclosd. xtract I recd. this morng. frm. the Cruelty Socty. (Jermyn St.)1 I make no doubt it was sent me because I refused to believe, 2 days ago, that you and others mentioned were opponents of any restriction being placed on vivisectn.—and told them I had furnishd. you with my skeleton bill.2 I wish you wd. let me know how this is. I mean as to your principles in the matter. Another bill has bn. sketched wch. some professors, among them Dr Sanderson—have been invited to inspect, and wch. also is not for abolishing but placing the practise of vivison under certain conditions. but it wd. b. useless to submit it to him if he’s agst. any bill at all.3 Yours very truly | Thomas Allen DAR 159: 52

166 1 2 3

April 1875

The extract has not been found. The headquarters of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were at 105 Jermyn Street, London (Moss 1961, p. 189). Allen had drafted a bill on the regulation of vivisection (see letter from Thomas Allen, 14 April 1875 and n. 1). John Scott Burdon Sanderson had been working with CD on a vivisection bill that they hoped to present to Parliament (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 24 [April 1875]). Another bill was being prepared at the initiative of Frances Power Cobbe, who had first approached the RSPCA (the Cruelty Society) on the subject of vivisection in January (see letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875 and n. 1). Cobbe was now proceeding to present her bill without the support of the RSPCA (see Cobbe 1904, p. 640).

From Edward Cardwell   29 April 1875 74 Eaton Square 29 April. 1875 Sir I beg you will accept my thanks for your letter & for the enclosure.1 I am very glad that the subject has engaged your attention, & I trust that the result may be the adoption of a course of proceeding which, in your words, will protect animals from the needless suffering to which they are now sometimes subjected,—& may not prevent the future progress of physiology. I propose to consult confidentially with one or two of those who take a great interest in the subject: & have the honour to remain, Sir, Yours faithfully | Cardwell Charles Darwin Esqr. DAR 161: 47 1

CD had enclosed a draft vivisection bill with his letter to Cardwell of [before 29 April 1875].

To John Murray   29 April [1875]1

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. April 29th

My dear Sir I have just received revises of 2 first sheets of Insectivorous plants, so you will soon have to decide how many copies to be struck off.— I do not know what to advise; the book may sell very poorly, on the other hand it would be a most unfortunate thing, if enough copies were not printed at first, for it is not likely to go into a 2d. Edit.— Please let me hear.—2 I shall take about 60 copies for friends & men who have aided me.—3 My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin National Library of Scotland (John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 312–312A) 1

The year is established by the reference to Insectivorous plants, which was published in 1875.

April 1875 2 3

167

A second edition of Insectivorous plants was not produced in CD’s lifetime; his son Francis produced one in 1888. For CD’s presentation list, see Appendix IV.

From Lyon Playfair   29 April 1875 Athenæum Club | Pall Mall S.W. 29 April/75 My dear Mr Darwin Many thanks for your letter.1 I had already seen Sanderson who supplied me with a copy of the Bill.2 I think with a few alterations, especially with a more humanitarian preamble, it will do well. I am in communication with Lord Cardwell & Lord Shaftesbury who represent the more reasonable of the humanitarians,3 and if as I hope, their cooperation can be secured, I would suggest that the Bill should be introduced by the former into the House of Lords. If he do not consent to this initiation, it can be introduced into the Commons by who ever you deem best. I spoke to the Home Secretary4 about the proposed Bill & showed him your letter. I think he is much inclined to support a reasonable Bill. Yours Sincerely | Lyon Playfair DAR 174: 48 1 2 3

4

See letter to Lyon Playfair, [before 29 April 1875]. Playfair had visited John Scott Burdon Sanderson to discuss the vivisection bill drawn up by CD and his friends on 28 April (see letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 30 April [1875]). Edward Cardwell (Viscount Cardwell) and Anthony Ashley-Cooper (the earl of Shaftesbury) were both vice-presidents of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. John Lubbock had also recommended changes to the preamble (see letter to R. B. Litchfield, 24 April [1875]). Richard Assheton Cross was home secretary.

From J. S. Burdon Sanderson   30 April [1875]1 49 Queen Anne Street Monday April 30 Dear Mr Darwin, The day before yesterday Dr L. Playfair called upon me. He entirely approves of the Bill & is quite prepared to introduce it, in case that should seem to be the best course. Yesterday he was to see Ld Cardwell and to show it to him. I feel sanguine in hoping that Ld Cardwell will be induced to adopt it for this reason.2 Mr Colam, the Secretary of the S. for the P. of C. to A. called on me yesterday and developed to me their scheme. It appears to be substantially the same as ours (certainly not more restrictive)   They (the Society) regard it as Lord Cardwells he having approved of it.3 Consequently I think there is good reason to hope that a compromise will be

168

April 1875

effected. As soon as it is effected it would I think be well that it should be known as generally as possible that such a measure has the support of our side. L. Playfair seems to think that if Ld Cardwell adopts this Bill or one which we can approve of, it could be passed this session I have also seen Sir J. Paget4 who has been in personal communication with Ld. Cardwell & says that he desires to meet the wishes of scientific men on this subject & to act in such a way as to secure their cooperation I think it very satisfactory that the Society for the prevention are willing to cooperate with us Yours very truly | J B Sanderson University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (II.vii) 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 28 April [1875]. Lyon Playfair had agreed to present the vivisection bill to the House of Commons if Edward Cardwell would not present it to the House of Lords (see letter from Lyon Playfair, 29 April 1875). Cardwell had also been sent a copy of the vivisection bill (see letter from Edward Cardwell, 29 April 1875). John Colam was secretary and Cardwell a vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Both men were on the committee that was established in January 1875 to investigate the practice of vivisection in Britain. The committee was considering a bill for the regulation of vivisection that had been initiated by Frances Power Cobbe (see letter from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 30 April 1875, and Appendix VI). The RSPCA did not present a bill, but Cobbe proceeded with her own bill, which was presented on 4 May 1875 (Cobbe 1904, p. 640). CD had also secured the support of James Paget for the vivisection bill (see letter to J.  S.  Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875]).

To Francis Darwin   30 April [1875]1 Ap. 30th My dear F. I send today registered a chapter.2 It will be a fearful grind. There never was anything so dull (& the 2  next chapters will be as bad, afterwards better); but in small-type-part, style really does not signify, if intelligible, for no one except a lunatic will read it.— There is a bad error at p. 86 opposite where I have written “error”; a higher milligramm being given for a lower fraction: please recalculate; I suspect the 2 figures have been placed in reversed positions, if so correct thus3

Tr/. Your worn out, disgusted & affectionate old Father | C.D. DAR 271.4: 9

May 1875 1 2 3

169

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Francis Darwin, 1 and 2 May [1875]. Francis was correcting the proof-sheets of Insectivorous plants (see letter from Francis Darwin, 1 and 2 May [1875]). The correction has not been identified.

From the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals    30 April  1875 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. 105, Jermyn Street, St. James’s, London, S.W. April 30th. 1875. Sir, During the past three months the Committee of this Society have been engaged in investigations relating to the present practice of Vivisection in the United Kingdom, and they have at length determined to introduce into Parliament a Bill designed to limit that practice.1 Before taking such step they are very anxious to confer with eminent medical men, many of whom they are informed are willing to join them in promoting a legislative measure: and they have therefore resolved to invite several of such gentlemen to attend a meeting of the Committee to be held next Wednesday, May 5th. 1875, at three o’clock in the afternoon, when the noble President2 will take the chair, and the provisions of the Committee’s Bill will be read and finally discussed. The Committee trust that you will do them the favour to be present on such occasion, which has been arranged not only in courtesy but in justice to the high and honourable profession of which you are a distinguished member. I am, Sir, | Your obedient Servant, | Jno Colam3 | Secretary DAR 97: C9v 1

2 3

The committee was appointed in January 1875 following the presentation of a memorial by Frances Power Cobbe calling for an inquiry into the practice of vivisection in Britain (see letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875 and n. 1). Cobbe parted company with the RSPCA and presented her own bill for the regulation of vivisection, and the RSPCA were preparing separate legislation (see Appendix VI). The president was Dudley Ryder, earl of Harrowby. John Colam.

To R. A. Cross   May 1875 Down | Beckenham May 1875 Sir, The Earl of Derby has been good enough to forward to you a letter which I wrote to his Lordship on the ultimo explaining the grounds which have led myself & other persons engaged or interested in the study of physiology to desire that an act of

170

May 1875

Parliament may be passed to restrict, & at the same time to authorize under proper conditions, the making of experiments on living animals.1 I stated in that letter that a draft of a bill had been prepared putting in a practical shape the proposals we had to make. This draft has now been seen & approved by a number of scientific men, among whom are (some of ?) the most prominent representatives (in England) of biological science. & I think it well to send you a copy of it. in the hope that Her Majesty’s Government may take the subject into their consideration.2 Should the Government adopt the view embodied in the Bill I should be glad to learn whether they would be disposed to introduce it into Parliament as a Ministerial Measure, or, in the event of its being introduced as a private Bill to give it their sanction & support.3 I have the honour to be, Sir, | your obedient Servant | Ch Darwin The R.t Honble The Secy. of State | for the Home Dep.t DraftS DAR 97: C19–21 1 2

3

CD’s letter to Edward Henry Stanley, the earl of Derby, of 15 April 1875, had been forwarded to Cross, who was home secretary (see letter from E. H. Stanley, 17 April 1875). The draft vivisection bill had been approved by Joseph Dalton Hooker (the president of the Royal Society), James Paget (the president of the Royal College of Surgeons), George Burrows (the president of the College of Physicians), Richard Owen, Thomas Henry Huxley, John Scott Burdon Sanderson, and CD (see letter to E. H. Stanley, 15 April 1875). Private bills are legislative bills that affect the interests of only a particular body or individual (OED).

To J. S. Burdon Sanderson   1 May [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. May 1st My dear Sanderson I am delighted to hear that all your exertions & labour will in all probability be rewarded by success.— I think everyone who has in any way aided has done good work in the cause of Humanity & science.—2 I had a note from L. Playfair, who makes the same criticism as Lubbock did, viz that the Title & Preamble had better wear a more humanitarian aspect.3 Litchfield is coming here, & I will see what he can do & tell you.4 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin I have had a civil note of acknowledgement of the bill from Ld. Cardwell.—5 University of the Witwatersrand Historical Papers (A237f, letters to Sir John Burdon Sanderson) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Edward Cardwell, 29 April 1875. Burdon Sanderson had worked with CD to gain the support of scientific and political men for the bill to regulate vivisection (see letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 30 April [1875]).

May 1875 3 4

5

171

See letter from Lyon Playfair, 29 April 1875. For John Lubbock’s comments, see the letter to R. B. Litchfield, [24 April 1875]. Richard Buckley Litchfield had provided legal assistance in drafting the bill (see letter to R. B. Litchfield, [24 April 1875] and n. 3). He and his wife, CD’s daughter Henrietta Emma, visited Down on 1 May 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). See letter from Edward Cardwell, 29 April 1875.

From Francis Darwin   1 and 2 May [1875]1 Pantludw | Machynlleth Sat. May 1 My dear Father The proofs arrived all safe this morning & I have been correcting some.2 I havn’t calculated the mg thing but will.3 I am very sory it is such worrying work for you   I hope you will go & rest— Many thanks for the solemn advice about 10 days—4 Sunday It was no use sending off this yesterday—I got a lot more safe this morning, & shall send off the ones I have done this afternoon if I find I can register them. The following remarks are to Mother Amy is delighted at the azaleas & we should like anything certainly the plumbagos & especially a few cyclamens: if there isnt room a few things cant hurt our vines—5 I am off to see about the registering Lovely day—Amy sends her love Your affec son F. D.6 The proofmaniac There is a book these folks like v much called “Six Months in the Sandwich Islands by Isabella Bird.7 The mg paper pinned to first page8 DAR 274.1: 31 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

The year is established by the reference to proofs; CD began receiving proof-sheets of Insectivorous plants in April  1875 (see letter to J.  V.  Carus, 19  April [1875], and letter from R.  F.  Cooke, 21 April 1875). Francis had received the proofs of a chapter of Insectivorous plants (see letter to Francis Darwin, 30 April [1875]). CD had asked Francis to correct an error in the number of milligrams given on p. 86 of the proofsheets of Insectivorous plants (see letter to Francis Darwin, 30 April [1875]). This does not correlate with page 86 of the published book. The advice has not been found. Following their marriage in July 1874, Amy and Francis Darwin had moved into Down Lodge (Post Office directory of the six home counties 1874); the plants that Francis mentions to Emma Darwin may have been intended for the garden there. Francis made a joke about proofreading by using several copy-editing symbols when signing his initials. See plate on p. 172. Francis probably refers to the Ruck family (his in-laws, with whom he was staying in Wales). He may have mentioned their opinion of Isabella Lucy Bird’s work on Hawaii (Bird 1875) because he knew

The last page of the letter from Francis Darwin, 1 and 2 May 1875. Note the editorial marks surrounding the signature. DAR 274.1: 31. By permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library

May 1875

8

173

that Emma Darwin considered Bird ‘such a romancer’ that it made her not worth reading (letter from Emma Darwin to William Darwin, [5 March 1875] (DAR 219.1: 88)). See n. 3, above.

From John Murray   1 May [1875]1 50, Albemarle S.t | W. May 1— My Dear Sir I propose to print 1000  copies of your Flesh Eating Plants—wch may last for some time2   However in case of a larger demand I shall try & induce Mess Clowes to keep up the type a little while— I do not doubt of disposing of the 1000, though the work is strictly a Monograph3 I am | My Dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | John Murray Chas. Darwin Esqr DAR 171: 449 1 2 3

The year is established by the reference to the forthcoming publication of Insectivorous plants (see n. 2, below). Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). William Clowes & Sons were the printers used by John Murray; movable-type formes were usually dismantled after a work had been published unless a reprint was likely to be required in a short period of time. The second and third thousand were printed in 1875, and the fourth thousand in 1876 (Freeman 1977).

To J. J. Weir   1 May 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. May 1st 1875 My dear Sir I have had a letter from Prof. Weismann who is much interested in your experiments on birds not eating gaudy caterpillars.—1 He wishes much to know whether you have tried any other experiments since those published in the Ent. Transactions? Will you kindly inform me soon, & whether you know of similar ones performed by other observers.2 Those by Riley of U. States seemed to me the best.—3 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin American Philosophical Society (468) 1 2

August Weismann’s letter to CD has not been found, but for Weismann’s interest in Weir’s observations on caterpillars, see CD’s comments in his letter to August Weismann, 1 and 4 May 1875. Weir’s reply to CD’s query has not been found, but a part of it was copied out by CD in his letter to August Weismann, 1 and 4 May 1875. Weir had published two papers in the Transactions of the Entomological Society of London on the colour and edibility (to birds) of Lepidoptera and their larvae (Weir 1869 and Weir 1870).

174 3

May 1875

Charles Valentine Riley, state entomologist of Missouri, had noted that birds avoided eating brightly coloured caterpillars (Riley 1869–77, 3: 134).

To August Weismann   1 and 4 May 1875

Down, Beckenham, Kent May 1st. 1875

My dear Sir I did not receive your essay for some days after your very kind letter, and I read German so slowly that I have only just finished it.1 Your work has interested me greatly, and your conclusions seem well established. I have long felt much curiosity about Season-dimorphism, but never could form any theory on the subject. Undoubtedly your view is very important, as bearing on the general question of variability.2 When I wrote the Origin I could not find any facts which proved the direct action of climate and other external conditions.3 I long ago thought that the time would soon come when the causes of variation would be fully discussed, and no one has done so much as you in this important subject. The recent evidence of the difference between birds of the same species in the N. and S. United States well shows the power of climate.4 The two sexes of some few birds are there differently modified by climate, and I have introduced this fact in the last edition of my Descent of Man. I am, therefore, fully prepared to admit the justness of your criticism on sexual selection of Lepidoptera; but considering the display of their beauty, I am not yet inclined to think that I am altogether in error.5 What you say about reversion being excited by various causes, agrees with what I concluded with respect to the remarkable effects of crossing two breeds; namely that anything which disturbs the constitution leads to reversion, or, as I put the case under my hypothesis of pangenesis, gives a good chance of latent gemmules developing.6 Your essay, in my opinion is an admirable one, and I thank you for the interest which it has afforded me. With much respect | I remain, my dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin P.S.— I find that there are several points, which I have forgotten. Mr. Jenner Weir has not published anything more about caterpillars, but I have written to him, asking him whether he has tried any more experiments, and will keep back this letter till I receive his answer.—7 Mr. Riley of the U. States supports Mr. Weir, and you will find reference to him and other papers at p. 426 of the new and much corrected Edit. of my Descent of Man.8 As I have a duplicate copy of Vol. I (I believe 2nd. Vol. is not yet published in German) I send it to you by this post.9 Mr. Belt in his “Travels in Nicaragua”, gives several striking cases of conspicuously coloured animals (but not caterpillars) which are distasteful to birds of prey: he is an excellent observer and his book, “The Naturalist in Nicaragua”, very interesting.10 I am very much obliged for your photograph which I am particularly glad to possess, and I send mine in return.11

May 1875

175

I see you allude to Hilgendorf ’s statements, which I was sorry to see disputed by some good German observer. Mr. Hyatt, an excellent palæontologist of the U. States, visited the place and likewise assured me that Hilgendorf was quite mistaken.12 I am grieved to hear that your eye-sight still continues bad, but anyhow it has forced your excellent work in your last essay.13 May 4th. Here is what Mr. Weir says. “In reply to your enquiry of Saturday I regret that I have little to add to my two communications to the Entomol. Soc. Transactions. I repeated the experiments with gaudy caterpillars for years, and always with the same results, not on a single occasion did I find richly coloured, conspicuous larvæ eaten by birds. It was more remarkable to observe that the birds paid not the slightest attention to gaudy caterpillars, not even when in motion— the experiments so thoroughly satisfied my mind that I have now given up making them”.14 Copy DAR 148: 344 1 2

3 4 5

6

7 8

Weismann’s letter has not been found. He had sent CD a copy of his essay on seasonal dimorphism in butterflies (Weismann 1875b). Butterflies of a single species sometimes exhibit morphological differences depending on the time of year they emerge from the pupa: this is known as seasonal dimorphism. In his experiments, Weismann found that some seasonal forms were more variable than others and concluded that while the summer form could be induced to change into the winter form, the reverse was not the case (Weismann 1875b, p. 28). Weismann stressed the importance of the difference between seasonal variation and local variation, noting that the former was due to the direct action of climate, while the latter resulted from indirect changes in the conditions of life, that is from natural selection (ibid., pp. 33–4, 65). See Origin 6th ed., p. 54. CD cited work on the birds of Florida and of Kansas by Joel Asaph Allen (Allen 1871 and Allen 1872) when making this point in Descent 2d ed., p. 422 and n. 34. Weismann noted that although CD’s theory of sexual selection could explain some morphological diferences, such as different male and female colour patterns, it could not explain seasonal differences (Weismann 1875b, pp. 74–5). In Descent 2d ed., p. 423, CD had stated that the changes in the colours of birds owing to climate were not incompatible with the belief that the colours of birds were mainly due to the accumulation of successive variations through sexual selection. Weismann had noted other causes of reversion to the primary form besides the principal one of temperature change (see n. 2, above). He found that pupae of the summer form of Pieris napi (the greenveined white butterfly), despite having been kept at a high temperature during a seven-hour train journey, emerged as winter forms. He concluded that the shaking of the pupae during the journey had resulted in reversion (Weismann 1875b, p. 28). CD noted that any change in the conditions of life favoured a tendency, inherent or latent in the species, to return to the ‘primitive state’, and that crossbreeding was one of the most powerful ways of affecting an organism’s constitution and producing reversion (Variation 2d ed. 2: 22, 368–9, 382). His hypothesis of pangenesis was based on the notion that every separate part of the whole organism reproduces itself, and that the reproductive organs included gemmules (or granules) thrown off from each separate part; reversion was the awakening of latent characters present in each generation (ibid., pp. 350, 369). See letter to J. J. Weir, 1 May 1875. John Jenner Weir’s reply has not been found. See also n. 14, below. Either CD or the copyist wrote p. 426 in error; the references to the work of Weir (Weir 1869 and Weir 1870) and Charles Valentine Riley (Riley 1869–77, third report (1871)) are given in Descent 2d ed., p. 326 n. 34. Riley and Weir agreed that birds did not eat gaudy caterpillars.

176 9

10

11 12

13 14

May 1875

Descent 2d ed. was translated into German by Julius Victor Carus; in February 1874, Carus told CD that the printing of the new, two-volume, German edition (Carus trans. 1875a) would soon be finished (see letter from J. V. Carus, 5 February 1875). Thomas Belt, in The naturalist in Nicaragua, gave the example of a duck spitting out a brightly coloured frog and then ‘jerking its head as if to throw off some unpleasant taste’ (Belt 1874a, p. 321). He also mentioned that many insects were preserved by being distasteful to insectivorous birds (ibid., p. 74), noting that this included all species of the genus to which fireflies belonged even though only some were phosphorescent (ibid., p. 317). These cases led him to conclude that any animal endowed with special means of protection from its enemies was always either conspicuously coloured, or in other ways attracted attention, and did not seek concealment (ibid., p. 341). Weismann’s photograph has not been found. Weismann had proposed a law that in every species a period of variability alternated with one of relative stability, and supported his statement with evidence from Franz Hilgendorf ’s phyletic developmental history of fossil snails from Steinheim (Weismann 1875a, p. 79; see also Hilgendorf 1866 and Weismann 1872). Alpheus Hyatt may have discussed Hilgendorf ’s conclusions about the fossil snails of Steinheim when he visited CD (see letter from Alpheus Hyatt, 8 January [1875] and n. 4); no letter disputing Hilgendorf ’s conclusions about the snails has been found. Hyatt later published his interpretation of the Steinheim fossils in Hyatt 1880. For more on the differences between Hilgendorf ’s and Hyatt’s reconstruction of the phylogeny of the Steinheim snails, see S. J. Gould 2002, pp. 373–82. Weismann suffered from a rare disease in the retina of his left eye; the condition led to periods of blindness in that eye, making work at the microscope impossible (Petrunkevitch 1963, pp. 21–2). Weir’s letter to CD, from which the extract was copied, has not been found. It was a reply to the letter to J. J. Weir, 1 May 1875. Weir’s articles on the colour and edibility (to birds) of Lepidoptera and their larvae were published in the Transactions of the Entomological Society of London (Weir 1869 and Weir 1870).

To John Lubbock   3 May [1875]1 Down, Beckenham, Kent. (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) May 3d My dear Sir John As I have a chance of sending this note early to London, it will be better than a telegram.2 Tuesday week will suit me just as well as Friday.— Seeing anyone here tires me less than elswhere, but I think High Elms would be much better, if you do not object, as I could get away pretty soon, & I do not see how I could get a sort of living Royal Duke out of my house within the short time I can talk to anyone.—3 Pray do the best you can for me & settle whatever you think best. | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin British Library (Add MS 49644: 79–80) 1 2 3

The year is established by the proposed visit from the duke of Teck (see n. 3, below). Lubbock was a banker in the City of London. CD was expecting a visit from Francis, duke of Teck; High Elms was Lubbock’s house and estate near Down. In the event, the duke was unable to visit because he had to attend a party at Windsor Castle on that day (The Times, 13 May 1875, p. 11). Elizabeth Darwin expressed the Darwin family’s relief that the visit had been put off and their hope that it would never take place in her letter to G. H. Darwin, [14 May 1875] (DAR 251: 1408). The meeting eventually took place on 9 August 1875, when the duke visited CD at Down House before going on to High Elms for lunch (John Lubbock’s diary, BL Add mss 62680).

May 1875

177

To John Murray   3 May 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. May 3 1875 My dear Sir If Messrs Clowes cannot keep up the type for a sufficient time for you to judge of the sale; though I shd expect whatever sale there may be wd be too slow & gradual for any judgment.1 In this case what do you say to the following proposal: To calculate the price of the book on 1000 copies, but to allow me to have 250 additional copies printed off, I paying the prime cost only of the paper & press-work. You not to repay me until the 1000 are sold off, & the profits of the extra 250 to be divided between us in the usual manner—   I make this proposal from not thinking it probable that there will ever be a 2nd ed. & thinking it just possible that more than 1000 copies will be ultimately sold.2 I presume the mere paper & press-work for 250 copies wd not be a large sum; but I dare say you could tell me approximately yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS National Library of Scotland ( John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 310–11) 1

2

Murray had suggested that his printers William Clowes & Sons keep Insectivorous plants in type for a time in case the demand for the book exceeded a thousand copies (see letter from John Murray, 1 May [1875]). Contrary to CD’s expectations, two thousand more copies were printed in 1875 and another thousand in 1876 (Freeman 1977). On 23 November 1875, CD noted that he had received £560 from the sales of the book (CD’s Account books–banking account (Down House MS)). A second edition, edited by Francis Darwin, was published in 1888 (Freeman 1977).

To James Paget   3 May 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. May 3 | 1875. My dear Paget I am very much obliged for your kind present of your Lectures. From their titles I feel sure that they will, like all your other writings which I have read, interest me greatly.1 The vivisection question seems to be going on in every way as well as cd be desired.2 My dear Paget | yours very sincerely | Charles Darwin LS American Philosophical Society (467) 1

Paget’s Clinical lectures and essays (Paget 1875) contained sixteen essays, fifteen of which had already been published in medical journals or hospital reports. There is an annotated copy of Paget’s Lectures on surgical pathology (Paget 1853) in Darwin Library–CUL, and a copy of the third edition of this work in Darwin Library–Down (Marginalia 1: 658–61).

178 2

May 1875

Paget had given his support for a vivisection bill prepared by CD and his friends to be presented to Parliament (see letter to from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 30 April [1875].

To the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals   3 May 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. May 3 1875 Sir I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your circular of Ap. 30.1 I am sorry to say that the state of my health renders it impossible for me to attend the meeting on May 5th.2 I regret this, as I am very anxious that some legislative measure should be passed, serving to protect animals from needless suffering, & at the same time not interfering with the progress of the science of Physiology, which I am convinced, from the analogy of all other sciences, will ultimately confer the highest benefits on mankind—3 I remain | Sir | your obedient servant | Charles Darwin. LS Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles (dealers) (November 2011) 1 2 3

Letter from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 30 April 1875. See letter from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 30 April 1875 and n. 1. CD had been working with physiologists to prepare a bill regulating vivisection (see letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 30 April [1875]).

From Francis Darwin   [4 May 1875]1 Pantlludw, | Machynlleth. Tuesday My dear Father I send some off this afternoon. & got some from you this morning— I am afraid I have corrected a good lot p’raps some are twaddly ones2 Thank mother for her nice letter3   Hang Lady D & the rest of the Royal Family4 Yours affec | F D Found a golden crested nest5 Will you please tell somebody to tell Ashdown to use the syringe which ought to have come for me6 DAR 274.1: 34 1

2

The date is established by the references to making corrections and to ‘Lady D’. In April 1875, CD received proof-sheets of Insectivorous plants, which Francis was helping to correct (see letter from Francis Darwin, 1 and 2 May [1875] and n. 2). Dorothy Fanny Nevill visited CD on 4 May 1875 (see n. 4, below). The first Tuesday after the letter from Francis Darwin, 1 and 2 May [1875], was 4 May. Francis was correcting proof-sheets of Insectivorous plants for CD (see letter from Francis Darwin, 1 and 2 May [1875] and n. 2).

May 1875 3 4

5

6

179

Emma Darwin’s letter has not been found. Lady Dorothy Nevill came to lunch with the Darwins on 4 May 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)); Emma Darwin implied that the visit from Nevill would be a strain because it required CD to be ‘so friendly & adoring (if possible)’ (letter from Emma Darwin to W. E. Darwin, [1 May 1875] (DAR 219.1: 89)). ‘The rest of the Royal Family’ may refer to Francis, duke of Teck; a meeting with the duke had been planned for 11 May (see letter to John Lubbock, 3 May [1875] and n. 3). The golden-crested wren or goldcrest (Regulus regulus) builds a three-layered nest on the branches of coniferous trees. The nest has an outer layer of mosses and lichens bound together and to the conifer branch with strands of cobweb, a middle layer of flimsy mosses and lichens, and an inner layer made up of hair, feathers, and downy seeds (Birds of the world 11: 340). Francis probably wanted a garden syringe to continue CD’s experiments on how plants move in order to avoid damage by rain; in 1874, William Turner Thiselton-Dyer had carried out similar experiments for CD at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 31 May 1874). In Movement in plants, pp. 126, 128, and 262, CD referred to movements produced by syringing plants. Robert Ashdown was a gardener in Down.

From John Murray   4 May [1875]1 50, Albemarle S.t | W. May 4 My Dear Sir I will take upon me to increase the number of the Edition of Flesh Eating Plants from 1000 to 1250 if you will kindly allow my payment to you of 23ds of the profits on the Edition to stand over until the sale has reached say 750 or 800—2 I remain My Dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | John Murray Chas Darwin Esqr DAR 171: 450 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to John Murray, 3 May 1875. CD had requested an increase in the print run of Insectivorous plants (see letter to John Murray, 3 May 1875 and n. 1).

From E. B. Tylor   4 May 1875 Linden | Wellington Som. May 4 1875. My dear Sir My brother, who lives at Carshalton, writes to me that he would much like to bring Lord Young (the late Lord Advocate, who framed the excellent Scotch Education Act) to call on you on Saturday morning.1 As of course he would not like to do so unless he knew it would not be burdensome to you, he asks me to enquire. I shall be staying with my brother, but even if their visit is acceptable, I think I had better not make a third. May I then ask you for a note to care of Alfred Tylor, Shepley House, Carshalton.2 My brother does not say whether he has any geological object in view. Geologists seem to take more kindly now to the theory he has been preaching for so many years

180

May 1875

of what he calls a “pluvial period” of heavy rainfall during which the excavation of valleys went on far more rapidly than now.3 Believe me Dear Sir | Yours very truly | Edward B. Tylor Charles Darwin Esq DAR 178: 204 1

2 3

George Young visited CD and had lunch at Down House on 8 May 1875 (see letter to J. B. Innes, 10 May [1875]); presumably he was accompanied by Alfred Tylor. Young served as lord advocate of Scotland from 1869 to 1874; he established a national system of publicly funded compulsory elementary education in Scotland with the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act in 1872 (ODNB). This letter has not been found. At a meeting of the Geological Society of London in 1852, Alfred Tylor had first expounded his theory that sea-level changes and denudation required a sustained period of increased rainfall (a pluvial period); opposition to his views resulted in the removal of any reference to a pluvial period from the abstract published in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London (Tylor 1852), but his views appeared in full in the version of his paper published in the Philosophical Magazine (Tylor 1853). Tylor again encountered opposition to his views at the Geological Society in 1868 when he explained post-glacial river-gravel deposits in terms of his pluvial theory (Tylor 1867, 1868a, 1868b, 1868c), and further argued that the erosion of valleys was more rapid when they had large, swiftly moving rivers flowing through them as a consequence of higher than normal rainfall. By 1872, other geologists had begun to argue that rainfall in the post-glacial period must have been heavier than in modern times (see Correspondence vol. 20, letter from Alfred Tylor, 8 June 1872 and n. 3), and Tylor published a full version of his paper on the formation of deltas (which had appeared only as an abstract in 1868 (Tylor 1868c)), together with an appendix outlining his view of the disputes surrounding it (Tylor 1872).

To John Murray   5 May 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. May 5./75 My dear Sir I am much obliged. So let it be, i.e. I not to receive my share till 750 or 800 copies are sold, & you to print 1250 copies.—1 If the book should sell very badly pray remember that I am not altogether to blame. Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin National Library of Scotland (John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42153 f. 50) 1

See letter from John Murray, 4 May [1875], concerning the publication of Insectivorous plants.

From J. S. Burdon Sanderson   6 May [1875]1 49, Queen Anne Street. | W. May 6 Dear Mr. Darwin, I write in haste to save this post.

May 1875

181

I have only time to say that Lyon Playfair called on me yesterday to tell me that Lord Cardwell had accepted his Bill & undertaken to introduce it.2 Lord Shaftesbury has also agreed to support it3   Playfair will himself of course take charge of it in the H of Commons I think it probable that Dr Playfair has himself written, but I send this note in case he should not4 Very truly yours | JB Sanderson University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (II.viii) 1 2 3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 1 May [1875]. Playfair and Edward Cardwell supported the vivisection bill prepared by CD and his friends (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 1 May [1875]). Lord Shaftesbury: the politician and reformer Anthony Ashley Cooper. No letter from Playfair written at this time has been found.

From J. B. Innes   7 May 1875 Milton Brodie | Forres 7th. May 1875—

Dear Darwin, In March 1874 my Keeper turned about six very small rabbits about the size of rats, with a ferret from a hole near this house. Four the usual brown and two quite white. I desired the white ones should not be killed. One of them came down in its infancy and established itself on the Lawn, where my wife noticed it, and as she seldom gets beyond the windows it became known as her white rabbit. It seems to bear a charmed life, of course it is not shot, but the terriers chase it, and ferrets in holes are risky, but there it is yet, and much tamer than its brown relations.1 But it is no longer white. For the last two or three weeks patches of fawn colour have begun near the tail and have crept over most of the snowy coat. It seems to be developing into a hare. Unfortunately I never saw more of the blackbird which used to fly at the head of any one who went near her nest some years ago— I took care that the young ones should not be disturbed in hope the peculiarity would be inherited but I have never had an attack since—2 I hope Mrs Darwins Brodie Columbine have proved a success. Mine are now in full bloom, and I have a pan full of young ones from the same seed I sent her—3 I saw in the Bromley record that Dr. Darwin (I suppose Frank) had contributed to the pleasure of a concert at the School—4 We generally conclude here that the School act will treble the cost, and on the whole rather diminish the efficacy of the Schools.5 Under the old system (and in that respect no alteration will be made) Scotch Parish Schools gave a good Education to the middle classes—sons of Ministers, farmers and the like, and those of the peasantry who were clever enough, and could stay long enough, to learn higher branches. A small cottar on my land

182

May 1875

who was employed a good deal as a labourer here has two sons, of whom one has got into a lawyers office as a Clerk, and the other is a pupil teacher. In the same school (though not always with as good results) the Minister’s Sons are prepared for the University of Aberdeen, and those of farmers paying 300£ or more of rent are taught. But 80 percent of the children go to work or service, and must be neglected. Their Education is infinitely less than we gave the children in our School at Downe.6 I hope there may be better examinations than was the custom when it was left to Ministers who had been Schoolmasters themselves, and were satisfied with having questions asked by the master and answered, without question whether any thing was really understood. I doubt if the compulsory system will work well. There are always some depraved families where the children are brought up to steal, swear and other bad things. To their misfortune they were never sent to school. Now they are caught and driven in, but I believe the infection they bring with them is tenfold greater than any good they can be expected to carry off— I have been betrayed into a sort of essay which I fear will bore you if you read it. I was sorry to see that your son’s station on the Transit expedition met with such unfavourable weather. It must have been a great disappointment to him—7 I had intended to have been in England about this time, but my wife’s niece,8 who had been here for the winter was called away by a marriage, which is an irresistible call to women, and I could not leave the wife alone— With our best regards to Mrs. Darwin and your children | Believe me | Faithfully yours | J Brodie Innes DAR 167: 32 1

2

3

4 5 6

7

In 1863, Innes had reported that his wife, Eliza Mary Brodie Innes, was not able to able walk much even though she was rarely seriously ill (see Correspondence vol. 11, letter from J. B. Innes, 29 August [1863]). Innes may have sent this account in response to CD’s comment in Variation 2: 229–30, that white varieties of animals were more susceptible to attack. Innes had observed the fierce blackbird in 1866; by 1868 her absence made him suspect that she had ‘fallen a victim to her courage’, but he speculated that the development of the bills and claws of her grandchildren would have resulted in their making ‘considerable progress towards being eagles’ (Correspondence vol. 16, letter from J. B. Innes, 13 June 1868.) Emma Darwin had received seeds of Aquilegia (columbine) from Innes in 1874, after telling him that she had ‘fallen in love with Aquilegia Brodii’ (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Emma Darwin to J. B. Innes, 12 October [1874] and n. 6). ‘Aquilegia Brodii’ was not a species, but Emma’s name for a variety that Innes grew in his garden. The Bromley Record, 1 May 1875, p. 226, reported that Francis Darwin had played a selection of popular airs on his flute at an amateur concert held in the Down National School on 9 April 1875. A national system of publicly funded compulsory elementary education had been introduced in Scotland with the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act in 1872. Innes had been perpetual curate and then vicar of Down until 1869, although he lived in Scotland from 1862; he and CD were involved with the running of the National School in Down (Moore 1985, p.  469). National Schools were elementary schools in England or Wales operated by the National Society for the Education of the Poor, which was established in 1811 (OED). Leonard Darwin had travelled to New Zealand as photographer to an expedition to observe the transit of Venus; the team he was with failed to make any observations because of the cloudy conditions (Airy 1881, pp. 484).

May 1875 8

183

Eliza Mary Brodie’s niece was probably a daughter of her sister Isabella Stuart Swan, who had died in February 1874.

From J. S. Burdon Sanderson   [8 May 1875]1 49 Queen Anne St Saturday Dear Mr Darwin I have again seen L. Playfair. He is going to ask leave to bring in his Bill on Monday.2 He has had a meeting with Ld Hartismere, but without immediate result i.e. Lord H. has not promised to withdraw his Bill.3 He showed me his Bill this morning with the necessary procedure clauses added and the Definition clauses relating to the words “Animal” & “Experiment” I hope it may be successful, but am glad to feel sure that even if it is not, it will effectually bar out the other, most objectionable measure. By next year it is to anticipated that everybody will be wiser: | very truly yours | JB Sanderson University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (II.xi) 1

2

3

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 6 May [1875], and by Lyon Playfair’s request to present the vivisection bill to Parliament on 10 May 1875 (see n. 2, below). In 1875, 8 May was a Saturday., On Monday 10 May 1875, Lyon Playfair requested leave to present a bill to the House of Commons for the regulation of vivisection (The Times, 11  May  1875, p.  6); he introduced the bill on Wednesday 12 May 1875 (Hansard parliamentary debates 3d ser. vol. 224 (1875), col. 542). John Henniker-Major, Baron Hartismere, had introduced another bill on vivisection in the House of Lords on 4 May 1875. The bill had been prepared at the initiative of Frances Power Cobbe (see Cobbe 1904, p. 640). On the differences between the bills introduced by Hartismere and Playfair, see Appendix VI.

To W. D. Whitney   8 May 1875 Dated Stamp of Delivering Office. MY 8 75 Handed in at the Farnboro Kent Office at 12.30 .m. Received here at 1.[illeg] .m. From | C. Darwin | Down Farnboro | Kent To | W. D. Whitney | Dr Rost | Jena Villa Castlebar Rd | Ealing Hope you will come Sunday tomorrow by two thirty from Charing Cross to Orpington1   will send you to Station in evening as house is full2 Telegram Yale University Library: Manuscripts and Archives (William Dwight Whitney Family Papers (MS 555): Box 22, folder 600 1875 May 6-10)

184 1 2

May 1875

Orpington Station was the closest to Down on the South Eastern Railway. Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242) records that Thomas Henry and Katherine Euphemia Farrer and Henrietta Emma and Richard Buckley Litchfield arrived in Down on Saturday 8 May; presumably they stayed for the weekend.

From Emma Darwin to W. D. Whitney   9 May [1875]1 Down, Beckenham, Kent. May 9. Dear Sir, Mr Darwin begs me to tell you how very sorry he is not to see you here today; the more so as he must give up the hope of doing so on either of the days you mention, when he has engagements which he cannot forego.2 The truth is that he ought to be away from home & taking rest; but he is nearly at the point of finishing his book on Insectivorous Plants & is unwilling to leave it unfinished.3 I may add that he was quite ill last night after the exertion of having some friends in the house.4 He trusts you will give him another chance when next you are in England, & he hopes that you will be here again after your stay abroad & that you will write to him— My dear Sir yours very truly Emma Darwin Yale University Library: Manuscripts and Archives (William Dwight Whitney Family Papers (MS 555): Box 22, folder 600 1875 May 6-10) 1 2

3 4

The year is established by the reference to Insectivorous plants (see n. 3, below). CD had invited Whitney to visit him at Down on 9  May  1875 (see telegram to W.  D.  Whitney, 8 May 1875). Whitney was staying in Ealing, a suburb of London, and hoped to see CD before returning to America, but he and CD did not meet (see letter from G. H. Darwin to W. D. Whitney, 21 December 1875). CD recorded in his ‘Journal’ that he ‘finished slips of Insectivorous Plants’ on 23 May 1875 (see Appendix II). Thomas Henry and Katherine Euphemia Farrer and Henrietta Emma and Richard Buckley Litchfield visited on Saturday 8 May 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)).

To J. B. Innes   10 May [1875] Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. May 10th Dear Innes Your case of the rabbit is a curious one; but there is something very odd about the colours of young rabbits. There are breeds, which are invariably white whilst young & then become almost black; & other breeds which are at first black & then become

May 1875

185

almost white.— Most of these were aboriginally crossed breeds, & I shd suspect that the parents of Mrs. Innes-Brodies rabbit were of crossed origin.—1 Your account of your schools has interested me much, & all the more as on Saturday Ld. Young, who as Ld. Advocate introduced your school-boards, was lunching here, & was talking much about the Scotch schools.—2 He was remarking how odd it was that the voters who taxed themselves now spent very much more in their schools than was formerly done.—3 He did not know anything about the relative advantages of Scotch & English primary schools.— I have no news whatever to tell you about the neighbourhood, as I see, if that be possible, even fewer people than formerly.— Mr Duck, you will have heard, is dead,4 & we have had to appoint a new Trustee to the Friendly Club in his place, & the Committee elected Mr. Pearson.—5 By the way here is a wonderful piece of news, Mr Fflinden has forgiven Mr Pearson, & they are reconciled.—6 I have not been very well of late & have been working too hard in correcting the proofs of another of my everlasting books viz on Insectivorous Plants—which contains hardly anything about evolution.—7 We never cease to wish you had not left us.8 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin My wife desires me to say that the plants of your Aquilegia are doing well, but not nearly so forward as yours.9 Postmark: MY 10 75 Cleveland Health Sciences Library (Robert M. Stecher collection) 1

2

3 4 5

6

7 8 9

Innes had told CD that a wild white rabbit, frequently watched by Eliza Mary Brodie Innes, was beginning to turn brown (letter from J. B. Innes, 7 May 1875). CD had discussed changes in the colour of rabbits in Variation 1: 109–12. See letter from J. B. Innes, 7 May 1875. George Young, lord advocate of Scotland from 1869  to 1874, had established a national system of publicly funded compulsary elementary education in Scotland for children between the ages of five and thirteen with the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act in 1872 (ODNB). The system of schools set up by the 1872 Education Act (Scotland) was partly funded by local property taxes (Strong 1909, p. 195). Only male property owners were eligible to vote in the 1870s. George Francis Duck died in early 1875 (BMD (Death index)). Charles Pearson was the schoolmaster at Down National School. The Down Friendly Society had been established by CD and Innes in 1850 (see Correspondence vol. 4, letter to J. S. Henslow, 17 January [1850] and n. 6); CD served as the treasurer for thirty years (LL 1: 142). The need for forgiveness possibly stemmed from CD and Emma’s wish to continue to use the schoolroom as a reading room for working men during the winter (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter to Down School Board, [after 29 November 1873] and n. 4); the School Committee (which included Pearson) had agreed to the proposal but George Sketchley Ffinden, vicar of Down since 1871 and chairman of the School Committee, had not given his consent (Moore 1985, pp. 471–2). CD finished correcting proofs of Insectivorous plants on 23 May 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Innes was perpetual curate of Down from 1847 and vicar from 1868 to 1869, but from 1862 he had lived in Scotland after inheriting property there (Moore 1985, pp. 468–9). Innes had given Emma Darwin some seeds of a variety of columbine that she had called ‘Aquilegia Brodii’ (see letter from J. B. Innes, 7 May 1875 and n. 3).

186

May 1875

From T. C. Brown   12 May 1875 Further Barton, | Cirencester. 12 May 1875 Dear Sir On looking over your new Edition of “Coral Reefs” which embraces not only your own discoveries respecting them, but also observations of other Corallists, I find it relates exclusively to recent and living Reefs, and does not enter upon Fossil Coral Reefs.1 I am quite aware that most of the latter do not exist in well preserved distinct Reefs, and therefore only offer to the Geologist a disjointed collection of Corals—for description of which we have the Paleon Books of the French Corallists Edwardes & Haime, continued by Dr Duncan, which are valuable as containing descriptions of various species, but are defective in a very important part which forms the basis of your work on Coral Reefs—viz Coral History—2 This therefore leaves a vacuum to be filled, in Fossil Coral Reefs, and which if you were young, might afford delightful employment and greatly help to establish the truths of all Coral History. My object in thus addressing you, is to inform you, that I discovered in the upper beds of the Great Oolite a distinct Coral Reef, and it being located near my residence, I have during the last four years, been collecting the Corals, numbering nearly 100  species and varieties, and having been the sole collector, have secured almost every kind by the aid of the Quarry Men.3 The result has astonished and delighted me, for I found the Reef contained almost every class, from Nullipora & Millipora to the ordinary species, and also Parasitic Corals.—4 It likewise clearly shews the cause of extinction of life, vizt By lime mud5 on depression of the Reef. So important did I consider the result that I thought it my duty to make it known, in order to encou〈r〉age Geologists located on other formations, to do as I had done—study any local Reef and preserve every specimen—more than this, I found I could not do, for I was not qualified to give scientific descriptions, or get up a popular illustrated work of my Reef. I have therefore endeavoured to enlist my friend Pr. Prestwich now located at Oxford on the Oolites, and I hope he will give Geologist by and by a History of a fossil Reef.6 To enable him to do this I hope this summer to shew him the Reef, and I have deposited in the Oxford Museum specimens of all found up to January last, which I mention, as you are more likely to visit Oxford than Cirencester, with the specimens I sent a catalogue illustrated by my pen, in which some profound Geologi〈ca〉l questions connected with Fossil Reefs are noticed.7 To give you an idea of a Nullipora, I have slipped into the envelope my nos. 1 & 2.8 1 shewing what I suppose to be an early stage of a Coral that must have been a hollow sphere, into which in life water entered, and when by degrees the coral marble filled it. No 2 being the same coral filled up. No 1 shews the Oolitic matter which must have been injected on depression. Yours | Thos C Brown | Charles Darwin Esq

May 1875

187

PS after writing my letter I thought you would like to read my views on “Origins” & have sent it by the Book post.9 DAR 160: 324 1

2

3 4

5 6

7

8 9

Coral reefs 2d ed. was published in 1874 (Publishers’ circular, 1 July 1874). CD’s book focused on coral reefs from a geological perspective, and did not discuss the coral species present in the formations; the only mention of semi-fossil coral (on one of highest mountains of Tahiti) occurs on page 183. Henri Milne-Edwards and Jules Haime’s A monograph of the British fossil corals was continued by Peter Martin Duncan; both series were published by the Palaeontographical Society (Milne-Edwards and Haime 1850–4 and P. M. Duncan 1866–72). The Great Oolite near Chichester is a limestone formation dating from the Middle (or Bathonian) Jurassic. The genera Nullipora and Millepora (also known as fire coral) had long been considered to be primitive corals (see Lamarck 1801, pp. 373 and 374), but neither is a true coral. In Coral reefs 2d ed., pp. 93 and 105, CD suggested that reefs were formed by many different species of coral adapted to live at different depths and dependent upon specific external conditions. Lime mud is a carbonate sediment derived from sources such as calcareous algae, and occurs in a wide range of marine zones, from pelagic to intertidal (Allaby 2013). Joseph Prestwich had been appointed professor of geology at Oxford University in 1874; Oxford lies in the centre of outcrops of Oolitic limestone that cross Britain from the south west to the north east. Oxfordian Oolitic limestone belongs to the Late Jurassic Corallian Group (Challinor 1978, s.v. Jurassic system). Brown had suggested that Prestwich publish a scientific account of the specimens from the fossil reef in November 1874 (see letter from T. C. Brown to Joseph Prestwich, 24 November 1874, Archive Collections of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History). The fossils from the Upper Bathonian strata of the Middle Jurassic period collected by Brown from a site three miles west of Cirencester are in the Earth Collections of the Oxford Natural History Museum; some were presented to the museum via John Phillips in 1873 and the others via Prestwich in January 1875 (www.oum.ox.ac.uk (accessed 3 February 2014)). Brown’s catalogue is in the Archive Collections of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. These enclosures have not been found in the Darwin Archive–CUL. CD would have returned the book to Brown; he did not make use of any comments by Brown in the revised edition of Origin that was published in 1876 (Origin (1876)).

From James Paget   12 May 1875

1, Harewood Place, | Hanover Square. W. May 12. 1875.

My dear Darwin I beg you to let me thus introduce to you Mr. Burgers, the President of the TransVaal Republic—1 He is devoted to Natural Science, anxious to know you, and ready to assist you in any investigations that you may wish to be made in his country— Sincerely your’s | James Paget Cha.s Darwin Esq. DAR 174: 8 1

Thomas François Burgers was president of the Transvaal Republic from 1871 to 1877. The Transvaal Republic was in the north-eastern part of southern Africa, bounded by the Vaal river in the south and the Limpopo river in the north.

188

May 1875

From T. F. Burgers   13 May 1875 13, Hyde Park Place, W. May 13th 1875 Dear Sir I beg to send you the enclosed note from Sir James Paget and hope to have an opportunity of meeting you at any time convenient to you within the next few days.1 Yours Respectfully | Thos Burgers DAR 97: C11v 1

See letter from James Paget, 12 May 1875. There is no record of a visit from Burgers in Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242), but it is possible that he visited CD on 29 May 1875 (see letter to William Marshall, 29 May 1875 and n. 2).

To T. F. Burgers   [after 13 May 1875]1 Dear Sir I shd. have great pleasure in seeing you, but I have been so unwell lately, that it is possible for me to see anyone until in about a weeks time, when I hope to be nearly well.—2 I would suggest, that your best plan wd be to come here by the Train. which leaves X at 10o.35′ stopping at Orpington St3 & you wd arrive at Down at about 12 oclock & we cd lunch at 1o & you cd return by the Train which leaves Orpington due 12 2. If in a weeks time shd still feel inclined to take so much trouble to see me, will you be so good as to inform me the day before, so that I may write or telegraph if too unwell— ADraft DAR 97: C11r 1 2

3

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from T.  F.  Burgers, 13 May 1875. Burgers had asked whether he might visit CD (see letter from T. F. Burgers, 13 May 1875); there is no record of a visit in Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242), but CD mentioned receiving an ostrich feather from Burgers in his letter to W. C. Marshall of 29 May 1875. The Orpington train departed from Charing Cross, which CD abbreviated to X.

To Lyon Playfair   15 May [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) May. 15th My dear Sir I am very much obliged to you for having sent me a copy of the Bill on Vivisection as introduced by you.—2 By undertaking this work, you have in my opinion done a great service in the cause of humanity & Science. I have had no recent communication with any physiologist, but I fear that the clause about registering every

May 1875

189

experiment, done without anæsthetics, though in itself a good step, may be a source of much trouble & difficulty, especially from the impossibility of explaining to the unscientific the probable advantage of any particular experiments.3 Pray believe me, my dear Sir | yours faithfully and obliged | Charles Darwin ALS and Copy4 Bonhams (dealers) (10 November 2009); DAR 147: 245 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Lyon Playfair, 21 May 1875. Playfair introduced the bill for the regulation of vivisection in the House of Commons on 12 May 1875 (Hansard parliamentary debates 3d ser. vol. 224 (1875), col. 542). The copy of the bill received by CD is in DAR 139.17: 23; it was ordered to be printed by the House of Commons on 12 May 1875. CD refers to section three, clause five: ‘That a register of all experiments made without the use of anaesthetics shall be duly kept, and be returned in such form and at such times as one of Her Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State may direct’. On the controversy over anaesthetics, see Appendix VI. The original letter is described in the sale catalogue as being three pages long. The transcript down to ‘but I’ is from a facsimile in the sale catalogue; the rest is from the copy in DAR 147, except for the ampersand in the phrase ‘trouble & difficulty’, which comes from the transcription in the sale catalogue.

From G. Chiantore to John Murray   18 May 1875 Società | L’Unione Tip-Editrice | Torinese | già Ditta Pomba e C. | Torino | Via Carlo Alberto, no 33 | Gabinetto del Direttore Torino, il 18th of May 1875. r M. John Murray Editor | London This house has already published some works of English Autors, translated in Italian;—Is advised to publish also “The variation of animals in its domestic state” of. Darwin; Though the sale of the first editions has not been of much encouragement till now, we hope on the sale of more copies yet, to recover our expences. What would decide this house to publish also the said work of Darwin, it is to obtain the clichets of the English edition for a price not superior to 250 fr. (£.10 Sterlings). We know that you have the clichets deposited in Italy, sent, time ago, for the same publication (failed).1 Pray be so good to make me know if that is true, and if you accept my offer; your answer will decide on the convenience or not to undertake such publication. Agree my best respects and believe me your | Obbedte. Serv. G. Chiantore DAR 171: 451 1

The publisher Carlo Vincenzi of Modena had agreed to pay for the clichés (stereotype plates) of the illustrations of the first edition of Variation; this edition was translated into Italian and began printing in April 1870 (see Correspondence vol. 18, letter from Giovanni Canestrini, 21 April 1870), but was never published. Chiantore was requesting the stereotypes of the illustrations for the second edition (Variation 2d ed.) for the same amount that Vincenzi had been charged for the first edition (see letter from R. F. Cooke, 26 May 1875).

190

May 1875

From F. F. Hallett   18 May 1875 The Manor House, | Kemp Town. | Brighton 18 May 1875 Sir I beg to enclose copy of a paper read by me before the British Association at Exeter and to call your attention to the paragraph surrounded by a red line.1 There is nothing in Col le Couteurs work to even suggest that he ever had such an idea as that you attribute to him.2 The “different powers of grains of the same ear” forms part of my discovery of “the law of development” of cereals and before me no one had ever approached the line of thought in which that discovery had its origin.3 It has recently been suggested to me that such a statement in a work by so celebrated an Author should be more directly challenged. I am very sure that you will be glad of the opportunity of correcting an inadvertence which in your hands acquires sufficient importance to justify my intruding upon you— I also beg to enclose paper read last year at Birmingham showing practical application of my system and I post a Brighton Guardian containing report from Hungary showing results on continent4 I have the honour to be | Sir, | Yours obed.t Servt— | Fredr. F. Hallett Charles Darwin MA | FRS | &c &c &c— DAR 166: 89 1

2

3

4

The British Association for the Advancement of Science met in Exeter in 1869; a summary of Hallett’s paper ‘On the law of the development of cereals’ appeared in the Report of the 39th meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1869), Transactions of the sections, p. 113. CD’s copy of Hallett’s longer, separately printed paper is in DAR 200.3: 31. The paragraph surrounded by a red line in Hallett’s paper (see n. 1, above) concerned CD’s statement in Variation 1: 314 that John Le Couteur had established that grains from the same ear of wheat differed and ‘generally transmitted their own character’. Hallett stated that this discovery was his alone, and that Couteur had not grown grains separately and in competition with each other over several generations. CD accepted Hallett’s argument, and referred to his experiments in Variation 2d ed. 1: 332. Hallett first published his discovery that different grains from the same ear of wheat possessed different qualities in his article ‘On “pedigree” in wheat’, in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England (Hallett 1861). He reprinted the paper as a pamphlet, together with reviews, in 1862 (Hallett 1862). CD’s copy of Hallett 1862, inscribed from the author, is in DAR 200.3: 30; it was sent to CD by Hallett on 21 May 1875 (see letter from F. F. Hallett, 21 May 1875 and n. 6). In his paper ‘Thin seedlings and selection of seed’, read on 4 June 1874 at the Midland Farmers’ Club in Birmingham, Hallett confirmed his discovery that different grains from the same ear of wheat possessed different qualities by reporting experiments that had resulted in the improvement of a variety of wheat produced by Le Couteur; Hallett’s experiments were made at Le Couteur’s request. A copy of Hallett’s paper is in DAR 200.3: 33, and a report of his paper appeared in the Farmer’s Magazine 46 (July 1874): 86–7. The report from the Brighton Guardian has not been found in the Darwin Archive–CUL.

May 1875

191

To F. F. Hallett   [19 or 20 May 1875]1 Dear Sir— I am much obliged for your note & enclosures, which I will consider & use in correcting a new Edit of my book.—2 But the following sentence which I find in Le Couteur at p. 14. together with other statements seem to me to justify what I have said. “The &c. & 2d quotation— Implies the grains differ in the same Ear3 But pray do not suppose from this that I wish in the least to underrate your excellent labour, & that I had the intention formerly of attributing to Col. Le Couteur more than it appeared to me that he had effected. When I wrote my book (publishing in 1868) I had only heard vaguely of your work.—4 Maj Hallett ADraft DAR 97: C26 1 2

3

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letters from F. F. Hallett, 18 May 1875 and 21 May 1875. See letter from F. F. Hallett, 18 May 1875 and nn. 1 and 4. CD was preparing a new edition of Variation; he did include references to Hallett’s experiments on producing better varieties of wheat (see Variation 2d ed. 1: 332). In Variation 1: 314, CD had stated that John Le Couteur had noticed that each grain of wheat in the same ear differed and transmitted its own character, whereas Hallett claimed this discovery for himself. CD left a space in the draft to indicate where the quotations should be inserted in the final version. He probably intended to add the following statements from Le Couteur’s book On the varieties, properties and classification of wheat (Le Couteur 1836, pp. 14): the only chance of having pure sorts [of wheat], was to raise them from single grains or single ears . . . and since I have raised wheat from single ears or carefully selected sorts, I have increased my crops [from twenty-three to twenty-five bushels the acre] to between forty and fifty bushels the acre.

4

There is no evidence that CD knew of Hallett’s work before 1868, but he heard about Hallett’s experiments on wheat in 1869, when Joseph Dalton Hooker visited Hallett (see Correspondence vol. 17, letter from J. D. Hooker, 5 August 1869, letter to J. D. Hooker, 7 August [1869], and letter from J. D. Hooker, 13 August 1869).

From T. H. Huxley   19 May 1875 31 Royal Terrace | Edinburgh May 19. 1875 My dear Darwin Playfair has sent a copy of his Bill to me and I am sorry to find that its present wording is such as to render it very unacceptable to all teachers of Physiology1 In discussing the draft with Litchfield I recollect that I insisted strongly on the necessity of allowing demonstrations to students— but I agreed that it would be

192

May 1875

sufficient to permit such demonstrations only as could be performed under anaesthetics The second clause of the bill however, by the words “for the purpose of new scientific discovery & for no other purpose”—absolutely prohibits any kind of demonstration2    It would debar me from shewing the circulation in the web of a frog’s foot or from exhibiting the pulsations of the heart in a decapitated frog— And by its secondary effect it would prohibit discovery— Who is to be able to make discoveries unless he knows of his own knowledge, what has already been made out    It might as well be ruled that a chemical student should begin with organic analyses— Surely Burdon Sanderson did not see the draft of the Bill as it now stands—3 The Professors here are up in arms about it—and as the papers have associated my name with the Bill—I shall have to repudiate it publicly unless something can be done— But what in the world is to be done? I have not written to Playfair yet & shall wait to hear from you before I do— I have an excellent class here, 340 odd—& like the work—4 Best regards to Mrs Darwin | Ever Yours faithfully | T H Huxley DAR 166: 340 CD annotation 5.2 The Professors … done— 5.4] quotation marks added ink5 1

2

3 4

5

On behalf of CD and other men of science, Lyon Playfair had introduced a bill to the House of Commons for the regulation of vivisection (see letter to Lyon Playfair, 15 May [1875]). Before presenting the bill, Playfair put it into parliamentary form, although he claimed not to have made substantive changes (see letter from Lyon Playfair, 27 May 1875). The last printed draft of the bill, made by Richard Buckley Litchfield and dated 24 April 1875, stated that scientific experiments could be made on anaesthetised live animals for the purposes of ‘demonstration, illustration, or new discovery’ (DAR 139.17: 22). In the version of the bill presented to Parliament, this had been changed to the statement quoted by Huxley. CD’s copy of the bill ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 12 May 1875 is in DAR 139.17: 23; see also House of Commons Parliamentary Papers: A bill to prevent abuse and cruelty in experiments on animals made for the purpose of scientific discovery; 1875 (163) II.167. John Scott Burdon Sanderson had seen Playfair’s bill (see letter from J.  S.  Burdon Sanderson, [8 May 1875]). This was confirmed by Playfair (see letter from Lyon Playfair, 27 May 1875). Huxley was teaching zoology at the University of Edinburgh while the professor of zoology Charles Wyville Thompson was on the HMS Challenger expedition; in Scottish universities the lecturer collected fees directly from the students, making large classes highly profitable (University of Edinburgh Journal 10 (1939–40): 210–12). CD quoted this section in his letter to Lyon Playfair, 26 May 1875.

From F. F. Hallett   21 May 1875 The Manor House, | Kemp Town. | Brighton 21 May 1875

Dear Sir I am much obliged by your courteous letter but beg to be allowed to point out that the passages you quote from Le Couteur make no reference to the difference of

May 1875

193

grains from the same ear.1 In these very passages he also distinctly states that his object (of obtaining a pure stock) can be attained equally by starting from either single grains or single ears. At page 17 he speaks of afterwards sowing “only the produce of the most productive” but it relates to the Comparative productiveness of different sorts, not of different plants of the same variety.2 At foot of same page he begins his accounts of his trial of 14 sorts against each other one ear of each. In your important Work you say that “he found the grains of the same ear differed so that he was obliged to select them separately and each grain transmitted its own character”. and go on to say “The great amount of variability in the plants of the same variety is another interesting principle”3   If you turn to pages 12 and 14 you will see that the ears he collected as of one variety were so merely in appearance, as he afterwards proved.4 Before one can speak of variation of a variety there must be a standard from which to vary—and strictly speaking there was no such safe standard until I established my pedigree cereals—Col le Couteur did not discover “the variability of a pure variety”, or “the different powers of grains of the same ear.—”5 I enclose copy of a short essay I wrote in the Royal Ag.l Society’s Journal in 1862 and have marked paragraph on pp 6 & 7 as to my modus operandi.6 In 1860 Col le Couteur sent me his book,7 and in a letter of 15 Octr of that year he says “I sincerely congratulate you on your success. The great leading principle of my experiments was one which you have so well accomplished—the selection of the most productive wheat from a single grain—originally taken from the finest ear— my further test being to discover, that most productive of the finest meal”. Here is his own statement 24 years after his book was written— In fact Col le Couteur’s whole work may be described as trying to find the finest (in quality) and most productive wheat. So entirely did he keep to this simple end and so little did he think of making selections among plants of any one variety— that he incidentally almost “fixed” the ear of his Belle Vue Talavera Wheat of which he sent me two ears, as you will see in a paragraph of my paper read at Exeter.8 Any field of ordinary Wheat would be found by a trained observer to consist of perhaps 20 different varieties. A neighbour once showed me a field he prided himself on being pure— I stepped a few yards into it and brought him a dozen different ears which he could recognize as of different sorts— You will see by the extracts from the Press of England Australia, America &c (sent herewith) in the year 1862 that I naturally felt surprise at receiving no mention in so important a work as yours published in 1868 and above all at having what I had discovered attributed to another.9 On the inside I send rough sketch showing my system of selection— and am | Dear Sir, | Yours faithfully | Fredr. F. Hallett Chas Darwin Esq | MA. FRS | &c &c &c

May 1875

194 grains of best ear

grains of other ears planted best plant of them all 1859 proves its parent was best grain.

best ear

best plant 1858

its grains planted 1858

plant only 7 of the ears shown

the plants consist of from 40 to 80 ears each

May 1875

195

⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞

best plant 1860

and so on (each year from one grain) for ever

best ear

best plant 1859

its grains planted 1859

only 7 of the ears shown DAR 166: 90

best plant 1860

196 1 2 3 4 5

6

7 8

9

May 1875

See letter to F. F. Hallett, [19 or 20 May 1875] and n. 3, for CD’s interpretation of John Le Couteur’s practice of choosing seed-grain for his experiments on wheat breeding. Hallett refers to Le Couteur 1836, p. 17. See Variation 1: 314. See Le Couteur 1836, pp. 12 and 14. Hallett first articulated this discovery in his paper ‘On “pedigree” in wheat as a means of increasing the crop’ (Hallett 1861). By 1860, he had established a lucrative seed business after insisting that growers had to buy new seed from him every year to maintain high yields; he adopted ‘pedigree’ as his trademark (Charnley 2013, pp. 76–7; Stuart F. Elton, ‘Frederick F. Hallett Cereal Seed Bag Seal’, www. bagseals.org (accessed 25 February 2014)). Hallett’s article ‘On “pedigree” in wheat’ was published in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England (Hallett 1861), and later reprinted as a pamphlet (Hallett 1862); CD’s copy of Hallett 1862, marked as Hallett described, is in DAR 200.3: 30. Le Couteur 1836. Hallett had presented a paper at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Exeter in 1868, in which he stated that since 1861 he had cultivated successive crops of Belle Vue Talavera wheat from grains supplied by Le Couteur in 1860. (In CD’s copy of the paper this paragraph is outlined in blue pencil (DAR 200.3: 31).) Over this time Hallett was unable to produce any variation in the number of grains in an ear of Belle Vue Talavera although he had done so in over seventy other varieties he had cultivated, leading him to conclude that Belle Vue Talavera wheat ‘showed an unmistakeable transmission of the characteristics of the parent to its progeny, and its practical fixity of type’ (DAR 200.3: 31). Hallett had sent CD a copy of his paper on ‘On “pedigree” in wheat’ (Hallett 1861) that had been reprinted in 1862 (Hallett 1862) and bound with notices from various newspapers and periodicals from around the world praising Hallett’s pedigree wheat (see DAR 200.3: 30). CD had not known of Hallett’s work at the time he published Variation in 1868, but he added a reference to it in Variation 2d ed. 1: 332.

To T. H. Huxley   21 May 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. May 21. 1875 My dear Huxley I have had nothing to do with the Bill since leaving London at the time you saw me there.1 Sanderson has been in communication with Playfair & got him to undertake the measure.2 I received a copy of the Bill from Playfair, & saw that a new Clause had been introduced about the registering of experiments causing pain.3 I read in the newspaper that there had been a meeting between Playfair Lds Shaftsbury Cardwell & others in which the Bill was considered & I concluded that the above clause had been introduced as a compromise.4 I wrote to Playfair that I doubted about the wisdom of this clause, tho’ good for humanity, as it would by impossible for a Physiologist to explain to unscientific persons why certain experiments were required. I felt so convinced that the Bill was essentially the same as that drawn up by Litchfield that I was very glad it was introduced & did not observe until now the flagrant contradiction in Clause 2 viz that a person may for the sake of discovery make experiments causing pain, provided the animal has first been made insensible! Nevertheless it seems to me that Clause I shows that

May 1875

197

penalties are attached only to experiments “causing pain”;5 & therefore that any one may demonstrate any point whatever under anæsthetics. I cannot doubt that this was the intention of the framers. I should think you could not do better than call Playfairs attention to the subject. From what I hear there will not be time this Session for any bill to pass6 My dear Huxley | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS Imperial College of Science, Medicine and Technology Archives (Huxley 5: 316) 1

2 3 4

5 6

See letter from T. H. Huxley, 19 May 1875. A bill to regulate vivisection had been drawn up by CD, Huxley, and John Scott Burdon Sanderson; it was drafted by Richard Buckley Litchfield (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 14 April [1875]). CD stayed with Richard and Henrietta Emma Litchfield in London from 6 to 12 April (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Emma Darwin recorded that CD was ‘hard at work about vivisection’ during this time (ibid.). Burdon Sanderson had informed CD that Lyon Playfair would introduce the bill into the House of Commons (see letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 6 May [1875]). See letter to Lyon Playfair, 15 May [1875] and n. 3. CD’s copy of the bill is in DAR 139.17: 23. Burdon Sanderson had informed CD that Playfair had consulted Lord Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper) and Lord Cardwell (Edward Cardwell), both of whom agreed to support the vivisection bill (see letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 6 May [1875]). CD underlined these words in his copy of the bill (DAR 139.17: 23, p. 1). The parliamentary session ran until 13 August 1875 (Hansard parliamentary debates 3d ser. vol. 226 (1875), cols. 887–8).

From Lyon Playfair   21 May 1875 House of Commons1 21 May /75 My dear Sir Your letter of the 15th only reached me today on my return to town.2 The Government have determined to issue a Royal Commn on the subject with Lord Cardwell as Chairman.3 Therefore our Bill will only be read a 2nd time pro forma4 Yours truly | Lyon Playfair DAR 174: 49 1 2 3

4

Playfair was the member of Parliament for the Universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews. See letter to Lyon Playfair, 15 May [1875]. Playfair had introduced a bill on the regulation of vivisection to the House of Commons on 15 May 1875; however, another bill on the same subject had been introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Hartismere (John Henniker-Major) on 4 May (see letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [8 May 1875] and n. 3). A Royal Commission was appointed to gather information and report on the subject before legislation was drawn up (Hansard parliamentary debates 3d ser. vol. 224 (1875), col. 794). Edward Cardwell was chairman of the commission. The first reading of the vivisection bill occurred when Playfair formally presented it in the House of Commons; the second reading would usually provide an occasion for debate, but in this case, because a Royal Commission was set up to look at the issues involved, it was a formality.

198

May 1875

From J. S. Burdon Sanderson   23 May [1875]1 49, Queen Anne Street. | W. May 23 Dear Mr Darwin, I have no doubt that Mr. Playfair, pressed upon by men whose avowed object is the suppression of science, has gone too far in the direction of compromise.2 I am delighted therefore to think that compromise is at an end.3 It is certainly a great shame that for the sake of a popular clamour supported by no facts, it should be necessary to consent to an enactment which would make it penal to teach science in the only way that it can be taught effectually.4 It is really too great a sacrifice to make. I hope that the full enquiry which will now take place will result in the securing of the interests both of scientific teaching & scientific research. May I suggest that it would be well to send to Playfair a copy of Huxleys letter on the subject.5 I have written as clearly as I can & have sent him Mr Litchfields letter6 Very truly yours | JB Sanderson University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (II.ix) 1 2

3

4

5 6

The year is established by the reference to the vivisection bill (see n. 2, below). On  12  May  1875,  Lyon Playfair presented to the House of Commons a bill for the regulation of vivisection that had been drawn up by CD, Thomas Henry Huxley, and Burdon Sanderson. On the changes to the bill, see the letter from T. H. Huxley, 19 May 1875. Another bill on vivisection had been presented to the House of Lords by John Henniker-Major (Lord Hartismere) a few days earlier (see letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [8 May 1875] and nn. 2 and 3). Burdon Sanderson alludes to the decision by Parliament to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the practice of animal experimentation before considering the regulation of vivisection (see letter from Lyon Playfair, 21 May 1875 and n. 3). The draft of the bill had stated that vivisection was necessary for the purpose of pedagogic demonstration; the altered bill allowed vivisection only for the purpose of new scientific discovery (see letter from T. H. Huxley, 19 May 1875 and n. 2). See letter from T. H. Huxley, 19 May 1875. Richard Buckley Litchfield had drafted the bill based on the views of CD, Huxley, and Burdon Sanderson (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 14 April [1875]); Litchfield’s letter has not been found.

To R. F. Cooke   23 May [1875]1 May 23 Murray I have o. an impt point— Some time ago Messrs. Appeton said (though I had told him I doubted whether the book wd be bought they wd bring out my I. Pl. if he cd get stereos from Mr Murray;2 but I do not choose that they shd. publish without knowing the cost of the plates & size of book.— Mr Murray generously allowed them to have plates of the Descent at cost price.3 but this is not fair & if Mr Murray will let Mrs A. have them, say 15 or 20 per cent extra, I wd write & tell them the size of book &

May 1875

199

the no of woodcuts & then they cd as they wd be able to estimate pretty closely cost of plates & decide. Supposing the Plates to cost 50£, you shd charge 60£ & there wd be 10£ in our favour. Does Mr Murray think this fair?— I shd be obliged for an immediate answer, as I I ought to have written sooner to Mess. Appleton.— Of course I am glad of an American Edition, to extend my 2d edn & for publicity for my work ADraft DAR 97: C27 1 2

3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from R.  F.  Cooke, 24 May 1875. D.  Appleton & Co., CD’s US publisher, wanted to publish an edition of Insectivorous plants using stereotype plates provided by CD’s British publisher, John Murray (see Correspondence vol.  22, letter from D. Appleton & Co., [c. 19] November 1874]). The US edition of Insectivorous plants was published in 1875. D. Appleton & Co. published a second US edition of Descent in 1875 using stereotypes provided by John Murray (Correspondence vol. 22, letter from D. Appleton & Co, [c. 19] November 1874).

From R. F. Cooke   24 May 1875

50A, Albemarle Street, London. W. May 24 1875

My dear Sir By all means put on the Title page with Illustrations.1 It is quite right & allowable to advertise any new editions of your works in the press or in progress.2 Mr Murray is quite willing to let Appletons have a set & stereotype plates of this work at a small per centage over cost, especially as you reap a reward thereby.3 I have written off to Clowes, not to distribute the type until you hear from America.4 Yr advertisement seems correct.5 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 452 1 2 3

4 5

This was added to the title page of Insectivorous plants. CD’s letter to Cooke has not been found, but for a draft of part of it, see the letter to R. F. Cooke, 23 May [1875]. On the verso of the title page of Insectivorous plants, Murray advertised a number of CD’s existing works and also the forthcoming Climbing plants 2d ed. and Variation 2d ed. CD had suggested that his US publisher, D. Appleton & Co., pay John Murray fifteen to twenty per cent more than the cost price for the stereotype plates of Insectivorous plants (see letter to R. F. Cooke, 23 May [1875]). Murray’s printer William Clowes needed to keep the moveable-type formes of Insectivorous plants in order to make the stereotype plates for the US edition of the work. Cooke possibly refers to a notice about the forthcoming publication of Insectivorous plants. This has not been found, but in June 1875, CD asked Murray to advertise the work in Nature and Gardeners’ Chronicle (see letter to R. F. Cooke, 24 June [1875] and n. 6).

200

May 1875

To Anton Dohrn   24 May 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. May 24 | 1875 My dear Dr Dohrn I am very much obliged for the present of your “Ursprung &c”.1 I have read the whole, so far as my shameful ignorance of German has permitted me. It has interested me extremely, & has astonished me not a little. Your views seem very ingenious, but I have not knowledge enough of comparative anatomy to form a judgment of any value. Should your views be even partially accepted by competent authorities, it will shew how much we have to learn about the history of every animal. May I venture to caution you not to extend too far the degradation principle.2 Nothing has surprized me so much as your belief in the changed position of the mouth of vertebrates, & of the œsophagus having aboriginally passed between the 2 main nerve-chords3   I shd be greatly pleased if your explanation of the development of our limbs from branchiæ is true, for I never dreamed of their origin being explained. I have for a long time seen the full importance of the principle of Function wechsel; though I never enunciated it as a distinct principle.4 With all good wishes | I remain my dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Charles Darwin P.S | Please to give my thanks to Prof: Claus. for the present of his memoir on the “Arguliden”, which I hope to read immediately5 LS Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München (Ana 525. Ba 1122) 1

2

3

4

5

CD’s lightly annotated copy of Der Ursprung der Wirbelthiere und das Princip des Functionswechsels (The origin of vertebrates and the principle of change of function; Dohrn 1875) is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Dohrn identified homologies in the basic structure of annelids and vertebrates, from which he concluded that both had developed from a segmented ancestor. Dohrn refined his theory on the ancestry of vertebrates by proposing that similarities to vertebrates in both ascidians and Amphioxus (the lancelet; now Branchiostoma lanceolatum) were the result of degeneration from a vertebrate form (see Dohrn 1875, pp. 32–60). For more on the controversy surrounding Dohrn’s theory, see Maienschein 1994 and letter from Anton Dohrn, 7 February 1875. See Dohrn 1875, pp. 7–9. Dohrn proposed that the original mouth (which in annelids is dorsal to the brain) was replaced in vertebrates by a new ventrally situated mouth, formed from the fusion of two gill slits (ibid., p. 9). See Dohrn 1875, pp. 13–15. Dohrn proposed, in accordance with his principle of Functionswechsel (change of function), that posterior gills developed a secondary function of helping with movement, and that these eventually disappeared to leave only the gill arches, which would become ribs and later fins. Dohrn also devoted a section of his monograph to explaining Functionwechsel (ibid., pp. 60–76), the principle that organs tended to possess secondary functions as well as a main function; these could develop over time, leading to a shift in the main function. He saw it as a counter to St George Jackson Mivart’s objection in Genesis of species that rudimentary organs would be functionless (Mivart 1871, p. 38; Dohrn 1875, p. 61). CD’s copy of Carl Friedrich Claus’s paper ‘Ueber die Entwickelung, Organisation und systematische Stellung der Arguliden’ (On the development, organisation, and systematic place of the Argulidae; Claus 1875) is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Claus had been at Naples from 20 March

May 1875

201

until 14 April 1875 and had promised CD a copy of this paper (see letter from F. M. Balfour, [20 March – 14 April 1875]). Argulidae is the family of fish lice.

To T. M. Hughes   24 May 1875

Down | Beckenham | Kent. May 24. 75

My dear Sir I understand from my son that you wish to hear about my short geological tour with Prof: Sedgwick in North Wales during the summer of 1831; but it is so long ago that I can tell you very little.1 As I desired to learn something about Geology Prof: Henslow asked Sedgwick to allow me to accompany him on his tour & he assented to this in the readiest & kindest manner2   he came to my Father’s house at Shrewsbury, & I remember how spirited & amusing his conversation was during the whole evening; but he talked so much about his health & uncomfortable feelings, that my father who was a doctor thought that he was a confirmed hypochondriac.3 We started next morning, & after a day or two he sent me across the country in a line parallel to his course, telling me to collect specimens of the rocks & to note the stratification.4 In the evening he discussed what I had seen; & this of course encouraged me greatly & made me exceedingly proud; but I now suspect that it was done merely for the sake of teaching me, & not for anything of value which I could have told him. I remember one little incident: we left Conway5 early in the morning, & for the first two or three miles of our walk he was gloomy & hardly spoke a word. He then suddenly burst forth “I know that the damned fellow never gave her the sixpence; I’ll go back at once” & turned to return to Conway. I was amazed for I never heard before, or since, anything like an oath from him. On inquiry I found that he was convinced that the waiter had not given to the chambermaid the sixpence which he had left for her. He had no reason whatever excepting that he thought the waiter an “ill looking fellow.” On my hinting that he could hardly accuse a man of theft on such grounds, he consented to proceed; but for some time he grumbled & growled. At last his brow cleared & we had a delightful day; & he was as energetic as on all former occasions in climbing the mountains. We spent nearly a whole day in Cwm Idwal examining the rocks carefully, as he was very desirous to find fossils.6 I have often thought of this day as a good instance of how easy it is for any one to overlook new phenomena, however conspicuous they may be. The valley is glaciated in the plainest manner the rocks being mammillated; deeply scored, with many perched boulders & well defined moraines; yet none of these phenomena were observed by Prof: Sedgwick, nor of course by me. Nevertheless they are so plain, that as I saw in 1842 the presence of a glacier filling up the valley would have rendered the evidence less distinct.7 Shortly afterwards I left Prof. Sedgwick & struck across the country in another direction, & reported by letter what I saw. In his answer he discussed my ignorant remarks in his usual generous & frank manner.8 I am sorry to say that I can tell you nothg more about our little tour—

202

May 1875

I find that I have kept only one letter from Prof. Sedgwick, which he wrote after receiving a copy of my Origin of Species. His judgement naturally does not seem to me quite a fair one; but I think that the letter is characteristic of the man, & you are at liberty to publish it if you should so desire9 Believe me my dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Charles Darwin LS(A) Sedgwick Museum of Earth Sciences (Archive DDF Box 720) 1

2 3 4 5 6

7

8 9

CD’s notes on the geological tour he took with Adam Sedgwick in 1831 are in DAR 5; he also gave a short account of the tour in his autobiography (see ‘Recollections’, pp. 382–3). Thomas McKenny Hughes was preparing a biography of Sedgwick, and included this letter in the work after expressing his regret that neither CD nor Sedgwick had written down their impressions of the other in 1831 (John Willis Clark and Hughes 1890, 1: 379, 380–1). CD probably learned that Hughes wanted information on the 1831 trip from George Howard Darwin, as both Hughes and George were in Cambridge. In 1838, CD noted in his ‘Journal’ that John Stevens Henslow had encouraged him to take up geology in 1831 (see Correspondence vol. 1, Appendix I). CD later recalled that his father, Robert Waring Darwin, possessed a remarkable power of ‘reading the characters, & even the thoughts of those whom he saw even for a short time’ (‘Recollections’, p. 361). CD’s observations proved to be of importance in determining the geological structure of the Vale of Clwyd (see Secord 1991, pp. 145–50). For an overview of CD’s trip to Wales, see Roberts 2001. Conway: Conwy in North Wales. Cwm Idwal is in the mountainous region of North Wales. Sedgwick was looking for fossils in order to establish a continuous stratigraphical sequence downwards into the lower unknown strata of North Wales; the trip was Sedgwick’s first geological excursion to investigate the older fossiliferous rocks in Britain, which became known (from 1835) as ‘Cambrian’ (Secord 1986, p. 60). CD found fossil madrepores (reef-building stony corals) at Cwm Idwal on his way home from his trip with Sedgwick (see Correspondence vol. 1, letter from Adam Sedgwick, 4 September 1831). CD returned to North Wales in the summer of 1842 in order to see the effects of glaciation on Cwm Idwal (see Correspondence vol. 2, letter to W. H. Fitton, [c. 28 June 1842] and n. 2); he published his observations in ‘Ancient glaciers of Caernarvonshire’. Cwm Idwal is a hanging valley that has been carved out by a small tributary glacier that joined a much larger glacier. The differential rates of erosion of the two glaciers resulted in the valley produced by the tributary glacier being left ‘hanging’ above the level of the valley shaped by the larger glacier. CD’s letter to Sedgwick has not been found, but for Sedgwick’s reply, see Correspondence vol. 1, letter from Adam Sedgwick, 4 September 1831. CD refers to the letter from Adam Sedgwick, 24 November 1859 (see Correspondence vol. 7), which was included almost in its entirety in the biography of Sedgwick commenced by Hughes (John Willis Clark and Hughes 1890, 2: 356–9). In addition to this letter, CD had in fact kept four letters from Sedgwick (see Correspondence vol. 1, letters from Adam Sedgwick, 4 September 1831 and 18 September 1831; Correspondence vol. 16, letter from Adam Sedgwick, 11 [October 1868]; Correspondence vol. 18, letter from Adam Sedgwick, 30 May 1870).

From E. J. Johnston   24 May 1875 14 Wycliffe Grove, | Lavender Hill, | Wandsworth Road | S.W. 24 May 1875. Dear Sir, On Friday (21st) I sent you some living plants of the Araujia sericofera, which I hope have reached you in good condition. I have now the pleasure of enclosing

May 1875

203

a packet of seeds of the same, received in a letter from my friend in Oporto.1 The plant being common there, the gardeners do not keep the seed; which was the only cause of the delay in obtaining it. I observe that recent writers refer the Araujia of Brotero to Physianthus. P. albens, (Bot. Reg. N.S. III. 1832, vol. 6.) closely resembles my plant in leaves, flowers, and general appearance. The description says:—“Stigma large, conical, angular, terminated above by two appendages longer than itself, which diverge below, meet near their apices, and again diverge”; which comes very near the stigma of Araujia. The plate of P. albens, however, represents these appendages as converging without meeting.2 In my letter of 16th March I spoke of the Araujia as belonging to the Apocyneæ. I ought to have said the Asclepiadaceæ. I was misled by the statement of Brotero, that the plant belonged “to the Apocyneæ of Jussieu,” and forgot that his Apocyneæ are not co-extensive with those of later writers.3 My error seems the greater on looking again at the sketch I made, for on it I find the natural order correctly noted. There is another mistake (proceeding from imperfect recollection) which I wish to correct. I represented Knapp as having said that the Apocynum, in catching flies, acts by the stigma; whereas, according to him, it operates by means of the stamens. His language upon this point is perfectly clear: he says that when a fly alights on the flower, “the filaments close”, and detain it until it is dead; “the filaments then relax, and the body falls to the ground”. One of his figures represents “two expanded anthers ready for capture”, and another the “anthers closed” over the pistil, “and the prey captured”.4 My mistake arose, I think, in this way: I had a pretty distinct recollection of the two expanded anthers in his figure (the other three having been removed) though not of the pistil, and had completely forgotten all the portions of the description above quoted. Under these circumstances, recollecting the binary structure of the fruit, my memory had transformed the two stamens into two stigmas. I have to ask your indulgence for these errors, as I wrote almost entirely from memory, and could not at the moment consult the books which I have since seen, and which I was then desirous of referring to. The “Journal of a Naturalist”5 I had certainly not seen for more than twelve years. I have lately seen several old and modern notices of the fly-destroying habits of the Apocynum; but the accounts of the modus operandi of capture seem to be very conflicting.6 I also enclose a small packet of seed of the Drosophyllum lusitanicum, Link, (Drosera lusitanica Linn) an insect-capturing, and in all probability, like its English allies, an insect-digesting plant. The seeds were sent by my botanical friend along with those which I undertook to procure for you; and he informs me that “it seems to prefer peat in quartzy alluvion, the sand being often like pebbles”. I hope this may be interesting to you in connection with your present researches.7 I remain, | Dear Sir, | Yours faithfully, | Edwin J. Johnston Jr. DAR 168: 76

204

May 1875

CD annotation 4.2 Knapp] ‘in Journal of a Naturalist’ interl pencil 1

2

3

4

5 6

7

Johnston had promised to send CD seeds of Araujia sericifera in order that he might observe how flowers of this species caught insects (see letter from E. J. Johnston, 22 March 1875). Johnston’s friend in Portugal has not been identified. Araujia sericifera is the common moth-vine or cruel plant; ‘sericofera’ was an incorrect spelling that had appeared in Brotero 1815 (see n. 2, below). Félix de Avellar Brotero had first described Araujia sericifera in Brotero 1815. The description and plate of Physianthus albens appeared in Edwards’s Botanical Register n.s. 8 (1836), fol. 1759. Physianthus albens is a synonym of Araujia sericifera. See letter from E. J. Johnston, 16 March 1875 and n. 6. Brotero made this comment in Brotero 1815, p. 68. Antoine Laurent de Jussieu was the first to publish a natural classification of flowering plants; although many of his families are still used, changes were made to his system in the nineteenth century. John Lindley made asclepiads a separate group in the natural order Solanales, but noted a ‘lateral affinity’ between the Asclepiadaceae and the Apocynaceae (in his natural order Gentianales; see Lindley 1853, p. 615). Araujia is currently in the family Apocynaceae; Asclepiadaceae is now a subfamily, Asclepiadoideae, in the family Apocynaceae. See letter from E. J. Johnston, 16 March 1875. John Leonard Knapp described the destructive powers of the North American Apocynum androsaemifolium (flytrap dogbane) in [Knapp] 1829, pp. 81–2, and figured its capture mechanism in plate I, fig. 5. [Knapp] 1829. CD had first discussed Apocynum androsaemifolium and accounts of its fly-catching mechanism in 1860 (see Correspondence vol. 8, letter from Daniel Oliver, 23 November 1860, and letter to Asa Gray, 26 November [1860]). Johnston had speculated about possible mechanisms in his letter of 16 March 1875. CD had already received living specimens of Drosophyllum lusitanicum (Portuguese sundew or dewy pine) from several correspondents (see, especially, Correspondence vol. 17); his experiments on it are described in Insectivorous plants, pp. 332–44.

From R. F. Cooke   26 May 1875 50a, Albemarle Street, London. W. May 26 1875 My dear Sir In January 1869 we had taken a set of Electros of the woodcuts to Variations &c by your desire for Professor Canestrini & they were sent to Messrs. Zanicketti & Co of Bologna & we were informed that Sigr. Vincenzi of Modena would pay for them.1 Up to this time however we have received nothing & it is not for want of reminding & I fancy you yourself have written once or twice.2 I have no doubt a set of Electros, could be taken for £5. Our charge to them was £103 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 453 1

In 1870, CD heard that the publisher Nicola Zanichelli, who had intended to publish an Italian translation by Giovanni Canestrini of the first edition of Variation, had run into difficulties, and that the publication had been taken over by Carlo Vincenzi, who was to pay for the electrotypes of the woodcuts

May 1875

2 3

205

(see Correspondence vol. 18, letter from Giovanni Canestrini, 21 April 1870). The Italian translation of the first edition of Variation was never published. See Correspondence vol. 19, letter from R. F. Cooke, 3 February 1871. No letters from CD to the Italian publishers have been found. Cooke probably refers to the electrotypes of illustrations from the second edition of Variation (see letter from G. Chiantore to John Murray, 18 May 1875); this edition was translated into Italian by Canestrini and published in 1876 (Canestrini trans. 1876).

To Lyon Playfair   26 May 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. May 26/75 My dear Sir I hope that you will excuse my troubling you once again. I received some days ago a letter from Prof: Huxley in Edinburgh, who says with respect to your Bill: “the professors here are all in arms about it; & as the papers have associated my name with the Bill, I shall have to repudiate it publicly, unless something can be done. But what in the world is to be done?”1 Dr Burdon Sanderson is in nearly the same frame of mind about it.2 The newspapers take different views of the purport of the Bill, but it seems generally supposed that it would prevent demonstrations on animals rendered insensible, & this seems to me a monstrous provision.3 It would moreover probably defeat the end desired; for Dr B. Sanderson, who demonstrates to his class on animals rendered insensible, told me that some of his students had declared to him that unless he had shown them what he had, they would have experimented on live animals for themselves. Certainly I do not believe that any one could thoroughly understand the action of the heart without having seen it in action. I do not doubt that you wish to aid the progress of Physiology & at the same time save animals from all useless suffering, & in this case I believe that you could not do a greater service than to warn the Home Secy., with respect to the appointment of Royal Commissioners, that ordinary Doctors know little or nothing about Physiology as a science & are incompetent to judge of its high importance & of the probability of its hereafter conferring great benefits on mankind.4 Pray believe me | My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Charles Darwin LS(A) Imperial College of Science, Medicine and Technology Archives (Playfair 206) 1 2 3

4

See the letter from T. H. Huxley, 19 May 1875, in which Huxley had criticised changes made by Playfair to the vivisection bill prior to its being presented to the House of Commons. See letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 23 May [1875]. The draft of the bill, drawn up by Richard Buckley Litchfield to reflect the views of CD, Thomas Henry Huxley, and John Scott Burdon Sanderson, specifically mentioned the need for vivisection for teaching purposes (DAR 139.17: 22). A Royal Commission had been set up to investigate the practice of vivisection before the subject was further debated in Parliament (see letter from Lyon Playfair, 21 May 1875); the commissioners were evidently selected by the home secretary, Richard Assheton Cross.

206

May 1875

From Lyon Playfair   27 May 1875 Athenæum Club | Pall Mall S.W. 27 May 75

My dear Mr Darwin There is no need mourning over a dead lion. Indeed I am glad that it is dead. When living I did not take to it kindly, but I assumed that I was all right as the mere agent of yourself, Burdon Sanderson & Huxley.1 I altered nothing in the draft put into my hands except where it was wrong in parliamentary form—beyond adding two clauses, one for summary jurisdiction & the other for power of appeal. These did not touch the power of the Bill. I saw indeed that the Bill would prevent demonstrations & I especially pointed this out to Sanderson, who however said that physiologists felt that they must renounce them under the state of public feeling.2 But the Bill of this Friday will exist no more:3 and I think nothing would induce me to take it up again as it was repudiated by its own fathers. But I am very anxious that physiology should not suffer by the Commission and of this I have great fears—so I will try to get Cross to put some physiologists upon it.4 Yours Sincerely | Lyon Playfair DAR 174: 50 1

2 3

4

Playfair had introduced a vivisection bill drawn up by CD, John Scott Burdon Sanderson, and Thomas Henry Huxley in the House of Commons. Parliament decided to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the practice of vivisection further before considering legislation (see n. 4, below, and letter from Lyon Playfair, 21 May 1875). For the changes made to the bill, see the letter from T. H. Huxley, 19 May 1875 and n. 2. Burdon Sanderson criticised the changes in his letter to CD of 23 May [1875]. On  28  May  1875, the vivisection bill was given a second reading as a mere formality, and the announcement of the establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate vivisection was made in the House of Lords (Hansard parliamentary debates 3d ser. vol. 224 (1875), cols. 992–3); the announcement had been made in the House of Commons on 24 May 1875 (ibid., col. 794). Richard Assheton Cross, the home secretary, was responsible for selecting the commissioners to serve on the Royal Commission to investigate vivisection; he attempted to obtain a balance of physiological, practical medical, political, and humanitarian opinions (French 1975, pp. 92–6).

To Lyon Playfair   28 May [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. May 28th My dear Dr. Playfair I must write one line to thank you for your very kind letter, & to say that after despatching my last note, it suddenly occurred to me that I had been rude in calling one of the provisions of your Bill, “monstrous” or “absurd”—I forget which—.2 But when I wrote the expression it was addressed to the bigots, who I believed had forced you to a compromise. I cannot understand what Dr. B. Sanderson could have been about not to have objected with respect to clause of not demonstrating on animals rendered insensible.—3 I am extremely sorry that you have had trouble & vexation on the subject.—

May 1875

207

It is a most disagreeable & difficult one.— I am not personally concerned, as I never tried an experiment on a living animal, nor am I a physiologist, but I know enough to see how ruinous it wd be to stop all progress in so grand a science as physiology. I commenced the agitation amongst the physiologists for this reason, & because I have long felt very keenly on the question of useless vivisection, & believed though without any good evidences that there was not always, even in this country, care enough taken.— Pray forgive this note, so much about myself. & believe me | Yours sincerely | Ch Darwin Imperial College of Science, Medicine and Technology Archives (Playfair 207) 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Lyon Playfair, 27 May 1875. See letter from Lyon Playfair, 27 May 1875. CD had criticised changes made to the bill on vivisection before it was presented in the House of Commons (see letter to Lyon Playfair, 26 May 1875). John Scott Burdon Sanderson had allegedly consented to the changes made to the bill that banned vivisection for teaching purposes (see letter from Lyon Playfair, 27 May 1875). However, in his letter to CD of 23 May [1875], he stated that vivisection was essential in the teaching of physiology.

From W. F. Segrave   28 May 1875 British Consulate Stockholm 28 May 1875 Dear Sir The Italian Minister here, who served for some time in Japan, informs me that the Inhabitants of the Island of Saghalien, lately ceded to Russia, are covered with hair, even as the gorilla,1 He tells me that this interesting people are supposed to be the remnant of the aboriginal tribes who inhabited Japan before the advent of its present population.2 Only a small remnant now survive who will probably not long outlive Russian improvements.3 I have no means of testing the accuracy of Mons dela Tours information, and indeed, I may say that I am disposed to question it, as I cannot at this moment call to mind that you have noticed the fact, if fact it be, in any of your works. If there be any foundation for the statement, I am sure that you will agree with me that it is of the highest interest and importance from a scientific point of view, and well worthy of investigation I therefore make no apology for bringing the subject to your notice and Remain | Dear Sir | Your faithful servt | W. F. Segrave | H.M. Counsul DAR 177: 131 1

The Italian minister was Comte Vittorio Sallier de la Tour. The Ainu people of the Island of Saghalien, now known as Sakhalin island, were renowned for their hairiness (Batchelor 1892, pp. 17–18; Savage Landor 1893, pp. 85, 88, 142, and 145); in Descent 2d ed., pp. 601–2, CD suggested that greater hairiness

208

2

3

May 1875

in certain races might be due to reversion. The Russians had established a penal colony in northern Sakhalin in 1857, but the Japanese held the southern part until August 1875, when, with the signing of the Treaty of Saint Petersburg (the Russo-Japanese Sakhalin, Kuriles Exchange Treaty), Russia gained sovereignty over all of Sakhalin in exchange for the Kurile Islands (Gentes 2002). In the early part of the nineteenth century, the Japanese had subjected the Ainu to forced labour and resettlement; from the 1850s, they attempted to integrate them into Japanese culture. This policy of assimilation transformed the Ainu from barbarians into a ‘primitive race’, doomed to die out because it was unable to progress to higher levels of civilisation (Siddle 1997, 22–3). In 1875, following the Treaty of Saint Petersburg, 841 Ainu from southern Sakhalin were removed by the Japanese to the island of Hokkaido, but many others remained on Sakhalin under Russian rule. Russia appropriated Ainu land on Sakhalin for agriculture in the hope of making their penal colony self-sufficient. See Howell 2005, pp. 186–9.

From R. F. Cooke   29 May 1875

50a, Albemarle Street, London, W. May 29 1875

My dear Sir Is the enclosed the correct Title of the Insectivorous Plants?1 The Nos given in this list are the correct ones. Your’s faithfully | Rob.t Cooke C. Darwin Esq DAR 171: 454 1

CD had finished correcting the slips of Insectivorous plants on 23 May 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)), and had requested that ‘with illustrations’ be added to the title page (see letter from R. F. Cooke, 24 May 1875). The enclosure has not been found.

To William Marshall   29 May 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. May 29. 75 Dear Sir I thank you for your paper upon ostrich feathers.1 I received today from the President of the Trans Vaal Republic in South Africa a poor specimen of an ostrich feather illustrating an appearance often presented by the birds which are there cultivated.2 I have thought that you would like to see this feather but whether it is of any value I do not know Believe me my dear Sir | yours sincerely | Charles Darwin LS American Philosophical Society (469) 1 2

Marshall had sent CD a copy of the journal Zoologische Garten with his article on the early plumage of ostriches (Marshall 1875a). CD’s copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Thomas François Burgers, president of the Transvaal Republic, had hoped to visit CD at Down (see letter from T. F. Burgers, 13 May 1875); it is possible that he made the visit on the 29 May. If the feather was sent by post, no covering letter from Burgers has been found.

May 1875

209

To Asa Gray   30 May [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. May 30th My dear Gray Would you be so kind as to get & send me this summer a packet of seeds of Nessæa verticillata. I want to raise seedlings from illegitimate unions to see if the seedlings are sterile like true Hybrids & like the illeg. offspring of Lythrum; for the fact seems to me all important.—2 Ever yours | C. Darwin Archives of the Gray Herbarium, Harvard University (121) 1

2

The year is established by the printed stationery, which is of a sort used by CD from 18 November 1874, and by CD’s statement in February 1875 that he intended to carry out more research on dimorphic and trimorphic plants (see n. 2, below). Gray had sent CD Nesaea seeds in 1862 (see Correspondence vol. 10, letter from Asa Gray, 27 October 1862). Nesaea verticillata (a synonym of Decodon verticillatus) is the swamp loosestrife, native to eastern North America. CD had first experimented on Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) in 1862 when investigating the connection between dimorphism and sterility, and had published the results in ‘Three forms of Lythrum salicaria’ and ‘Illegitimate offspring of dimorphic and trimorphic plants’ (see Correspondence vol. 10). He was considering carrying out further research and revising these papers for inclusion in Cross and self fertilisation (see letter to J. V. Carus, 7 February 1875). The reworked papers eventually appeared as part of Forms of flowers, but there is no discussion of Nesaea verticillata beyond what was originally included in ‘Three forms of Lythrum salicaria’.

To C. V. Riley   30 May 18751 Down, Beckenham, Kent My Dear Sir I received this morning your seventh annual Report, & am very much obliged to you for having so kindly sent it to me.2 As far as my memory serves me I did not thank you for that last report, but there is not one which you have published in which I have not found much matter which has interested me greatly [. . .]3 Believe me my dear Sir. | Charles Darwin Incomplete4 LS Kenneth Rendell Gallery (dealer) (August 2005) 1 2 3

4

The date is given in the sale catalogue. CD refers to the seventh of Riley’s Annual reports on the noxious, beneficial and other insects in the state of Missouri (Riley 1869–77). The first report sent by Riley to CD in 1871 was the third of his Annual reports on the noxious, beneficial and other insects in the state of Missouri (Riley 1869–77); thereafter he sent the reports to CD annually. CD’s annotated copies are in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 710–12). The original letter is complete and is described in the sale catalogue as being two pages long.

210 From Anton Dohrn   31 May 1875

May 1875 Naples. Palazzo Torlonia. 31. May. 75.

Dear Mr. Darwin! Many thanks for Your kind letter.1 I am very open to see my little pamphlet abused, and therefore very thankful if it meets at least some interest.2 I am quite aware of its revolutionary character,—but I am equally convinced of its truth. To expect that authorities will soon acknowledge the whole or even a part of the speculations would be very wrong on my part. Gegenbaur and Haeckel for instance have always followed the very opposite doctrine, and even in his last publication, in the introduction to his new Periodical “Morphologisches Jahrbuch” Gegenbaur abuses very much the view I propose, and calls it the very extract of uncritical and unscientific method and view.3 We have been quarrelling on that chapter for many years,— and his opposition cannot teach anything new to me. To call opponents ignorant, uncritical, unscientific is a matter of taste rather, than a serious refutation; should Prof. Haeckel wish to come down upon me, I am prepared to read quite other things, to be more or less declared a lunatic. All this may be a great satisfaction to its author’s but can hardly increase the authority of their position, and I am very satisfied, that already among the younger Zoologists there is a strong disposition to accept my views.4 All I could possibly expect by the publication of my pamphlet was to put a stop to the dogmatical treatment of the Amphioxus-Ascidian affair, and to open new roads for speculation and investigation on the sides of the Annelidhomology. I think, this has already been achieved, and I am now busy to take up a special question and work it into a more complete form. I regret to have added the exposition of my belief into a general degeneration throughout the whole organic world. But even that meets here and there with a partial approval, and will have some influence on the treatment of morphological investigation. I myself believe it very much.5 I am very sorry to read that the Anderson-School is not doing well. I know how expensive these institutions are, when fully at work, but the Americans ought to keep it up.6 The Zool. Station is flourishing and would be much more so, had not the bad financial state of Germany and everywhere put a restriction on the generosity of rich people. I hope nevertheless to carry it more and more to perfection.7 Hoping that Your health has not disappointed You to much in these last times and wishing for its improving I add my kindest regards to Mrs. Darwin and Your sons and to Yourself and remain, dear Mr. Darwin | Your | sincerely devoted | Anton Dohrn DAR 162: 216 1 2

See letter to Anton Dohrn, 24 May 1875. CD had commented on Dohrn’s monograph on the origin of vertebrates (Dohrn 1875) and had cautioned Dohrn not to try to extend the degradation principle (see letter to Anton Dohrn, 24 May 1875 and n. 2).

May 1875 3

4 5

6

7

211

Dohrn was a proponent of the annelid theory of vertebrate origins; Carl Gegenbaur and Ernst Haeckel were supporters of the rival ascidian theory (see letter to Anton Dohrn, 24 May 1875 and n. 2). In the opening essay to his new journal Morphologisches Jahrbuch, Gegenbaur defined the scope and methodology of the science of morphology (Gegenbaur 1875). Although he did not refer to Dohrn by name, he criticised as unscientific the central anatomical comparison on which Dohrn’s annelid theory was based (ibid., pp. 6–7). Another major supporter of an annelid theory at this time was Carl Gottfried Semper (see letter from Anton Dohrn, 7 February 1875 and n. 7). Dohrn had attempted to account for similarities between ascidians and vertebrates by proposing that ascidians were degenerate rather than ancestral forms; he also considered cyclostomes (jawless fish) and Amphioxus (now Branchiostoma lanceolatum, the lancelet) to be degenerate, and associated degeneration with a change of function (Functionswechsel), often linked with parasitism (see Dohrn 1875, pp. 32–60). The John Anderson School of Natural History on Penikese Island, Massachusetts, was established by Louis Agassiz in 1873 (Marcou 1896, 2: 201–7). It was set up as a summer school for teachers rather than as a research institution along the lines of Dohrn’s Zoological Station in Naples (see Winsor 1991, p. 170). For more on the funding of the Zoological Station in Naples, see the letter from Anton Dohrn, 7 February 1875 and nn. 2 and 3. The over-expansion of the German economy following unification led to a crash in 1873 that was part of a worldwide economic recession (see Wehler 1985, p. 33).

To ?   31 [May 1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Ap 31 My dear Sir I received one of your letters dated the 27th this morning, the other one yesterday.2 As I seldom go to London, I had not heard any news of you for several years, & have been glad to receive your letters. I used in former days always to admire your energy & taste for Natural Science; & it appears by your letters that you retain these same powers— I quite agree with you that time by itself can do nothing in the modification of species.3 You refer to the Papaveraceæ; I am aware that they are self fertile; but this does not preclude their being occasionally crossed, tho’ I cannot remember that I have any evidence that the seedling profit by a cross—4 I have lately been working very hard in getting a book ready for the press on Insectivorous Plants, & am much out of health & shall leave home in a very few days so that I am sure you will excuse brevity5 Hoping that your health will soon be established & you will be a free man, I remain Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Postmark: JU 2 75 University of Virginia Library, Special Collections (3314 Box 1) 1 2

The addressee has not been identified: the postmark is from Montrose in Scotland. The amanuensis evidently wrote ‘Ap’ (April) in error. The letters have not been found.

212 3 4

5

June 1875

In Origin 6th ed., p. 82, CD had written, ‘The mere lapse of time by itself does nothing, either for or against natural selection’. In 1867, CD had performed experiments with seeds of Papaver vagum, P. depressum, P. lecoqii, and P. pinnatifidum (Mediterranean poppy) sent to him from France by Edouard Bornet (see Correspondence vol. 15, letter to Edouard Bornet, 20 August [1867]). In Cross and self fertilisation, pp. 108–9, CD reported the results of his experiments with P. vagum. Papaver vagum, P. depressum, and P. lecoqii are now considered to be varieties of P. dubium, the long-headed poppy. Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (Freeman 1977). CD stayed at Abinger Hall, the home of Thomas Henry Farrer, from 3 June to 5 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

From Francis Galton   2 June 1875

(Fontainebleau, at present only) June 2. 1875

My dear Darwin Thank you very much for your kind letter & information.1 It delights me that (not withstanding the Frenchman’s assertion) the large peas do really produce large plants, and that the extreme sizes sewn (except Q) are coming up.2 I could not and did not hope for complete success in rearing all the seedlings, but have little doubt that the sizes that have failed may be supplemented by partial successes elsewhere.3 We have found Fontainebleau very pleasant and are now moving on viâ Neuchâtel, with some hope that George may as he was inclined to do, hereafter fall in with us.4 He knows how to learn our address from time to time. My wife5 is already markedly better. With our united kindest remembrances to you all | Ever yrs. | Francis Galton. It seems absurd to congratulate you on your election to the Vienna Academy, because you are a long way above such honour; but am glad they have so strengthened their list, by adding your name to it.6 DAR 105: A79 1

2

3

4

5 6

CD’s letter has not been found, but see the letter from Francis Galton, 14 April 1875. CD had assisted Galton with experiments on sweetpeas (Lathyrus odoratus), planting seeds of different sizes and observing the progeny. The Frenchman has not been identified. Galton was investigating the range of variation in the size of seeds produced by plants, themselves raised from different-sized seeds over several generations. Although the large seeds produced larger plants, the distribution of seed sizes in the progeny tended to revert to the mean (Galton 1877a, p. 298). CD was one of several friends who carried out the experiments on sweetpeas (Galton 1877a, p. 290). Galton’s results were presented at the 9 February 1877 meeting of the Royal Institution of Great Britain and published in the institution’s proceedings and also in Nature (Galton 1877a, 1877b). No record of George Howard Darwin’s travelling to Europe in the summer of 1875 has been found. George suffered from digestive problems and apparently was unwell for part of the summer. In a letter to Henrietta Emma Litchfield of [4 September 1875], Emma Darwin wrote that George had been ‘at his worst, bringing up blood & his stomach feeling q. raw’, and noted that he had been advised to go to a warm climate (DAR 219.9: 125). Louisa Jane Galton had become very ill in September 1874, after which she was in frequent pain and an invalid for the rest of her life (Pearson 1914–30, 2: 130, 179, 180 n. CD was elected a foreign honorary member of the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien (Imperial Academy of Science of Vienna) on 28 May 1875 (see Appendix III).

June 1875 From William Marshall1   2 June 1875

213 Weimar 2 Juni 1875.

Sehr geehrter Herr! Empfangen Sie meinen aufrichtigen Dank für Ihren freundlichen Brief und gütige Sendung.2 Die Feder ist ungemein interessant und sehe ich in ihr eine directe Bestätigung meiner Hypothese. Es ist offenbar ein Rückschlag, sie besitzt einen wahren (keinen scheinbaren, wie die Casuarfedern) Afterschaft und der Hauptschaft seinerseits ist, und dies zwar analog den Casuarfedern, veraestelt das heist, statt dass, wie sonst nur ein Radius entwickelt ist, finden sich deren drei.3 Es ist zugleich von grossem Interesse zu sehn, wie Domestication in relativ kurzer Zeit Geschöpfe zu Rückschlägen bringen kann. Wichtig wäre mir zu wissen ob es eine Rückenfeder ist. Ich vermuthe dass.—4 Demnächst werde ich das Vergnügen haben Ihnen eine grössere Abhandlung über Kieselspongien (Hexactinelliden) zu übersenden.5 Für die Selectionstheorie liefert sie freilich wenig Possitives, desto mehr verspreche ich mir in dieser Richtung von einer Arbeit, mit der ich freilich noch sehr beschäftigt bin, über die Haut der Schmetterlingsraupen, besonders über die Giftapparate;6 die Zahl und die stufenweise Rückbildung zu rudimentaeren Organen (z.B. bei allen versteckt in Holz, unter Steinen etc lebenden Raupen) ist hier geradezu erstaunlich Sobald ich, wenn Sie erlauben, die Feder zum Gegenstande einer Arbeit gemacht haben werde, werde ich Ihnen dieselbe möglichst unverletzt zurücksenden.7 Mit wahrer Hochachtung | Ihr ergebner | William Marshall DAR 171: 48 CD note: 8 Keep feather— Back of bird? Written for more— Some time before they will arrive How often occur? & Part of body � & all particulars Your interesting [above del ‘new’] publication [‘seems’ del] promises to be very interesting 1 2 3

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. See letter to William Marshall, 29 May 1875. CD had sent Marshall an ostrich feather that he had received from Thomas François Burgers. Marshall had sent CD a copy of the journal Zoologische Garten with his article on the juvenile plumage of ostriches and the relation of the feathers of the Ratitae to those of the Carinatae (Marshall 1875a; letter to William Marshall, 29 May 1875). Ratitae and Carinatae were major divisions of birds characterised respectively by the absence or presence of a carina or keel bone on their sternum. The carina makes flight possible by anchoring the wing muscles (see T. H. Huxley 1867). Marshall had hypothesised that the contour (body) feathers of cassowaries and emus could be understood not as having a shaft and aftershaft (or afterfeather) of nearly equal size, but rather as having two feathers sprouting from the same shaft, while the ostrich feather had a single shaft with only one feather (ibid., p. 126). Cassowaries (genus Casuarius) are ratites native to New Guinea and northern Australia; emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae) are Australian ratites.

214 4

5 6 7 8

June 1875

Marshall evidently considered the aftershaft to be a primitive feature, which, he believed, domesticated ostriches possessed in contrast to wild ones, which lacked it. In flying birds, an aftershaft is more common on contour (body) feathers than on flight feathers, and such feathers typically provide insulation. CD’s copy of Marshall’s study of the Hexactinellida (glass sponges; Marshall 1875b) is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. No publication by Marshall on this topic has been identified. Marshall did not publish on the feather; CD evidently told him to keep it (see n. 8, below). CD’s annotations are notes for his reply to Marshall, which has not been found.

From Lawson Tait   2 June [1875]1 7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. June 2 My Dear Sir, Dr. Burdon Sandersons paper on the leaf currents in Dionoea has set me observing the insectivorous plants, and I wait longingly for your book, that I may see more wonders.2 But some of my independant observations are most curious and one which mere accident has revealed is so startling that I hasten to send it to you, even at the risk of it being already known to you. This afternoon I was hurriedly summoned from my plants and I left a Dionoea uncovered in a hot drawing room exposed to a full glare of sunshine When I came back in a few hours it seemed doomed, the leaf stalks being much shrunken   Its traps were all open, so I tried to see if its nervous system were dead I found that irritation of a nerve fibre (and we must I think give them that name) of one side of the traps caused incurvation of the fingers & closure of the flap on the opposite side only! That is reflex action and as we find reflex action often most marked in certain forms of disease & injury which induce paralysis, it seems to me it occurs in this plant. For instance, in health tickling the inside of the thigh does not induce elevation of the testicle by contraction of the cremaster muscle,3 save in the infant but after fracture of the spine it nearly always does. My poor dionoea, therefore, was paralysed From what I have seen I am sure we shall find still greater reason to allow a nervous system for these plants. I am watching a lot of my mice from whom I removed the tails at birth, and I am coming to the conclusion that the essential use of the tail there is as a recording organ, that is they record in their memories the corners they turn & the height of the holes they pass through by touching them with their tails4   Is not this queer. With best regards to Mrs. Darwin & with tender recollections of my visit to Down,5 I remain, | Yours ever | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 7 1

The year is established by Tait’s references to Insectivorous plants and to his visit to Down (see nn. 2 and 5, below).

Lawson Tait (centre) with his nursing-home staff, 1892. Wellcome Library, London. V0027398.

216 2

3 4 5

June 1875

In a paper presented at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, John Scott Burdon Sanderson had described electrical phenomena associated with leaf contraction in Dionaea muscipula (Venus fly trap; see Burdon Sanderson 1874b). Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). The cremaster muscle covers the testes and spermatic cord. For more on Tait’s research on tails, see the letter from Lawson Tait, 16 March [1875] and nn. 3 and 4. Tait visited CD on 17 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)).

From Otto Zacharias   3 June 18751 Görlitz (Schlesien) am 3ten. Juni 75. Hochzuverehrender Herr!— Ich stehe seit einiger Zeit mit Prof. Häckel (Jena) wegen Gründung einer biologischen Zeitschrift in Correspondenz, die zu Ehren Ihres berühmten Namens “Darwinia” betitelt werden soll.2 Ich habe mir nämlich die schwierige Aufgabe gestellt in der projectirten Monatsschrift biologische, morphologische u. transformistische Fragen so zu erörtern, dass jeder höher Gebildete neue Einsicht in die wichtigen Probleme der Zoologischen Wissenschaft bekommen kann. Wir haben in Deutschland keine solche Zeitschrift. Unsere naturwissenschaftl. Journale u. Wochenschriften (wie Gäa, die Natur, der Naturforscher etc.)3 sind nicht genügend von dem Werthe u.  der Wichtigkeit Ihrer Theorie durchdrungen. Ich wollte diesen Mangel mit einem speciellen Organe für Darwinismus ersetzen. Gegenwärtig suche ich mir überall namhafte Mitarbeiter anzuwerben u. habe auch einiges Glück mit der Auffindung solcher. Prof. Häckel wird das Unternehmen seinerseits nach Kräften fördern u. wird dann u. wann auch einen Beitrag liefern.4 Die deutschen Gelehrten werden sich wie ein Mann gegen eine darwinistische Monatsschrift erheben, weil sie glauben dass dadurch entweder die Theorie entweiht u. verwässert wird—oder weil sie befürchten, dass die Fluth der transformistischen Lehren alle Dämme der Zucht u. Sitte durchbrechen könnte. Ich hege keine von beiden Befürchtungen u. werde trotzalledem meine Absicht durchführen. Der Plan der Zeitschrift ist kurz folgender: Allmonatlich soll in einem Leit-Artikel eine biologische Frage gründlich erörtert werden. Dann sollen Kritiken über Bücher descendenz theoretischen Inhalts folgen—aber nicht bloss fade Besprechungen, sondern kritische Aufsätze (Essaÿs) zu gründlicher Belehrung. Ferner wird Herr Dr. Dohrn in Neapel wahrscheinlich einen monatl. Bericht über die in seinem Aquarium ausgeführten Arbeiten liefern.5 Ich gedachte auch die darwinistischen Professoren aller deutschen Universitäten zu Auszügen aus ihren Vorlesungen aufzufordern, etc etc. Ich erlaube mir Ihnen die projectirte Zeitschrift ihrer Einrichtung nach zu skizzieren u.  habe dabei die Absicht, Sie, hochzuverehrender Herr, um eine kurze Kritik über das Project zu bitten, da es mir ja am Herzen liegen muss, die Zeitschrift so

June 1875

217

zu machen, dass die Redaction u. sonstige Einrichtung derselben von Ihnen gebilligt u. gut geheissen wird. Ferner wollte ich mir die Frage erlauben, ob Sie wohl selbst für das erste Heft einige einleitende Worte schreiben würden—wenn Ihnen das gedruckte Manuscript zur Einsicht u. Prüfung vorgelegt werden würde. Nur für den Fall, dass die gelieferten Essaÿs u. Kritiken Ihren Beifall fänden—würde ich auf eine Erfüllung meiner Bitte zu hoffen wagen. Sie mögen mein Ansuchen an Sie, hochverehrter Herr, recht kühn finden, aber Sie werden wissen, dass man in Deutschland alles Neue mistrauisch betrachtet u. dass ein Unternehmen bei uns nur dann Erfolg hat, wenn es gleich in seiner Geburtsstunde wuchtig und nachdrücklich auftritt. Auf Grund dieser Erwägung habe ich diesen Brief an Sie geschrieben, damit gleich im ersten Hefte die Namen Darwin, Häckel, Müller, Jäger, Weismann6 etc. zu lesen sind. Ich weiss nicht ob Sie mir meine Nonchalance verzeihen—aber ich hoffe dass Sie mir diesselbe nicht allzu schroff auslegen werden. Wenn man eine Idee eifrig verfolgt, handelt man gewöhnlich etwas rücksichtslos, u. vieles würde nicht zu Stande kommen, wenn man sich zusehr von den aufstossenden Bedenken einschüchtern liesse. Ich halte die in Rede stehende transformistische Monatsschrift für ein wirkliches Zeitbedürfniss—vorausgesetzt dass mir es auf die Dauer möglich ist, auf den von Prof. Häckel so schön inauguriertem Wege der populären u. doch gründlichen Darstellung schwieriger biologischer Probleme fortzuschreiten. Prof. Häckel ist in Betreff der Nothwendigkeit einer solchen Zeitschrift, wie die projectirte ist, ganz einerlei Meinung mit mir. Sie würden, hochzuverehrender Herr, mich im Verfolgen meines Zieles mit doppelten Muthe ausrüsten, wenn Sie die Güte haben würden mir gelegentlich einige Zeilen zuzusenden, in denen Sie mir ganz kurz Ihr Urtheil über die neu zu gründende Zeitschrift ausdrücken. Ich bedauere nicht Englisch schreiben zu können— lesen u. verstehen thue ich es sehr wohl. Unter Kreuzband folgt ein Essaÿ von mir zu meiner Legitimation, Er betrifft ein Buch von Prof. Wigand in Marburg u. sucht die Irrthümer dieses Herren zu berichtigen. Wigand hat ein Werk von 600 Seiten gegen Ihre Theorie geschrieben.7 Mit hochachtungvollster | Ergebenheit | Dr. Otto Zacharias [Contemporary translation] Görlitz (Schlesien) June 3. Highly honoured Sir I have been for some time in correspondence with Prof. Häckel with reference to the founding of a Biological Periodical which, in honour of your famed name, is to be called “Darwinia”. I have taken upon myself the difficult task of treating in this projected monthly periodical biological, morphological, and evolutionary

218

June 1875

subjects in such a manner that every really educated person may be able to gain an insight into the most important problems of zoological science. We have at present in Germany no such Periodical. Our Journals & weekly publications of Natural History, such (as Gäa, Natur, Naturforscher &c) are not sufficiently penetrated with the value & importance of your theory. I wish to supply this deficiency with a special Organ for “Darwinismus”. At present I am trying everywhere to inlist men of note as contributors. Prof. Häckel is willing on his part as far as possible to aid the undertaking, & now and then to furnish an article. The literary world of Germany will rise, as one man, against a Darwinian Periodical, either because they think that by means of it the theory will be degraded and watered down; or—because they fear that the flood of evolutionary doctrines might break down all the safeguards of morals & manners. I share none of these fears—and will, in spite of everything, carry through my intention. The plan of the Periodical is briefly this. Every month one biological question will be thoroughly discussed in a leading article. Then reviews of books on the subject of evolution will follow—not merely unmeaning dissertations, but—critical essays for imparting thorough instruction. Besides this Dr. Dorhn of Naples will probably send a monthly account of the work done in his aquarium. I have thought also of inviting the Darwinian Professors of all German universities to send extracts from their lectures. I have taken the liberty of sketching out for you the arrangement of this projected Periodical in the hope of obtaining from you (hy. hd. sir) a short expression of opinion on this project. It is naturally my earnest desire that the editing, & other arrangements of this Periodical should be approved of and thought useful by you. Besides this I wish to take the liberty of asking you whether you would write a few introductory words for the first number if Proof Sheets? (Gedruckte Manuscript) were sent to you for your inspection & approval. Only in the case of the Essays & Illustrations (?) meeting your approval should I venture to hope that my request would be granted. I am afraid you will think my request a bold one, (hy. hd. Sir,) but you must know that in Germany everything new is looked upon with suspicion, & that—with us— an undertaking (of this kind) can only hope for success if it be introduced, at the very hour of its birth, with weight and authority. It is for this reason I write to you in the hope that in the very first number there may appear the names of Darwin, Häckel, Müller, Jäger, Weismann &c. I do not know whether you will excuse my boldness (nonchalance!) but I trust you will not judge me too harshly. While one is eagerly persuing an idea one generally acts somewhat inconsiderately, and many things would never come into existence if one were to be too much abashed by the considerations that suggest themselves. I consider that the proposed Evolution-Periodical will satisfy a real want of of the times provided that it is possible for me to advance in the path so well inaugurated by Häckel—that of a popular & yet thorough presentation of difficult biological problems. Prof. Häckel is quite of my opinion as to the need of such a Periodical. You would (hy. hd. Sir) greatly encourage me in the persuit of my object if you would have the

June 1875

219

kindness to send me when convenient a few lines expressing briefly your judgment on the New Periodical. I am sorry I cannot write English. I can understand and read it readily. I will send by book post (?) (unter Kreutzband) an essay of mine as my certificate. It is on a book of Professor Wiegand, and is an attempt to correct the mistakes of this gentleman. Wiegand has written a book of 600 pages against your theory. With greatest respect | Yours | (signed) Dr. Otto Zacharias DAR 184: 1 1 2

3 4

5 6 7

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. A contemporary translation found with the letter is included above. Zacharias proposed founding the popular journal in his letter to Ernst Haeckel of 19 May 1875 (see Nötlich et al. 2006, pp. 199–200). He had first contacted Haeckel to write a piece on him for the Leipzig Illustrierte Zeitung in 1874 (letter from Otto Zacharias to Ernst Haeckel, 15 April 1874; ibid., pp. 187–8). For more on Zacharias’s role as populariser of science, see Daum 1998, pp. 400–3. Gaea was founded in 1865, Die Natur in 1852, and Der Naturforscher in 1868. For more on these and other popular science journals in Germany, see Daum 1998, pp. 337–70. In a letter to Haeckel of 11 June 1875, Zacharias wrote that Oskar Schmidt was willing to contribute two or three articles a year. Gustav Jäger, while fully supporting the venture, wanted the proposed journal to publish opposing views as well. Both Fritz and Hermann Müller had agreed to be contributors, and other supporters included Friedrich von Hellwald, Anton Dohrn, Moritz Wagner, Georg Seidlitz, and Oskar and Richard Hertwig. (See Nötlich et al. 2006, pp. 201–3.) Dohrn’s aquarium was part of the Naples Zoological Station; it had opened to the public two months after the research laboratories, at the end of 1873 (Heuss 1991, p. 156). August Weismann. There is an annotated copy of Zacharias’s review, ‘Zur Kritik des Darwinismus’ (Zacharias 1874) in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Albert Wigand, who was professor of botany at Marburg, had sent CD the first volume of his work on Darwinism (Wigand 1874–7) in March 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Albert Wigand, 11 March 1874). CD’s copy of the complete work is in the Darwin Library–Down.

From Francis Darwin   [after 3 June 1875] 1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. My dear Father I send the proof back put right, it was the first which completely wrong— 151 = .06� which is nearer .067 than to .066�. The second is all right.2 I can’t think how it came wrong, the sums are not filled in in the MS & the calculations of them are not in the heap kept I am very sorry we cant come tomorrow; it is the only chance we have of giving a farewell poke up to the Band of Hope3 Klein is all square again4 This is the worst pen in Europe—I shall extract it painlessly I am very glad you are happy at Abinger.5 It seems that providence has settled against the catalogue even if you hadn’t6 Yrs affec | Frank Darwin

220

June 1875

The Zoolog Record has come7 The proof got crumpled up by mistake I am very sorry DAR 274.1: 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The date is established by the reference to proof-sheets of Insectivorous plants and by CD’s stay at Abinger Hall (see nn. 2 and 5, below). Francis Darwin had been correcting proofs of Insectivorous plants; for the correction referred to, see ibid., p. 373. The Band of Hope was a national temperance society (see Blocker et al. 2003, 1: 86–7). There was a branch in Down (Correspondence vol. 24, letter from Emma Darwin to J. B. Innes, 24 December [1876]). Edward Emanuel Klein. CD and Emma Darwin stayed at Abinger Hall, Dorking, Surrey, from 3 June to 6 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). CD employed Thomas William Newton, the assistant librarian at the Museum of Practical Geology in London, to prepare a catalogue of his library; it was completed in August 1875 (DAR 240). CD received annual copies of the Zoological Record; the volume for 1873 was published around this time (Publishers’ circular, 16 July 1875, p. 502).

To Lawson Tait   4 June [1875]1 Abinger Hall | Wotton, Surrey June 4th My dear Sir I have been much interested by your letter.— When I made little slits in the leaves for the sake of ascertaining the direction in which the motor impulse is transmitted, I found that the lobe on the injured side did not move on irritating one of sensitive filaments on that side, but that the opposite lobe did move. So for case like yours.2 You will be better judge than I, but I attributed the result to the injury affecting power of movement in a greater degree than power of transmission of motor impulse.— You will find one or two analogous facts, & under Drosera what seems to me a truly reflex action.— You will see why I doubt about nerves.3 If you make out about the tails of mice, it will be a beautiful little discovery: I enjoy it the more, because some German sneered at Nat. Selection, & instanced the tail of the mouse: I think it was Bronn.—4 A friend has lent us this house for a month, for a change as I am quite done up with correcting Proofs (very nearly finished, & Dionæa quite finished) of my book.—5 So excuse brevity— You will of course publish on Dionæa—6 I hope so.— yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Natural History Museum (General Library DC AL 1/19) 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Lawson Tait, 2 June [1875]. In his letter of 2 June [1875], Tait described how one side of a heat-damaged leaf-trap of a specimen of Dionaea muscipula (Venus fly trap) curled and closed when a filament on the opposite side was irritated. In Insectivorous plants, pp. 229–61, CD discussed leaf sensitivity and the lines of transmission of the motor impulse in Drosera rotundifolia (common sundew). CD described the process of aggregation of cells

June 1875

4

5 6

221

in the glands of tentacles as a reflex action, but noted that the process was different in its action from that in sensory nerves of animals (ibid., pp. 242–3). In his translation of Origin into German, Heinrich Georg Bronn had appended a chapter in which he discussed CD’s theory (Bronn trans. 1860, pp. 495–520). Bronn argued that some features, such as the length of the tail in rats, had no value, and hence they could not be subject to natural selection (ibid., pp. 504–5). CD discussed Bronn’s objection in Origin 6th ed., pp. 171–2. CD stayed at Abinger Hall, Dorking, Surrey, the home of Thomas Henry Farrer, from 3  June to 6 July 1875. Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875. (See CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II).) Tait read a paper on insectivorous plants to the Birmingham Natural History Society on 17  June  1875,  and discussed his experiments on Drosera in a letter published in Nature, 29  July  1875, pp. 251–2. He later published a paper, ‘Researches on the digestive principles of plants’ (Tait 1879). He did not publish observations on reflex action in Dionaea.

From T. H. Huxley   5 June 1875 31 Royal Terrace | Edinburgh June 5th 1875 My dear Darwin I see I have forgotten to return Playfairs letter—which I inclose— He sent me a copy of his last letter to you—but it did not reach me until some days after my return from London   In the meanwhile I saw him & Lord Cardwell at the House of Commons on Friday (last week)1 Playfair seems rather disgusted at our pronunciamento against the Bill & he declares that both Sanderson & Sharpey assented to it— What they were dreaming about I cannot imagine— To say that no man shall experiment except for purpose of original discovery is about as reasonable as to ordain that no man shall swim unless he means to go from Dover to Calais—2 However the Commission is to be issued and it is everything to gain time & let the present madness subside a little— I vowed I would never be a member of another Commission if I could help it, but I suppose I shall have to serve on this—3 I am very busy with my lectures and am nearly half through—4 I shall not be sorry when they are over as I have been grinding away now since last October With kindest regards to Mrs Darwin | Ever | Yours very faithfully | T H Huxley DAR 166: 341 1

2

3 4

The letter from Lyon Playfair, 27 May 1875, was the most recent letter CD had received from Playfair. No letter to Huxley in which CD mentioned enclosing a letter from Playfair has been found. Edward Cardwell was the chairman of the commission on vivisection (French 1975, p. 93). The vivisection bill was introduced in the House of Lords by Cardwell and in the House of Commons by Playfair (see letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 6 May [1875]). It contained a clause condemning vivisection in demonstrations for educational purposes (see letter to Lyon Playfair, 26 May 1875). John Scott Burdon Sanderson and William Sharpey had been involved in framing the bill (letter from William Sharpey to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 19 May 1875; London University, Imperial College Archives, L. Playfair/1/623). For Playfair’s expression of disgust, see the letter from Lyon Playfair, 27 May 1875. The commission on vivisection was constituted on 22 June 1875 with Huxley as one of its commissioners (Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection, pp. v–vi). Huxley was giving a course of lectures at the University of Edinburgh (see letter to J. V. Carus, 19 April [1875], n. 4).

222

June 1875

From Lawson Tait   5 June [1875]1

7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. June 5

My Dear Sir, I am very grateful for your letter. The dodge of making incisions is new to me & I shall try it.2 I purpose giving a lecture on “Insect-eating Plants” to our local Natural History Society on the 15th. & if it should meet with approval I shall publish it. May I dedicate it to you? Silence will give consent.3 I should be glad if Mr. Frank could find the reference to the mice at Nat. Selection illustrated by the Mouse’s tail & send it to me on a post card4 If I can ever at any time relieve you of any drudgery in correcting proof, pray let me know. My wife5 does all mine & she is the sharpest hand at it I have ever met with. She will be delighted to ease the labours of one whose writings she knows so well I am more at liberty to pursue the tail question now, as I have just delivered my Magnum opus to the Royal Society in the hope of its leading to my admission to that sanctum, the F.R.S. being my greatest ambition. The paper is on the umbilical cord and I think that I shall yet be able to draw upon it a great illustration of evolution. It will be read on the 17th.6 Yours, faithfully, | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 8 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Mousa Tail. | Dedication | Proofs’7 pencil 1 2 3

4 5 6

7

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Lawson Tait, 4 June [1875]. In his letter of 4 June [1875], CD had described how he made slits in leaves of Dionaea muscipula (Venus fly trap) to determine the effect of injury on transmission of the motor impulse. Tait’s paper was delivered on 15 June 1875 (see Birmingham Daily Post, 16 June 1875, p. 5). He did not publish a paper but discussed some of his observations in a letter to Nature, 29 July 1875, pp. 251–2 (see letter to Lawson Tait, 4 June [1875] and n. 6). See letter to Lawson Tait, 4 June [1875] and n. 4. Francis Darwin was CD’s secretary. Sybil Anne Tait. Tait’s paper on the anatomy of the umbilical cord was received on 28 April 1875 and presented at the meeting of the Royal Society of London on 17 June 1875 (Tait 1875b); the paper was published in full in 1876 (Tait 1876). Tait did not become a fellow of the Royal Society of London. CD’s annotations are notes for his reply to Tait of 11 June [1875]).

From Ernst Haeckel1   6 June 1875

Jena 6 Juni 1875

Hochverehrter theurer Freund! Beifolgend erhalten Sie von meinem hiesigen Collegen und Freunde Fritz Schultze eine Schrift, betitelt: “Kant und Darwin”, von der ich nicht bezweifle, dass

June 1875

223

dieselbe Sie sehr interessiren wird. Sie ersehen daraus, dass unser grösster deutscher Philosoph schon vor mehr als einem Jahrhundert Ideen vertrat, welche nicht nur als die ersten klaren Conceptionen der Descendenz-, sondern auch Ihrer Selections-Theorie zu betrachten sind.2 Ich empfehle Ihnen besonders S. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 38, 46, 47, 48–50, 55–58 61 (—1775!!), 65, 76, 84 etc. Es ist ein neuer Lorber in dem Kranze Ihres Ruhmes, in dem grössten Denker Deutschlands einen Vorgänger gehabt zu haben!— Ich hoffe, dass dadurch viele deutsche Philosophen zum “Darwinismus” bekehrt werden!— Im März und April war ich in Corsica und Sardinien (besonders längere Zeit in Ajaccio) wo ich gutes neues Material für meine Gastraea-Theorie gesammelt habe.3 Auch bin ich jetzt mit der 6. Edit. der Schöpfungsgesch. und mit der 3. der “Anthropogenie” beschäftigt.4 Von beiden Büchern werden Sie englische Übersetzungen noch im Laufe dieses Sommers erhalten.5 Hoffentlich geht es Ihnen gut. In bekannter Verehrung mit den herzlichsten Grüssen Ihr treu ergebener | Ernst Haeckel DAR 166: 64 CD annotations 1.6 25] double underl blue crayon 1.6 26] underl blue crayon 1.6 32] underl blue crayon 1.7 47] double underl blue crayon 1.7 48–50] underl blue crayon 1.7 55–58] double underl blue crayon 1.7 61] double underl blue crayon Top of letter: ‘Hackel’ purple crayon 1 2

3

4

5

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. . In his book on Immanuel Kant and CD (Schultze 1875, pp. 58–79), Schultze reproduced Kant’s essay on race, ‘Von den verschiedenen Racen der Menschen’ (On the different races of man; Kant 1777). Kant had defined races as deviations within a single line of descent preserved invariably over many generations. He discussed the idea that a noble stock of human beings could be created by breeding, but noted that nature would work to hinder such a scheme (ibid., p. 61). For more on Kant’s ideas about race, including a translation of his original essay on race of 1775 and the expanded version of 1777, see Mikkelsen ed. 2013. Haeckel first developed his ‘gastraea theory’ in his monograph on calcareous sponges (Haeckel 1872, 1: 344–5; see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from Ernst Haeckel, 8 October 1873 and n. 7). He proposed that two primary cell types or germ layers were differentiated in the early embryonic development of all multicellular organisms and that the ancestral mode of germ-layer formation was by invagination to produce a functional gut. This stage in development was called gastrulation. He further hypothesised, drawing on his biogenetic law (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny), that there had existed an actual ‘gastraea’, by analogy with the developmental stage. Ajaccio is on Corsica. The sixth edition of Haeckel’s Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (Natural history of creation; Haeckel 1875a) did appear in 1875, but the third edition of Anthropogenie oder Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen (Anthropogeny or the developmental history of man; Haeckel 1877) was published in 1877. CD’s copy of Haeckel 1875a has not been found; his copy of Haeckel 1877 is in the Darwin Library–Down. Haeckel’s History of creation (Haeckel 1876a; translation of Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte) was published in 1876. Evolution of man (Haeckel 1879a; translation of Anthropogenie) appeared in 1879.

224

June 1875

To Lydia Wendland   7 June [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. [Abinger Hall, Surrey.] June 7th D〈ear〉 Miss Wendland I am very much obliged to you for your great kindness in having made for m〈e〉 so beautiful a present as the fender-stool.2 [1 line illeg] in our drawing room [2 lines illeg] [g]rateful to you for [g]oing [to] so much trouble. I will venture to send you soon a copy of a book, just published by me, viz Insectivorous Plants; but this book is in no way beautiful, & I am not so inhuman as to expect you to read it.—3 Pray believe me, Dear Miss Wendland | Yours faithfully and obliged | Charles Darwin Incomplete4 Sotheby’s (dealers) (13 December 2007) 1 2

3 4

The year is established by the reference to Insectivorous plants (see n. 3, below). Fender stools were long stools placed in front of the fender of a fireplace and often upholstered in needlework. Patterns in needlepoint were widely available (see, for example, Young Ladies’ Journal, 1 February 1875, supplement, pattern for fender stool). Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). The original letter is complete and is described in the sale catalogue as being two pages long; some parts were illegible in the photograph in the catalogue.

To Lawson Tait   11 June [1875]1

Abinger Hall | Wotton, Surrey June 11th

My dear Sir I telegraphed to my son to bring Bronn, but he has brought wrong work, & I cannot hunt for passage about tails of mice, if, as I believe there is such a passage.2 I enclose memorandum by my eldest son, who has just read book referred to, & quotes from my memory, but you may trust his his memory— The case illustrates well your view of use of bushy tails.—3 I shall be proud if you think fit to dedicate your essay to me.— It is very kind of Mrs Tait to offer to aid me in proofs, but I fear that it is indispensable for me to correct my own proofs.—4 Believe me | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin P.S. It has just occurred to me to look at the Origin of Sp. (6th Edit. p. 170, & it is certain that Bronn in the appended Chapt.  to his translation of my book into German, did advance ears & tail of various species of mice as a difficulty opposed to Nat. Selection.— I answered with respect to ears by alluding to Schöbl curious paper (I forget when published) on the hairs of the ears being sensitive & provided with nerves.—5 I presume he made fine sections: if you are accustomed to such histological work, wd it not be worth while to examine hairs of tail of mice? At p. 189 I quote Henslow (confirmed by Günther) of Mus messorius (& other species?) using tail as prehensile organ.—6

June 1875

225

[Enclosure] Dr. Kane in his account of the Second Grinnell Expedition says that the Esquimaux in severe weather carry a fox’ tail tied to the neck which they use as a respirator by holding the tip of the tail between their teeth7 He says also that he found a frozen fox curled up with his nose buried in his tail. NB. It is just possible that the latter fact is stated by McClintock not by Dr Kane8 Photocopy DAR 221.5: 24–5 1 2

3 4 5

6

7

8

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Lawson Tait, 5 June [1875]. See letter from Lawson Tait, 5 June [1875] and n. 4. Heinrich Georg Bronn had argued that some features, such as the length of the tail in rats, had no value, and hence they could not be subject to natural selection (Bronn trans. 1860, pp. 495–520). It is not known which of CD’s sons delivered the book, but it was probably Francis Darwin, who was CD’s secretary. William Erasmus Darwin wrote the enclosure. Tait had argued that bushy tails were used by animals to retain heat when curled up (see letter from Lawson Tait, 12 March [1875]). See letter from Lawson Tait, 5 June [1875]. Tait’s wife was Sybil Anne Tait. See Origin 6th ed., pp.  171–2. CD mentioned Josef Schöbl’s work but did not cite a specific paper; Schöbl’s remarks were published in his paper, ‘Das äussere Ohr der Mäuse als wichtiges Tastorgan’ (The outer ear of the mouse as an important tactile organ; Schöbl 1871). In Origin 6th ed., p. 189, CD referred to observations made by John Stevens Henslow and Albert Günther (see also Correspondence vol. 2, letter from J. S Henslow, 19 April 1841). Mus messorius is a synonym of Micromys minutus, the harvest mouse. For the observation and an illustration, see Elisha Kent Kane’s Arctic explorations (Kane 1856, 2: 24–5). The privately financed Grinnell expeditions of 1850–1 and 1853–5 were carried out by the US Navy to search for the Arctic expedition of Sir John Franklin, lost in 1845; Kane was the surgeon and official historian on the journeys (ANB). The statement was made by Kane in a diary entry of 17 January 1855, and published in Kane 1856 (see n. 7, above). Francis Leopold McClintock led a later expedition to the Arctic to search for the Franklin expedition (see McClintock 1859).

To Otto Zacharias   [11 June 1875]1 [Abinger Hall, Surrey.] Nothing can be more convincing and clear than the conclusions of Malthus, and yet every now and then some foolish author tries to disprove them.2 Incomplete Zacharias 1882, p. 80 1 2

The date is established from the printed source (Zacharias 1882, p. 80). The letter was probably CD’s reply to the letter from Otto Zacharias, 3 June 1875. CD refers to Thomas Robert Malthus and probably to Albert Wigand (Zacharias  1882, p.  45). Wigand, a professor of botany at Marburg, had strongly opposed CD’s theory of natural selection (see Wigand 1874–7). In his letter of 3 June 1875, Zacharias wrote that he was sending CD his review of Albert Wigand’s anti-Darwinian book (see letter from Otto Zacharias, 3 June 1875 and n. 7).

226 From Fritz Schultze1   12 June 1875

June 1875 Jena, den 12. Juni 1875.

Hochverehrter Herr! Die Werke unseres grössten deutschen Philosophen, Immanuel Kant’s, sind eine unerschöpfliche Fundgrube grosser fruchttragender Gedanken, ob es sich nun handle um moralische oder religiöse oder aesthetische oder naturwissenschaftliche Aufgaben. Nachdem die Philosophen wie Fichte, Schelling, Hegel2 in Deutschland, wenn nicht vergessen, doch in Miscredit gekommen sind, steht Kant da wie ein gewaltiges Alpengebirge, in dessen Thäler einzuwandern und dessen Gipfel zu besteigen die Pflicht eines jeden strebsamen deutschen Studenten ist. Andererseits ist es die “Darwinistische Theorie”, welche bei uns mehr und mehr die Geister für sich gewinnt. Ist es da nicht herrlich und wundervoll, dass zwischen Kant’s Philosophie und dem Darwinismus sich eine Brücke befindet, die wir nicht erst künstlich haben anzulegen brauchen, sondern die Kant selbst gebaut hat! Wenn die alten Kirchenväter in Heraklit, Socrates, Platon “Christen vor Christus” sahen; wenn Luther3 und die Reformatoren nach “Reformatoren vor der Reformation” suchten und sie in mittelalterlichen Schriftstellern fanden; wenn sie diese Vorgänger als Zeugen für die Wahrheit ihrer Lehren benutzten—so können wir nun auch in Kant einen “Darwinisten vor Darwin” und einen “Zeuger für die Wahrheit der Lehre” sehen und ihn als solchen wirkungsvoll benutzen. Ich hoffe, dass Kant, dessen Ansehen in Deutschland bei allen Parteien eine überaus grosses ist, auch die zum Darwinismus bekehren wird, die noch nicht bekehrt sind, oder doch wenigstens ihren Widerstand schwächen und unschädlich machen wird. Möchten Sie das beifolgende Buch4 betrachten als ein geringes Zeichen der grossen Verehrung, welche ich für Sie hege und mit welcher ich bleibe | Ihr ergebenster | Dr. Fritz Schultze. DAR 177: 67 1 2 3 4

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Johann Gotlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Martin Luther. Ernst Haeckel had already sent a copy of Schultze’s book, Kant und Darwin (Schultze 1875), to CD with his letter of 6 June 1875. One copy of the book is in the Darwin Library–CUL.

From Lawson Tait   12 June [1875]1  7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. June 12 My Dear Sir, Another point that may interest you. The glands of Drosera dichotoma (australian) are constantly covered with the viscid secretion, its action being exactly that of the D. rotundifolia.2 

June 1875

227

I gathered a lot of the fluid and by Brücke’s method I have been able to separate a nitrogenous matter with a very close resemblance to pepsine.3  It is not pepsine, but I propose meantime to call it droserin. If you would like the details of my experiments & the process I shall be glad to send them. It has a curious action on milk, amongst other things, resembling but not identical with rennet. I suppose you know that old Gerrards says that D. rot. was very much used in Cheshire in his days for rennet.4  I have just had a summons & am just off to Shrewsbury Yours, faithfully, | Lawson Tait Please don’t trouble to write an answer to this more than a post card to say if you would like the particulars. DAR 178: 9 1 2 3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Lawson Tait, 4 June [1875]. Drosera dichotoma is a synonym of D. binata (the forked-leaf sundew); D. rotundifolia is the common or round-leaved sundew. Tait refers to the digestive action of the secretion of the leaf-glands. Ernst Wilhelm von Brücke described his method for isolating the digestive agent pepsin in his paper ‘Beiträge zur Lehre von der Verdauung’ (Contributions to the theory of digestion; Brücke 1861, pp. 618–19). John Gerard described two species of sundew, Ros Solis major and Ros Solis minor (Drosera rotundifolia and D. intermedia, the spoonleaf sundew) in his herbal (Gerard 1597, pp. 1366–7). He did not mention its use as a rennet substitute in this description. He did, however, mention that Cheshire cheese was made with a rennet substitute made from the flowers of yellow or lady’s bedstraw (Galium verum; Gerard 1597, p. 1128) or from English saxifrage (now called pepper-saxifrage, Silaum silaus; Gerard 1597, p. 1048).

From Lawson Tait   12 June [1875]1 

7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. June 12

2nd. Note. My Dear Sir, Your letter has just arrived, after the posting of my first.2 I am really ashamed that you should take up so much of your time in answering my letters. My only excuse for troubling you at all is that younger workers must reap in the great field that you have sown. Many thanks for the references.3 I shall hunt them up. I purpose sending you a paper on some of my histological work as it contains some hints for working that may prove useful to your son.4 It will be printed in a day or two The hint you gave me about the hair is very valuable.5 Have the whiskers of the Felidae6 ever been fully worked out? If not I shall include them. Yours faithfully, | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 10 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Lawson Tait, 11 June [1875]. See letter to Lawson Tait, 11 June [1875], and first letter from Lawson Tait, 12 June [1875].

228 3 4

5 6

June 1875

See letter to Lawson Tait, 11 June [1875] and n. 7. It is not certain which of CD’s sons is referred to; CD had mentioned William Erasmus Darwin in his letter of 11 June [1875], but only Francis Darwin would have undertaken any histological work. Tait probably sent a copy of his paper on freezing and staining techniques (Tait 1875c), but it has not been found in the Darwin Archive–CUL. CD had mentioned Josef Schöbel’s research on the sensitivity of the hairs in the ears of mice (see letter to Lawson Tait, 11 June [1875] and n. 5). Felidae is the family of cats.

To Lawson Tait   13 June [1875]1

Abinger Hall | Wotton Surrey June 13th

My dear Sir All the part in my Book on the Droseraceæ is printed off, so it wd. be of no use sending me the details of your observations.—2 Judging from mine the ferment is not present in the secretion of D. rotundifolia until the glands have been excited by absorbing a peptogene (Schiff).3 But I believe the ferment is ready secreted by Drosophyllum;4 & as D. binata (= dichotoma) is more nearly allied to Drosophyllum than any other sp. of Drosera, the ferment may be ready secreted in this species.— I was aware that the secretion of D. rotundifolia curdles milk, like rennet & like the secretion of Pinguicula, but my observations were not detailed enough to do more than just allude to subject.—5 Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin Photocopy DAR 221.5: 26 1 2

3

4 5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the first letter from Lawson Tait, 12 June [1875]. In his first letter of 12 June [1875], Tait had discussed his isolation of a pepsin-like compound from fluid produced by leaves of Drosera dichotoma (a synonym of D. binata, the forked-leaf sundew). Most of CD’s experimental work was on Drosera rotundifolia, the subject of the first eleven chapters of Insectivorous plants. In Insectivorous plants, p. 129, CD cited Moritz Schiff’s work on the physiology of digestion (Schiff 1867) for the information that in animals pepsin was secreted only in the presence of soluble substances that Schiff had called peptogenes. Drosophyllum (dewy pine or Portuguese sundew) is a monospecific genus of insectivorous plants that was formerly placed in the family Droseraceae, but is now in the family Drosophyllaceae. See first letter from Lawson Tait, 12 June [1875] and n. 4. In Insectivorous plants, p. 384, CD mentioned that drops of milk placed on a leaf of Pinguicula (butterwort) curdled after a few hours, but he did not expand on the observation. For more on CD’s interest in the use of Pinguicula as a curdling agent, see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 26 June 1874 and n. 7.

To Fritz Schultze   14 June [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. [Abinger Hall, Surrey.] June 14th Dear Sir I am very much obliged for your courteous letter, & for the present of your new

June 1875

229

work.—2 It is an extraordinary honour to me to have my name coupled in any manner with that of the illustrious Kant, & I hope soon to read what you say about his views of natural selection.3 I am, however, too poor a German scholar to understand any deep metaphysical discussion. With much respect & my best thanks, I remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin P.S | When you see Prof. Häckel, pray give him my kindest remembrances & thanks for his note.—4 American Philosophical Society (470) 1 2 3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Fritz Schultze, 12 June 1875. See letter from Fritz Schultze, 12 June 1875. Schultze sent a copy of his book Kant und Darwin (Schultze 1875). For Immanuel Kant’s views about selection, see the letter from Ernst Haeckel, 6 June 1875 and n. 2. Haeckel had written to CD about Schultze’s book and also sent a copy (see letter from Ernst Haeckel, 6 June 1875).

From G. Chiantore   16 June 1875 Società | L’Unione Tip-Editrice | Torinese | già Ditta Pomba e C. | Torino | Via Carlo Alberto, no 33 | Gabinetto del Direttore Torino, il 16th of June 1875

Honoured Sir, I think it my duty to thank you for the complaisance you had to inform me that a new Edition of the “Variations under domestication” revised will be published on the beginning of 9ber. next, and that I may have the cliches by Mr. Murray at 10£, payables on delivery.1 I accept gratefully your advise of waiting for the new edition, and the copy you offer so kindly; disposed also to receive the cliches#, at the said price, and pay the same on delivery. Pray give my respects to Mr. Murray and agree the Salutations of your | most obediant | L Chiantore # 9ber | next English Heritage, Down House (CD’s Address Book) CD annotations 0.1 Società . . . 33.] double scored ink 1.3 I may . . . Murray] ‘[ ↑ offering] 2d Edition’ ink Top of letter: ‘(Correct)’; ‘Chiantore’ ink 1

CD’s letter has not been found, but see the letter from G. Chiantore to John Murray, 18 May 1875. Chiantore had asked for clichés (stereotype plates) of the illustrations to Variation. Variation 2d ed. was not published until the second half of February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168); however, it carried an 1875 publication date. The abbreviation ‘9ber’ probably refers to November.

230

June 1875

From Lawson Tait   16 June [1875]1  7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. June 16 My Dear Sir, Thanks for your letter just received.2  Your courtesy, I fear, must lead you into troublesome correspondences. I wait for your book with inexpressible impatience, and you will see in the paper I send that I guard myself as being liable to your correction.3 I gave a rough paper on the subject at our meeting last night, because Dr. Braithwaite of London took the trouble to come down a few weeks ago to deny all the facts in connection with the Droseraceae.4  This will account for many liberties I have taken with your name. The report is not very accurate but it is substantially so. I shall develop my paper into a book but I shall wait till yours has appeared that I may cover myself with your mantle.5  Meantime I shall go over absorption again Yours faithfully | Lawson Tait Please do not acknowledge this unless you have fault to find with any thing I may have said DAR 178: 11 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘(Postage)’ pencil 1 2 3 4

5

The year is established by the reference to the paper read at the Birmingham Natural History Society (see n. 4, below). See letter to Lawson Tait, [after 17 June 1875]. The book was Insectivorous plants. Tait sent the report of his paper that appeared in the Birmingham Daily Post, 16 June 1875, p. 5. Tait’s paper was read at a meeting of the Birmingham Natural History Society on 15 June 1875 (see Birmingham Daily Post, 16 June 1875, p. 5); he announced his success in isolating a pepsin-like substance from the secretions of Drosera dichotoma (a synonym of D. binata, the forked-leaf sundew). A report of the paper was published in the Birmingham Daily Post, 16 June 1875, p. 5. Tait refers to Robert Braithwaite. Tait later published two papers on insectivorous plants, ‘Researches on the digestive principles of plants’ (Tait 1879), and ‘Notes on the structures of pitcher plants’ (Tait 1879–80). CD’s offprint of the latter paper is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.

To J. V. Carus   17 June [1875]1  [Abinger Hall, Surrey.] June 17 My dear Sir I send by this post clean sheets of above half my book on Insectivorous Plants.2 The remaining sheets will be sent in about 2 weeks or sooner. All is finally corrected. The last page, without the Index, is 453. You will be able now to judge whether the

June 1875

231

book is worth translation, & please let me hear when you have decided.3 The latter half is, I think, more interesting than the first half, as rather more diversified & not so much in detail, so that much less small type. The book has wearied me much, & has cost me much labour. I hope that you are fairly well,— when you write please tell me how you are.— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin My address for next 2–3 weeks will be C. Darwin at T. H. Farrer Esq. Abinger Hall Wotton Surrey4 Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Slg. Darmstaedter Lc 1859 Darwin, Charles, Bl. 143–144 1 2 3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. V. Carus, 28 June 1875. Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). The German translation of Insectivorous plants was published in 1876 (Carus trans. 1876b). CD stayed at Abinger Hall, the home of Thomas Henry and Katherine Euphemia Farrer, from 3 June until 6 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

From Lawson Tait   17 June [1875]1  regime of a new Bashaw.2  This sounds funny in a publisher’s circular “A cheap re-issue of ‘Two Old Men’s Tales:’”— pig or caudal, dear sir! Is this not a case for Dr. Darwin or Mr. Lawson Tait?3  The learned doctor’s next book might to be happily styled Tails of our Forefathers! 7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. June 17

My Dear Sir, The above was cut from a paper at a distance & sent me yesterday. I feel flattered at the bracketting  I am so full of my insectivorous plants that I cannot keep from writing about them, their interest is so intense. I have quite failed to obtain any evidence of a conclusive character that the leaves absorb after having digested: but I notice that my Dionoea leaves open after macerating a blue bottle for 12 or 14 days, full of fluid & that fluid containing abundance of nitrogenous matter, runs down a channel on the leaf stalk to the root For manure? Fancy each Dionoea leaf a little patent manure manufactory!4  Now I find that the Aldrovandra  is stated to float on stagnant waters in the South of Europe, but I have never seen it and can’t find any statement that it is either fly-catching or fly digesting.5 If it is either it would rather tend to upset my view

232

June 1875

Can it be got? I have tried many places but cannot hear of any source There are some very curious facts in support of my sewage notion about the Sarracenia,6  but I must wait & see & not trouble you too much, only this seems to me such a quaint notion that I could not help writing it. Yours faithfully, | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 12 1 2 3

4

5 6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Lawson Tait, 16 June [1875]. The newspaper clipping was pasted to the top of the letter; its source has not been identified. Bashaw: an alternative spelling of ‘pasha’ (OED). The book was Anne Marsh-Caldwell’s well-known Two old men’s tales ([Marsh-Caldwell] 1834), which was reissued in June 1875 (see Publishers’ circular, 1 July 1875, p. 462), following her death in 1874. Tait’s lecture to the Birmingham Natural History Society on the function of tails, which included material quoted from CD’s letter to him of [13–15 March 1875], was delivered on 5 April 1875 and summarised in the Birmingham Daily Post, 8 April 1875, p. 6. It was reprinted in Hardwicke’s Science-Gossip, June 1875, pp. 126–7 (Tait 1875a; see letter from Lawson Tait, 12 March [1875]). Dionaea muscipula is the Venus fly trap. Tait had isolated a pepsin-like substance in the glandular fluid of Drosera dichotoma (a synonym of D. binata, the forked-leaf sundew; see first letter from Lawson Tait, 12 June [1875]). Tait evidently hypothesised that the function of the leaf was solely to dissolve prey, while the solution obtained (‘manure’) would be absorbed by the roots. Aldrovanda (the waterwheel plant) has one extant species, A. vesiculosa; it has traps similar to those of Dionaea. Sarracenia is the genus of trumpet pitchers and is native to North America. As with Dionaea muscipula, Tait evidently suspected that the pitcher only dissolved prey, while the resulting fluid (‘sewage’) would be absorbed by the roots.

To Lawson Tait   [after 17 June 1875]1  Abinger Hall | Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. My dear Sir Aldrovanda is rootless & floats freely & catches abundant prey in various parts of world.—2 If you will wait till my book appears, I think you will find abundant evidence of absorption.—3 Your separation of the ferments, seems a capital discovery.—4 I have not strength to give evidence of absorption. yours sincerely | Ch Darwin Taylor Library, Shrewsbury School 1 2 3

4

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Lawson Tait, 17 June [1875]. Tait expressed an interest in Aldrovanda (the waterwheel plant) in his letter of 17 June [1875]. Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)); the section on Aldrovanda is on pp. 321–31. CD concluded that its glands secreted true digestive fluid and absorbed the digested matter. In his first letter of 12 June [1875], Tait had informed CD that he had isolated a pepsin-like substance from the glands of Drosera dichotoma (a synonym of D. binata, the forked-leaf sundew).

June 1875

233

To J. D. Hooker   19 June [1875]1  Abinger Hall | Wotton, Surrey | (Gomshall Station for Rail) June 19th My dear Hooker I heard from Henrietta that she saw you at the Coll: of Surgeons & that you seemed pretty well.—2  Farrer has most kindly lent us this house for a month & I write now to know whether there is any chance that you would come here (& please bring Harriet, if she is inclined to come.)3 on Saturday 26th for the Sunday. You know how we shd. rejoice to see you both if you can come. I was very much worn out by correcting “Insectivorous plants”, & so came here for rest.— I have now done with the book, & I suppose copies will be bound in a week or two, & of course you will receive one.—4 I am so sick of the accursed subject, that I daresay if I look at my book in half-ayear’s time I shall read it with speechless admiration! Yours ever affectionately | Ch. Darwin I daresay you have heard that poor Effie (Mrs. Farrer)5 is much out of health & has gone to German Baths. DAR 95: 386–7 1 2 3 4 5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 June 1875. In a letter to Emma Darwin of [5 June 1875] (DAR 245: 54), Henrietta Emma Litchfield mentioned that she planned to attend a party at the Royal College of Surgeons the following week. CD stayed at Abinger Hall, the home of Thomas Henry Farrer, from 3 June to 6 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Harriet Anne Hooker was Hooker’s daughter. Hooker’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants, which was published on 2 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II) and Appendix IV). Katherine Euphemia Farrer.

From J. D. Hooker   20 June 1875 Kew June 20/75. Dear Old Darwin I have been back just a month1 & never yet written to you often as I have taken up my pen for the purpose.—but I have been overwhelmed with work & family matters, visitors & visiting, & it was only last week that Dyer’s appointment came—for which by the way I feel wholly indebted to Farrer & this through your instrumentality.2 Now I am inducting him into Office, & I hope that all will go smooth, as I see great relief in view.— I wish that I could come down on Saturday, but it is impossible. I have so many engagements. If I could get down & back on Sunday perhaps I might.3

234

June 1875

I had a pleasant little tour with Strachey to the Pyrenees, picked Harriet up at Paris & so home.4 She is really remarkably well, not robust but in good health— How she is to stand the wear & tear of this House & Household is not clear to me.— the visitors are dreadful— we are never alone.— My Aunt Mrs Turner of Liverpool is staying with us, & her daughter, a contemporary & great friend of Harriets & this is an immense comfort— Hodgson (of Darjeeling quondam) & his wife are also staying with us.5 Maximovicz.6 the best Russian botanist who spent many years in Japan Mongolia &c is here, a very nice fellow indeed: if he should stay over Sunday might I bring him to Abinger?.. I want to have a talk with you about Insectivora if you are not disgusted with them— I must set some experiments agoing7 I have a wonderful trap door spider in the bark of a S. African tree!— he occupies a nidus that fills a deep fissure in the bark longitudinal & is wholly undistinguishable from the bark— Murray suggests that this nidus is the old Cocoon of a Bombyx!— the trap door is entirely similar to that of the Mentone sorts & he holds it down the same way.8 I am indeed glad that your Insectivorous book is off your hands.9 Bentham & I are now printing another part of “Genera Plantarum”.10 I hope that some of your boys will be at the R. S. Reception on Wednesday.— we issue very few invitations, not 150 in all.—11 Ever yr affec | J D Hooker DAR 104: 30–2 1 2

3 4 5 6 7

8

9

Hooker had travelled to Algeria in mid-April, stopping in Paris (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 15 April 1875, and L. Huxley ed. 1918, 2: 198). William Turner Thiselton-Dyer had been appointed assistant director at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Thomas Henry Farrer had supported Hooker’s application for an assistant at CD’s request (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 January 1875 and nn. 2 and 3). CD had invited Hooker to visit him at Abinger Hall (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 19 June [1875] and n. 3). Harriet Anne Hooker had evidently travelled to Paris directly from Algeria while Hooker and Richard Strachey returned via the Pyrenees. Hooker’s aunt Ophelia Turner and her daughter Effie Elizabeth Turner lived with Hooker until 1876 (see Allan 1967, pp. 225–7). Hooker also refers to Brian Houghton Hodgson and Susan Hodgson. Carl Johann Maximowicz. Hooker evidently intended to refer to insectivorous plants, not the former order of insect-eating mammals, Insectivora. Hooker had worked on Nepenthes, the genus of tropical pitcher-plants, in 1874; see Hooker 1874a. The first formal description of an African tree trapdoor spider was made by Octavius PickardCambridge, who named the genus Moggridgea in honour of John Traherne Moggridge (see O. Pickard-Cambridge 1875, p. 318). Moggridge’s book Harvesting ants and trap-door spiders (Moggridge 1873) had been praised by both CD and Hooker (see, for example, Correspondence vol. 21, letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 February 1873). Moggridge had described trapdoor spiders found near Mentone, where he always spent the winter. Contrary to Andrew Murray’s suggestion, the silk in the structure built by tree trapdoor spiders is produced by the spider itself (see O. Pickard-Cambridge 1875, p. 321; see also Dippenaar-Schoeman 2002, p. 84). Bombyx is a genus of silk-moths. Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

June 1875 10 11

235

The second part of vol. 2 of Genera plantarum (Bentham and Hooker 1862–83) was published in May 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 June 1876, p. 416). The first part of vol. 2 had been published in 1873. It is not known whether any of CD’s sons attended the Royal Society of London reception on 23 June 1875. Hooker was president of the society.

To J. D. Hooker   22 June 1875

Abinger Hall June 22 1875

My dear Hooker I am very sorry to say that it is impossible for you to come & return on a Sunday to Gomshall Station.1 You might I believe come to Dorking, but this is 5 miles off, & wd never be worth your while, more especially as I do not quite like to offer Mr Farrer’s horses on a Sunday—2 You must come to Down whenever you can after our return home— I heartily rejoice at the success of the Sec. business3 yours affectly | Ch. Darwin LS DAR 95: 388 1

2 3

CD had invited Hooker to Abinger Hall in Surrey for the weekend, but Hooker wanted to come just for Sunday (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 June 1875). Gomshall Station was just over a mile from the hall. Abinger Hall was the home of Thomas Henry Farrer; CD stayed there from 3 June to 6 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Hooker had informed CD that William Turner Thiselton-Dyer had been appointed assistant director at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 June 1875 and n. 2). In his letter to T. H. Farrer, 29 November [1874] (Correspondence vol. 22), CD had referred to the position as ‘assistant secretary’.

To Linnean Society   23 June 1875

[Abinger Hall, Surrey.] June 23 1875

I cannot recommend Mr Powell’s paper to be printed in extenso.1 It contains very little new matter; & as the author speaks in two places as if consolidated coral-rock had flowed like lava, it is impossible to trust his geological knowledge. He gives no precise information, which if given would have been of value, on the heights of the several islands His view of the origin of Atolls is the same as that formerly held by Sir C. Lyell, namely that they are built on sub-marine craters.2 Nevertheless, as he seems to have found, more frequently than any other observer, volcanic products within the Coral Archipelagos, it would be adviseable to give a brief abstract of the paper. I would call attention to his observations (p. 13) on Fūnafuti, which though vague, seem the most valuable in the paper.3

236

June 1875

A new plan moreover, of this island is given on the authority of Captain Turpie.4 The author speaks of a swamp as existing here, covered with scoriæ, & bounded on one side by an embankment of great stones; but he does not state that the fragments are too compact to have been driven by the currents of the sea. The author gives lists of the plants found on the several islands; but these seem to me hardly precise enough to be worth publishing; some botanist however ought to glance at the lists & decide on this head. Charles Darwin To the Council of the Linnean Society. LS Linnean Society of London 1

2

3 4

Thomas Powell’s paper ‘Notes on the nature and productions of several atolls of the Tokelan, Ellice, and Gilbert groups, South Pacific’ had been read at a meeting of the Linnean Society of London on 15 April 1875 (Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1874–5): viii). The paper was not published or abstracted. In Principles of geology (C. Lyell 1830–3, 2: 290), Charles Lyell had expressed the view that atolls were ‘nothing more than the crests of submarine volcanos, having the rims and bottoms of their craters overgrown by corals’. CD had countered this view, concluding they resulted from prolonged subsidence of the foundations on which they were based, coupled with upward growth of the reef-forming coral (see Coral reefs, p. 147). Funafuti, the chief atoll of Tuvalu in the south Pacific ocean, was formerly part of the British Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony (Columbia gazetteer of the world). No abstract of the paper was published. Roger Turpie was captain of the London Missionary Society ship John Williams (New Zealand Herald, 13 June 1896, p. 2).

To R. F. Cooke   24 June [1875]1 Abinger Hall | Wotton, Surrey June 24th My dear Sir I have just received the last clean sheets for German Translation, so that book now all finished.— I hope that you will get copies quickly bound.—2 Please have all my copies cut.—3 Please despatch the first copies abroad.— How about price?4 I suppose that there will be none ready till after July 1st & that will reduce foreign postage by a half, except to France & U. States &c—5 I hope that you will put a rather conspicuous advertisement into Nature & Gardener’s Chronicle.—6 Please see about Stereotype Plates for U. States.—7 No doubt I shall require to know cost of stereotypes of woodcuts for German Translation.— My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin When I hear about price of book, be so good as to tell me, if you can, how soon you will distribute copies. N.B. I return home early on July 6th.—8 National Library of Scotland (John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 338–9)

June 1875 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8

237

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from R. F. Cooke, 26 June 1875. Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). The German translation appeared in 1876 (see letter to J. V. Carus, 17 June [1875] and n. 3). For CD’s complaint about books being sold with pages uncut, see Correspondence vol. 15, letter to Athenæum, 1 January 1867. For CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants, see Appendix IV. The book was priced at 14s. (Publishers’ circular, 16 July 1875, p. 498). The treaty for the formation of a general postal union, signed at Bern, Switzerland, on 9 October 1874, came into effect on 1 July 1875 (for an English version of the agreement, see Treaty on postal union). Both France and the United States were signatories of the treaty, although France only signed in May 1875 and evidently it had not yet been ratified there (see Treaty on postal union, p. 13). Under article 3 of the treaty, an additional charge was allowed for conveyance by sea exceeding 300 nautical miles, which would have applied to postage to the United States (see Treaty on postal union, p. 4). An advertisement for Insectivorous plants and other recent works by CD appeared in Gardeners’ Chronicle, 3 July 1875, p. 26; the same advertisement was published in Nature, 8 July 1875, p. lxxviii. John Murray had provided stereotypes of most of CD’s later works to his US publisher, D. Appleton & Co. (see, for example, Correspondence vol. 22, letter from D. Appleton & Co., [c. 19] November 1874). CD stayed at Abinger Hall from 3 June to 6 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

From Lawson Tait   24 June [1875]1 7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. June 24 My Dear Sir, In case you should like to see it there is an adverse article in last Saturday’s Spectator in which my paper is made, very absurdly, to be the peg on which to hang an attack on Natural Selection2 I reply in next Saturday’s.3 Mr. Norman Lockyer has written to me for my paper for Nature.4 Yours faithfully, | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 13 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the reference to the article in the Spectator (see n. 2, below). An unsigned article, ‘Flower–traps’, in the Spectator, 19 June 1875, pp. 784–5, reported on Tait’s lecture at the Birmingham Natural History Society (see n. 4, below). The writer noted Tait’s scepticism concerning the ability of insect-catching plants to absorb nutrients through the leaf surface, and his alternative explanation that the products of digestion ran down the leaf-stalk to the roots, where they were absorbed in the usual way. The writer compared insect catching in plants to human pursuits that were not advantageous to survival, and concluded that the principle of natural selection was a limited one. Tait’s letter to the editor appeared in the Spectator, 26 June 1875, pp. 816–17. He argued that his observations suggesting that products of digestion might be channelled to the roots supported CD’s theory, because it suggested an intermediary step in the development of insectivory, and further noted that he would not come to a conclusion about absorption by leaves until Insectivorous plants was published, and he had weighed the evidence offered by CD. Tait read a paper on insectivorous plants to the Birmingham Natural History Society on 15 June 1875; it was reported in the Birmingham Daily Post, 16 June 1875, p. 5. Tait summarised his experiments in a letter published in Nature, 29 July 1875, pp. 251–2.

238

June 1875

From J. W. Clark   25 June 1875

18 High Street. | Southampton. June 25. 1875.

Dear Sir, In reference to your remarks upon the dilations of the pupils of the eye through fear, in your work on “The Expression of the Emotions”, I beg to send you the following, hoping, that it may be of service to you—1 I distinctly recollect observing, & remarking upon, the largely dilated pupils in an Irish water-spaniel, a black retriever, & within the last few days, in a fox-terrier which I have lately observed to ensure the correctness of my former observations.2 In the History of British India (Edinburgh Literary Library ed. 1843) page 32 I find this passage as descriptive of a horse’s fear of a lion—3 “.... his quivering limbs & large dilated eyes exhibit the depth of uncontrolled dismay ....” The dilation I venture to think refers to the pupils (& not simply to the eyelids) because I have observed it in a donky not infrequently when frightened. I shall hope to obtain some fuller & more exact information on this point; meanwhile I hope you will excuse the liberty I take in thus writing to you, and believe me to remain your sincere well-wisher & admirer, | J. W. Clark. DAR 161: 154 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘(Expression)’ square brackets in original 1 2

3

In Expression, pp. 303–4, CD wrote that he had only one example of pupils dilating with fear. A note was added to Expression 2d ed., p. 321, citing the examples of pupil dilation given by Clark in this letter and the letter from J. W. Clark, 16 September 1875. Clark’s name was given incorrectly as T. W. Clark in the note. Expression 2d ed. was published after CD’s death using CD’s notes. The passage is from Historical and descriptive account of British India, from the most remote period to the conclusion of the Afghan war (H. Murray et al. 1843, 3: 31).

To C. V. Riley   25 June [1875]1 Abinger Hall | Wotton, Surrey June 25th My dear Sir I am staying at a friends’ house for rest, as I have lately been very unwell, & am sorry to say that I stay till after the 6th of July, so that I cannot see you at Down.2 Shortly before leaving home, three weeks ago, I wrote to you at St. Louis thanking you for the last Report, which I have not yet had time to read, but which I am sure will interest me much, as have all the previous Reports.3 I hope that you may have a pleasant tour & remain, My dear Sir, Yours very sincerely, Ch. Darwin Empire Autograph Auctions (dealers) (1 January 2008)

June 1875 1 2

3

239

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to C. V. Riley, 30 May 1875. Abinger Hall was the home of Thomas Henry Farrer; CD stayed there from 3 June to 6 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Riley had travelled from America with Leonard Darwin, who was returning from the transit of Venus expedition, and apparently met with CD at Abinger (see Riley 1882, pp. 77, 80). See letter to C. V. Riley, 30 May 1875 and nn. 2 and 3. Riley had sent CD the seventh annual report on noxious insects of Missouri (Riley 1869–77, seventh report (1875)); Riley was state entomologist of Missouri. CD’s annotated copy of the report, and the previous ones sent by Riley, are in the Darwin Library–CUL.

From R. F. Cooke   26 June 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London. W. June 26 1875 My dear Sir I have sent off the 1st. (rather rough to look at) copy of Plants to you by this post. We must make the price 15/–.1 I hope on Tuesday or Wedy. to get some copies to send out2 Yours very truly | Robt Cooke C. Darwin Esq DAR 171: 455 1 2

See letter to R. F. Cooke, 24 June [1875]. In fact, Insectivorous plants was priced at 14s. (Publishers’ circular, 16 July 1875, p. 498). For CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants, see Appendix IV.

To Mr Russell   26 June [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station |Orpington. S.E.R.) [Abinger Hall, Surrey.] June 26th Dear Sir I am very sorry that you have had so much trouble about my address.— My house is seven miles from Beckenham in an out of the way place, & I have been & am still absent from my home— I would suggest you sending the book, which Mr Fitzgerald has been so kind as to send to me, either by post or Railway to me, & after I have seen it, will write to Mr. Fitzgerald.2 Pray accept my thanks & I remain Dear Sir | Yours Faithfully | Ch. Darwin. Nate’s Autographs (dealer) (January 1995) 1

2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Mr Russell, 12 July 1875. The correspondent is referred to as ‘Mr Russell’ in the letter to R. D. Fitzgerald, 16 July 1875. He has not been further identified. The book was the first part of Robert David Fitzgerald’s Australian orchids (Fitzgerald 1875–94; see letter to Mr Russell, 12 July 1875). Fitzgerald had evidently asked Russell to give a copy of it to CD.

June 1875

240 To R. F. Cooke   27 June [1875]1

Abinger Hall | Wotton, Surrey Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. June 27th My dear Sir I am very sorry to hear about 15s— do consult Mr. Murray & see if you cannot s 2 reduce the price to 14.— Also I hope to Heaven that the book will not look so big, as the copy sent— It seems now ridiculous.— It wd be worth while to defer sending the foreign copies till Thursday July 1st, as the postage to everywhere except France (I do not know about Italy & Brazil) will be reduced by half.—3 I fear at 15s the sale will be very small: I know it is my fault, as I never can help making my books too long.— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin P.S. The copy received will do very well for myself, so please send only one additional copy here. We return home (Down) on July 6th.—4 National Library of Scotland (John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 336–7) 1 2 3

4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from R. F. Cooke, 26 June 1875. In the event, John Murray priced Insectivorous plants at 14s. (Publishers’ circular, 16 July 1875, p. 498). For changes in postage costs, see the letter to R. F. Cooke, 24 June [1875] and n. 5. Italy was a signatory of the treaty forming a postal union but Brazil was not. France did sign the treaty, not on 9 October 1874, when the other signatories did, but on 3 May 1875, and evidently the ratification was not completed (see Treaty on postal union, p. 13). For CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants, see Appendix IV. CD stayed at Abinger Hall from 3 June to 6 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

From J. V. Carus   28 June 1875 Leipzig June 28th. 1875. My dear Sir, I have got the Insectivorous Plants, both parts, and thank you very much    I should have answered your kind letter sooner, if I had not written to Mr Koch about it. Of course the book must be translated, no doubt about that; and I shall be happy to do it, if you kindly allow it   It will then be the first volume of the botanical section of the complete edition.1 I have nearly done the “Journal”, and the delight I felt in reading it amply repaid the trouble I had in translating it.2 Together with the Insectivorous Plants a new edition of the Origin is wanted   As the work is stereotyped, I suppose you will have nothing to add3   To complete the history of the theory, as far as yourself are concerned, we intend to give the paper you published in the Linnean Proceedings, Vol III.4

June 1875

241

Although I am pretty well now, yet I suffer too often from colds and (probably) nervous shortwindedness. Change of air does me always good, and so I shall go to Ems as soon as our summer term is over, to drink the water there and rest a little;5 in September I intend to go south-ward with my wife and the two eldest daughters, to avoid the transitional months which are always trying to me6   I hope to be able to do it; but everything depends on circumstances. So, most likely, I shall have to do the Insectivorous Plants before I go. When will they be published in England? Probably not before October. As the book has been asked for already, we must not be late.7 I see, you are preparing a revised edition of the Variation under Domestication. When will it come out? Not before next year or later.8 With grateful compliments I am | Yours ever sincerely | J. Victor Carus DAR 161: 101 1

2 3

4 5 6 7 8

CD had received the final corrected sheets for Insectivorous plants on 24 June 1875 (see letter to R. F. Cooke, 24 June [1875]). When CD sent Carus the first set of corrected sheets he asked whether Carus judged the book worthy of translation (see letter to J. V. Carus, 17 June [1875]). Eduard Koch, the head of E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, was publishing a collected edition of CD’s works of which the German translation of Insectivorous plants was volume 8 (Carus trans. 1876a; see also Carus trans. 1875–87). Carus’s translation of Journal of researches (Carus trans. 1875b) was the first volume in the collected German edition of CD’s works (Carus trans. 1875–87). Carus’s translation of Origin 6th ed. had been published in 1872 and was the fifth German edition (Bronn and Carus trans. 1872). The sixth German edition appeared in 1876 and was evidently unchanged from the fifth edition; it was the second volume of the collected German edition of CD’s works (Bronn and Carus trans. 1876; Carus trans. 1875–87). Bronn and Carus trans. 1876 did not contain the paper that appeared in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society (Zoology) in 1858 (C. R. Darwin and Wallace 1858). Bad Ems is a spa resort on the river Lahn, a tributary of the Rhine. Carus’s wife was Sophie Catherine Carus; his two eldest daughters were Agnes Marie Elisabeth Carus and Anna Sophie Gertrud Carus. Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)); the German translation appeared in early March 1876 (see Correspondence vol. 24, letter from J. V. Carus, 19 March 1876). CD began work on Variation 2d ed. on 6 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). It was published in the second half of February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168), but had an 1875 publication date.

From R. F. Cooke   28 June 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London. W. June 28 1875 My dear Sir The price of your new work shall not exceed 14/–1 Our only wish was to obtain a better return for you, which 1/– more would give. The other copies will not look so clumsy as the one I sent which was not properly pressed. Did you not quote a price to Appletons, as to what the set of stereotype plates would cost them, & was it £50 or less.?2

242

June 1875

The Foreign copies shall not be posted before Thursday or Friday.3 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 458 CD annotation 6 7 6½ Top of letter: ‘a little over 8 | a little over 8 distributed evenly | 8 ’ pencil 1 2

3

CD had requested that the price of Insectivorous plants be reduced from 15s. to 14s. (see letter to R. F. Cooke, 27 June [1875]). CD had asked Cooke to organise production of stereotype plates for his US publisher, D. Appleton & Co., in his letter to Cooke of 24 June [1875]. In a letter to Cooke of 23 May [1875], CD had suggested charging £60. CD had suggested waiting until after Thursday 1 July 1875 to send foreign presentation copies of Insectivorous plants since changes to postage rates would come into effect then (see letter to R. F. Cooke, 27 June [1875] and n. 3).

To R. F. Cooke   29 June [1875]1 Abinger Hall | Wotton, Surrey June 29th. My dear Sir I mentioned no exact price to Mess. Appleton, but copied out Mr. Murray’s words which I cd. give if at home, & which certainly were to the effect “at a little above cost price.” & I told Mess Appleton I thought it quite affair that we shd. make a little profit by the transaction. An American naturalist expects a large sale there.—2 I am very glad of the 14s, for though I much like making money, I care very much more about the wide distribution of my books.3 I am uneasy about the present work, & cannot abide the thought of causing you loss, but it is a comfort to me to think that you have profited by my former books.— If in a month or two, you have any fairly good news of sale, pray let me hear. I sometimes think a man is a fool who writes books, but this is a bad doctrine for the book trade. We return home on the 6th. & then I will finish “Climbing Plants” & Variation of Animals & Plants under Domestication, & this latter job is a heavy grind.—4 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin National Library of Scotland (John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 334–5) 1 2

3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from R.  F.  Cooke, 28 June 1875. Cooke had earlier told CD that John Murray was willing to provide stereotype plates to CD’s US publisher D. Appleton & Co., at a small percentage over cost (see letter from R. F. Cooke, 24 May 1875). The American naturalist has not been identified, but may have been Charles Valentine Riley, who visited CD around this time (see letter to C. V. Riley, 25 June [1875] and n. 2). See letter from R. F. Cooke, 28 June 1875 and n. 1.

June 1875 4

243

CD stayed at Abinger Hall from 3 June to 6 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). He had finished correcting Climbing plants on 29 March, when it was still planned that it would be appended to Insectivorous plants; Murray returned the manuscript for further correction on 9 April, after it was decided to publish it as a separate volume (letter from John Murray, 9 April [1875]). CD began work on Variation 2d ed. on 6 July, finishing on 3 October 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

To F. J. Cohn   [30 June 1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. [Abinger Hall, Surrey.] My dear Sir As you expressed a wish to have an early copy of my book on Insectivorous Plants, I have told my publisher to send you one of the first copies, & you will soon receive it.2 I hope that you will think that I have referred to your admirable papers with the respect which they deserve—3 My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin LS DAR 185: 98 1 2

3

The date ‘Jun 30th’ was added in a contemporary hand under the printed address. The year is established by the reference to Insectivorous plants (see n. 2, below). See letter from F. J. Cohn, 9 January 1875 and n. 12. Cohn had been asked to write an essay on Insectivorous plants for the journal Deutsche Rundschau. Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). In Insectivorous plants, p. 322, CD wrote that he could add nothing to Cohn’s excellent description of Aldrovanda (the waterwheel plant), and referred frequently to observations made by Cohn in his paper on the bladders of Aldrovanda and Utricularia (bladderwort; Cohn 1875a).

From J. G. F. Riedel   30 June 1875 Gorantalo North of Selebes | (Celebes) 30th June 1875. Sir! I have fixed for a long time my attention on a peculiar fact, here daily to observed, a fact I suppose that would be of some interest to you. The children of the primordial north selebesian tribes,1 are when coming, in the world rather of a white or blank colour (No 5 of M Broca’s types); but have on their back outward about the height of the plexus ischiadicus on both sides above the fessier, two round spots, as large as a dollar or larger of dark blue (noir bleuatre) colour (No 11 of M Broca’s types).2 One or two years afterwards when the colour of the skin increased in darkness, the blue spots became larger &

244

June 1875

more irregular in circumference, a blue substance seems to flow under the epiderm & probably forms the pigment. Then the spots disappeared.— When the colour of the skin remained white or blank, the colour of many women, no change on the spots is to be observed.— I think these spots must have any casuality & be of some consequence. Is the subcutani formation of pigment depends from the more or less activity of the nerves in general & of the plexus ischiadicus in particular. Are these spots a hereditary portion, or a signification of diversity of races. Are these spots also observed amongst the mongoloide, the european children? etc. I hope you will communicate me your opinion on this fact. If my description is incomplete I will give you, when desired more elucidations. Do you think the circumcision according to the mohamedan rites have some more or less influence on the lenght of the praeputium.3 I think so. In our country the mohamedan boys goes always naked till their 6 or 10th year & I have observed many of them—not all—with a very short prepuce.— I remain | Your most obedt Servant | Riedel J. G. F. Riedel | Assistant Resident | Gorantalo | North-Celebes | Netherlands— India. DAR 176: 155 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Whether all the infants & what proportion; if exact size of spot & coloured drawing’ ink 1 2

3

Riedel evidently refers to the Minahasa people of north Celebes (now Sulawesi Utara province, Indonesia; see Columbia gazetteer of the world). The numbers Riedel refers to are from a numerical chart for rating skin colour that had been created by Paul Broca (Broca 1864). The ischiadic plexus (also known as the sacral plexus) is a nerve network formed by the fourth and fifth lumbar, and first, second, and third sacral nerves (Dorland’s medical dictionary). Fessier: buttocks (French). Praeputium: prepuce, foreskin (Latin). The age at which male circumcision (khitān) is performed varies in Muslim traditions, but may be done at almost any time before adulthood (Encyclopaedia Britannica (britannica.com, accessed 3 July 2014)).

To W. C. Williamson   30 June [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. [Abinger Hall, Surrey.] June 30th Dear Sir I am much obliged to you for having sent me your Lecture, which seems to me a wonderfully clear & interesting sketch of the lower organisms.—2 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Sotheby’s (dealers) (14 March 1973) 1 2

The year is established by the reference to Williamson’s lecture (see n. 2, below). Williamson evidently sent a copy of his lecture ‘The dawn of animal life’, which was delivered on 2 March 1875 (W. C. Williamson 1875). CD’s copy has not been found.

July 1875

245

To M. T. Masters   [ July 1875]1 I have told my publisher to send a copy of my Insectivorous Plants to your private address, which I hope that you will accept, & do not trouble yourself to acknowledge its receipt.—2 My dear Sir | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Incomplete3 Sotheby’s (dealers) (12 December 2012) 1 2 3

The month and year are established by the publication date of Insectivorous plants (see n. 2, below). Insectivorous plants was published by John Murray on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Masters’s name appears on the presentation list for the book (see Appendix IV). The surviving page of the letter as sold by the dealer was tipped into a copy of Insectivorous plants. The book was marked ‘From the author’ in John Murray’s clerk’s hand, and there was a pencil inscription ‘Masters’ on the front free endpaper.

To J. V. Carus   1 July [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. [Abinger Hall, Surrey.] July 1st My dear Sir I write one line to say that my book will be published in 2 or 3 days.2 The Printers, as usual, did not begin to print off, until the whole book was in type.—3 The little book on “Climbing Plants”, & the 2d Edit. of Var: under Dom: will be published early in November.—4 I am endeavouring not to add much to the latter book.— You are quite right in supposing that I have no corrections for the Origin: many are desirable, but I have no strength for so great a work.—5 I am very glad that you will prepare a translation of the Insectivorous Plants.—6 Thank you for telling me a little about your health, & I sincerely hope that you may get your southern tour.7 In Haste | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Abinger Hall | We go home on July 6th.8 Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Slg. Darmstaedter Lc 1859 Darwin, Charles, Bl. 145–146 1 2 3 4

5 6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. V. Carus, 28 June 1875. Insectivorous plants was published by John Murray on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). The printers were William Clowes & Sons. Climbing plants 2d ed. was published in the first half of November 1875 (Publishers’ circular, 16 November 1875, p. 932). Variation 2d ed. was published in the second half of February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168); however, it carried an 1875 publication date. Origin 6th ed. (1872) was the last revision of Origin published in CD’s lifetime; however, John Murray issued a reprint with minor textual corrections in 1876 (see Freeman 1977, pp. 86–7). Carus offered to translate Insectivorous plants in his letter of 28 June 1875. The German translation was Carus trans. 1876a.

July 1875

246 7 8

See letter from J. V. Carus, 28 June 1875 and n. 5. CD stayed at Abinger Hall, the home of Thomas Henry Farrer, from 3  June to 6  July  1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

From D. F. Nevill   2 July [1875]1 45, Charles Street How seldom things in this World dove tail in nicely— A wet day and the receipt of your interesting book was, however, all that I could wish2   I have been reading the Drosera’s with the greatest attention and am going thoroughly to digest every part—3 I did so enjoy my afternoon passed with you and Mrs Darwin and if it were not too much to ask—later on—if it were possible I should so like to come down again4 I leave London about the 6th of August Ys most obliged | D Nevill 2d July DAR 172: 33 1 2 3

4

The year is established by the reference to Insectivorous plants (see n. 2, below). Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Nevill’s name is on the presentation list for the book (see Appendix IV). The first twelve chapters of Insectivorous plants focused on Drosera (sundew); the plant’s digestive powers were discussed on pp. 85–135. Nevill had sent CD specimens of D. montana and other plants (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to D. F. Nevill, 7 September 1874, and Insectivorous plants, pp. 281–2 and 431). Nevill visited the Darwins at Down House on 4 May 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)).

From E. F. Lubbock [after 2 July] 18751

From the Insects to their friend, Charles Darwin. We saw that you were watching us, We felt you were our friend, And as we, in a general way, Come to a fearful end, It suddenly occurred to us That we would have a look At what you said about us, So we crawled upon your book. We now have buzzed all over it, And find that, as we feared,

July 1875

247

Voracious Plants could tell us How our friends have disappeared. (I never trusted Drosera, Since I went there with a friend, And saw its horrid tentacles Beginning all to bend.2 I flew away, but he was caught, I saw him squeezed quite flat— I don’t go any more to Plants With habits such as that.) We are very much obliged to you For now of course we shan’t Be taken in and done for By any clever Plant. But this has to be considered: It isn’t much we need, But if we daren’t go to any plant, On what are we to feed? We feel that you, in pointing out The dangers that we run, Have meant to do the kindest thing To us that could be done. Therefore, to your abode in Down, With joyful buzz and hum, From every quarter of the globe, We Insects all will come. Great plates of honey you will set For us upon your lawn, We’ll feast away & bless the day That ever you were born! E F Lubbock 1875. Photocopy Lubbock family (private collection) 1 2

The date is established by the allusion to Insectivorous plants, which was published on 2 July 1875. CD described the inflection of the tentacles in Drosera (sundew) when an insect or some other object came into contact with the leaves in Insectivorous plants, pp. 9–13.

248

July 1875

From R. F. Cooke   3 July 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London, W. July 3 1875 My dear Sir You are to blame. You took such a desponding view of your new work that you made us over cautious & we printed but 1250 Copies, & lo & behold we have sold some 1700 Copies!!!.1 I have ordered Clowes to print off at once 1000 more copies, for fortunately we have kept the type standing.2 If you have detected any errors, let the printers have your corrections as soon as possible. We have charged Appleton £50 for the Stereotypes, which is the same we did for the Expression, & this is very cheap, as this volume is nearly 3 sheets more.3 What about the enclosed note.4 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 456 1 2 3

4

CD had warned his publisher, John Murray, that Insectivorous plants might ‘sell very poorly’ (letter to John Murray, 29 April [1875]). See also letter to R. F. Cooke, 29 June [1875]. Murray had requested that the printers, William Clowes & Sons, keep the text in type in case further copies were required (letter from John Murray, 1 May [1875]). CD had negotiated the charges for stereotypes of Expression for his US publisher, D. Appleton & Co. (see Correspondence vol. 20, letter to R. F. Cooke, 7 August 1872). Stereotypes were prepared by making a mould of each page of type and using the mould to cast metal printing-plates. In an octavo book, sheets are folded three times to produce sixteen pages; so three extra sheets would produce forty-eight more pages. The enclosure has not been found.

To R. F. Cooke   4 July [1875]1 (Abinger Hall) July 4th Home on the 6th. My dear Sir I am uncommonly glad about the sale, & have detected no errata for I have not opened the book since it has been printed.— Your first sentence “You are to blame.”—has made me snigger, for I had hard work to persuade Mr. Murray to print 1250 instead of 1000; though I must own that I thought 1250 wd. have lasted for eternity.2 I do not believe that the sale will ultimately be large. Very many thanks about Messrs Appleton; I hope that you will see that the plates are despatched soon. to his agent Mr Layton(?) in the city.—3

July 1875

249

Will you kindly inform Mr Reinwald of price of stereotypes of wood-blocks; I sent him the copy, as he has published translations of all my books, & pays me a trifle.—4 A German translation is preparing, so Herr Koch will require stereotypes.5 It is likely that a Russian Translation will appear.—6 I am most heartily glad of the Sale.— My dear Sir | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin National Library of Scotland ( John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 332–3) 1 2

3 4

5 6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from R.  F.  Cooke, 3 July 1875. See letter from R. F. Cooke, 3 July 1875 and n. 1. CD’s publisher, John Murray, had proposed printing 1000 copies of Insectivorous plants; CD then offered to pay the printing costs for an additional 250 copies (letter from John Murray, 1 May [1875], and letter to John Murray, 3 May 1875). See letter from R. F. Cooke, 3 July 1875 and n. 3. Charles Layton was the agent of CD’s US publisher, D. Appleton & Co. Charles-Ferdinand Reinwald published the French translation of Insectivorous plants (Barbier trans. 1877). His name is on the presentation list for the book (see Appendix IV). On the fees paid for French translations of CD’s works, see Correspondence vol. 20, letter to R. F. Cooke, [25 October 1872]. Eduard Koch was director of E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, which published the German translation of Insectivorous plants (Carus trans. 1876a). The Russian translation of Insectivorous plants was published in 1876 (Insectivorous plants Russian trans. 1876).

From Julius Sachs1   4 July 1875 Würzburg 4 Juli 1875 Hochgeehrter Herr! Das Erscheinen eines neuen Werkes von Ihnen ist für mich jedesmal ein frohes Ereigniss; auf Ihre Insectivorous plants war ich aber ganz besonders gespannt und um so grösser war die freudige Überraschung, die Sie mir durch die Zusendung dieses merkwürdigen Buchs bereitet haben. Nicht minder danke ich Ihnen für den so schmeichelhaften Brief.2 Ich beehre mich, gleichzeitig mit diesem die ersten vier bis jetzt publicirten Heften der “Arbeiten des botanischen Instituts in Würzburg” Ihnen zu übersenden;3 dass dieselben verhältnissmässig nur wenig von mir enthalten, ist vorwiegend dadurch veranlasst, dass ich in den letzen Jahren wiederholt genöthigt war, neue Auflagen meines Lehrbuchs zu bearbeiten, wozu noch die Bearbeitung einer “Geschichte der Botanik” kam, die jetzt eben gedruckt wird und welche ich im September mir beehren werde, Ihnen zu übersenden.4 Ich habe es mir besonders angelegen sein lassen, in dieser historischen Darstellung nachzuweisen, dass die von Ihnen begründete Descendenztheorie auch für die Botanik eine neue Epoche begründet, dass erst mit ihr Klarheit, Princip und Consequenz in unsere Forschungen eingeführt worden ist.5

250

July 1875

Ich bin seit 24 Stunden im Besitz Ihres neuen Werkes, welches ich um so ausführlicher studiren werde, als mir das bis jetzt Gelesene zahlreiche Anknüpfungspunkte für Untersuchungen darbietet, die ich nunmehr über die Bedeutung des Protoplasmus für die Reizbarkeit der Pflanzen, für ihre heliotropischen, geotropischen und sonstigen Krümmungen ungestörter als bisher durch zuführen gedenke. Was die auflösende und verdauende Kraft der Droseradrüsen betrifft, so glaube ich, dass dieselbe mit dem Einfluss des vegetabilischen Embrÿos auf das Endosperm während der Keimung verglichen werden könnte. Offenbar scheidet der Embrÿo der Palmen, der Gräser, der Euphorbiaceen usw.  eine Flüssigkeit aus, welche die Stoffe des Endosperms auflöst, damit sie vom Saugorgan aufgesogen werden können.6 Ausführlicheres darüber habe ich in meiner Keimungsgeschichte der Dattel (botanische Zeitung 1862 p 241 ff) mitgetheilt; leider besitze ich kein Exemplar dieser Arbeit mehr.7 Ich habe früher auch gezeigt, dass Wurzeln im Stande sind Marmor und andere Mineralien aufzulösen.8 Ich möchte glauben, dass auch die Wurzeln der Parasiten auflösend auf die Stoffe der Nährpflanzen wirken, dass ebenso Pilzfäden und die Wurzeln der Neottia u dgl. einen Saft ausscheiden, der die organischen Stoffe ihrer Umgebung löst und aufnehmbar macht.9 Es scheint daher, dass die Excrete der Droseradrüsen nur einen besonderen Fall eines im Pflanzenreich verbreiteten Processes darstellen, dass aber hier das Klarste Beispiel desselben vorliegt; und grade diese Verallgemeinerung Ihrer so bewunderungswerthen Ergebnisse scheint mir den Werth dieser letzteren noch zu steigern.10 Es wäre mir höchst werthvoll zu erfahren, ob Sie dieser Generalisation Ihre Zustimmung geben. Genehmigen Sie den Ausdruck meiner aufrichtigsten Verehrung und Bewunderung; Ihr ganz ergebenster | D. J. Sachs DAR 177: 4 1 2 3

4

5

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. CD’s letter to Sachs has not been found. Sachs’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). CD’s copies of the four issues of Arbeiten des botanischen Instituts in Würzburg have not been found; these four issues form the first volume of the journal. Hugo de Vries had sent CD two articles from the third issue (Vries 1873a and 1873b; see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to Hugo de Vries, 19 February 1874); CD’s annotated copies of these articles are in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Sachs contributed four articles to the first volume of Arbeiten des botanischen Instituts in Würzburg between 1872 and 1874. The fourth edition of Lehrbuch der Botanik (Text-book of botany; Sachs 1868) was published in late 1874 (Sachs 1874b; see Thiselton-Dyer 1875, p. 295). CD’s annotated copies of the second and third German editions (Sachs 1870 and 1873), as well as an annotated French translation of the third edition (Sachs  1874a) are in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 727–30).  An English translation was published in April 1875 (Sachs 1875a; Publishers’ circular, 16 April 1875, p. 282). In Insectivorous plants CD referred frequently to the French translation, Sachs 1874a. CD’s copy of Geschichte der Botanik (History of botany; Sachs 1875b) is in the Darwin Library–CUL. In his history of botany (Sachs 1875b, pp. 12–13), Sachs argued that there had been an ever-growing discrepancy between scientific research and the theoretical views of systematists within botany. He pointed out that a true concept of relationship was impossible to define in a system that posited the dogma of constancy of species. However, he believed that when CD’s theory of evolution appeared, researchers could develop a truly natural system based on real genealogical relationships rather than on a priori classificatory grounds.

July 1875 6 7

8

9

10

251

Euphorbiaceae is the family of spurges. In Insectivorous plants, p. 362, CD had referred to Sachs 1874a on the power of the embryo to dissolve the ‘albuminous substances out of the endosperm’. In his paper, ‘Zur Keimungsgeschichte der Dattel’ (On the problem of germination of the date; Sachs 1862, p. 243), Sachs described the specialised absorptive organ of the embryo, which dissolved and absorbed the contents of the endosperm. In his article ‘Auflösung des Marmors durch Mais-Wurzeln’ (Dissolution of marble by maize roots; Sachs 1860), Sachs described an experiment in which he exposed marble tiles to the roots of maize plants for three months, after which he found corrosion marks on the marble. He reported similar results in later experiments with roots of maize, wheat, pumpkin, nasturtium, and kidney-beans (Sachs 1864). Sachs argued that the absorption of nutrients in the endosperm by the embryo pointed the way to understanding the absorption of nutrients by saprophytes, which possessed no chlorophyll (Sachs 1875a, p. 643). Neottia is a genus of terrestrial orchids that includes species which lack chlorophyll and depend on fungi for nutrition. Mycelia, the vegetative parts of fungi, are made up of masses of thread-like branching filaments. Most of CD’s experimental work described in Insectivorous plants was performed on Drosera rotundifolia (common or round-leaved sundew).

To J. J. Weir   5 July 1875 Down, Beckenham, Kent [Abinger Hall, Surrey.] July 5, 1875 My dear Sir Please to look over the enclosed note and return it to me.1 I am very much interested in the subject, and should be glad to know whether you keep to the same judgment and whether you have made any further observations. Am I right in supposing that none of the flowers were of a hybrid or mingled nature like those of C. Adami? for this makes your case very peculiar? Your letter is dated 1870, and I should like to know whether the grafted C. purpureus produced a twig bearing yellow flowers during this or some previous year.2 I am especially desirous to learn how the tree has behaved since you wrote to me. I am correcting a new edit. of my Var., and I feel sure that you will excuse my troubling you.3 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin. Copy DAR 148: 334 1 2

CD evidently enclosed the letter from J. J. Weir, 27 June 1870 (Correspondence vol. 18). Weir had described specimens of the yellow-flowered Cytisus alpinus (now Laburnum alpinum, Scotch laburnum) that were grafted with the purple broom, C. purpureus, resulting in branches with either yellow or purple flowers, but no intermediate forms (Correspondence vol. 18, letter from J. J. Weir, 27 June 1870). In Variation 1: 390 n. 94, CD had described a hybrid ‘C. alpino-laburnum’ with characteristics exactly intermediate between the parent forms. Cytisus adami is a graft hybrid of the common yellow laburnum, C. laburnum (now Laburnum anagyroides), and C. purpureus; C. adami is now known as +Laburnocytisus adamii (Bean 1970–88, 2: 510–11). CD discussed C. adami in Variation 1: 387–90, noting that some branches bore the dingy red flowers of the hybrid form, while others commonly reverted to the parent species, bearing either yellow or purple flowers, or flowers that were half yellow and half purple.

252 3

July 1875

CD began work on Variation 2d ed. on 6 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). For the discussion of Cytisus adami, see Variation 2d ed. 1: 413–17.

From Arnold Dodel1   6 July 1875 Zürich den 6 Juli 1875. Mr. Charles Darwin in Down, Beckenham, Kent, | England. Hochgeehrtester Herr! Ihr köstliches Werk “Insectivorous Plants”, welches zu senden Sie die Güte hatten, kam mir letzten Samstag, 3. Juli, richtig zu, eben in dem Augenblicke, da ich in dem Begriffe stand, mit meinen Schülern eine botanische Excursion an den 112 Stunden von hier entfernten Katzensee zu unternehmen.2 Beim raschen durchblättern Ihres glänzenden Werkes, das mich als Botaniker ganz besonders interessiren muß, fand ich das hübsche Capitel über Drosera rotundifolia, eine am Katzensee in Tausenden von Exemplaren vorkommenden Pflanze. Ihr Buch mußte daher die Excursion mitmachen und es hat uns treffliche Dienste geleistet. Wir fanden die Pflanze im günstigsten Stadium u hatten Gelegenheit, hunderte von gefangenen Insekten, lebend, todt u in Auflösung begriffen, auf den Blättern von Drosera zu sehen. Meine Schüler waren nicht weniger erstaunt u erfreut als ich u das veranlaßte mich, einige Dutzend der lebenden Pflanze mit nach Hause zu nehmen, um die Beobachtungen zu wiederholen. Am Sonntag (4/VII) experimentirte ich mit kleinen Fliegen, Eiweißstückchen, Fleisch etc., nahm auch Zeichnungen auf u habe nun das Vergnügen, in meinem botanisch-mikroskopischen Laboratorium auf der hiesigen Universität dutzenden von fleißigen Studenten die Resutate Ihrer Untersuchungen an der lebenden Pflanze zu demonstriren.3 Ich sage nicht zu viel, wenn ich Ihnen mittheile, daß Ihre neuste glänzende Arbeit an hiesiger Universität bereits großes Interesse geweckt hat. Professoren u Studenten nehmen fleissig von den vorgenommenen Experimenten Notiz; nächsten Donnerstag wird eine 2te Excursion zu demselben Zwecke an den Katzensee führen. Kurz, wir Alle, die Freunde u Apostel Ihrer fruchtbaren Theorie, bringen Ihnen unsern Dank dar. Die Verehrung, die hier Ihrem Namen zu Theil wird, mag Ihnen etwelchen Trost bieten, (wenn Sie desselben bedürfen—) gegenüber gehässigen Verhöhnungen. Ihre neueste kostbare Arbeit über “Insektenfressende Pflanzen” bestärkt mich neuerdings in der Uberzeugung, daß alle Organe, so unbedeutend sie uns erscheinen mögen, Haare, Trichome etc. der betreffenden Species ihren Nützen bringen. Ich meine—u habe dies auch offen in meiner “Schöpfungsgeschichte”, entgegen meinem hochverehrten Lehrer: Prof. C. Nägeli in München, ausgesprochen—es giebt keine sogenannten morphologischen Arten.4 Wo wir den Nutzen einer unscheinbaren “morphologischen” Differenz zwischen verschiedenen Formen noch nicht erkannt haben, da müssen wir an Ihrem Princip der “natural selection” noch keineswegs verzweifeln. Was wir noch nicht erkennen, das wird von einer folgenden Generation

July 1875

253

erkannt werden. Diese Ansicht theilen auch andere Botaniker die in der Wissenschaft einen guten Klang haben, so z. B. A. Kerner in Insbruck dessen vorzügliche Arbeit über Asyngamie etc.  ich in meiner “Schöpf-Gesch.” vorläufig angezeigt habe.5 Kurz, wir glauben daß es mit den sogenannten “morphologischen Arten”, die auf dem Wege natürl. Zuchtwahl nicht entstanden sein sollen, Nichts ist, mit andern Worten: daß das Princip der natürlichen Zuchtwahl bei der Differenzirung aller Species mitgewirkt hat. So glauben wir denn, wir Vertreter u Apostel Ihrer Theorie auf dem Continent, daß das Princip der natürl. Zuchtwahl im Kampf um’s Dasein sich in allen Fällen von Species-Bildung bestätigen wird. Wir treten keinen Rückzug an: die zahlreichen biologischen Arbeiten der Neuzeit lassen uns getrost weiter dociren: Darwin hat Recht. Ich bin im Begriff, eine hübsche Untersuchung über die untere Grenze des pflanzlichen Geschlechtslebens im Manuscript (mit 8 Tafeln) abzuschliessen. Ohne die Kenntniß Ihrer Theorie wäre ich schwärlich dazugekommen, diese Resultate zu erhalten. Sobald meine Arbeit über “Ulothrix zonata” und ihre geschlechtliche u ungeschlechtliche Fortpflanzung” die Presse verlassen wird, werde ich Ihnen solche zusenden.6 Meinen herzlichen Dank für Ihr ausgezeichnetes Buch! Mögen Sie Ihren Jüngern noch lange, lange erhalten bleiben! Meinen tiefsten Empfindungen hiermit in schwachen Worten Ausdruck gebend, verbleibe ich | in tiefster Verehrung: | Dr. Arnold Dodel, | Docent der Botanik | a /d. Universität Zürich. DAR 162: 195 1 2 3 4

5

6

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Dodel’s name is on CD’s presentation list for the book (Appendix IV). Katzensee is a lake on the border of Zurich. For CD’s experiments with Drosera rotundifolia (common or round-leaved sundew) using egg white and other substances, see Insectivorous plants, pp. 92–128. In his book, Die neuere Schöpfungsgeschichte nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Naturwissenschaften (New history of creation according to the present state of natural science; Dodel 1875, pp. 92–8), Dodel had discussed the history of the concept of species. He noted that Carl von Nägeli, while accepting the formation of new varieties through natural selection, still recognised the existence of basic kinds from which varieties derived through adaptation to local conditions. Nägeli had outlined his theory in an essay on the origin and the concept of natural historical species (Nägeli 1865); for more on his notion of morphological characteristics not subject to natural selection, and CD’s response, see Correspondence vol. 16, letters to J. D. Hooker, 25 December [1868] and 29 December 1868; see also Origin 5th ed., pp. 151–7). Anton Kerner von Marilaun had presented his work on asyngamy (the prevention of intercrossing in plants due to different flowering periods) in early 1874, but its publication was delayed, so Dodel relied on a letter from Kerner von Marilaun in his discussion of Kerner’s findings (Kerner von Marilaun 1874; see Dodel 1875, pp. 276–7). Dodel’s study, Die Kraushaar-Alge, Ulothrix zonata. Ihre geschlechtliche und ungeschlechtliche Fortpflanzung (frizzy hair alga, Ulothrix zonata. Its sexual and asexual reproduction; Dodel 1876) appeared in Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Botanik. CD’s offprint of the paper is in the Darwin Library–CUL. Ulothrix zonata is a

254

July 1875

species of algae that can reproduce both sexually and asexually, depending on variations in light and temperature.

From J. J. Weir   6 July 1875

6 Haddo Villas | Blackheath SE 6 July 1875

My Dear Sir I am still of the same opinion as that expressed in my notes enclosed. I believe that each year since I last wrote large yellow pendulous racemes have appeared amongst the purple erect blooms.—1 This Spring I carefully again examined the tree, and found yellow racemes nearly at the top-most branch, I also found one other tree amongst my Brothers very extensive collection, which had been grafted in the same manner by his own gardener, with large yellow flowers some feet from the graft.—2 The case is not the same as that of Cytisus adami,3 but I will try and see my Brother to night at his town house and ascertain from him whether he has observed any racemes of a composite character, ie with both kind of flowers, I have not myself seen any.— It is one of my greatest pleasures to reply to your enquiries.— Believe me | Yours very truly | J Jenner Weir C Darwin Esqr DAR 181: 85 CD annotation On cover: ‘Ctyisus adami | Weir’s case’ pencil 1

2 3

Weir refers to his letter to CD of 27 June 1870 (Correspondence vol. 18). Weir had described a hybrid laburnum produced by grafting the yellow-flowered Cytisus alpinus (now Laburnum alpinum, Scotch laburnum) with the purple broom, C. purpureus (see letter to J. J. Weir, 5 July 1875 and n. 2). The Cytisus specimens were in Harrison William Weir’s garden. The gardener has not been identified. On Cytisus adami (now +Laburnocytisus adamii), see the letter to J. J. Weir, 5 July 1875 and n. 2.

From John Lubbock   7 July [1875]1

15, Lombard Street, E.C. 7 July

My dear Mr Darwin Nelly2 thinks perhaps it would seem hardly courteous to the Duke not to ask him down, so if you see no objection I will when you are fairly settled write & propose the previous arrangement.3 Yours affec | J Lubbock DAR 170: 78

July 1875 1 2 3

255

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to John Lubbock, 3 May [1875]. Ellen Frances Lubbock. Lubbock had previously tried to arrange for CD to come to High Elms to meet Francis, duke of Teck (see letter to John Lubbock, 3 May [1875] and n. 3). CD had just returned from Abinger Hall in Surrey on 6 July (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

From James Paget   7 July 1875 1, Harewood Place, | Hanover Square. | W. July 7. 1875 My dear Darwin Pardon my writing on a railway and let me thank you for your book on Insectivorous Plants.—1the more at this time because, while reading it, I have been thoroughly enjoying myself on what might have been a very dull long journey.— But neither my reading nor my thanks are yet ended— I am charmed with your suggestion that fairy-rings illustrate the insusceptibility of soils,—whether bloods, tissues, or earths—that have been once infected—2 I have sometimes vaguely thought so, but you make me nearly sure— I have been told that fairy-rings sometimes appear very quickly,—large and complete rings appearing where no small ones were before— I do not know if this ever happens, and I must admit that my informant ascribed the occurrence to electricity; but he said he had observed it on his own lawn—3 If such rings are ever complete from the first, I have thought there might be mutual illustration between them and some annular diseases which one sees in the skin— Some forms of Herpes are from the first annular.— still more often some forms of Psoriasis and of syphilitic ulcers; and when these begin in rings or parts of rings, they usually extend only outwards, and if they meet they coalesce but do not cross— I will try to set some one to work this out— And, I will not forget your wish for cases of re-growth of amputated members.4 I think I can soon find them and I will send them to you directly— Always sincerely your’s | James Paget. Charles Darwin Esq. DAR 174: 9 1 2

3

Paget’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (Appendix IV). Fairy-rings are commonly found in grass and woodland where feeding threads of underground fungi spread outwards in widening circles. In lawns, the grass above the fungus may be killed or growth at the periphery of the fungus stimulated, resulting in rings of lush grass with brown or dead grass in between (see Gregory 1982). No letter from CD to Paget on this subject has been found; see, however, the letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 16 July 1875. The informant has not been identified. On nineteenth-century explanations for fairy-rings, including electricity, see Lees 1868, pp. 215–23.

256 4

July 1875

CD had discussed the regeneration of tissues and appendages in Variation 2: 376–7; he was currently preparing Variation 2d ed. (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

From Herbert Spencer   7 July 1875 38, Queen’s Gardens, | Bayswater. July. 7th. 1875 Dear Darwin, I was surprised by your new volume—wondering how, with your state of health, you had managed to make such extensive inquiries and to prepare so elaborate a statement of results. Thank you very much for it.1 I would it had come years ago, while the Biology was in progress;2 so that I might have turned its varied information to more account than I fear I shall now be able to do Sincerely yours | Herbert Spencer DAR 177: 234 1 2

Spencer’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (Appendix IV). Principles of biology (Spencer 1864–7).

To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   7 July 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. July 7 1875 My dear Professor Dyer I am now in the midst of correcting the “Variation” & shall be extremely obliged for any corrections & notes;1 but I want to avoid making the book larger, by adding any thing which is not important. I have long wished to become acquainted with Professor Lancaster, & I shall be very happy if you & he will come here on some Sunday towards the end of the month.2 There is a train which leaves Charing X at 2.30 & I hope you will sleep here & we will send you to the station the next morning. Will you be so good as to give me some days notice, as relations sometimes fill our house on a Sunday. As I should be extremely sorry to appear ungracious to Prof. Lancaster, I hope that you will tell him that I am incapable of talking with friends for more than a short time Pray believe me | yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (W. T. Thiselton-Dyer Letters from CD: 23–4) 1 2

CD began work on Variation 2d ed. on 6 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Thiselton-Dyer and Edwin Ray Lankester visited Down on Sunday 18 July 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)).

July 1875 From J. J. Weir   7 July 1875

257 6 Haddo Villas | Blackheath SE 7 July 1875

My Dear Sir I fortunately found my Brother1 in Town last evening.— He tells me that there has been no case of a composite or hybrid raceme in the Laburnum grafted with Cytisus purpureus, it seems also an interesting fact that the purple blooms have not produced seed, he thinks none at all, whilst on the other hand the yellow racemes have produced seed, these the gardener has sown and some strong plants have been reared.—2 There are also some curious cases in his garden of Cratægus oxyacanthus grafted with pink double varieties, producing each year some branches which bear white blooms, this may be a sport or the effect of the stock.—3 Since I wrote about the variegation of green ivies by being pla〈  〉 on a wall near the variegated variety, Hedera helix aurea robusta, I have had several more cases of other varieties of ivies being stained with yellow by propinquity with the variety above stated.—4 Believe me | My Dear Sir | Yours very truly | J Jenner Weir C Darwin Esqr DAR 181: 86 CD annotations 1.1 I … evening.—] crossed ink 3.1 There … stated.— 4.4] crossed ink 1 2 3 4

Harrison William Weir. On CD’s interest in the grafted laburnum, see the letter to J. J. Weir, 5 July 1875 and n. 2. Crataegus oxyacantha is a synonym of Crataegus monogyna (common or single-seeded hawthorn; Christensen 1992). It has single white flowers. CD discussed a similar grafted hawthorn in Variation 1: 377. See Correspondence vol. 18, letter from J. J. Weir, 27 June 1870. Hedera helix is the common or English ivy.

From T. S. Baynes   8 July 1875 Encyclopædia | Britannica. | 6 North Bridge. | Edinburgh 8. July 1875 Dear Sir, Will you pardon me if I take the liberty of asking whether you could contribute to the new Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica a short article on Breeds and Breeding.1 Professor Huxley has suggested headings under which Natural History might be dealt with in the new Edition.2 I enclose a copy of his list, & you will see that the subject of Breeding is among the more general articles which he has suggested. The article should I presume give an outline of the main results of domestication—of the nature & amount of change in animal & vegetable life produced by direct human agency.3

258

July 1875

I have just had a conversation with Prof: Huxley4 on the subject, & as the result of it I have decided to apply for your help. Again apologising for the liberty I have thus taken | I am dear Sir | yours truly | Thos: S. Baynes. Charles Darwin Esqe. DAR 160: 100 1 2

3

4

Baynes was general editor of the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1875–89; ODNB). Thomas Henry Huxley advised Baynes on natural science and contributed articles on biology and evolution (EB 9th ed. 1: vii and index). In a prefatory note, Baynes remarked that a central aim of the new edition was to reflect the rapid progress of science during the last quarter century (EB 9th ed. 1: v). The article ‘Breeds and breeding’ was written by Francis Darwin; a note stated that ‘many of the facts and arguments contained in the present article are taken from Mr Darwin’s work, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication 1868, and 2nd ed. 1876’ (EB 9th ed. 4: 244). Huxley was lecturing in Edinburgh (letter from T. H. Huxley, 5 June 1875).

From Joseph Fayrer   8 July 1875

16 Granville Place 8 July 1875

Dear Mr. Darwin Very many thanks for the copy of your last work just received.1 I shall prize it highly, and read it with great interest. I am going out to India with the Prince of Wales2 if I can do anything there for you I shall be honoured by your commands   I trust you are well! Believe me | Your’s very truly | J. Fayrer DAR 164: 113 1

2

Fayrer’s name is on the presentation list for Insectivorous plants (Appendix IV). He had supplied CD with information about the effects of cobra poison (see Correspondence vol.  22  and Insectivorous plants, pp. 206–8, 224). Fayrer accompanied Albert Edward (later Edward VII) on his tour of India from October 1875 to May 1876 (ODNB s.v. Fayrer, Sir Joseph).

To J. J. Weir   8 July [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) July 8th My dear Sir I thank you cordially. The case interests me in a higher degree than anything which I have heard for a very long time.—2 Is it your Brother Harrison W. whom I know? I shd. like to hear where the garden is.3 There is one other very important point which I am most anxious to hear, viz the nature of the leaves at the base of the yellow racemes, for leaves are always there produced with the yellow Laburnums, & I suppose so in the case of C. purpureus.4

July 1875

259

As the tree has produced yellow racemes several times, do you think you could ask your brother to cut off & send me by Post in a box a small branch of the purple stock with the pods or leaves of the yellow sport? This wd. be an immense favour, for then I would cut the point of junction longitudinally & examine slice under the microscope to be able to state no trace of bud of yellow kind having been inserted.— I do not suspect anything of the kind, but it is sure to be said that your Brother’s gardener either by accident or fraud inserted a bud. Under this point of view it wd be very good to gather from your Brother how many times the yellow sport has appeared. The case appears to me so very important as to be worth any trouble. Very many thanks for all assistance so kindly given. Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin I will of course send copy of new Edit. of Var. under Dom: when published in autumn.—5 P.S As you say on account of sports I fear to trust Cratægus.6 Boston Public Library (Rare Books MSS Acc. 324) 1 2 3 4

5 6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. J. Weir, 7 July 1875. See letter to J. J. Weir, 5 July 1875 and n. 2. Harrison William Weir’s garden was at Weirleigh, Brenchley, Kent (letter from J. J. Weir, 9 July 1875). Weir had described specimens of Cytisus alpinus (now Laburnum alpinum, Scotch laburnum) that, when grafted with C. purpureus (purple broom), produced branches with either yellow or purple flowers (see letter to J. J. Weir, 5 July 1875 and n. 2). Variation 2d ed. was published in the second half of February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1875, p. 168); however, it carried an 1875 publication date. See letter from J. J. Weir, 7 July 1875 and n. 3. Crataegus: hawthorn.

From Rudolph Riemann1   9 July 1875 Hochgeehrtester Herr! In Bezug auf Ihr Werk: “Über die Entstehung der Arten” erlaube mir zu Capitel IX Folgendes mitzutheilen:2 Als professioneller Schafzüchter habe ich die Bastardirung von Serinus hortulanus (Girlitz) mit Dryospiza canaria (Kanarienvogel) hauptsächlich zu Klarlegung des Vererbungsgesetzes angestellt.3 Dabei bin ich zu dem von Ihnen bekanntgegebenen Gesetze des “Prosper Lucas” gekommen;4 Ausnahmen finden nur bei hervorragender Individual-Potenz statt, die nach meiner Erfahrung kräftigen Thieren besonders eigen ist. Mit möglichster Vermeidung aller Inzucht, die ich als Züchter zu hassen weiss, habe ich nun in diesem Jahre verehelicht: I:

Männchen:

31 32

Dryospiza

1 32

Serinus

Weibchen:

15 16

dto

1 16

dto

July 1875

260 II: III IV.

Männchen:

15 16

Dryospiza

1 16

Serinus

Weibchen:

7 8

dto

1 8

dto

Männchen

31 32

Dryospiza

1 32

Serinus

Weibchen

31 32

dto

1 32

dto

Männchen

7 8

dto

1 8

dto

Weibchen

31 32

dto

1 32

dto

Aus sämmtlichen dieser Paarungen sind Kinder erzeugt worden und erwachsen. ich diene hiemit zur Ansicht von, aus beiden Theilen Bastard “Eltern” in I

mit

61 64

II

"

29 32

III

"

31 32

IV

"

59 64

Dryospiza

3 64

Serinus

dto

3 32

dto

dto

1 32

dto

dto

5 64

dto.

Um unter allen Umständen zu dem jetzt schon erreichten Resultate zu kommen, eine neue Art zu bilden, habe ich die Bastardirung durch “Anpaarung” zugleich 63 weiter getrieben und kann ich mit der Ansicht von 64 Dryospiza m. 641 Serinus die1 nen, deren Vater Bastard (32 Serinus) u. deren Mutter Dryospiza ist. Auf Wunsch theile gern alles Nähere mit und bevollmächtige zu jedem beliebigen Gebrauche dieser Mittheilung. Die Thatsachen selbst bin ich jeder Zeit bereit zu beeiden. Mit vorzüglichster Hochachtung | ganz ergebenst | Rud. Rieman | Breslau, Centralbahnhof 31. z. Z.  auf meiner | Besitzung: | Zell am See, | Herzogthurm Salzburg, | 9. VII. 75. [Contemporary translation] Honoured Sir, With reference to yr. work ‘The Origin’ I permit myself to communicate the following touching Chapt. IX. Principally with a view to the elucidation of the law of inheritance I, as a professional breeder of sheep, have induced the crossing of Serinus hortulanus (Girlitz) with Dryospiza Canaria (Canarienvogel). Thereby have I arrived at the known law of Prosper Lucas, given by you.— Exceptions only resulted from preponderating individual potency, which according to my experience is especially apt to appear in powerful animals.

July 1875

261

I have, in the present year made the following crosses, with all possible avoidance of in & in breeding, which I as a breeder have learnt to dislike. I II III IV

male

31 32

Dryospiza

1 32

Serinus

female

15 16

ditto

1 16

ditto

male

15 16

Dryo.

1 16

Ser.

female

7 8

ditto

1 8

ditto

male

31 32

Dryo.

1 32

Ser.

female

31 32

Dryo.

1 32

ditto

male

7 8

ditto

1 8

ditto

female

31 32

ditto

1 32

ditto

From every one of these crosses young were bred & grew up. Hereby I use the following proportions from hybrid parents on both sides: from— I II III IV

61 64 29 32 31 32 59 64

Dryos.

3 64

Serinus

—

3 32

—

—

1 32

—

—

5 64

—

In order under all conditions to come to the results now already attained—the formation of a new species—I have carried yet further the hybridism by pairing, and 63 I can make use of the proportion 64 Dryospiza, 641 Serinus, whose father is a hybrid 1 ( 32 Serinus) & whose mother is Dryospiza. You may use this how you like   I can vouch for the facts Rud: Riemann Zell am See | Herzagthum Salzburg DAR 176: 157, 157/1 CD annotations 2.1 Serinus hortulanus 2.2] underl blue crayon 2.2 (Girlitz)] ‘in Bechstein Fringilla serinus Linn.’5 added ink 2.2 Dryospiza canaria] underl blue crayon 1 2 3

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. A contemporary translation found with the letter is included above. Chapter 9 of Origin 6th ed. was on hybridism. Riemann bred sheep on his estate at Sagschütz near Breslau (now Wrocław in Poland; for more on his theories of sheep breeding, see Riemann 1875). Serinus hortulanus is a synonym of Serinus serinus (the

262

4

5

July 1875

serin). Dryospiza canaria is a synonym of Serinus canaria (the wild canary). Crosses between canaries and finches are briefly mentioned in Origin 6th ed., p. 240. Prosper Lucas is cited in Origin 6th ed., p. 261, on the ‘laws of resemblance’, namely, that offspring tend to resemble both parents even when the parents are of different varieties or species; and that cases in which the offspring more closely resemble one parent are rare in hybrids. CD’s extensively annotated copy of Lucas’s work on heredity (Lucas 1847–50) is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 513–23). Fringilla serinus is a synonym of Serinus serinus. CD had read two works by Johann Matthäus Bechstein (Bechstein 1789–95 and Bechstein 1840), both of which discussed the interbreeding of canaries and finches. CD’s heavily annotated copies are in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 38–47).

From J. J. Weir   9 July 1875

Weirleigh | Brenchley | Kent 9th July 1875

My Dear Sir This morning after the receipt of your note I left home for my Brother Harrison Weirs country place, address as above & shall remain there till Monday.—1 The Gardener has cut off and I have sent you a branch of the Laburnum, cut as near as possible to the thick stem, the two smaller shoots at the side are purpureus; the contrast throughout the tree between the two kinds of foliage is most striking, the leaves of the shoots producing the yellow racemes are treble the size of those producing purple flowers, and so very much more robust, I should say that a yellow flowered shoot would grow, in most cases, three or four times as long as a shoot of purpureus in a season.—2 You may dismiss from your mind all doubts as to whether a graft had been inserted, the first yellow sport shewed itself within a few inches of the stock & in a place it could not have been grafted, in fact it came out from the side of the main stem about 5 feet from the ground, this we observed for some years, afterwards about 9 feet from the ground some other yellow flowers shewed themselves, and seeded profusely.— The gardener could not have budded or grafted the tree without my Brothers very sharp sight observing it.— I have questioned the head Gardener closely and he assures me the tree has not been tampered with.— I feel as certain as possible that the case is genuine.— My Brothers is a wonderful garden all designed by himself and planted with the choicest trees and shrubs, numbering many thousands.— He has about 6 acres ornamental and an orchard of about 2 acres.— The exquisite taste displayed in all the minor details is delightful to see.— Believe me | My Dear Sir | Yours very sincerely | J Jenner Weir C Darwin Esqr. DAR 181: 87 1 2

CD had asked about the location of Harrison William Weir’s garden (letter to J. J. Weir, 8 July [1875]). See letter to J. J. Weir, 8 July [1875] and n. 4. The gardener has not been identified.

July 1875

263

To M. T. Masters   10 July [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 10th My dear Sir I thank you cordially for your excellent review, & which as coming from you is highly honourable to me & has given me much satisfaction,—all the more as I was quite knocked up & wearied with the subject, so that I had to take a month’s complete rest away from home.—2 Many thanks, also, for all your trouble about the gooseberry. The case seems to stand in 1875, as it did in 1867.3 If you get any important information, perhaps you will insert it in the Chronicle & then I shall see it.— I return the extracts. I enclose a note (which please burn, & it requires no answer from you) about a curious point (i.e if it is not a cock & a bull story) which might possibly be worth your while to investigate.4 Believe me | Yours sincerely & obliged | Ch. Darwin Smithsonian Libraries (Special Collections, Dibner Library MSS 405 A. Gift of the Burndy Library) 1 2

3 4

The year is established by the reference to the gooseberry case (see n. 3, below). Masters’s review of Insectivorous plants appeared in Gardeners’ Chronicle, 10 July 1875, pp. 44–5. CD had stayed at Abinger Hall, Surrey, the home of Thomas Henry and Katherine Euphemia Farrer, from 3 June to 6 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). In Variation 1: 376, CD had reported two cases of gooseberry bushes that bore different kinds of berries. This was unchanged in Variation 2d ed. The note has not been found.

To J. J. Weir   10 July 1875

Down, Beckenham, Kent July 10 1875

My dear Sir I do not know how to thank you enough; pray give also my thanks and kind remembrances to your brother.1 I am sure you will forgive my expressing my doubts freely, as I well know that you desire the truth more than anything else. I cannot avoid the belief that some nurseryman has sold C. adami to your brother in place of the true C. purpureus.2 The latter is a little bush only 3 ft. high (Loudon),3 and when I read your account, it seemed to me a physical impossibility that a sporting branch of C. alpinus could grow to any size and be supported on the extremely delicate branches of C. purpureus. If I understand rightly your letter, you consider the tuft of small shoots on one side of the sporting C. alpinus from Weirleigh as C. purpureus; but these shoots are certainly those of C. adami. I earnestly beg you to look at the specimens enclosed. The branch of the true C.  purpureus is the largest which I could find. If C. adami was sold to your brother as C. purpureus, everything is explained; for then the gardener has grafted C. adami on C. alpinus, and the former has sported in the usual manner; but has not sported into C. purpureus, only into C. alpinus. C. adami does sport less frequently into C. purpureus than into C. alpinus. Are the purple flowers borne on moderately long racemes? If so, the plant is

264

July 1875

certainly C. adami, for the true C. purpureus bears flowers close to the branches. I am very sorry to be so troublesome, but I am very anxious to hear again from you. My dear Sir | Yours very sincerely | Charles Darwin C. purpureus bears “flowers axillary, solitary, stalked.”4 〈P〉.S I think you said that the purple at Weirleigh does not seed, whereas the pure C. purpureus seeds freely, as you may see in enclosed. C. adami never produces seeds or pods AL and Copy5 American Philosophical Society (466); DAR 148: 336 1 2

3 4 5

Harrison William Weir. Weir had described sporting branches on what he presumed to be a graft of Cytisus purpureus (purple broom) onto the yellow-flowered C. alpinus (now Laburnum alpinum, Scotch laburnum; see letter from J. J. Weir, 9 July 1875). Cytisus adami is a graft hybrid of the common yellow laburnum, C. laburnum (now Laburnum anagyroides), and C.  purpureus; its branches commonly revert to the parent species, bearing either yellow or purple flowers (see letter to J. J. Weir, 5 July 1875 and n. 3). Cytisus adami is now known as +Laburnocytisus adamii. In Variation 2d ed. 1: 417 n. 99, CD added a note about cases in which C. adami had been sold in place of C. purpureus. Cytisus purpureus is described in John Claudius Loudon’s Encyclopædia of plants (Loudon 1841, pp. 624–5). Loudon 1841, p. 625. The letter down to ‘solitary, stalked’ is transcribed from a copy in DAR 148: 336; the postscript was written by CD on the back of the envelope, which is now at the American Philosophical Society.

From G. H. Darwin to William Clowes & Sons   11 July 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Sunday July 11. 75 Gentlemen, Darwin’s Insect: Plants Further errata p. 271 line 8 from bottom for “a little less than the one— ” read “a little more … ” p 301. 1st. line of small type for 2.544 read 2.540 p. 372 line 14. for 2.794 read 2.795 p 373 “experiment 7,” line 4 for 2.794 read 2.795 & 3rd line above “experiment 7” for 1.69 read 1.70 p 375. 4th. line above “experiment 14” for 5.588 read 5.5901 Please be so good as to correct these or insert them in the errata Also if you shd. not have printed off this part already p 270 first word of last line The a of “ample” has dropped out

July 1875

265

p 287 under the figure it should be Dionæa and not Dionœa but do not insert these last two amongst the errata, as they are too insignificant.2 Yours faithfully | George Darwin DAR 86: B24 1 2

The second printing of Insectivorous plants had an errata slip that included these and additional corrections. For the second printing, see the letter from R. F. Cooke, 3 July 1875. These two corrections were made in the text.

From T. H. Farrer   11 July 1875

Abinger Hall, | Wotton. Surrey 11.7.75

My dear Mr Darwin, Staying with my friend Rothery one day this week we amused ourselves with watching Drosera, abundant on the common close by.1 It struck us that it would be interesting to try whether when fed with animal food it does better than when without it— The experiment is so obvious that it must have occurred to you, and you have very likely found difficulties.2 We thought we might put some plants into wet bog-earth or sand: covering some so as to keep insects from them: and leaving others uncovered. Then of the covered some might be artificially fed with white of egg &c: and some left without. Then one must see how much to give—call in Andrew Clark in fact, so as not to encourage gout: since I see they can be overfed by your experiments.3 Then ought they not to flower & fruit. The animal food may have to do with the maturing seed, may it not? Then will it do to take plants from the common—or ought one to gather seed and grow them from it? These and other questions occurred to us. But I thought first of all I would write and ask whether you think the experiment possible and worth trying at all. It is curious—after all the cruelty in Nature—to find that one feels a pang at seeing a wretched fly struggling for hours in the unfeeling remorseless grasp of this harmless looking plant. If Drosera is fertilized by insects it is the most depraved creature in existence adding ingratitude to cruelty You have left us in good time.4 It is almost wintry here today— so windy cold & ungenial. Noel & Miss W. have found the house dull after your departure—but Effie & Ida will be back in a week from tomorrow5 Sincerely yours | T H Farrer DAR 164: 79 1 2

Henry Cadogan Rothery lived at Oak Leigh, Sunninghill, Berkshire (Post Office directory of Northamptonshire, etc.). CD had investigated the digestive powers of Drosera (the sundew), feeding it many different substances (see Insectivorous plants).

266 3

4 5

July 1875

Andrew Clark was CD’s physician; his treatment involved a strict diet (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from Andrew Clark, 3 September 1873, and Correspondence vol. 24, memorandum from Andrew Clark, 8 July 1876). In the Victorian period, gout was often attributed to a rich diet or overindulgent lifestyle (Porter and Rousseau 1998). CD found that certain substances injured the glands of Drosera if administered in too large a quantity, and remarked that the leaves seemed ‘to suffer, like animals, from a surfeit’ (Insectivorous plants, pp. 119, 130). CD stayed at Farrer’s house, Abinger Hall, from 3 June to 6 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Noel Maitland Farrer was Farrer’s youngest child. Miss W.: Katherine Elizabeth Sophy Wedgwood. Ida was Farrer’s daughter, Emma Cecilia Farrer. Effie was Katherine Euphemia, his wife.

To T. H. Farrer   12 July 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 12. 75 My dear Farrer I think the experiment would be well worth trial, but it would be difficult unless D〈ro〉sera grew in some one’s park; for 〈a〉 considerable number of plants ought to be covered up very early in the season, & not fed with insects & an equal number likewise covered up & fe〈d〉; & an equal number of the 〈pla〉nts afterwards weighed, & as 〈you〉 justly observe their see〈d〉ing observed.1 I have found that they can be easily cultivated in soup plates surrounded by moss, & the only care requisite is not to give them too much water; they like a high temperature ie cool hothouse. I had a number of plates & began your experiment last summer, but unfortunately put partitions of zinc across each plate, & this seemed to kill all the plants; any how they quickly grew so unhealthy that I could draw no conclusions. Independantly of seeding it is not improbable that the effects of animal food might be shown on the following year. We had a letter from my son William this morning & he ends with the following words, with which I most heartily concur “we ought really to sign a round robin of thanks of the Farrers, it was so very pleasant there”2 Believe me my dear Farrer | Yours most sincerely | Ch. Darwin P.S | I know nothing about the fertilisation of Drosera LS Linnean Society of London (Farrer 24) 1 2

See letter from T. H. Farrer, 11 July 1875. Drosera: sundew, an insectivorous plant. William Erasmus Darwin visited Abinger Hall, Surrey, the home of Thomas Henry and Frances Euphemia Farrer, on 4 June and 3 July 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). CD was there from 3 June to 6 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). William’s letter has not been found.

To G. J. Romanes   12 July [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 12th r My dear M Romanes I am correcting a 2d Edit. of Var. under Dom: & find that I must do it pretty fully.2

July 1875

267

Therefore I give a short abstract of potato graft-hybrids, & I want to know whether I did not send you a reference about Beet.3 Did you look to this, & can you tell me anything about it? I hope with all my heart that you are getting on pretty well with your experiments: I have been led to think a good deal on subject & am convinced of its high importance, though it will take years of hammering before physiologists will admit that the sexual organs only collect the generative elements.4 The Edit. will be published in November & then you will see all that I have collected, but I believe that you saw all the more important cases.—5 The case of vine in Gard. Chronicle, which I sent you, I think may only be a bud-variation, not due to grafting.—6 I have heard indirectly of your splendid success with nerves of Medusæ.—7 We have been at Abinger Hall for a month for rest which I much required, & I saw there the cut-leaved vine, which seems splendid for graft-hybridisation.8 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin American Philosophical Society (471) 1 2 3

4

5 6 7 8

The year is established by the reference to Variation 2d ed. (see n. 2, below). CD began work on Variation 2d ed. on 6 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). CD expanded his discussion of hybrid potatoes in Variation 2d ed., including numerous cases of intermediate varieties produced by grafting tubers or by inserting eyes of one variety into another (Variation 2d ed. 1: 420–4). On a case of grafted beetroots, see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to G. J. Romanes, 16 December 1874 and n. 9. Romanes had been bisecting buds and tubers to make graft hybrids with the aim of testing CD’s theory of pangenesis (see letter from G. J. Romanes, 14 January 1875 and n. 2). CD briefly discussed the implications of graft-hybrid potatoes for pangenesis in Variation 2d ed. 2: 360. Variation 2d ed. was published in the second half of February 1876 (Publishers’ circular 1876), although it carried an 1875 publication date. For the description of the grafted vine in the Gardeners’ Chronicle, see the letter from G. J. Romanes, 14 January 1875 and n. 3. Romanes’s work on the nervous system of Medusae was eventually published in G. J. Romanes 1876 and 1876–7. CD stayed at Abinger Hall, Surrey, the home of Thomas Henry Farrer, from 3 June to 6 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). CD had arranged for specimens of a vine raised in Farrer’s garden to be sent to Romanes (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 7 April [1875]).

To Mr Russell1   12 July 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 12. 75 Dear Sir I have received Mr. Fitzgerald’s magnificent work all safe, & I will write to him when I have read it2 With many thanks | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS James Lowe Autographs Ltd, New York, catalogue 42 (dealers) (no date)

268 1 2

July 1875

The correspondent is identified as ‘Mr Russell’ in the letter to R. D. Fitzgerald, 16 July 1875. The first part of Robert David Fitzgerald’s Australian orchids (Fitzgerald  1875–94) was published in July 1875 (Aust. dict. biog., s.v. Fitzgerald, Robert David). CD’s annotated copy is in the Darwin Library– CUL (see Marginalia 1: 229–30).

From W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   12 July 1875

10 Gloucester Road | Kew July 12, 1875

My dear Mr Darwin Would you allow Lankester and myself to come next Sunday—the 18th. That is rather sooner than I originally suggested and if it should not be convenient to you to have us then perhaps we might come on the Sunday following1 I have very little of any consequence to send you for the “Variation”. I have checked some of the references and a few I can correct. The most important thing is the crossing of Chamærops humilis by the Date (i. p. 399). This Dr Hooker tells me Naudin has given up.2 We have some of the presumed hybrids at Kew. They are perfectly normal Chamærops. Lankester is very sensible of your kindness in allowing us to visit you together   I had already explained to him—and indeed he knows well—that you are not able to converse very much Believe me | Yours very truly | W. T. Thiselton Dyer DAR 178: 94 1 2

See letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 7 July 1875. Thiselton-Dyer and Edwin Ray Lankester visited Down on 18 July 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). In Variation 1: 399, CD had reported a case of Chamaerops humilis (the European or dwarf fan palm) fertilised with pollen from the date palm, resulting in fruit intermediate in size and shape between the two parent forms; the hybridised seed also produced plants intermediate in character. The case had been described by Charles Victor Naudin in a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker (see Correspondence vol. 15, letter to J. D. Hooker, 21 March [1867] and n. 4). This passage was removed in Variation 2d ed.

From M. J. Berkeley   13 July 1875 Sibbertoft | Market Harborough July 13. 1875 My dear Sir I do not think that the subject of fairy rings has been fully carried out from the first formation. The theory is that the spawn radiates, that the spawn near the centre is exhausted, while that which has spread out is fertile, & that the rank verdure of the grass depends upon the decay of the fungi supplying nitrogenous manure. If from any circumstance a portion of the first emitted spawn dies only an arc of a circle is formed. The difficulty is to trace the early commencement of the ring which I do not recollect that any one has done. There is no doubt that the diameter of the ring increases year after year. As much as 15 yards in diameter have been observed.1

July 1875

269

Dr Gilbert has lately read an important paper before the Linnean Society which will shortly be published shewing that rings are for the most part formed in upland pastures poor in nitrogenous matter, & connecting this with the fact that clover does not get the greater part of its nitrogen from the soil, while the fallen leaves supply the soil with nitrogen & so prepare it for wheat.2 Many woodland fungi form large rings amongst the fallen leaves, which are however only to be seen when the fungi themselves appear. Agaricus nebularis, Hydnum repandum are examples.3 I am, my dear Sir, | very sincerely yours | M J Berkeley.— DAR 160: 175 1 2 3

On fairy-rings, see the letter from James Paget, 7 July 1875 and n. 2. Joseph Henry Gilbert’s paper on fairy-rings was read before the Linnean Society on 3  June  1875 ( J. H. Gilbert 1875). Agaricus nebularis is now Clitocybe nebularis, the cloud funnel. Hydnum repandum is the wood hedgehog mushroom.

From D. F. Nevill   13 [ July 1875]1

45, Charles Street 13th

My dear Mr Darwin I wrote a few days ago to thank you for the great pleasure you had afforded me by sending me your book—2 I can assure you I am reading it with the greatest interest— there is only one thing wanting— if you would give me your autograph to put in to the book it would enhance its value so much in my eyes— Prince Teck was so disappointed he did not see you—3 If at any time you could ever let me come again and pay you and Mrs Darwin a visit I should be truly delighted4 Ys most truly | Dorothy Nevill DAR 172: 29 1 2 3 4

The month and year are established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from D. F. Nevill, 2 July [1875]. Insectivorous plants (see letter from D. F. Nevill, 2 July [1875] and n. 2). Francis, duke of Teck, had planned to visit the Darwins on 11 May 1875 (see letter to John Lubbock, 3 May [1875] and n. 3). Nevill had visited the Darwins for lunch on 4 May 1875 (see letter from Francis Darwin, [4 May 1875] and n. 4).

From G. J. Romanes   14 July 1875

Dunskaith: July 14, 1875.

I was very glad to receive your letter, having been previously undecided whether to write and let you know how I am getting on, or to wait until I got a veritable hybrid.1

270

July 1875

In one of your letters you advised me to look up the ‘beet’ case, but I could nowhere find any references to it.2 Dr. Hooker3 told me that although he could not then remember the man’s name, he remembered that the experimenter did not save the seed, but dug up his roots for exhibition. I forget whether it was Dr. Masters, Bentham, or Mr. Dyer4 who told me that the experiment had been performed in Ireland, although they could not remember by whom. But if the experimenter did not save the seed, the mere fact of his sticking two roots together would have no bearing on Pangenesis, and so I did not take any trouble to find out who the experimenter was. As you have heard about the Medusæ,5 I fear you will infer that they must have diverted my attention from Pangenesis; but although it is true that they have consumed a great deal of time and energy, I have done my best to keep Pangenesis in the foreground. The proximate success of my grafting is all that I can desire, although, of course, it is as yet too early in the year to know what the ultimate success will be. I mean that, although I cannot yet tell whether the tissue of one variety is affecting that of the other, I have obtained intimate adhesion in the great majority of experiments. Potatoes, however, are an exception, for at first I began with a method which I thought very cunning, and which I still think would have been successful but for one little oversight. The method was to punch out the eyes with an electroplated cork-borer, and replace them in a flat-bottomed hole of a slightly smaller size made with another instrument in the other tuber. The fit, of course, was always perfect; but what I went wrong in was not having the cork-borers made of the best steel; for after I got about one hundred potatoes planted out, I found that the inserted plugs did not adhere. I therefore tried some sections with an exceedingly sharp knife that surgeons use for amputating, and the surfaces cut with this always adhered under pressure. The knife, however, must be set up in a guide, in order to get the surfaces perfectly flat. Next year I shall get cork-borers made of the same steel as this knife is made of, and then hope to turn out graft-hybrids by the score. Even this year, however, a great many of my potatoes are coming up, so I hope that some of the eyes may have struck. I think it is desirable to get some easy way of experimenting with potatoes (such as the cork-boring plan), and one independent of delicacy in manipulation, for then everybody could verify the results for himself, and not, as now, look with suspicion upon the success of other people. With beans I get very good adhesion of the young shoots, but the parts which grow after the operation always continue separate. In some cases I am trying a succession of operations as the plant grows. With beetroots and mangold-wurzel of all varieties, adhesion is certain to occur with my method of getting up great pressure by allowing the plants to grow for a few days inside the binding. I have therefore made grafts of all ages, beginning with roots only an inch or two long and as thin as threads. The other vegetables also are doing well, but with flowers I have had no success. The vine-cuttings were too young to do anything with this year, but I hear from my

July 1875

271

cousin, who has charge of them, that they are doing well.6 They certainly have very extraordinary leaves. This year I never expected to be more than one in which to gain experience, for embryo grafting, as it has never been tried by anybody, cannot be learned about except by experiments. But as I am a young man yet, and hope to do a good deal of ‘hammering,’ I shall not let Pangenesis alone until I feel quite sure that it does not admit of being any further driven home by experimental work; and even if I never get positive results, I shall always continue to believe in the theory. I am very sorry to hear that you ‘much needed rest,’7 and do earnestly hope that you will not work too hard over the new edition of one of the most laborious treatises in our language—a treatise to which we always refer for every kind of information that we cannot find anywhere else.8 E. D. Romanes 1896, p. 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Romanes was trying to produce hybrid potatoes by grafting with the aim of testing CD’s theory of pangenesis (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 12 July [1875] and n. 4). CD had mentioned a case of grafted beetroots in his letter to Romanes of 16 December 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22). Joseph Dalton Hooker. Maxwell Tylden Masters, George Bentham, and William Turner Thiselton-Dyer. Romanes was working on the nervous system of medusae (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 12 July [1875] and n. 7). See letter to G. J. Romanes, 12 July [1875] and n. 8. Romanes’s cousin has not been identified. See letter to G. J. Romanes, 12 July [1875]. CD was preparing Variation 2d ed.

To J. J. Weir   14 July 1875 Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 14, 1875. My dear Sir I feared that you would be vexed, but pray think no more about it. I do not believe that any one ever lived who did not make some mistakes, and I know very well that I have blundered over and over again. With many thanks for your uniformly kind assistance.1 | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin. Copy DAR 148: 337 1

Weir’s letter has not been found, but see the letter to J. J. Weir, 10 July 1875 and n. 2. CD and Weir had been corresponding about a supposed graft of Cytisus purpureus (purple broom) onto the yellow-flowered C. alpinus (now Laburnum alpinum, Scotch laburnum). CD thought that Weir had mistaken C. purpureus for Cytisus adami (now known as +Laburnocytisus adamii).

July 1875

272

From Alphonse de Candolle1   15 July 1875 Genève 15 Juillet 1875 Mon cher Monsieur Vous avez eu la bonté de m’envoyer votre volume intéressant sur les Plantes insectivores.2 Je l’etudie avec plaisir— après mon fils3 qui s’en est emparé le premier et qui refait chez lui quelques unes de vos expériences. Lorsque je décrivais les Sarraceniacées, pour le vol. XVII du Prodromus, il m’est arrivé souvent de sortir des urnes une quantité de petits insectes et je m’étonnais de trouver leurs parties dures très bien conservées, le reste ayant disparu.4 Evidemment les substances liquides azotées ou autres avaient été absorbées, mais la plante se porterait peut-être aussi bien sans cela—c’est un fait à constater par la culture ou dans le pays. Je ne doute pas que vos découvertes ne conduisent les observateurs à d’autres dans le même genre, comme pour la fécondation par les insectes. Le petit article sur les bourgeons de la même espèce provenant de deux localités, l’une plus au nord que l’autre, vous a été envoyé tel quel—c’est à-dire un peu trop abrégé parceque l’Académie limite les publications dans les Comptes rendus à 6 pages.5 Il faudra y revenir l’année prochaine avec de nouvelles expériences et avec des explications sur les autres méthodes qui conduisent aux mêmes conclusions. Agréez, mon cher Monsieur, l’expression de mes remerciements et tous mes voeux pour la continuation de vos travaux. | Alph. deCandolle DAR 161: 18 1 2 3 4

5

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Candolle’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). Casimir de Candolle. Sarraceniaceae, a family of pitcher-plants, is described in Candolle and Candolle 1824–73, 17: 1–6. In Insectivorous plants, p. 97, CD briefly mentioned experiments made by Joseph Dalton Hooker on the digestive powers of the tropical pitcher-plant, Nepenthes (family Nepenthaceae). Candolle’s article appeared in Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences (A. de Candolle 1875). It described the effects of temperature and light in hastening or retarding the development of leafbuds and flower-buds in several species of trees. A copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection– CUL.

From William Clowes & Sons   15 July 1875 Wm. Clowes & Sons | Stamford S.t S.E. 15 JUL 75 1st Proof ERRATA. Page 271, line 8 from bottom, for “a little less than the one,” read “a little more than the one.”1 " 301, 1st line of small type, for 2.544, read 2.540. " 372, line 14, for 2.794, read 2.795.

July 1875

273

" 373, Experiment 7, line 1, for 2.794, read 2.795; and 3rd line above Experiment 7, for 1.69, read 1.70. " 375, 4th line above Experiment 15, for 5.588, read 5.590. DAR 86: B23 1

The errata slip was for inclusion in Insectivorous plants 2d thousand. See letter from G. H. Darwin to William Clowes & Sons, 11 July 1875.

To D. F. Nevill   15 July [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 15th Dear Lady Dorothy Nevill. I am proud to send my autograph, & am delighted to hear that any part of my book has interested you.— I ought to have answered your last note, but I was at the time quite overwhelmed with letters.—2 We shall be very glad to see your Ladyship here, but I hope to be in London late in the autumn when I will call on you, & this will save your long journey3 Your Ladyships | Very faithfully & obliged | Ch. Darwin From the Author | With Kind Regards. DAR 185: 122 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from D. F. Nevill, 2 July [1875]. Nevill had thanked CD for his gift of Insectivorous plants and had requested his autograph (letters from D. F. Nevill, 2 July [1875] and 13 [ July 1875]. CD next made an extended visit to London from 10 to 20 December 1875, but there is no record of his meeting Nevill then.

From Lawson Tait   15 July [1875]1

7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. July 15

My Dear Sir, I have finished the book and gone over some of the ground new to me. The evidence of absorption is overwhelming & your discovery of “aggregation” alone is enough to immortalise you.2 I have to review the book for the Spectator so that there you will see my opinion more at length.3 I have also announced “Insectivorous Plants” as the subject of my next annual lecture at the Sunday Society St George’s Hall, Langham Place.4 There are one or two points where I do not think you are yet complete, but I will not weary you with them now. I am working at Droserin, but am sadly hampered for want of material. We cannot get the D. binata anywhere I shall find the same thing no doubt in the secretions of the Nepenthes to which I have abundant access5

274

July 1875

Let me congratulate you on having made as substantial a contribution to biology as any you have yet achieved, and a confirmation of “Darwinism” of the most important character. With best regards | Yours faithfully, | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 14 CD annotation 3.1 We cannot … anywhere 3.2] cross in margin blue crayon 1 2 3 4

5

The year is established by the reference to Insectivorous plants, which was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). CD discussed the aggregation of fluid in the tentacles of plants in Insectivorous plants, pp. 38–65. Tait’s review appeared in the Spectator, 14 August 1875, p. 1036. A copy is in CD’s bound volume of reviews (DAR 226.2). The Sunday Lecture Society sponsored talks on science, literature, and the arts at St George’s Hall in Langham Palace, Regent Street, London. CD was listed as a supporter of the society, and had donated £1. See Barton 2014, pp. 199–206. Tait was trying to isolate substances in the digestive fluid of insectivorous plants. In Nature, 29 July 1875, p. 252, he reported having separated a substance ‘closely resembling pepsine’ from the secretions of Drosera dichotoma (Drosera binata, the forked-leaf sundew) and Nepenthes (the tropical pitcher-plant). He gave the name ‘droserin’ to the substance in later reports of his experiments (Tait 1879; Tait 1879–80; Nature, 30 September 1880, p. 521).

To J. S. Burdon Sanderson   16 July 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 16. 75 My dear Sanderson I have read your essays with the greatest interest & am much obliged to Mrs Sanderson for having sent them.1 I had no idea that so much light had been thrown on the subject. If Dr Bastian knew of these articles he has not written quite fairly in his recent articles.2 I wish your essay had been longer & that you had said something about Mr Lister’s observations.3 I remember being astonished at the cool way in which Dr Bastian spoke of life being always destroyed at 150o F, with organisms living in hot springs staring him in the face.4 Some little time ago Mr Simon sent me the last Report, & your statements about contagion deeply interested me.5 By the way if you see Mr Simon, & can remember it, will you thank him for me, I was so busy at the time that I did not write. Having been in correspondence with Paget lately on another subject, I mentioned to him an analogy which has struck me much, now that we know that sheep-pox is fungoid; & this analogy pleased him. It is that of fairy rings, which are believed to spread from a centre & when they intersect the intersecting portion dies out, as the mycelium cannot grow where it has grown during previous years.6 So again I have never seen a ring within a ring this seems to me parallel case to a man commonly having the smallpox only once. I imagine that in both cases the mycelium must consume all the matter on which it can subsist.

July 1875

275

With respect to Drosera I will modify the passages about globulin &c, but I thought I had made it pretty clear that these substances were not pure; & they to a certain extent answered my purpose in showing that they were acted on in the same manner by Drosera & gastric juice.7 I did not know Dr Moore was dead otherwise I should have spoken more plainly.8 I do not know anyone who could attempt to separate the ferment, & I suppose there would be the greatest difficulty in doing so, as all my observations lead me to believe that the ferment is not secreted until some nitrogenous matter has been absorbed; & would not the addition of such matter make the separation extremely difficult? I feel a good deal of anxiety to know what competent critics may say about my chapter on digestion. my dear Sanderson | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS University of British Columbia, Woodward Library, Charles Woodward Memorial Room (I.xxii) 1 2

3

4

5

6 7

8

The essays sent by Ghetal Burdon Sanderson have not been identified. Burdon Sanderson and Henry Charlton Bastian had recently engaged in a debate about the germ theory of disease and its implications for the origins of life from inanimate matter (see Transactions of the Pathological Society of London 26 (1875): 255–89). CD was familiar with some earlier experiments by Burdon Sanderson that raised questions about Bastian’s claims to have observed spontaneous generation (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 24 June 1873). For more on the controversies surrounding Bastian’s work, see Strick 2000. Joseph Lister had published several articles on bacteria and germ theory that were highly critical of the theory of spontaneous generation (Lister 1873a, 1873b, and 1873c). CD subscribed to the Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, in which one of Lister’s articles appeared (Lister 1873a). Bastian had described numerous experiments in which sealed flasks with organic infusions were subjected to high temperatures and later found to contain living organisms (see Bastian 1872). For CD’s reservations about Bastian’s work, see Correspondence vol. 20, letter to A. R. Wallace, 28 August [1872]). John Simon was the medical officer of the Privy Council. CD may refer to his twelfth report (House of Commons Parliamentary Papers: Public Health. Twelfth report of the medical officer of the Privy Council; 1870 (c. 208) XXXVIII.591), which contained a report by Burdon Sanderson in the appendix, ‘On the intimate pathology of contagion’ (Burdon Sanderson 1870). A copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. On fairy-rings, see the letter from James Paget, 7 July 1875 and n. 2. Burdon Sanderson had carried out experiments on the digestibility of globulin, a type of serum protein found in animals (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 30 March [1874]). The experiments are described in Insectivorous plants, pp. 120–1. Samuel William Moore had supplied CD with globulin (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from S. W. Moore, 7 October 1873, and Correspondence vol. 22, letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 14 May 1874). He died on 15 May 1875 (Medical directory 1876).

From R. F. Cooke   16 July 1875

50A, Albemarle Street, London, W. July 16 1875

My dear Sir As you know we printed 1250 Copies of your new work to begin with & since then a reprint of 1000 copies, to be ready for the binder on Monday next, & when they are bound up lo & behold they are all bespoke.!!!1

276

July 1875

We are therefore sending the work to press again with 750 Copies, making up in all 3000 Copies. All of which we hope has your approval. Have you discovered any errors of the press. Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq Mudie’s Library took 100 & have come for 50 more so it is reading well 2 Simpkin & Co subscribed for 250 & have now doubled their order3 DAR 171: 457 1 2 3

On the first and second printings of Insectivorous plants, see the letter from R. F. Cooke, 3 July 1875, and the letter to R. F. Cooke, 4 July [1875] and n. 2. Mudie’s Select Library was a large commercial library that lent books to subscribers by post (EB). Simpkin, Marshall and Company was a wholesale firm that purchased large quantities of books and supplied other booksellers in London and the provinces (Feather 2006, p. 95).

To R. D. Fitzgerald   16 July 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 16. 75 Dear Sir Owing to Mr Russell not having found my proper address & his subsequent absence on the Continent, I received the present of your magnificent work with its excellent illustrations, only about a week ago.1 I have now read it with much interest, & am astonished that such a work could have been prepared at Sydney. I have been particularly interested by your account of the movements of Pterostylis & Caladenia.2 Do you think it possible that the calli on the labellum are gnawed or sucked by insects?3 A careful examination of the flowers from which the pollinia have been removed by insects, would be well worth making. I daresay you have seen a good paper on the former genus in a late vol of the N. Zealand Institute.4 I have been even more interested about the closed flowers of Thelymitra, as the case is closely analogous to the equally inaccessible one of the Bee Ophrys in Europe.5 I suppose you have few coadjutors, but it would be well to ascertain whether the flowers are closed during years when the seasons are very different, & in all parts of the plant’s range. I will venture to make one other suggestion; viz with sterile species like Dendrobium hillii to try the effects of pollen taken from a distinct seedling plant, in accordance with the observations of Fritz Müller.6 I have found it almost necessary to observe insects at work to understand the meaning of the parts in orchids & on this head I see that you are a disbeliever.7 From not having been able to act in this manner I blundered about Cypripedium;8 but I do not think I have erred about the nectary of Angræcum, & Wallace has given the case of a sphinx with proboscis of sufficient length.9 With my best thanks & good wishes for your future success | I remain dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin

July 1875

277

LS Mitchell Library, Sydney (A 2546) 1 2

3

4 5

6

7

8 9

CD had received the first part of Fitzgerald’s Australian orchids (Fitzgerald 1875–94). See letters to Mr Russell, 26 June [1875] and 12 July 1875. Fitgerald described the genus Pterostylis, with illustrations of P. longifolia (tall greenhood) and P. baptistii (king greenhood), and the genus Caladenia (spider orchid) with an illustration of C. dimorpha (Fitzgerald 1875–94, vol. 1, part 1). The ‘calli’ are glands on the labellum. CD had cited observations by Hermann Crüger of bees gnawing the labellum in orchids (see Origin 4th ed., pp. 230–1, ‘Fertilization of orchids’, p. 154 (Collected papers 2: 151), and Orchids 2d ed., p. 270. Cheeseman 1872. See Correspondence vol. 21, letter from T. F. Cheeseman 27 June 1873. The closed flowers of Thelymitra carnea (the pink sun orchid) were described in the introductory essay to Fitzgerald 1875–94, vol. 1, part 1: 1. The self-fertile bee ophrys (Ophrys apifera) presented a challenge to CD’s general argument that orchids were adapted for crossing between different individuals (see Orchids, pp. 63–72). Fitgerald observed that a specimen of Dendrobium hillii (now Dendrobium speciosum var. hillii; the king orchid) with around 40,000 flowers produced no seed (see Fitzgerald 1875–94, vol. 1, part 1: 2.) Fritz Müller determined that in some orchids pollen from the same plant was impotent or even harmful, whereas pollen from another plant produced seed (see Variation 2: 134–5, F. Müller 1868, and Correspondence vol. 15, letter from Fritz Müller, 1 January 1867). Fitzgerald had expressed reservations about some of CD’s remarks on insect agency in Orchids; for example, ‘Mr. Darwin seems to me to lay rather too much stress on the action of large insects seeking honey by the aid of a proboscis, as agents of fertilization’ (Fitzgerald 1875–94, vol. 1, part 1: 2). On Cypripedium (the lady’s-slipper orchid), see Orchids 2d ed., pp. 229–31 CD had described Angraecum sesquipedale (the Christmas star orchid) in Orchids, pp. 197–203, remarking that there must be moths with probosces ten or eleven inches long to reach the base of its long nectary. Alfred Russel Wallace had supported CD’s view with an illustration of a hypothetical sphinx moth (see Wallace 1867 and Correspondence vol. 15, letter to A. R. Wallace, 12 and 13 October [1867]).

From W. D. Fox   16 July [1875]1

Bedwyn Lodge | Sandown | I. W July 16

My dear Darwin I have to thank you, which I do very heartily—for “Insectivous Plants”.2 It is very kind of you remembering me, and I very much value your doing so. I have only peeped into it as yet—partly because I have been more than usually engaged since the Volume arrived, in hunting for a house for self and fami〈ly〉 We hoped to have got one in the New Forest,3 but finding this impossible, we have been obliged to content ourselves with one on its verge. Mr Halliwell—(now Phillipps)4 wrote some weeks since to take our house, and as all the woman kind voted for a three months change, I was obliged to succumb, and we are houseless till August when we enter upon one exactly opposite Southampton on a pretty rising ground, out of reach of the mud of River.5 As there is a steamer hourly to Southampton we can get into Forest by that route, or drive on our own side of water a few miles into it on all sides. We shall be there this Aug & Sep.t What are you going to do this Autumn. You generally, I think get an outing.

278

July 1875

Next Monday I go to London till Saturday. I have many things to see about there. Is there any probability of your being in Town. If you are at home, I would try hard to run down to see you once again, for an hour or two. I get old, and older still in bodily strength, and may not again be able to get to Down. The last winter hit me pretty hard & kept me a prisoner for some months, but I am now well for me, and able to do as usual. I should so very much like to see you once again— There is no one so much in my thoughts as you are, and it is so long since we have met, that we shall scarcely know each other in the next world, if we do not in this. Do not however let me come to you unless you are pretty well, as I should be indeed sorry to be a Bore. I shall trust to you or Mrs Darwin writing me a line telling me the exact truth. I shall be at my Sisters 54 Kensington Park Road. Ladbroke Square6 How former times crowd upon ones mind—and former loved ones— Dear Susan—& Caroline—& your excellent Father—7 Well well! I must not run on— Kindest regards to Mrs Darwin from my wife8 & self & Believe me | Always yours | W. D. Fox. DAR 164: 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The year is established by the reference to Insectivorous plants. Fox’s name appears on the presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). The New Forest is a former royal hunting area bordering on the south coast of England, west of Southampton. James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps. Fox had retired from his post as rector of Delamere, Cheshire, in 1873. From 1874, all of his correspondence, apart from this letter, is from Broadlands, Sandown, on the south-east coast of the Isle of Wight. Fox’s sisters Emma and Julia resided at this address (Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11 29/117/30)). Fox refers to CD’s sisters Susan Elizabeth Darwin and Caroline Sarah Wedgwood, and to his father, Robert Waring Darwin. Ellen Sophia Fox.

From Charlotte Papé   16 July 1875

Lark Hill House | Edgeley | Stockport July 16th. 75

Dear Mr. Darwin, I must ask your pardon and your indulgence for the great liberty I am going to take just now in begging of you the favour to look at the enclosed paper.1 The general interest which I always took in questions relating to the laws that regulate the developement of life has been raised to a very strong wish to know as much about it as I can, by your own works, which I have only now been able to really read; and Mr. Francis Galton’s books have shown me, in what, on the whole, simple way facts bearing on some questions of Heredity may be collected.2 I have been thinking that

July 1875

279

perhaps even I might be able, by accurately tabulating and comparing such cases as I know, to do something towards ascertaining the truth or error of some of Mr. Galton’s conclusions, at least as far as my own conviction is concerned. The point which naturally has the greatest interest for me, about which I am most anxious to find out something certain, is, how far heredity is limited by sex in the human race, especially whether mental qualities are at all limited by it. I am well aware that your own, I think, provisional view is, that even mental qualities are thus limited;3 I myself know so comparatively many striking instances to the contrary, among my friends and my own family, that it seems highly improbable to me. At any rate, every woman ought to try to ascertain as much of the truth in respect to it as she can; for apart from the interest of the question in itself, it is most important for the future of women. Now I have noted down different rubrics, as on the paper enclosed, to be filled out as accurately as possible; and the great, very great, favour I am begging of you, dear Mr. Darwin, is just to throw a look at it and tell me, whether, if I do so, the conclusions appearing from such tables would be trustworthy as far as they go; also what number of families would be the minimum for a reliable average, and any other remark necessary, and so invaluable from you, and for me. For, of course, like all women, I have had no scientific training, and know nothing except from random reading; neither could I attain any now. And it is just this very helplessness as to getting information, or even any word of advice and criticism that I could trust more than my own that must form my excuse for the unwarrantable liberty I am taking, and plead with your kindness for the granting of the favour I beg. I literally know of no one to ask, except the illustrious authority I am addressing; and so doing I wonder at my own boldness. If you think such tables no good, at least if not put together by more skilful hands, of course, I shall not attempt to fill them out. I am, dear Mr. Darwin, | with true admiration and reverence | Yours | Charlotte Papé DAR 174: 27 1 2 3

The enclosure has not been found. Francis Galton had published two books on inherited characteristics in families, Galton 1869 and Galton 1874. For CD’s views on the comparative mental powers of men and women, see Descent 2: 326–9; he cited Galton’s Hereditary genius (Galton 1869) on the superiority of men’s achievements in the arts and sciences. On Papé’s advocacy of women’s rights, see Meder et al. eds. 2010, pp. 668–74.

From a lady [before 17 July 1875]1 I think it possible that the extinction of a species may interest you. The Macartney Rose, of which I have a tree, has all over England simultaneously ceased to produce any fructifying buds for grafting or seed-vessels after the Rose.2 Finding my own dying out, I tried in various places, with the same result. Gardeners’ Chronicle 17 July 1875, p. 78

280 1 2

July 1875

The date is established by the date of publication in Gardeners’ Chronicle. CD forwarded the letter and the correspondent was described as ‘a lady’. The Macartney rose (Rosa bracteata) is native to China. An article published in Gardeners’ Chronicle, 24 July 1875, pp. 98–9, noted that it was not fully hardy and so was killed by cold winters, that it flowered too late to ripen seed, and that it was not grown for commercial use because it was single flowered.

To A. W. Bennett   17 July [1875]1 Down. | Beckenham Kent. &c. July 17th. My dear Sir. I must thank you very sincerely, whether or not the proceeding is a proper one on my part, for your magnificent Review in Nature—2 I shall be amply rewarded if my book deserves less than half of what your kind sympathy has led you to say.— I did not answer your card, for I receive so many letters I hardly can answer them; one of my sons also detected the stupid blunder, which is corrected in the later copies.3 I heard today that 2250 Copies have been sold; I advised Mr Murray very badly for I told him if 1250 were printed these would last for all eternity—4 Yours sincerely & obliged. | Ch Darwin. Copy DAR 143: 86 1 2 3

4

The year is established by the reference to Bennett’s review of Insectivorous plants (see n. 2, below). The first part of Bennett’s review of Insectivorous plants appeared in Nature, 15 July 1875, pp. 206–9. The second part was published in Nature, 22 July 1875, pp. 228–31. Bennett’s card has not been found. George Howard Darwin had sent a list of corrections for the second printing of Insectivorous plants to the printers (see letter from G. H. Darwin to William Clowes & Sons, 11 July 1875). For the reservations CD expressed about the success of Insectivorous plants to his publisher, John Murray, see the letter to R. F. Cooke, 4 July [1875] and n. 2.

From G. H. Darwin to William Clowes & Sons  17 July 1875 Down | Beckenham July 17. 75 Gentlemen, On the next sheet (& on the printed slip) you will find a complete list of all the errata hitherto discovered in the ‘Insectivorous Plants’.1 Mr. Darwin begs you to be so good as to see that the type is corrected in accordance therewith in the further reprints now to be struck off, & he particularly begs you to return him this copy of the errata as he wishes to use it for the foreign editions. Yours faithfully | G H Darwin Messrs. Clowes

July 1875

281

p 172. line 18. for ‘above two-millionth of its weight’ read, ‘above two million times its weight’. p. 173 line 3 of 2nd. column of note 〈    〉 large as’ read ‘times as small as’ p 199 line 3 of small type for .0296 read .0675 p 270 last line— a of ‘ample’ has dropped out p 287 under the figure for Dionœa read Dionæa [* NB] This would run better “Therefore, an object between 311 and 771 of the size of a sphere …” but it is not important enough to make the change if in doing so, it would be necessary to alter the type to an inconvenient extent.2 [Enclosure] Wm. Clowes & Sons | Stamford S.t S.E. 15 JUL 75 1st Proof Page " " " "

ERRATA. 271, line 8 from bottom, for “a little less than the one,” read “a little more than the one.” 301, 1st line of small type, for 2.544, read 2.540. 372, line 14, for 2.794, read 2.795. 373, line 16, for 1.69 read 1.70; and line 22, for 2.794, read 2.795. 375, line 22, for 5.588, read 5.590.3

DAR 86: B21, B23, B50 1 2

3

The errata pertain to the second and third printings of Insectivorous plants. See letter from G. H. Darwin to William Clowes & Sons, 11 July 1875, and letter from William Clowes & Sons, 15 July 1875. The corrections for pages 271, 373, and 375, were included on the errata slip in the second printing of Insectivorous plants and made in the text of the third printing; the enclosure is an amended copy of the letter from William Clowes & Sons, 15 July 1875. This correction was included on an errata slip in the second printing of Insectivorous plants and made in the text of the third printing.

To Friedrich Hildebrand   17 July 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R July 17. 75 My dear Sir I am preparing a new Edit. of my Var. under Domestication, & have been quoting your paper in the Bot. Zeitung May 15 1868.1 At page 327 I find a statement, exactly like one made by Gaertner, on the difficulty of crossing certain vars. of maize.2 Have you made any further observations on this subject which I might quote? I will venture to suggest to you that this subject would be pre-eminently worthy of careful investigation, both with respect to the first cross & the fertility of the crossed offspring. To prove that two undoubted varieties are mutually sterile would be of the greatest service to the principle of evolution. I should myself have worked on this subject, had not our climate been so ill fitted for maize.

282

July 1875

Since writing to you I have read with the greatest interest your “Verbreitungsmittel &c” with its many philosophical remarks.3 My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Charles Darwin P.S In the hurry of dictation I forgot that you had received my book—4 LS(A) Klaus Groove (private collection) 1 2

3

4

CD refers to the article ‘Einige Experimente und Beobachtungen’ (Hildebrand 1868), a discussion of crossing two varieties of maize; he cited it in Variation 2d ed. 1: 430. CD was interested in Karl Friedrich von Gärtner’s work on the sterility of unions between differently coloured varieties of Verbascum (see Gärtner 1849, Correspondence vol.  9, letter to J.  D.  Hooker, 18 October [1861], and Correspondence vol. 10). CD marked the passage in which Hildebrand discussed similar findings in maize in Hildebrand 1868, p. 327; CD’s annotated copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Hildebrand had sent CD a copy of Die Verbreitungsmittel der Pflanzen (The means of propagation of plants; Hildebrand 1873); see Correspondence vol. 21, letter to Friedrich Hildebrand, 16 November [1873]. There is an annotated copy of the book in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 379–80). In the second paragraph above, the passage, ‘I hope that you have received the copy of my “Insectivorous Plants” sent to you a short time since’, has been deleted. Hildebrand’s name is on CD’s presentation list for the book (Appendix IV). No letter of acknowledgment from Hildebrand has been found.

To Ludwig Rütimeyer 17 July 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 17.75 My dear Sir I am very much obliged to you for sending me your “Veranderungen &c.” which is sure to interest me greatly, like every thing else that you have written1 With much respect I remain | my dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Charles Darwin LS EAC Gallery (dealers) (autumn 2014) 1

Der Veränderungen der Theirwelt in der Schweiz seit Anwesenheit des Menschen (Changes in the animal world in Switzerland since the presence of humans; Rütimeyer 1875).

To Georg von Seidlitz   17 July 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 17. 75 Dear Sir I am much obliged for your kind present, & am very glad to see a second & improved edition of your excellent lectures.1 I beg leave to remain dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Zoologische Staatssammlung, München

July 1875 1

283

There is a copy of the second edition of Seidlitz’s Die Darwin’sche Theorie (Seidlitz 1875) in the Darwin Library–Down; an annotated copy of the first edition (Seidlitz 1871) is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 753). See also Correspondence vol. 20, letter from Georg von Seidlitz, 22 April 1872.

To Lawson Tait   17 [ July 1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. J. 17th My dear Sir I thank you for your extremely kind note.—2 I did not answer, as you told me I might not, your former notes to Abinger, as I was quite worn out.—3 I wish I cd. help you about D. binata, but I hardly know Lady D. Nevill well enough to borrow plants for a third party.—4 You are aware that Dr Hooker has worked hard at Nepenthes & will soon publish: I told him to try the secretion of pitchers which had caught no insects, & it cd. not digest.5 Therefore to get the ferment, it wd be necessary to give some nitrogenous compound, & wd. not this make the separation of the ferment very difficult?— In Haste | yours sincerely | Ch Darwin Photocopy DAR 221.5: 27 1 2 3 4

5

The year and month are established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Lawson Tait, 15 July [1875]. See letter from Lawson Tait, 15 July [1875]. CD stayed at Abinger Hall, Surrey, the home of Thomas Henry Farrer, from 3 June to 6 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Tait had written six letters to CD during his stay. Tait was trying to obtain specimens of Drosera binata, the forked-leaf sundew (see letter from Lawson Tait, 15 July [1875]). CD had received the plant from Dorothy Fanny Nevill (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to D. F. Nevill, 7 September 1874). CD had advised Joseph Dalton Hooker on his research on the digestive properties of the tropical pitcher-plant, Nepenthes (Correspondence vol.  21, letter to J.  D.  Hooker, 3 November [1873]). For Tait’s interest in the plant, see the letter from Lawson Tait, 15 July [1875] and n 5.

To J. N. Hoare   18 July [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 18. Dear Sir I have read with much interest the pages which you have been so kind as to point out, & the facts were quite new to me. There are not many persons who could thus illumine a sermon, but I have often regretted, how rarely sermons are made the means of instruction in the place of mere exhortation.2 Dear Sir Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Library of Congress (M. F. Hales Autograph Collection (Mss24497))

284 1 2

July 1875

The year is established by the publication date of Hoare 1875. Hoare preached a sermon titled ‘Hospital Sunday’, on 15 November 1874; it was published in January 1875 (Hoare 1875, p. 3). The sermon advocated support for hospitals as a Christian duty, and argued that care for the sick in other religions was extended to animals as well as people. An appendix includes references to a number of ancient texts, including the Koran, and to Buddhist doctrine which, according to Hoare, ‘applies the law of evolution to the human soul’, the progress of which through an infinite series of births in the animal world being sufficient to explain ‘this peculiar tenderness and care for the domestic animals’ (Hoare 1875, p. 22).

To G. J. Romanes   18 July 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 18. 75 My dear Mr Romanes I have been much interested by your letter & am truly delighted at the prospect of success.1 Such energy as yours is almost sure to command victory   The world will be much more influenced by experiments on animals than on plants.2 But in any case I think a large number of successful results will be necessary to convince physiologists. It is rash to be sanguine, but it will be splendid if you succeed. My object in writing has been to say that it has only just occurred to me that I have not sent you a copy of my “Insectivorous Plants”;3 if you would care to have a copy & do not possess one, send me a postcard, & one shall be sent. If I do not hear I shall understand. Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS American Philosophical Society (472) 1 2 3

Romanes described his work on graft hybrids in his letter of 14 July 1875. Romanes had considered doing animal experiments to test CD’s theory of pangenesis (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to G. J. Romanes, 27 December 1874). Romanes’s name was not on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants.

From William Clowes & Sons   19 July 1875 Wm. Clowes & Sons | Stamford S.t S.E. 19 Jul 75 1st Proof ERRATA.1 Page 173, line 2 of second column of note, for “Therefore, an object from thirty-one to seventy-seven times as small as a sphere.” read “Therefore, an object between 311 and 771 of the size of a sphere.” " 271, line 8 from bottom, for “a little less than the one,” read “a little more than the one.” " 301, 1st line of small type, for 2.544, read 2.540. " 372, line 14, for 2.794 read 2.795.

July 1875

285

" 373, line 16, for 1.69, read 1.70; and line 22, for 2.794, read 2.795. " 375, line 22, for 5.588, read 5.590. DAR 86: B22; DAR 94: 1a (cover) CD annotations 3.1 2] underl ink; ‘✓’ in margin, ink 3.2 small] underl ink; ‘✓’ in margin, ink On cover: ‘All copied into a perfect list’ ink2 1 2

The errata slip was included unaltered in the second printing of Insectivorous plants (see letters from G. H. Darwin to William Clowes & Sons, 11 July 1875 and 17 July 1875). For CD’s combined list of corrections to August 1875, see DAR 86: B50.

From Lawson Tait   19 July [1875]1 7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. July 19 My Dear Sir, I have succeeded in separating the ferment of the Nepenthe secretion.2 I think the enclosed note may interest you; and if you think it worth publishing will you kindly forward it to “Nature” as Mr. Lockyer has asked me for something on the subject.3 Please don’t trouble to acknowledge it if it is satisfactory. Yours faithfully, | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 15 1 2 3

The year is established by the reference to Tate’s note in Nature (see n. 3, below). On Tait’s work on the tropical pitcher-plant, Nepenthes, see the letter from Lawson Tait, 15 July [1875] and n. 5. Tait’s note on insectivorous plants was published in Nature, 29 July 1875, pp. 251–2. Joseph Norman Lockyer was the editor of Nature.

From the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften1   20 July 1875 Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. No. 793. Mit Bezug auf das Schreiben vom 5. Juli I. J.2 Nr. 695 beehrt sich das gefertigte Präsidium Euer Hochwohlgeboren anliegend das Diplom über Ihre Allerhöchste Genehmigung als ausländisches Ehrenmitglied der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu übersenden.3 Die Akademie gibt sich, indem sie mit Euer Hochwohlgeboren durch diesen für sie so erfreulichen Act in nähere Verbindung tritt, der Hoffnung hin, Euer Hochwohlgeboren werden die Zwecke derselben durch Ihre so erfolgreichen Forschungen fördern helfen und hiedurch zur Erhöhung ihres Einflusses auf die Entwickelung der Wissenschaft wesentlich mitwirken. Wien, am 20. Juli 1875.

286

July 1875

Das Präsidium der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften: | Rokitansky | Siegel.4 An das ausländische Ehrenmitglied | P. T.5 Herrn Charles Darwin | Hochwohlgeboren | zu | Down, | Beckenham, England. LS(A) DAR 97: C8r 1 2 3 4 5

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. The letter of 5 July 1875 has not been found. CD had been made a foreign corresponding member in 1871 (see Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 16 July 1871). For the diploma, see Appendix III. Karl Freiherr von Rokitansky was president of the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften (Imperial Academy of Science), Vienna (OBL); Heinrich Siegel was general secretary (BLKO). P. T.: pleno titulo (full title).

From G. J. Romanes   20 July 1875 Dunskaith, Nigg P.O., Ross-shire, N.B.: July 20, 1875. My dear Mr. Darwin, Your letter arrived just in time to prevent my sending an order to my bookseller for ‘Insectivorous Plants,’ for, of course, it is needless to say that I shall highly value a copy from yourself.1 At first I intended to wait until I should have more time to enjoy the work, but a passage in this week’s ‘Nature’ determined me to get a copy at once. This passage was one about reflex action,2 and I am very anxious to see what you say about this, because in a paper I have prepared for the ‘B.A.’ on Medusæ I have had occasion to insist upon the occurrence of reflex action in the case of these, notwithstanding the absence of any distinguishable system of afferent and efferent nerves.3 But as physiologists have been so long accustomed to associate the phenomena of reflex action with some such distinguishable system, I was afraid that they might think me rather audacious in propounding the doctrine, that there is such a thing as reflex action without well-defined structural channels for it to occur in.4 But if you have found something of the same sort in plants, of course I shall be very glad to have your authority to quote. And I think it follows deductively from the general theory of evolution, that reflex action ought to be present before the lines in which it flows are sufficiently differentiated to become distinguishable as nerves. I am very glad that you are pleased with my progress so far. E. D. Romanes 1896: 33 1 2

3

See letter to G. J. Romanes, 18 July 1875 and n. 3. A review of Insectivorous plants in Nature, 15 July 1875, p. 209, discussed CD’s account of the transmission of motor impulse through the cellular tissue in leaves of Drosera (sundew) as ‘partaking of the nature of those actions which in the nervous system of animals are called reflex’. There is no mention of a paper by Romanes in the Report of the 45th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1875); however, he gave a paper at the following year’s meeting (see Report of the 46th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1876), Transactions of the sections, pp. 158–63).

July 1875 4

287

In papers read before the Royal Institution of Great Britain and the Royal Society of London, Romanes argued that the excitable tissue of medusae responded to stimuli in a similar way to the nervo-muscular tissue of higher animals, and that medusae possessed rudimentary nerves (G. J. Romanes 1875b and G. J. Romanes 1876, pp. 170–4).

To Lawson Tait   20 July [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 20th My dear Sir I despatched of course your article.—2 I read it rather hurriedly to catch morning post. I will read it deliberately when published.— If you have succeeded in separating the ferment the fact is manifestly most important.3 Did you try whether the fluid from pitchers with no animal matter could digest? This, I think, ought to have been done to prove that there was ferment in the fluid.4 Glad to hear about the passage for guiding insects, as I speculated & told Hooker I guessed that this was the case.—5 Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin ALS (photocopy) DAR 221.5: 28 1 2 3

4 5

The year is established by the reference to Tait’s note in Nature (see n. 2, below). Tait had sent a note on insectivorous plants with his letter to CD of 19 July [1875]; it appeared in Nature, 29 July 1875, pp. 251–2. Tait claimed to have separated a substance closely resembling pepsin from the secretions of Drosera dichotoma (now D. binata, forked-leaf sundew) and various tropical pitcher-plants (Nepenthes). See letter from Lawson Tait, 15 July [1875] and n. 5. CD had given this advice in his letter to Lawson Tait, 17 [July 1875]. Tait described a channel on the back of the pitcher in Nepenthes that served as a guide for insects to enter the fluid-filled reservoir (Nature, 29 July 1875, p. 252). Joseph Dalton Hooker was working on the digestive properties of Nepenthes (Correspondence vol. 21).

To the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften   [after 20 July 1875]1 Sir I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of July 20th enclosing my Diploma as Honorary Mem of Imp. Acad of Sciences &c.2 I hope that you will take an early opportunity of expressing to the Academy my high senses of this most distinguished honour. With great respect, I remain | Sir | Your obliged & obedient servt | Ch. Darwin ADraftS DAR 97: C8v 1 2

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 20 July 1875. See letter from the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 20 July 1875, and Appendix III.

288 From Lawson Tait   21 July [1875]1

July 1875 7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. July 21

My Dear Sir, I did try the water of unopened pitchers on flies, but they grew fungus immediately; so that the conclusion, though negative, is against the presence of the ferment in quantity enough to prevent growth.2 This it most certainly does prevent when in the pitcher, for I have removed & examined insects in all stages of digestion from pitchers, but have found neither bacteria nor fungus    Bacteria flourish, however within the closed leaf of the Dionoea3 This perfectly harmonises with my finding only a trace of the substance separated by my process from fluid taken from unopened pitchers I shall add this when I see proof.4 One other matter of great interest. Two of my plants which I have been feeding have put out plantlets(?) from the middle of the discs of leaves. This is parthenogenesis as seen in ferns which are overfed! This is singularly corroborative of my theory of dermoid tumours of the ovary which I brought under your notice5 This is a matter I should like to work up, for though hypo-erchitic efforts (arrest of developement) have been exhaustively discussed, hyper-erchitism (transcendent developement) has been wholly overlooked.6 I send you a slide with one of these leaves   Can you give me any hints about it? I beg however that you will not put yourself to inconvenience to do so. I trouble you with the slide as I am sure it will interest you. May I ask you to return it as it is the best I have. I shall mount another for you if you care to have it Yours, Lawson Tait P.S | You will see that one of the leaves of the plantlet has caught a spider. I also enclose the only specimen of Droserin from Drosera binata which I have In the watch glass is some Droserin separated yesterday from the active secretions of Nepenthe pitchers.7 Naked eye appearances are almost conclusive that they are the same & their actions are, so far as I can see, identical If you care to try anything with the contents of the watch glass I shall be glad that you should use it I should like the little bottle & its contents back. Yours faithfully | Lawson Tait Or if you care to do so send the watch glass to Dr. Hooker.8 I have just read proof for the Spectator I hope you will like it. DAR 178: 16 1 2 3 4 5

The year is established by the reference to Tait’s review in the Spectator (see n. 4, below). CD had advised Tait to test the digestive powers of fluid in Nepenthes (the tropical pitcher-plant) that had not been exposed to animal matter (see letter to Lawson Tait, 20 July [1875]). Dionaea muscipula: the Venus fly trap. The proof was for Tait’s review of Insectivorous plants in the Spectator, 14 August 1875, pp. 784–5. See letter from Lawson Tait, 17 March [1875] and n. 3.

July 1875 6 7

8

289

On Tait’s theory of erchitism, see the letter from Lawson Tait, 17 March [1875] and n. 4. Tait gave the name ‘droserin’ to a substance he extracted from the tropical pitcher-plant, Nepenthes (see letter from Lawson Tait, 15 July [1875] and n. 5). A watchglass is a shallow glass receptacle used in chemistry and microscopy (OED). CD had previously informed Tait that Joseph Dalton Hooker was working on the digestive properties of Nepenthes (see letter to Lawson Tait, 17 [July 1875]).

To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   21 July 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 21. 75 My dear Mr Dyer I am very much obliged for the books (returned by this post) & for all the many references1  I am glad to see that even you admit that the L. davuricum seems good.2 I remember the orchid case too well, for I was struck with horror on reading Hildebrand’s paper, for on finding ovules in my plant of Acropera I stated in my book that the species was probably diœcous.3 You told me that there were some wrong references in my book, & I should be greatly obliged if you could let me have them Yours very sincerely | Ch Darwin LS Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (W. T. Thiselton-Dyer Letters from CD: 25–6) 1

2

3

The letter from Thiselton-Dyer has not been found; CD had asked for help with references and corrections to the second edition of Variation (see letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 7 July 1875, and letter from W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 12 July 1875). In Variation 2d ed. 1: 431, CD added the case of Lilium davuricum (now L. dauricum, the Dahurian lily) and L. bulbiferum (the orange or fire lily) that, when reciprocally fertilised, produced fruit like that of the pollen-bearing species. Friedrich Hildebrand determined that in many orchids ovules are not developed until weeks or months after pollen-tubes have penetrated the stigma (Hildebrand  1863 and 1865). CD referred to Hildebrand’s papers in ‘Fertilization of orchids’ (1869), p. 153, noting his previous error in supposing that the sexes of Acropera luteola were separate (Orchids, pp. 206–9).

From A. R. Wallace   21 July 1875

The Dell, Grays, Essex July 21st. 1875

Dear Darwin Many thanks for your kindness in sending me a copy of your new book.1 Being very busy I have only had time to dip into it yet. The account of Utricularia is most marvellous & quite new to me. I am rather surprised that you do not make any remarks on the origin of these extraordinary contrivances for capturing insects.2 Did you think they were too obvious? I dare say there is no difficulty, but I feel sure they will be seized on as inexplicable by Nat. Select. & your silence on the point will be held to show that you consider them so! The contrivance in Utricularia & Dionæa, & in fact in Drosera too, seems fully as great & complex as in Orchids, but there is not the same

290

July 1875

motive force.3 Fertilization & cross fertilization are important ends enough to lead to any modification,—but can we suppose mere nourishment to be so important, seeing that it is so easily & almost universally obtained by extension of roots & leaves. Here are plants which lose their roots & leaves to acquire the same results by infinitely complex modes! What a wonderfull & long continued series of variations must have led up to the perfect “trap” in Utricularia, while at any stage of the process the same end might have been gained by a little more development of roots & leaves, as in 9999 plants out of 10,000! Is this an imaginary difficulty or do you mean to deal with it in future editions of the “Origin”?4 Believe me | Yours very faithfully| Alfred R. Wallace DAR 106: B121–2 1 2 3 4

Wallace’s name is on the presentation list for Insectivorous plants (Appendix IV). In Insectivorous plants, pp. 404–13, CD described the function of the small bladders of Utricularia (bladderwort) in capturing and absorbing insects. Dionaea (Venus fly trap) and Drosera (sundew) were the principle genera discussed in Insectivorous plants. Wallace alludes to Orchids. Apart from a reprint issued in 1876 with minor corrections, there were no further revisions of Origin published in CD’s lifetime (see Freeman 1977, pp. 80–1).

From Francis Darwin to Lawson Tait   22 July [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 22nd My dear Sir My Father desires me to say that he is so much engaged with other subjects that he cannot attend to Drosera at present. He is much obliged for the specimens & returns the box registered & hopes that its contents will survive their double journey in safety.2 The production of buds from Drosera leaves is a well known phenomenon but my Father has forgotten the references to the subject. My asks me to say, that he regrets that the digestive power of the fluid in the virgin pitchers of Nepenthes3 was not tested with small cubes of white of egg; until this is done he doubts whether physiologists would admit the presence of the ferment. He desires me to thank you much for your kind desire to help him Yours truly | Francis Darwin Photocopy DAR 221.5: 29 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from LawsonTait, 21 July [1875]. See letter from Lawson Tait, 21 July [1875]. Drosera: sundew. Nepenthes: the tropical pitcher-plant.

July 1875 To A. R. Wallace   22 July [1875]1

291 Down, Beckenham, Kent July 22nd.

My dear Wallace Many thanks for your note and am glad to hear that you are so hard at work you cannot read my book.2 If at any time you are curious on subject, you will find development of the Droseraceæ discussed in closing part of Chapt. XV, and I think I have thrown some light on the acquirement of wonderful power of digestion.— With respect to Utricularia, I can explain nothing, for there are no gradational genera, and even the embryology or development of the present bladders not made out.— With respect to the Droseraceæ, I think there is no doubt about the advantage which they gain by catching insects, as they can then live in extremely poor soil, as I show with respect to our common Drosera.3 My dear Wallace | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Copy DAR 148: 271 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from A.  R.  Wallace, 21 July 1875. Wallace had received a copy of Insectivorous plants (see letter from A. R. Wallace, 21 July 1875 and n. 1). See Insectivorous plants, pp. 361–3. Utricularia: baldderwort. Drosera: sundew.

From W. T. Thiselton Dyer   23 July 1875

10 Gloucester Road | Kew July 23. 75

Dear Mr Darwin I send you my notes on the variation of animals and Plants.1 You will see that they are a very minute contribution I have copied out for you what seems to me an interesting case of bud variation in the Sugar cane Another case of which we have photographs and sketches in the Kew Museum is that of an Orange Pearmain apple which produced a fruit of the russet type. see Gard. Chron. 1873, 1536   It came from Mr G. Lee Clev〈e〉don Bristol.2 Dr Hogg3 could give you 〈man〉y other instances but you no doubt have enough. I see that it was 〈6 or 7 lines and part of diagram excised〉

292

July 1875

there was no great difficulty about it  It was raised from seed obtained 〈    〉 Major Trevor Clarke.4 The odd theory is that “the upper 〈6 or 7 lines excised 〉 On second thoughts I am inclined to think that Fritz Muller’s Cattleya 〈    〉 〈  〉ed by Epidendrum5 [Enclosure 1] Potato vol. i. p. 330 There is an account of the wild Potato by Sabine (with a plate) Trans. Hort. Soc. vol. 5 pp. 247–2596 p. 331 The following may be interesting “On peut accelerer la précocité en prenant des fruits provenant des fleurs les plus précoces. C’est peu le moyen que Knight a obtenu les pommes de terre si hatives de l’Angleterre. Une fois cette précocité fixée, at après tout ce n’est pour la plante qu’un état de nubilité plus prompt, elle se perpétue par les plantations de tubercules. Morren, Instructions populairs sur les Pommes de Terre Sepr. 21, 1845 p. 297 p. 379 Dr. Marsters8 told me that Cedo nulli a small yellow chrysanthemum habitually produces branches with white flowers I saw a case at R. Hort. Soc. Nov. 11. 749 p. 397 117/ for Swayne read Goss “the colour of the skin is modified when pollen 〈of〉 a differently coloured variety is used” This of course would be an alteration in the tissues of the female parent. The seed-coat in Leguminosae represents the ovular coats + the residue of the nucleus  In Goss’s experiments Mr Knight considers that the cotyledons only were changed and were perceptible as blue through the semitransparent seed-coats which remained white   see Trans. Hort. Soc. vol 5 p. 37910 p. 399. 122/ Trans. Hort. Soc. vol. iv read vol iii11 p. 400 note 124 line 1 for see ‘Proc. read see ‘Journ.’12 p. 401 note 130 line 3 for ‘Proc. Hort. Soc.’ read ‘Journ. Hort. Soc.’13 note 131 see also 1749 but I have no note of the page14 note 132 line 2 for 63 read 6515 note 138 see also Agricultural Gazette. 1873 p. 171416 〈several lines excised〉 p. 343 Dr Boswell Syme17 told me that it is the Early varieties that fruit. See also accompanying letter from Mr Barron and foregoing remarks sub. vol. 1 p. 331 from Morren18 [Enclosure 2] Royal Horticultural Society, | Chiswick Garden, W July 19th 1875 Dear Sir, It is a fact so far th〈at〉 “the varieties of the 〈potato〉 which produce tubers very early in the season rarely bear flowers”19—but I do not think that any conclusion can

July 1875

293

be drawn from it—as the early varieties are mostly of one type—variations of the Ashleaf Kidney— There are early round Potatoes not so well known—that flower profusely—and a second early section—the Lapstone—flowers the most abundantly of all but never bears berries. There are some late varieties that seldom flower, such as the Scotch Blue. were we to have as many varieties of this and to cultivate them as extensively as the Ashleaf—the rule would be applicable at the other end. I am Dr. Sir | your obt. Ser | A. F. Barron Prof. Dyer— Incomplete DAR 178: 95, 96 CD annotations 1.1 I send . . . was 5.1] crossed pencil 6.1 On . . . Epidendrum 6.2] crossed pencil Enclosure 1 1.1 Potato . . . 259 2.2] crossed ink 6.1 p. 379 . . . p. 1714 16.1] crossed ink 17.1 p. 343 . . . Morren 17.3] ‘[Potatoes]’ pencil del pencil 1 2

3 4 5

6 7

CD had requested a list of errata for the second edition of Variation in his letter to W. T. ThiseltonDyer, 21 July 1875. Apple specimens presented to the Royal Horticultural Society by ‘Mr. G. Lee’ were reported in Gardeners’ Chronicle, 15 November 1873, p. 1536. ‘Mr. G. Lee’ was probably George Lee, a market-gardener in Clevedon, Somerset (Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/2514/19/16)). In Variation 1: 376, CD had reported a similar case of a russet-like apple produced from a different variety. Robert Hogg. In Variation 1: 352, CD had described Richard Trevor Clarke’s intercrossing of strawberry varieties. The example was retained in Variation 2d ed. 1: 374. In Variation 2d ed. 1: 431, CD reported Fritz Müller’s experiment fertilising Cattleya leopoldi with pollen of Epidendron cinnabarinum, resulting in seed that resembled that of Epidendron. Cattleya leopoldii is a synonym of C. tigrina. CD discussed potato varieties in Variation 1: 330–1. A reference to Joseph Sabine’s article in the Transactions of the Horticultural Society of London (Sabine 1822) was added in Variation 2d ed. 1: 350 n. 94. The quotation is probably from Morren 1845. The French may be translated as: Early ripening can be accelerated using fruits of early flowers. This is a bit like the method Knight used to get such quick-growing potatoes in England. Once this early ripening is fixed, and after all for the plant it is just a state of faster maturity, it is perpetuated by planting tubers.

The reference is to Thomas Andrew Knight. Maxwell Tylden Masters. 9 CD discussed bud variation in Chrysanthemum in Variation 1: 379. He added the case of ‘Cedo nulli’, which had been exhibited before the Royal Horticultural Society, in Variation 2d ed. 1: 404. 10 In Variation 1: 397, CD described the direct action of pollen on the female parts of the plant, such as the seed coatings. Experiments on the influence of pollen on seed colour in peas were reported by John Goss and commented on by Thomas Andrew Knight in the Transactions of the Horticultural Society of London (see Goss 1822 and Knight 1823). CD changed the reference from George Swayne to Goss in Variation 2d ed. 1: 428 n. 128. 8

294 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

July 1875

The correction was made in Variation 2d ed. 1: 430 n. 133. Variation 2d ed. 1: 430 n. 135. Variation 2d ed. 1: 432 n. 144. The reference to the 1749 volume of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society was not added to Variation 2d ed. The correction was made in Variation 2d ed. 1: 432 n. 146. The reference was not added to Variation 2d ed. John Thomas Irvine Boswell-Syme. Charles François Antoine Morren (see n. 7, above). The passage is from Variation 2: 343 and appears in a discussion of the laws of variation. It was removed from Variation 2d ed.

From J. H. Gilbert   24 July 1875

Harpenden, | S.t Albans. July 24 1875

Dear Sir— In a note received a few days ago from Mr. Thiselton Dyer1 he mentions that you have expressed interest in the results obtained at Rothamsted in experiments on the mixed herbage of permanent meadow land, & he asks if I can send you any papers relating to them.2 I find from our list that we have sent you one published about 1858–9, entitled—Report of experiments with different manures on permanent meadow land, etc, in which some notice is given of the earlier observations on the changes in the flora, so to speak, of the different plots; and I believe also we sent one published in 1863, recording the results of the first more systematic botanical analysis.3 I send you however, another copy of this latter; but I may observe that the results here tabulated have been somewhat revised more recently. We have, however, gone into the matter in much detail on three occasions, at intervals of 5 years, namely in 1862, 1867, & 1872, & thinking that a view of the results might interest you, I send for your examination, with Mr. Lawes’ concurrance, Tables embodying the whole of the results of the separations—one showing the percentage amount, by weight, of each species, & the other showing the relative predominance of certain of the more important Orders. You are quite welcome to detain them for a few weeks, after which please return them to me here. I may mention that we have a paper in progress on the results in question, & we hope it will be completed during the coming autumn or winter.4 I am, Dear Sir | Yours sincerely | J. H. Gilbert Charles Darwin Esqre. FRS &c, &c. DAR 165: 42 1 2 3

William Turner Thiselton-Dyer. Gilbert had invited CD to visit the experimental station at Rothamsted in 1869 (see Correspondence vol. 17, letter from J. H. Gilbert, 3 June [1869]). CD’s annotated copy of Lawes and Gilbert 1859 is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. No copy of Lawes and Gilbert 1863 has been found in the Darwin Archive–CUL.

July 1875 4

295

Published reports of the experiments carried out at Rothamsted by Gilbert and John Bennet Lawes are in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL (Lawes 1875 and 1876).

To J. D. Hooker   25 July 1875 Down | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 25th 75 My dear Hooker Frank wants to join the Linn Soc: & will you be so kind as to sign the enclosed?1 If Dyer has not left will you ask him or Oliver, or perhaps Mr Bentham2 will do him the honour of signing? If you think it advisable to have a Zoologist will you forward the paper & this note to Huxley,3 as I am sure he will sign; & he can then send it direct to the Linnean Soc. Remember that I consider that you are pledged to come down here on the first Sunday you are free Yrs affectionately | Ch. Darwin LS DAR 95: 389 1 2 3

Francis Darwin was elected to the Linnean Society on 2 December 1875 (List of the Linnean Society of London, 1877). William Turner Thiselton-Dyer, Daniel Oliver, and George Bentham. Thomas Henry Huxley.

From A. M. Lane Fox to E. F. Lubbock   25 July [1875]1 Uplands | Guildford July 25th. Dear Lady Lubbock I trust I have been trained to take sufficient interest in all scientific investigations, not to think any question impertinent or unwarrantable the answer to which can in any way further that object. Indeed I felt very much inclined to write to Mr. Darwin of my own accord when reading his interesting book on the Descent of Man when it first appeared on the subject.2 I am sorry however to say the Surgeon who performed the operation on my eldest son (Dr Trench Staff surgeon at Malta) has been dead several years but I will try as far as I can to make up for the more accurate & technical details he no doubt cd. have given.3 The extra digit or thumb was amputated by congelation in March /56 when my son was 4 months old. The excrescence was simply cartilage growing a little above the joint with a perfect nail as in the drawing I enclose which my son has just made of his hand as it was & is now with the regrowth which is entirely covered with nail quite loose from the bone—4 I don’t know whether Mr. Darwin heard that the inheritance was from my grandfather— J. T. late Ld. Stanley of Alderley who died at 84 in 18505   his had been amputated I believe when he was about 4 years old & the regrowth was much larger & more

296

July 1875

clumsy than that on my son’s hand— no other instances in the family are known but there was a curious legend in the family of a miller who was to be born with 3 thumbs who wd. hold a king’s horse up to his knees in blood. My grandfather had a mill & 3 thumbs there the similitude ends!— I don’t know whether Sir John has been favoured with an account of Col. Fox & Cos. latest exploits at Cissbury or whether he was able to assist at the discovery of the skeleton of which I was informed by the Sergeant who had to go & unearth him— with an order that he was to go & command a Brigade at Wimbledon yesterday.6 He had to leave his interesting investigations & went up to London where he by some means of which I am ignorant found himself relieved from the duty & rushed back to his skeleton far more congenial to his tastes. Will you kindly forward my letter & sketch to Mr. Darwin & tell him I shall be most happy to answer any other questions in my power, tho’ I think I have given all the particulars I can With kind regards to Sir John | believe me | Yrs very truly | Alice Lane Fox DAR 164: 170 CD annotations 1.5 I am sorry] after opening square bracket blue crayon 1.5 however] del blue crayon 1.7 but I … given. 1.8] crossed ink 1.8 amputated by] del ink; ‘cut off by a pair of scissors after’ interl ink 1.9 in March] after interl ink ‘to stop pain’ 1.11 I enclose which] del pencil 1.11 of his hand] after interl pencil ‘a drawing’ 1.11 it was] ‘was’ del and underl pencil 1.11 & is] del pencil 1.11 with the regrowth 1.12] after interl pencil ‘is’ 1.12  I don’t … heard that 1.13] del pencil ‘The bone beneath does not seem more prominent than on the corresponding place on the other hand. I cannot say positively that the thumb left after the amputation was less prominent than now’ added ink 1.13 the inheritance] ‘T’ over ‘t’ of ‘the’ pencil 1.14 J.T. … Alderley] del pencil 1.14 had been amputated] after interl pencil ‘extra digit’ 1.16 hand—] closing square bracket over dash, pencil 1.16 instances … with 3 thumbs 1.19] ‘It seems to me curious that [‘in’ del pencil] Mr. [‘Cha’ del pencil] this case & Mr Chambers,7 the extra digit was said to be [‘grow’ del pencil] regrown in the progenitor then in the child.’ interl pencil Top of letter: ‘2 or 3 y ago’ [above pencil] I heard [*‘2 or 3 years ago’ interl and del pencil] [‘of the following case’ del pencil] from the Honble Mrs.— (wife of a well known & very clever m) of the following case of inheritance and regrowth, & have just received from her the following particulars’pencil 1 2

The year is established by the reference to the excavation of human remains at Cissbury (see n. 6, below). CD briefly mentioned polydactylism in humans in Descent 1: 125–6 n. 38. He had discussed inherited polydactylism and the regrowth of amputated digits in Variation 2: 14–15; however, he removed all mention of the regrowth of amputated fingers from Variation 2d ed. (see letter to Annie Dowie, 27 July 1875 and nn. 3 and 6).

July 1875 3

4

5 6

7

297

John Power Trench, a staff surgeon based in Malta in 1856, died in 1859. Lane Fox’s eldest son was Alexander Edward Lane Fox. Her husband, Augustus Henry Lane Fox, was stationed in Malta between 1854 and 1857 with the Third Battalion, Grenadier Guards (ODNB). The drawing has not been found; however, there are two sheets titled ‘Regrowth of Nail’ containing an extract from this letter and CD’s comments in DAR 200.3: 63. CD had mentioned imperfect nails growing on the stumps of amputated fingers in his chapter on pangenesis in Variation 2: 394; he added in Variation 2d ed. 2: 386 n. 66: ‘a case of this kind has lately been communicated to me’. John Thomas Stanley. Augustus Henry Lane Fox led the excavations of neolithic flint works at Cissbury, Sussex, starting in June 1875. He described the discovery of human remains and being called away for military duties in his report to the Anthropological Institute (Lane Fox 1876, pp. 375–6). John Lubbock is not mentioned among those taking part in the excavations. Robert Chambers (see letter to Annie Dowie, 27 July 1875).

From Ludwik Masłowski to [John Murray?]1   25 July 1875 REDAKCJA | Biblioteki Umiejętności | przyrodniczych | ulica Batorego Nr. 92. | Kraków dnia 28 Juillet 1875 Monsieur, Je prends la liberté de Vous écrire encore une fois, en Vous priant de me pardonner, que je Vous prends tant de temps dans Vos travaux. Mais voilà ce qui me force à s’adresser à Vous cette fois-ci. J’ai réçu les gravures parfaitement bien emballées, et je Vous en remercie. Mais j’ai réçu quelques unes de plus et quelques unes de moins.2 En voila celles qui me manque: 1) Fig. 32   Megalophrys montana (page 27, tome II) 2) Fig. 39   Tetrao cupido (page 57, tome II) 3) Fig. 47   Paradisea rubra (page 75, tome II) 4) Fig. 50   Rupicola crocea (page 88, tome II) 5) Fig. 51   Polyplectron chinquis (page 90, tome II)3 En même temps, avec les autres gravures, j’ai reçu sept encore, qui n’existent pas dans le livre de M. Darwin. Je les ai fait imprimés et je Vous envoie les dessins. En conséquence je Vous prie Monsieur de vouloir bien me repondre, que signifient ces sept figures? Car je ne sais ce que representent les dessins: 1, 3, 6 et 7. Puis je ne suis pas certain est-ce que je bien compris les figures 2, 4, 5, car elles ne sont pas les mêmes que celles dans le livre de M. Darwin.4 Si Vous vous êtes trompés en me les envoyant, écrivez moi, et je Vous les renverrai; mais ayez en même temps la bonté de m’envoyer les 5 figures qui me manquent. Peut-être Vous avez fait paraître une nouvelle édition du livre de M.  Darwin, dans laquelle ces figures ont pris place; alors, ayez la bonté de me l’envoyer (un exemplaire du livre) et écrivez moi le prix, pour que je puisse Vous envoyer l’argent. Moi, j’ai l’édition de 1871 (Eighth thousand)5 Je devine un peu la signification de la figure du No 6. Car M. Darwin écrit dans son livre (page 147, vol. II) “I regret that I have not given an additional drawing, besides fig. 58, which stands about half-way in the series between one of the simple

298

July 1875

spots and a perfect ocellus” Ayez donc la bonté de me repondre si cette figure (No 6) vraiment “stands about half-way between a simple spot and a perfect ocellus” Car si c’est ainsi, je pourrai la faire imprimer dans le livre; si non—je Vous la renverrai. Quand au dessins 1, 3, et 7, je ne puis nullement deviner leur signification. Vous me ferez donc beaucoup de grâce, si Vous m’écriviez ce qu’ils signifient. Je dois encore Vous prier de me repondre le plutôt possible et d’inscrire sur l’envelloppe “Autriche”, car autrement la lettre part en Russie et délá déjà arrive chez moi. Agréez, Monsieur, mes salucitations empressées | Votre devoué serviteur | Louis Masłowski Cracovie   Batory-street 92. DAR 171: 90 CD annotations 1.1 Je ... mangue: 3.1] ‘Index. Roujou & Bertillon omit. & Prob of grt change on p.—’ink Top of letter: ‘(Correction of Descent)’ pencil 1 2

3

4

5

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. The addressee is conjectured on the basis of the references to illustrations for Descent 2d ed. CD had changed some of the illustrations for Descent 2d. ed.; one was removed, four were replaced, and three were new (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to John Murray, 4 April 1874 and n. 5, and letter to R. F. Cooke, 8 April 1874 and n. 2). Of the figures in Masłowski’s list, number 1 was removed from Descent 2d. ed., and numbers 2–5 were replaced by figures drawn from life by Thomas W.  Wood (see Descent 2d ed. 2: 27). These were: fig. 39, p. 372 (Tetrao cupido, greater prairie chicken, male), fig. 47, p. 386 (Paradisea papuana, the lesser bird-of-paradise), fig. 50, p. 395 (Rupicola crocea, cock-of-the-rock, male), and fig. 51, p. 397 (Polyplectron chinquis, now P. bicalcaratum, the grey peacock-pheasant, male). The three new illustrations for Descent 2d ed. were fig. 3, p. 17, the foetus of an orang-utan; fig. 52, p. 413, a male Argus pheasant displaying before the female; and fig. 60, p. 438, the wing feather of the Argus pheasant, showing the ocelli in an intermediate condition. Masłowski had requested permission to translate Descent into Polish in 1873 (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from Ludwik Masłowski, 14 May 1873). A second edition of Descent was published in 1874. A translation of the first seven chapters was published (Masłowski trans. 1874–5). The remainder of the book was published in two parts under the title Dobór płciowy (Sexual selection; Masłowski trans. 1875). See Schümann 2008, p. 250 n. 8.

From Friedrich Hildebrand   26 July 1875 Freiburg i/B July 26th | 1875 Dear and honoured Sir I am very sorry that I cannot give you the results of any new experiments made one the varieties of maize.1 Since my paper in the Bot. Zeit of 18682 I have only been looking out for some constant varieties of maize, but I always failed in getting a constant red variety. This year it would be to late for new experiments, but I shall be very glad if you could procure me next year the seeds of any constant varieties to make the experiments you suggested to me in your kind letter.

July 1875

299

I have read with great admiration the first part of your book on “Insectivorous plants” and I am glad that your investigations have made this matter quite doubtless. With all respect I remain | dear Sir | yours sincerely | Hildebrand DAR 166: 213 1 2

See letter to Friedrich Hildebrand, 17 July 1875 and nn. 1 and 2. Hildebrand 1868.

To Annie Dowie   27 July 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S. E. R.) July 27. 75 Dear Mrs Dowie I hope that you will excuse my troubling you, & grant me a favour about which I feel deep interest. I gave an account of the regrowth of an extra digit in my Variation under Domestication, communicated to me by your Father; & I enclose an old proof sheet.1 Recently the possibility of such regrowth has been disputed at a public meeting in Munich,2 & Sir J.  Paget has searched all Surgical works & consulted many surgeons, & is evidently very sceptical on the subject.3 I understand from your Father that Mr Syme was the ‘eminent surgeon’ who removed the digit for the first time.4 Now what I want especially to know is (1) Was the hand shown to Mr Syme, after the digit had regrown; & who removed it on the second occasion? (2) Can you tell me whether on this second growth the digit enclosed a bone, & was there any nail? (3) After the digit had grown for the third time, did it contain a bone & was it furnished with a nail?5 (4) Has the digit since I published my book6 been removed for the third time; & has it grown again? I feel how unreasonable I am to give so much trouble on a subject which may be painful to you; but I am correcting a new Edit & feel bound to get as correct information as possible.7 I hope I need not say that names shall not be mentioned by me. Might I write (if it seems advisable) to the surgeon who removed the digit on the second & third occasion to learn any surgical details; & in this case can you give the name & address of such surgeons. I earnestly hope that you will do me this great kindness, & I remain | dear Mrs Dowie | Yours sincerely & obliged | Charles Darwin LS(A) Bonhams (dealers) (13 March 2002) 1

In Variation 2: 14–15, CD reported a case of inherited polydactylism, including a child born with an extra finger that regrew after being surgically removed. Dowie’s father, Robert Chambers, died in 1871.

300 2 3

4 5 6 7

July 1875

See letters from Anton Bachmaier, 4 February 1875 and n. 3, and 21 March 1875. CD had first written to James Paget for information on supernumerary digits in 1863 (see Correspondence vol. 11, letter from James Paget, 7 February 1863, and letter to T. H. Huxley, [8 February 1863], n. 3). See also letter from James Paget, 14 August 1875. The surgeon was James Syme. No correspondence with Robert Chambers about the case of supernumerary digits has been found. For CD’s interest in the growth of nails on amputated digits, see letter from A.  M. Lane Fox to E. F. Lubbock, 25 July [1875] and n. 4. Variation was published in 1868. CD altered his views on polydactylism in Variation 2d ed., withdrawing his support for the evidence of regrowth of amputated fingers (see Variation 2d ed. 1: 459).

From J. D. Hooker   27 July 1875 Royal Gardens Kew July 27/75. My dear Darwin I have sinned & done amiss in never yet thanking you for your splendid book on Insectivorous plants.1 What a vast amount of labor it has entailed— I had no idea that you had gone so deep into the Chemistry of the matter. I think that even Dyer2 is now convinced that the plants digest. The coming Darwin will discover that plants “read, mark & learn” too. I was greatly interested in Utricularia, which is a lovely piece of work3 I have had a lot of Nepenthes waiting for study for 2 months, but have been so busy getting over arrears, & getting Dyer into work, that I have not touched them yet.4 As it is I am not half through the arrears of correspondence. I am greatly tempted to go to Down on Saturday if you should be disengaged.5 I ought to go to Boulogne where Harriet & the younger children are, but I don’t want to go so far for a Sunday.6 Your Willy7 is coming to me on Saturday 14th.— Shall you be disengaged can you give me a bed on Saturday. I return the L. S. paper8 Ever yr affec | J D Hooker. DAR 104: 33–4 1 2 3 4

5 6 7

Hooker’s name is on the presentation list for Insectivorous plants (Appendix IV). Hooker alludes to 2 Chronicles 6: 37: ‘We have sinned, we have done amiss, and have dealt wickedly’. William Turner Thiselton-Dyer. CD discussed Utricularia (bladderwort) in Insectivorous plants, pp. 395–444. Hooker had started investigating the digestive powers of Nepenthes (the tropical pitcher-plant) in 1873 (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 October 1873). Thiselton-Dyer had been appointed assistant director at Kew in June 1875 (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 June 1875 and n. 2). Hooker visited Down on Saturday 31 July 1875 (see letter from J. D. Hooker, [30 July 1875]). Harriet Anne Hooker, Brian Harvey Hodgson Hooker, and Reginald Hawthorn Hooker. Boulognesur-Mer is a city in northern France on the English Channel. William Erasmus Darwin.

July 1875 8

301

CD had asked Hooker to sign a statement supporting Francis Darwin’s election to the Linnean Society (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 25 July 1875).

From Annie Dowie   [after 27 July 1875]1 First notice of the birth of Alice occurs in Papa’s Diary Sept 1850.2 27th. Alice born— 5th. Dec. Baby’s superfluous fingers cut off by Prof Syme.3 (since dead.) 9th. January 1851. “This evening observed a small bone projecting from the wound on Alices hand, and finding it loose, picked it off. It seems to be the fragment which was separated by Prof Syme at the second cutting, having been left in the bed of the wound through inadvertancy— Thus the wound has been kept open since the 5th. December in consequence of this unfortunate mistake.” “1851 9th May Prof Syme performed a new operation on Alices hand to extirpate the basis of the extra finger.” Prof Syme also was of opinion with Papa that the stump had grown in the time between the two operations—and we all could see & feel for ourselves how much it grew afterwards, though it has neither the form of a finger nor any finger nail, but is only an angular protuberance.4 Prof Syme I may mention, felt a little annoyed we thought about the business as he had tried to cut as close as he could the first time when he made first one cutting and then another, (the second cutting mentioned by Papa) Incomplete DAR 162: 240/1 CD annotations 1.1 Sept] after opening square bracket blue crayon 2.1 27] circled blue crayon 3.1 since dead] del blue crayon 9.2 finger.”] closing square bracket after blue crayon 10.2 and we … Papa) 10.7] crossed blue crayon Top of letter: ‘Wetstones, West Kirby, Birkenhead’ ink; ‘1st letter’ pencil, circled pencil 1 2 3 4

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the the letter to Annie Dowie, 27 July 1875. The child was Alice Chambers, Dowie’s sister. For CD’s interest in her case, see the letter to Annie Dowie, 27 July 1875 and n. 1. Papa was Robert Chambers. James Syme. For CD’s interest in the growth of nails on amputated digits, see letter from A.  M. Lane Fox to E. F. Lubbock, 25 July [1875] and n. 4. An extract of this letter together with sheets describing another case of regrowth are in DAR 200.3: 63.

302

July 1875

To Friedrich Hildebrand   28 July [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 28 My dear Sir I am much obliged for your letter. I am sorry to say that I cannot help you with maize seed, as it does so badly here that few people cultivate it.2 I have read of constant vars in N. Italy & I should think that Delpino3 could send you what you want. I am very glad you approve of my book.4 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS Klaus Groove (private collection) 1 2 3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Friedrich Hildebrand, 26 July 1875. See letter from Friedrich Hildebrand, 26 July 1875. Federico Delpino. Insectivorous plants. See letter from Friedrich Hildebrand, 26 July 1875.

To H. A. Huxley   28 July 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. July 28. 75 My dear Mrs Huxley Will you be so kind as to keep the enclosed safely & when your husband1 returns ask him to sign it & return it to me.2 I hope you & he are all well Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin My dear Mrs Huxley The candidate & scribe has a word to say himself. I shall be very proud if Mr Huxley will be so kind as to sign my paper I don’t know whether you have started for your summer holiday but I hope you are now that St Swithin has left off for a bit—3 Weather is very important to me a landed proprietor—4 I am said to have the best stack of hay in the parish— Please give my love to Jessy Maidie & all your children.5 With kind remembrance to Mr Huxley Yours affectionately | Francis Darwin LS Imperial College of Science, Medicine and Technology Archives (Huxley 5: 318) 1 2

3

Thomas Henry Huxley. CD was collecting signatures to a statement supporting Francis Darwin’s election to the Linnean Society (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 25 July 1875). The enclosure, probably the proposal form for the Linnean Society, has not been found. According to legend, if it rains on St Swithin’s day (15 July), it will rain for forty days thereafter. St Swithin was the bishop of Winchester in the ninth century. According to Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242), it did rain on 15 July.

July 1875 4 5

303

Francis had moved to Down Lodge, in Down, Kent (Post Office directory of the six home counties 1874). Jessie Oriana and Marian Huxley. The other Huxley children were Leonard, Rachel, Nettie, Henry, and Ethel Gladys.

From Giovanni Canestrini1   29 July 1875 GABINETTO DI ZOOLOGIA | ed Anatomia Comparata | della R. Universita’ di Padova li 29 Luglio 1875 Hochgeehrtester Herr, Ein gewissenloses Betragen des Verlegers Zanichelli hat bisher die Veröffentlichung der Uebersetzung Ihres Werkes über das Variiren der Thiere u. Pflanzen im domesticirten Zustande gehindert.2 Nun aber wird die Unione tipografico-editrice torinese die Uebersetzung veröffentlichen; Ihrem Wunsche gemäss werden wir die zweite Auflage, die im November erscheinen wird, abwarten, um jene Zusätze und Modificazionen einzuführen, die die zweite Auflage mit sich bringt. Die Uebersetzung der ersten Ausgabe ist schon seit Jahren fertig.3 In der Zwischenzeit wünschten wir die Uebersetzung Ihres Werkes zu pubbliciren: The expression of the emotions in man and animals, von mir und einem meiner Schüler zu vollenden, und ich wende mich an Sie, hochgeehrtester Herr, um die Erlaubniss der Uebersetzung ins italienische zu erhalten.4 Ueber die Stereotipen und Tafeln wird sich die oben genannte Unione tipografica mit Herrn Murray verständigen;5 ich will keine Vermittlung mehr in solchen Dingen übernehmen. Es ist jetzt im Drucke die zweite Auflage der Uebersetzung Ihres Werkes: Entstehung der Arten, ecc., mit dem in der 6ten Edition des Originals enthaltenen Zusätzen, und sind bereits vier Hefte erschienen.6 Ihre Theorie macht in Italien grosse Fortschritte, und mit ihr eine wissenschaftliche Anschauung in allen Zweigen der Naturwissenschaft. Mit der höchsten Achtung ergebenster | Prof. G Canestrini DAR 161: 36 CD annotations Top of letter: ‘Expression of the Emotions’ ink; ‘Corrections for Expression despatched’ ink circled ink End of letter: ‘Dr Fritsche. Polish Edition.’7 ink 1 2

3 4

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Canestrini had asked CD for permission to translate Variation into Italian in 1868 (see Correspondence vol. 16, letter from Giovanni Canestrini, 14 May 1868). On problems with the publisher Nicola Zanichelli in 1870, see Correspondence vol. 18, letter from Giovanni Canestrini, 21 April 1870). An Italian translation based on Variation 2d ed. was published in 1876 by Unione Typografico-Editrice in Turin (Canestrini trans. 1876). The student was Francesco Bassani. An Italian translation of Expression was published by Unione Typographico-Editrice (Canestrini and Bassani trans. 1878). There had been some earlier confusion about the rights to translate Expression into Italian (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from C. I. F. Major, 6 February 1873 and n. 2).

304 5 6 7

July 1875

CD and his publisher, John Murray, had negotiated charges with foreign translators for the photographic plates of Expression (see Correspondence vol. 20, letter from R. F. Cooke, 1 August 1872). The second Italian edition of Origin was Canestrini trans. 1875. Gustavus Fritsche had visited CD in February; he hoped to translate Variation 2d ed. into Polish (see letter to Gustavus Fritsche, 13 February 1875, and letter from Gustavus Fritsche, 23 October 1875).

From R. F. Cooke   29 July 1875 50A, Albemarle S.t | W. July 29. 187V My dear Sir I send you 2 pages as Specimens for the Climbing Plants.1 No 1 is exactly the same page as Insectivorous Plants & will make 180 pages No 2 is more spaced out & will make 192 pp & with the Index say 200 pp, & we might if you liked space it out a little more.2 Messrs. Clowes3 are prepared to put on all speed directly we know which you decide upon. It is much better to use the same sized type for both works Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 459 1

2 3

‘Climbing plants’ was originally published in 1865 in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society. In his ‘Journal’ (Appendix II), CD recorded that he had finished ‘recorrecting’ Climbing plants 2d ed. on 29 March. Climbing plants 2d ed. had 208 pages including the index. William Clowes & Sons were the printers for the book.

From Anton Dohrn   29 July 1875 Midland Grand Hotel, | London. 29. July. 1875 Dear Mr. Darwin! Just when leaving Trinity College, where I had enjoyed Mr. Balfour’s kind hospitality, he told me, that an invitation from you had arrived for me and Mrs. Dohrn, “if she were here.”1 I have to thank you very cordially for it, but unfortunately for me I am so much pressed with business, and that of such a restless character, that I find neither time nor, what is still more important, a fit disposition of mind to present me in society, and especially in a house like yours, where the “accessit”2 ought only be given to people, who are not likely to be a bother in any way. Experience has proved to me, that I belong to this class in general, and finding, that all I would have to say to you, would be to thank you once more very heartily and earnestly for having once rescued me from shipwrecking, I think I may do this as well in a letter, and defer a visit

July 1875

305

to such period, where the care for the Zoological Station will have let me free and the food-yolk of my embryonic scientific conceptions may have so far disappeared as to allow a fuller presentation of the Embryo to eyes like yours.3 Mrs.  Dohrn will be proud to hear, that she ought to have had the honour of seeing you and your family;— she carries with her the Volume you so kindly sent to me to Naples, when I already had left.4 It will be my reward for the present, not to pleasant railway-life, that at home on our country-house I shall be able to read “Insectivorus plants” with all possible ease and quietness, and vote repeated thanks to its Author and kind Donator. Mr.  Balfour will vivify this letter in telling you how disagreable a man I have become,— I can only express the hope, that future time may give me an occasion to present me in your house in a better condition of mind, than I am in at present. With my kindest regards to Mrs. Darwin | your sons and yourself | Yours faithfully | Anton Dohrn DAR 162: 217 1

2 3 4

Francis Maitland Balfour was a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; he had visited Dohrn at the Naples Zoological Station in 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Anton Dohrn, 6 April 1874). Dohrn’s wife was Maria Dohrn. Accessit: he or she came near (Latin). CD had helped to raise funds in support of Dohrn’s Zoological Station at Naples (see Correspondence vol. 22). Dohrn’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (Appendix IV).

From Asa Gray   29 July 1875 Botanic Garden, Cambridge, Mass. July 29 1875 My Dear Darwin I have been digging away, very hard, at Californian Botany, and shall have no respite all summer.—1 nor do I particularly feel the need of it yet. I write to beg you will not set me down for an ungrateful fellow, because—thanks to your thoughtful kindness—I have had “Insectivorous Plants” for a fortnight, and have made no sign.2 I meant to have gone through it, and then have written, making some remarks—usually of admiration sometimes, perhaps a suggestion of criticism—which you at once turn the point of. But the fact is, I have been, and am, so driven with work upon necessary, but far duller matters, that I have not yet read 30 pages!! Only to think of it. But next Sunday I mean to go through it. I shall not only “be delighted when I have read it”, but shall have a treat in the reading. You have a wonderful knack. I hope you are very well, and we should be glad to know it. Yours affectionately | A. Gray DAR 165: 188

306 1 2

July 1875

Gray contributed to the classification and description of botanical specimens collected by the geological survey of California (Brewer et al. 1876–80, vol. 1). Gray’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (Appendix IV).

From J. D. Hooker   [29 July 1875] Thursday I shall come by the 4 12 from Ch X. on Saturday1 | JH ApcS Postmark: JY 29 75 DAR 94: 1d 1

The South Eastern Railway ran a service from Charing Cross station to Orpington, the nearest station to Down House.

From J. D. Hooker   [30 July 1875]1 Kew Friday Dear Darwin I am particularly asked to be at the Abbey tomorrow, to “assist” at the unveiling the monument to my old friend Sir J. Franklin.—2 so I shall not be able to leave for Down till the 5 12  train from Charing X.3 Pray do not trouble about sending for me, if in any way not convenient. I shall not expect it: Ever affy yrs | J D Hooker. DAR 104: 35 1 2 3

The date is established by the reference to the memorial ceremony for John Franklin (see n. 2, below). A memorial to the Arctic explorer John Franklin was unveiled in Westminster Abbey on 31 July 1875 (The Times, 31 July 1875, p. 12). Charing Cross station. See letter from J. D. Hooker, [29 July 1875] and n. 1.

From R. F. Cooke   31 July 1875 50A, Albemarle S.t | W. July 31. 187V My dear Sir I will confer with Mr Clowes about the Type &c for the reprint of Variations &c & let you know as early as possible.1 We have only 250 copies remaining of the new edition of “Descent” & I think it will be desirable to print off 1000 more copies to be ready for our Annual Trade Sale.2

August 1875

307

Have you any corrections to make in the plates? The “Expressions” dont move in the least.3 Your’s faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 460 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘(Appleton)’4 pencil 1 2

3

4

William Clowes & Sons was the printing firm used by CD’s publisher, John Murray. Cooke refers to Variation 2d ed. A thousand copies of Descent 2d ed. were printed in 1875 (the eleventh thousand; Freeman 1977). On John Murray’s annual sale dinner, at which major booksellers bought stock at a discount, see J. Murray 1908–9, p. 540. Expression had been reprinted in 1873 (the tenth thousand; Freeman 1977). In his letter of 17 November 1874 (Correspondence vol. 22), Cooke reported that only seven copies had been sold at the annual sale dinner. The New York publishing firm D. Appleton & Co. reprinted Descent 2d ed. in 1875 and 1876 (Freeman 1977).

To Annie Dowie   1 August [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Aug. 1st rs My dear M Dowie I thank you most warmly for all the trouble you have so kindly taken, & for your two very pleasant letters.2 You flatter me (though this is not the proper word) so delightfully about my old friends, the tendrils, that I must send you my book just published about new friends, “Insectivorous Plants”; though there are only bits here & there which readable.—3 I shd like very much to go to Bristol & have long wished to attend one more Brit. Assocn., but I cannot stand so much excitement & talk.4 Now for business,—nothing can be clearer or fuller than your account; but I am much perplexed what to conclude, as Paget thinks the interest or importance of the case largely depends on the certainty of the removal of the base of the bone. He has known an amputated stump of the humerus to grow a little, but thinks this very different from a quite new bone being reformed.—.5 I hope that you will not think I have acted badly, when I say that to give him confidence I told him it was your Father who gave me the information & that Prof. Syme6 was the operator. I told him not to mention your Father’s name to anyone & he says he has not done so; but has applied to Mr Annandale7 (Syme’s assistant) who applied to his Sister8 to know whether Syme had ever mentioned any such case; but he never had to either. Under these circumstances, & as Pagets excellent judgment wd be of greatest value to me, I hope I may lay an abstract of your Fathers diary & of the facts which

308

August 1875

you mention, before him,—again cautioning him not to mention names to anyone.9 I feel bound in honour either to strike out whole case & confess to an error, or to substantiate my statement by details & by the judgment of an experienced physiologist & surgeon, like Paget.10 Now there is one other thing, could you persuade your sister to make a tracing of her hand, the palm being placed quite flat on the paper with the pencil held vertically all the time.11 This would show form of the protuberance & its size. You would of course say that this tracing will be considered as strictly confidential. Believe me that I feel deeply grateful to you, for to be indirectly accused of perverting the truth is the most painful acusation which can be made against me. I remain dear Mrs Dowie | Yours truly obliged | Charles Darwin P.S If your sister consents to oblige, perhaps it wd be best to give two tracings, one with palm flat on paper, & the other with the back of the hand flat on paper.12 National Library of Australia (MS 760/2/10–11) 1 2

3

4

5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Annie Dowie, 27 July 1875. CD had asked Dowie for information on a case reported to him by her father, Robert Chambers, of the apparent regrowth of an amputated extra finger (letter to Annie Dowie, 27 July 1875). CD described the case at length in Variation 2: 14–15. Only one reply to this letter from Dowie has been found, the letter from Annie Dowie, [after 27 July 1875]. Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Presumably, either the missing portion of the letter from Annie Dowie, [after 27 July 1875], or the missing letter contained a reference to Climbing plants. The forty-fifth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science took place in Bristol in August 1875; Dowie’s husband, James Muir Dowie, had been a member since 1870 (‘List of members of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 1876’. Appendix to Report of the 45th meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1875)). See n. 2 above. For James Paget’s scepticism about apparent cases of regrowth, see the letter to Annie Dowie, 27 July 1875 and n. 3. James Syme. Thomas Annandale. The reference may be to a nursing sister. Alternatively, Annandale may have approached Syme’s sister-in-law, Frances Willis; Syme had no sisters (Paterson 1874, p. 1). See letter from Annie Dowie, [after 27 July 1875]. In Variation 2d ed. 1: 459, CD referred to Paget’s conclusion that the degree of growth in amputated extra digits was no greater than might occur in normal bones, and withdrew his former conclusion that their appearance in humans could be explained by reversion to a progenitor with more than five digits (Variation 1: 14–15). See Variation 2d ed. 1: 459; a tracing of the hand was shown to Paget. Annie Dowie’s sister was Alice Chambers.

From R. F. Cooke   3 August 1875

50A, Albemarle S.t | W. Aug.t 3. 1875

My dear Sir Mr Murray will be very willing to make the same arrangement with Messrs. Appletons for the “Climbing Plants” as with the “Insectivorous Plants” in proportion to the expenses.1

Edward Arnott Clowes. W. B. Clowes, Family business 1803–1953 (London: William Clowes and Sons, [1953]), plate opp. p. 50. By permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library.

310

August 1875

There is no hurry about the reprint of the “Descent” & there will be no difficulty about correcting the plates, or even taking out matter, provided always you fill up the space with new matter to the same quantity.2 I have not yet seen Mr Clowes about the “Variations”3 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Chas Darwin Esq DAR 171: 461 CD annotations 1.1 Messrs. Appletons 1.2] underl red crayon 1.2 Climbing] underl red crayon 1

2 3

Insectivorous plants was published by John Murray in London on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). D. Appleton & Co., CD’s US publishers, paid £50 for stereotype plates (Insectivorous plants US ed.; letter from R. F. Cooke, 3 July 1875). Appleton published the US edition of Climbing plants 2d ed. in 1876 (Climbing plants US ed.). See Freeman 1977. See letter from R. F. Cooke, 31 July 1875 and n. 2; no intervening letter from CD about corrections for a reprint of Descent 2d ed. has been found. Edward Arnott Clowes of the printing firm William Clowes & Sons. See letter from R. F. Cooke, 31 July 1875. Variation 2d ed. was published in February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168); it was printed by William Clowes & Sons.

From A. M. Lane Fox   3 August 1875 Uplands | Guildford Aug. 3d./75 Dear Sir I am very glad to be able to give you what ever further information in my power on the subject you request, but it is rather difficult at this distance of time to be perfectly certain of all the details. As regards the first point—the congelation was simply to deaden the pain & the thumb was cut off with scissors— the wound was a long time healing & I cannot distinctly remember how far there was any prominence left or when it began to grow— I only remember we were disappointed at its not having been done more effectually & thinking another operation wd.  be necessary. I do not think there is any prominence of bone beneath the nail   If at any time you were in London or anywhere convenient my son wd. be most happy to show you his hand & let you judge for yourself—1 I thought since I wrote to Lady Lubbock you wd.  be glad to know of another curious case of a school fellow of another son of ours at Charter House by name Smith who it appears has 6 digits on each foot as well as on his hands. He has to have his boots made very broad at the toe the extra digits are on the little finger— (He is nicknamed hexagon)   His parents are dead & his uncle is his guardian so it may be more difficult to get at the particulars, but his house tutor

August 1875

311

Revd. J. Evans Charter House Godalming Whom I saw last night said he was sure the boy wd. not mind giving you any information on the subject he cd. & if you enclose a letter to his address I have no doubt he will do what he can in helping you to get the information.2 He said he had not seen his feet himself but going into the boy’s dormitory the other night he heard Smith exclaim “by Jove its growing again” which gave him the impression he must have had another operation   I shd. like much to know to which case you refer in which yr accuracy has been attacked   In “the Descent of Man” there are no special cases of supernumerary digits given I think?3 believe me yrs. truly | Alice Lane Fox DAR 164: 171 1

2

3

In a letter written to Ellen Frances Lubbock and passed on to CD, Lane Fox had described the apparent regrowth of an extra digit amputated from the hand of her son, Alexander Edward Lane Fox (see letter from A. M. Lane Fox to E. F. Lubbock, 25 July [1875] and nn. 2 and 3). William Augustus Lane Fox was in Gownboys house at Charterhouse school with Walter Joseph Smith, son of Timothy Smith of Boston, Lincolnshire; Henry James Evans was their house master (Charterhouse register, 1769–1872, p. 283, and Charterhouse register, 1872–1900, pp. 6 and 228). CD mentioned polydactylism in Descent 1: 125–6, 276, and 292. Doubt had been raised about cases of apparent regrowth of amputated extra digits reported in Variation 2: 14–15. See also letter to Annie Dowie, 1 August [1875].

To Annie Dowie   4 August [1875]1 Down, Beckenham, Kent 4th August [… thanking … for] your promised intercession with your sister [… and sending an] autograph—as you care to have it— The extract from your Fathers diary will be quite sufficient […]’2 AL incomplete3 Sophie Dupré (dealer) catalogue 25 (1992) 1 2

3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Annie Dowie, 1 August [1875]. CD had asked Dowie for further information relating to the apparent regrowth of a finger amputated from the hand of her sister, Alice Chambers (letter to Annie Dowie, 27 July 1875). Dowie’s reply included extracts from the diary of her father, Robert Chambers (letter from Annie Dowie, [after 27 July 1875]). The original letter is complete and is described in the sale catalogue as being one page long with the signature excised.

312

August 1875

From R. F. Cooke   6 August 1875

50A, Albemarle S.t | W. Aug.t 6. 1875

My dear Sir We have posted a copy of the “Descent” to Mastowski.1 If you are writing to Professor Canestrini, it would be well to remind him, that before we can supply Electrotypes & Photographs for another of your works, he or his friends must pay for what they had before, as we have in vain sought payment for the enclosed.2 I have seen Messrs. Clowes & they are preparing a specimen page for you to see of the new edition of Variations. We must make it uniform with Insectivorous Plants I suspect.3 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 462 1

2

3

Ludwik Masłowski had partially completed a translation of Descent into Polish (Masłowski trans. 1874– 5), and had asked for a copy of the second edition (see letter from Ludwik Masłowski to [John Murray?], 25 July 1875 and n. 5). See letter from Giovanni Canestrini, 29 July 1875. Canestrini had asked for permission to translate Expression into Italian. The enclosure has not been found, but John Murray was seeking payment for electrotypes supplied for Canestrini’s unpublished translation of the first edition of Variation (see letter from R. F. Cooke, 26 May 1875 and nn. 1 and 3). William Clowes & Sons printed Variation 2d ed. The first edition, published in 1868, was the only one of CD’s books printed in demy octavo; the second edition was in the smaller crown octavo format used for all CD’s other works published by John Murray, including Insectivorous plants, which had been published on 2 July 1875 (see ‘Journal’ (Appendix II); Freeman 1977, pp. 122–3).

From Hermann Müller   7 August 1875 Lippstadt, Aug 7. | 1875. My dear Sir, My brothers “Bestäubungsversuche an Abutilon-arten” are published in 〈2 words destroyed〉1 I returned but a few days ago from an excursion of four weeks into the Alps and received when returning your admirable work on insectivorous plants which I have begun reading with extraordinary interest and for which I express to you my hearty thanks. Drosera rotundifolia being a common plant near Lippstadt, I am greatly rejoiced of your thorough examination of it, as I will have opportunity of seeing with my own eyes what you have detected.2 My excursions into the Alps are spent to the examination of alpine flowers and their fertilisation by insects. Last year I have published some articles in “Nature” in order to show that in the alpine region Lepidoptera are of greater

August 1875

313

importance as fertilisers of flowers than in lower localities, whilst Apidae, on the contrary, are greatly dimi〈nished〉3 〈        〉 〈    〉tation, 〈        〉 〈con〉vinced myself that the very outpost of flowers, in the subnivale region, is chiefly crossfertilised by Diptera (Muscidae and Syrphidae) and that in many subnivale flowers adapted to Diptera cross-fertilisation takes place so regularly, that the possibility of self-fertilisation has been lost; for instance in most species of Saxifraga.4 I hope some more excursions into the Alps, to be made during the following years, will enable me to publish an essay on alpine flowers and their fertilisation by insects.5 Yours very sincerely | H Müller. DAR 171: 304 1

2

3

4

5

Fritz Müller’s ‘Bestäubungsversuche an Abutilon-arten’ (Pollination experiments on species of Abutilon; F. Müller 1871–3) was published in Jenaische Zeitschrift für Medicin und Naturwissenschaft. CD had received an offprint of the paper in December 1873 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to Fritz Müller, 1 January 1874). CD’s annotated copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Abutilon is the genus of Indian mallow. CD probably asked for the name of the journal to refer to the paper in Variation 2d ed. 2: 117 n. 71. Müller’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). Most of CD’s experimental work for the book was done on Drosera rotundifolia (common or round-leaved sundew). Apidae is a family of bees. Müller’s series of articles on ‘Fertilisation of flowers by insects’ appeared in Nature between July 1873 and October 1877 (H. Müller 1873–7). The articles on alpine flowers (parts 7–9) appeared in issues for 12 November 1874, pp. 32–3, 10 December 1874, pp. 110–12, and 31 December 1874, pp. 169–71. The subnival region is the uppermost mountain zone in which regular plant growth is still possible, immediately below the permanent snow line (OED). Muscidae is the family of houseflies; Syrphidae is the family of hoverflies. Both are in the order Diptera (flies and midges). Saxifraga (saxifrages) is the largest genus in the plant family Saxifragaceae. Müller’s book Alpenblumen, ihre Befruchtung durch Insekten: und ihre Anpassungen an dieselben (Alpine flowers, their fertilisation through insect agency and adaptations for this; H. Müller 1881) was published in 1881.

To John Lubbock   [8 August 1875 or earlier]1 [to Sir John—, asking for information about the time of the Duke’s arrival on Tuesday,2 to avoid Darwin’s having to remain at home all day, and referring to a letter from Mrs. Lane Fox.3] Incomplete4 Kenneth Hince Book Auctions (dealer) (8 November 1983) 1 2

3

The date is established by the reference to the duke’s visit (see n. 2, below), and by the reference to a letter from Alice Margaret Lane Fox (see n. 3, below). Francis, duke of Teck, visited CD at Down House on Monday 9 August 1875 (John Lubbock’s diary, BL Add mss 62680); the meeting had originally been planned for Tuesday 11 May, but was postponed (see letter to John Lubbock, 3 May [1875] and n. 3). In late July 1875, Alice Lane Fox asked Ellen Frances Lubbock, John Lubbock’s wife, to pass on to CD a letter concerning the regrowth of an amputated sixth digit on her son’s hand (see letter from

314

4

August 1875

A. M. Lane Fox to E. F. Lubbock, 25 July [1875]). In early August, Lane Fox wrote to CD directly about the subject (see letter from A. M. Lane Fox, 3 August 1875). The original letter is complete and is described in the sale catalogue as being one page long.

To W. B. Tegetmeier   8 August [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Aug 8th My dear Sir You have often helped me, & can you do so again? I have said in my Var: under Dom: (of which I am correcting a new Edit.) that Eclipse has never been beaten in speed. A stranger writes to me that this an error.2 Now can you find out from the great authorities of the Field, whether it is known that any horse has been swifter & if so his name; or even whether Racing men confidently believe that any horse has ever been swifter than Eclipse. Will you kindly do what you can for me.— My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin P.S | I daresay I owe to you a very favourable & good review in the Field of my Insectivorous Plants.—3 Archives of The New York Botanical Garden, Charles Finney Cox Collection 1 2

3

The year is established by the reference to corrections for Variation 2d ed., which CD worked on between 6 July and 3 October 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). See Variation 2: 242. In his letter of 22 February 1873 (Correspondence vol. 21), William Frederick Collier claimed that a number of racehorses had already broken Eclipse’s record. CD modified his remarks in Variation 2d ed. 2: 229. The unsigned review appeared in the Field, 24 July 1875, p. 92. CD’s copy is in DAR 139: 18.

From R. F. Cooke   9 August 1875

50A, Albemarle S.t Aug.t 9. 1875

My dear Sir Please to sign the enclosed papers before a witness & return them for us to complete the registration for France & Germany.1 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Chas Darwin Esq DAR 171: 463 1

The enclosures probably related to the German and French translation rights for Insectivorous plants (Carus trans. 1876a; Barbier trans. 1877). John Murray had previously offered to negotiate translation rights in CD’s works on his behalf (see Correspondence vol. 20, letter to R. F. Cooke, [25 October 1872]). Under the terms of agreements with France and Germany, the intention to reserve copyright in translations had to be declared by the author on the title page of the work, and copies had to be registered in Paris and Berlin (see Nowell-Smith 1968, pp. 32 and 62).

August 1875 From R. F. Cooke   10 August 1875

315 50A, Albemarle S.t | W. Aug.t 10. 1875

My dear Sir Mr Clowes1 has been here today with his specimens of type for “Variations” & I now enclose them to you. The page of No 1 is in the same type as “Insectivorous Plants”, but is wider & less spaced out, so as to get in more.2 I am inclined myself to No 2, if you dont dislike the various types. As to “Climbing Plants” I suppose we had better keep it up in type & print off 1500 No, taking off a set of stereotypes for Appletons.3 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Chas Darwin Esq DAR 171: 464 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘When send 1st. Vol.’ pencil 1 2 3

Edward Arnott Clowes of the printing firm William Clowes & Sons. See also letter from E. A. Clowes, 27 August 1875. The page-proofs of the second edition of Variation are in DAR 213.11 together with eight pages in a more widely spaced type. See also letter from R. F. Cooke, 6 August 1875 and n. 3. The US edition of Climbing plants was published by D. Appleton & Co. in 1876 from stereotypes of Climbing plants 2d ed. provided by John Murray (Freeman 1977; see also letter from R. F. Cooke, 3 August 1875).

From Annie Dowie   10 August [1875]1

Wetstones | West Kirby | Birkenhead. 10th August.

Dear Mr. Darwin— Very many thanks for your kind acknowledgment received yesterday.2 I have been examining my sisters hand again and can distinctly feel & see the fifth knuckle though it is smaller than the fourth.3 I hope you will have an opportunity of examining it yourself some day. She tells me when she was 15—Mr. Syme again examined her right hand and agreed with Papa as to the regrowth—but did not advise any fresh operation as it would require such deep cutting out, that it would most likely injure by stiffening her little finger.4 I am glad nothing more was done—as she plays most beautifully on the piano—and might have had great difficulty in doing so after such a serious operation. Hoping to have the great pleasure of coming to see you some day at Down, and with very kind regards and much esteem I remain, | dear Mr Darwin | Yours most sincerely | Annie Dowie. DAR 162: 240

316 1 2 3 4

August 1875

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Annie Dowie, 27 July 1875. Probably the letter to Annie Dowie, 4 August [1875]. Dowie’s sister, Alice Chambers, had had an extra finger that had been surgically removed apparently regrow while she was still an infant; see letters to Annie Dowie, 27 July 1875 and 1 August [1875]. See letter to Annie Dowie, 1 August [1875] and n. 2. The operation on Alice Chambers had been performed by James Syme and reported to CD by her father, Robert Chambers.

To J. H. Gilbert   11 August 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Aug 11 Dear Sir I thank you for your note of July 4th and I apologise for having kept the valuable tables so long, but I was very busy on another subject till lately.1 I remember the first paper which you & Mr Lawes were so kind as to send me, but I never saw the second one.2 The results seem to me extremely curious, and I am astonished at the immense amount of conscientious work which they must have cost you. I have registered the letter so that there may be no chance of the Tables being lost, and with my thanks I remain dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin P.S I hope I may be permitted to add that I have just finished reading with great interest the memoirs of Mrs Gilbert3 LS Rothamsted Research (GIL13) 1 2

3

See letter from J. H. Gilbert, 24 July 1875. CD wrote ‘July 4th’ in error. Gilbert had sent CD tables of results from botanical experiments conducted at Rothamsted Agricultural Station. See letter from J. H. Gilbert, 24 July 1875 and n. 3. Gilbert and John Bennet Lawes had sent CD two papers on experiments at Rothamsted using different manures on meadowland (Lawes and Gilbert 1859, and Lawes and Gilbert 1863). CD cited Lawes and Gilbert 1863 in Cross and self fertilisation, p. 448. The autobiography of Gilbert’s mother, Ann (A. Gilbert 1874), had been posthumously published. CD’s copy has not been found.

From R. F. Cooke   12 August 1875

50A, Albemarle S.t London | W. Aug 12. 1875

My dear Sir If you can release Vol 1 of the “Variations” of course it wd. be a great advantage to begin at once, while the printers are slack of work. We will print off 1500 No of “Climbing Plants” & stereotype the work. Then comes the knotty point as to what we are to do in regard to Variations?1 Yrs faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 465

August 1875 1

317

See letter from R. F. Cooke, 10 August 1875. The printers William Clowes & Sons had provided two specimens of possible type-faces for Variation 2d ed. Variation 2d ed. was published in February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168), although it carries an 1875 imprint. Stereotype plates of Climbing plants 2d ed. were provided by the publisher, John Murray, for the US edition (Freeman 1977).

From James Paget   14 August 1875 Rectory. | Godstone Aug. 14. 1875 My dear Darwin I enclose a copy of the description of an outgrown stump in the Museum at S.t Bartholomew’s—1 Two similar cases have lately occurred, I am told, in the Hospital— Your last report of your case makes it, I think, yet more probable that the amputation was done through a bone or cartilage— The objection which Syme made against a deeper cutting was, probably, founded on the fear of cutting into a joint—2 I should like, before seeming to think everything settled, to look again through Sir J: Simpson’s cases: and I will do this when next I go to town.3 Sincerely your’s | James Paget. Charles Darwin Esq. DAR 174: 10 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Nails | an other case of | 2d Regrowth | & case of ’ blue crayon 1 2

3

The enclosure has not been found. Paget had been a lecturer at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London. No letter to Paget on the subject of the reported regrowth of an extra finger removed by the surgeon James Syme has been found, but see the letter from Annie Dowie, [after 27 July 1875], and the letter to Annie Dowie, 1 August [1875]. In Variation 2: 15, CD cited James Young Simpson’s paper on the apparent regrowth of amputated limbs in human foetuses (Simpson 1848); he removed the discussion from the text of the second edition, noting Paget’s doubts about Simpson’s cases in a footnote (see Variation 2d ed. 2: 358 n. 22).

To Lawson Tait   15 August [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Aug. 15th My dear Sir I must write one line to thank you cordially for your kind Review in the Spectator, which is most honourable to me & more than I deserve. You have, also, pleased me very much by your notice of my son Francis.—2 You will think me extra sceptical, but I cannot understand how the virgin pitchers of Nepenthes can have contained your droserine, seeing that the fluid was acid, at least in one case, & yet did not digest.3 My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin

318

August 1875

I have been working so hard at new Edits, of old Books that I have had no time to think of anything else,, & have done too much, & must leave home for a little rest.—4 Special Collections, Leeds University Library (tipped into Insectivorous plants (1875): Brotherton Collection MS Misc. Letters 2) 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the reference to Tait’s review of Insectivorous plants (see n. 2, below). In his unsigned review of Insectivorous plants in the Spectator, 14 August 1875, Tait credited Francis Darwin, who promised to be a ‘worthy son of a noble father’, with making valuable contributions to the work (ibid., p.1037). See also letter from Lawson Tait, 15 July [1875] and n. 3. In his paper in Nature, 29 July 1875, pp. 251–2, Tait proposed the name ‘droserine’ (‘droserin’ elsewhere) for a digestive substance he believed he had isolated from the secretions of insectivorous plants, and reported on experiments carried out at CD’s suggestion on unopened tropical pitcher-plants (Nepenthes). See also letter from Lawson Tait, 15 July [1875] and n. 5, and letter to Lawson Tait, 20 July [1875]. CD had been working on the second editions of both Variation and Climbing plants; he stayed at the home of William Erasmus Darwin in Southampton from 28 August to 11 September 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

To W. B. Tegetmeier   15 August [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Aug 15th My dear Sir I am very much obliged for all your information. The answer about Eclipse is enough for my purpose.2 To refer to the other points: if the list about the breeding of Mares is printed I shd. like to have a copy, but otherwise do not trouble yourself.—3 I shd.  be grateful for corrections of any errors in Var.  under Dom; but I have added so much that I must add no more.4 Lastly with respect to the Pheasants, I will keep your note & so not forget that you have said something about intercrosses between the two species; but I suppose that the work is a large one, & I really do not like to accept your generous offer,—though the offer pleases me much, & I thank you heartily.5 My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin I sincerely hope that your health is now well reestablished.6 Archives of The New York Botanical Garden, Charles Finney Cox Collection 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to W. B. Tegetmeier, 8 August [1875]. Tegetmeier’s letter has not been found. CD had asked whether Tegetmeier knew of any racehorses faster than Eclipse, as the reference to Eclipse’s record in Variation 2: 242 had been challenged (letter to Tegetmeier, 8 August [1875] and n. 2). The reference is probably to tables compiled by Charles Bruce Lowe that demonstrated the importance of the female line in determining a racehorse’s abilities. Bruce Lowe’s tables (Bruce Lowe 1895) were not published until after his death but were well known; they were posthumously published by the firm Horace Cox, which also published the Field, where Tegetmeier was editor in the pigeons and poultry department (E. W. Richardson 1916, pp. 139, 142–3). CD was at work on revisions for Variation 2d ed. from 6 July to 3 October 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

August 1875 5

6

319

Tegetmeier quoted Descent 2d ed., 2: 156, on the probable characteristics of the offspring of crosses between the Soemmering and the common pheasant in his Pheasants for coverts and aviaries (Tegetmeier 1873, p. 97); CD’s lightly annotated copy, signed by Tegetmeier and dated 1875, is in the Darwin Library–CUL. Tegetmeier’s note has not been found. Tegetmeier had been in poor health the previous year (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from W. B. Tegetmeier, 17 February 1874).

From D. Appleton & Co.   16 August 1875

549 & 551 Broadway, N.Y. Aug 16. 1875

Charles Darwin Esq Dear Sir Your favor of the 4th is just at hand.1 We shall be very glad to receive from Mr. Murray the stereotype plates of yr work on ‘the Habits & movements of climbing plates” on the same terms as before— We only got ready ‘the Insectivorous Plates’ for publication on the 14th.2 There was a fair demand but the season is not favourable. We have no doubt it will do well in the autumn  There appeared about ten days ago a very long & favourable review of the work in the New York Times.3 We will try & find the paper & send it to you  You will notice enclosed an extract from it which we used in our advertisement4 We would like to publish “Animals & Plants under Domestication” & we will approach Judd & Co, on the subject— We should be obliged to purchase his plates & could we make any use of them in the new edition?5 We remain | very faithfully | D. Appleton & Co. DAR 159: A95 1 2 3 4 5

No letter from CD to D. Appleton & Co. of 4 August 1875 has been found. Appleton published both Climbing plants US ed. and Insectivorous plants US ed., using stereotypes of the English editions provided by John Murray. See letter from R. F. Cooke, 3 August 1875. The review appeared in the New York Times, 29 July 1875; CD’s copy is in DAR 139.18: 8. The enclosure has not been found. Variation US ed. had been published in 1868 by Orange Judd & Co.; Appleton published Variation 2d US ed. in 1876. Orange Judd & Co. had reset the book to conform to their usual format and then stereotyped the printing plates (see Correspondence vol. 16, letter from George Thurber, 18–20 April 1868, and Correspondence vol. 17, letter from Orange Judd & Co., 21 April 1869).

To Annie Dowie   16 August [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. August 16th My dear Mrs. Dowie I was very glad to receive your last note; but alas all is of no use! The point of interest is whether additional digits possess a power of regrowth which ordinary digits or bones do not possess.2 Now Sir J. Paget has quite convinced me that the degree of regrowth observed in the case in question is nothing very unusual with bones amputated during a very early

320

August 1875

age. I must alter what I have published & confess to error, which is an unpleasant operation; but it is ten times worse to think, that had it not been primarily through your very great kindness, & secondarily through Sir J.  Paget, I shd.  have gone on republishing & confirming an error.3 Therefore once again allow me to thank you cordially for your assistance, & believe me | Dear Mrs. Dowie | Yours faithfully & obliged | Charles Darwin American Philosophical Society (473) 1 2

3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Annie Dowie, 10 August [1875]. See letter to Annie Dowie, 1 August [1875] and n. 5, and letter from Annie Dowie, 10 August [1875]. In Variation 2: 16–17, CD concluded that the power of regrowth of supernumerary digits was analogous to the power of regrowth in the digits of lower vertebrates, and suggested that they were cases of reversion to an ‘enormously remote, lowly-organised, and multidigitate’ progenitor. CD withdrew the detailed but unattributed description in Variation 2: 14–15 of the apparent regrowth of an amputated sixth finger belonging to Dowie’s sister, Alice Chambers, from the second edition; he replaced it with a brief reference, and a retraction of his conclusions, referring to James Paget’s doubts about this and another case (Variation 2d ed., 1: 459; see also letter from James Paget, 14 August 1875).

From Ernst von Hesse-Wartegg   16 August 1875

Paris, 16. August 1875,

Dear and honoured Sir, A few days ago I took the liberty, to send you the two numbers of the “fremdenblatt”—the Pall mall gazette of Vienna—which contains my review on your last renowned work: “Insectivorous Plants”.1 A glance through them will have shown to you, how much I think of the work, and how much I admire your diligence, your patience, your endurance and, above all, your genius. The little articles I wrote, may they be a little evidence of the acknowledgment of the great services, which you rendered to the natural history and the science generally! The critic, which I wrote for the German “Illustrated London News”—called “Der Pionier” will appear in about a month, and I shall not fail, to send you also copies of this paper.2 The book, you lend me, I have sent to the Savile Club, after your advice.3 I should be very happy, if you would kindly acknowledge the receipt of the “fremdenblatt”—for otherwise I would send you another copy. With the assurance of my high regard, and my admiration | I am, Dear Sir, | yours | most faithfully | Ernest von Hesse Wartegg | Author of the Werkzeugmasch: der Neuzeit,4 | Unterseeische Tunnelbauten etc, etc,—5 at present: | 11, Rue de Strassbourg | Paris. DAR 166: 193 1

Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Hesse-Wartegg’s unsigned review ([Hesse-Wartegg] 1875c) was published in two parts in the Vienna daily newspaper Fremden-Blatt

August 1875

2

3

4 5

321

(Notes from abroad), and credited the book with laying the foundations for wholly new observations and research, and breaking the ice that had previously prevented the stream of knowledge from taking this direction (‘Das buch wird die Grundlage für künstige Beobachtungen und Forschungen bilden; es hat des Eis gebrochen, das biß jetzt den Strom des Wissens nach dieser Richtung hin bannte)’. CD’s annotated copy is in the DAR 139.18: 3–4. CD’s copy of the Leipzig illustrated newspaper Der Pionier is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL, and contains, in addition to Hesse-Wartegg’s profile of CD (Hesse-Wartegg [1875a]), an unsigned twopart review (‘critic’) of Insectivorous plants ([Hesse-Wartegg 1875b]) . CD’s name does not appear on the membership lists of the Savile Club, but George Howard, William Erasmus, and Leonard Darwin were all members, and CD’s publisher, John Murray, was an honorary secretary ([Glubb] 1923, pp. 18–22, 107–9). The club was a social club for writers and artists as well as scientists. The book may have been a copy of Insectivorous plants. Werkzeugmasch: der Neuzeit: machine tools of the new age (German). Die Werkzeug-Maschinen zur Metallund Holzbearbeitung: Machine tools for metal- and woodwork (Hesse[-Wartegg] 1874). Unterseeische Tunnelbauten: undersea tunnel-building (German). Der Unterseeische Tunnel zwischen England und Frankreich vom geologischen, technischen und finanziellen Standpunkte beleuchtet, etc.: The undersea tunnel between England and France examined from geological, technical, and financial standpoints, etc. (Hesse[-Wartegg] 1875d).

From J. D. Hooker   16 August 1875

Kew Aug 16/75.

Dear Darwin I must tell you the joyful news, that we have got rid of D. Galton, who is to resign on his pension (£1000 per ann)— He was entitled to £950, & they will make it the round sum, to look handsome I suppose!. Lord Henry is furious & would not go to the White bait (Ministerial) dinner at Greenwich and he has begun to visit it on me! so I shall have to be very careful.1 Thank goodness I have all the office & the Treasury at my back & beck. Mr Mitford behaves remarkably well under his good fortune in getting this odious obstruction & worse out of his way: he will now make every advance to Lord Henry, who you know has never spoke a word to him since his appointment over 10 month’s ago; & I only hope that, now that my Lord will find himself unsupported, he will retire from active interference in the Office.2 Meanwhile he is moving heaven & earth with the people about the Queen to prevent the Herbarium being kept in the Queens private grounds, for a small piece of which I have asked. (as a site for the new building)   He insists on my finding a site for it in the public part of the Gardens! which I absolutely refuse to do, except the Queen refuses a corner of the Ground where the Herb. now is!3 It is a shame to worry you with these worries; but I know that you will be glad when that Galton is away. Willy4 has just gone; I wish that he would come oftener. I am sorry that Leonard is disappointed about his station, but after getting on the Venus Expedtn. he could not expect a second stroke of luck, at his age!5 you & I might—of course. Ever yr affec | J. D. Hooker. DAR 104: 36–7

Lord Henry Gordon-Lennox. Caricature by ‘Ape’ (Carlo Pellegrini). Vanity Fair Album, 30 July 1870. By permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library

August 1875 1

2

3

4 5

323

Douglas Strutt Galton was director of public works and buildings in the Office of Works. Henry Gordon-Lennox, as first commissioner of works, had jurisdiction over the running of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. For Hooker’s long-running disputes with both men, see the letter from J. D. Hooker, [24 February 1875] and nn. 11–14; see also the letter from J. D. Hooker, 17 March 1875. A dinner for cabinet ministers at which whitebait was served was held annually at Greenwich (OED). Algernon Bertram Mitford’s appointment as secretary to the Office of Works and head of the permanent staff was confirmed in August 1874; Galton, supported by Gordon-Lennox, initially refused to accept Mitford’s authority but resigned when the cabinet confirmed it (Port 1995, pp. 69–70). See also letter from J. D. Hooker, 17 March 1875. The Herbarium had been housed since 1852 in Hunter House, formerly the residence of Queen Victoria’s uncle, Ernest Augustus duke of Cumberland, on the north side of Kew Green (R. Desmond 1995, pp. 198–9). William Henslow Hooker. Leonard Darwin, an officer in the Royal Engineers, had been posted to Malta after returning home in June 1875 from an expedition to New Zealand to observe the transit of Venus (see Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242) and letter to C. E. Norton, 7 October 1875 and n. 6; see also Correspondence vol. 22).

From Lawson Tait   16 August 1875 7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. Aug. 16 1875 My Dear Sir, I cannot tell you how much your kind letter has gratified me.1 That the unopened pitchers of the Nepenthes’ do contain the ferment sometimes, is indisputable; and after all not more wonderful than that the gastric mucous membrane always contains pepsin, the amount being increased by the presence of food.2 The whole question wants very carefully going over, and it is my intention to give some time to it as soon as a run of ovariotomies is over with which I am now engaged.3 These cases are such a terrible strain that I am always unable to do anything else when I have a number. Then, I see my way to quite a book on tails, which will be more to interest the public, as I find my little paper on the cat has made quite a sensation.4 I trust you will take really a long rest. How you can do such work as you get through is to me a marvel. I stayed a day with Dr. Andrew Clark at his country place a short time ago & was delighted to hear him speak encouragingly of your health.5 Yours sincerely | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 17 1 2 3 4

5

CD had written to thank Tait for his review of Insectivorous plants (letter to Lawson Tait, 15 August [1875] and n. 2). See letter to Lawson Tait, 15 August [1875] and n. 3. Tait had published a paper in Nature, 29 July 1875, pp. 251–2, on digestion in Nepenthes (the tropical pitcher-plant). Tait pioneered surgical techniques for the removal of the ovaries (ODNB). In June 1875, Science Gossip had printed a summary of a lecture delivered by Tait to the Birmingham Natural History Society on the uses of tails in animals; the lecture had focused on experiments conducted on his cat (Tait 1875a); no book by him on the subject has been found. Andrew Clark was CD’s physician.

324

August 1875

From Edouard van Beneden1   18 August 1875 Liège le 18 Août 1875. Mon cher et illustre Confrère, J’ai pris aussitôt après la réception de votre lettre des renseignements sur M. Legrain, qui était pour moi un inconnu. Vous trouverez dans le Bulletin de l’Acad. R. de Médecine de Belgique (1867, IIIe. série, Tome I No. 1) la discussion du travail de ce Monsieur.— Il a été démontré par le Dr. Crocq, qui lui mérite toute Confiance, qu’il était matériellement impossible que M. Legrain ait fait les expériences qu’il annonce.—2 Tout cela est un indigne mystification qui a eu pour auteur un homme dont la moralité est caractérisée dans la même publication du Dr. Crocq.— Ce M. Legrain n’a jamais joui, du reste d’aucune considération; c’est un hableur, un blagueur, qui a pu en imposer un moment à quelques médecins peu sérieux, mais dont il n’a plus été question depuis sa fameuse équipée faite à propos de ses prétendus expériences sur les mariages consanguins.— Veuillez recevoir, mon cher et illustre Confrère, l’expression de mes sentiments les plus respectueux et les plus dévoués. | Edouard Van Beneden. DAR 160: 134 CD annotations 1.3 1867 … No. 1] underl red crayon 1.3 No. 1] double underl red crayon 1.5 qu’il … annonce 1.6] underl red crayon 1.8 hableur] above pencil ‘boaster’ 1.9 blagueur] above pencil ‘Humbug’ 1.10 équipée] below pencil ‘trick’ 1 2

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. CD’s letter to Beneden has not been found. In a paper presented to the Académie royale de médecine de Belgique (Legrain 1866), Jean Baptiste Legrain claimed to have interbred several generations of closely related rabbits without ill effects. The veracity of his account was challenged by Jean Crocq (Bulletin de l’Académie royale de médecine de Belgique 3d ser. 1 (1867): 26–49). Without referring to Beneden by name, CD used his information in the second edition of Variation in a note added to a discussion of the effects of inbreeding in rabbits (Variation 2d ed. 2: 100 n. 20). CD also recalled the episode in his autobiography (‘Recollections’, p. 425). See also letter to G. H. Darwin, [19 August 1875].

To J. D. Hooker   18 August [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Aug. 18th My dear Hooker I am delighted at your news about D. Galton, for though I never saw him I feel a diabolical spite towards him.— But you seem to be as bad off as ever with L. Henry. Why on earth shd. he care where you build. It looks as if it were merely to spite you.2 I have no news about myself, as I am merely slaving over the sickening work of

August 1875

325

preparing new Editions.3 I wish I could get a touch of poor Lyell’s4 feelings, that it was delightful to improve a sentence, like a painter improving a picture—. We go on the 27th to Southampton for a fortnight & shall then see the last of Leonard.5 I am as dull as a duck & so good night Yours affect | C. Darwin DAR 95: 390–1 1 2

3 4 5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, 16 August 1875. Douglas Strutt Galton was retiring as director of public works and buildings in the Office of Works, but Henry Gordon-Lennox, first commissioner of works, continued to object to Hooker’s plans for the Kew Gardens Herbarium (letter from J. D. Hooker, 16 August 1875 and n. 3). CD had been working on the second editions of both Variation and Climbing plants (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Charles Lyell. The Darwins stayed at the home of their son William Erasmus Darwin in Southampton from 28 August to 11 September 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Leonard Darwin, an officer in the Royal Engineers, had been posted to Malta (ODNB).

To J. V. Carus   19 August 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Aug 19. 75 My dear Sir I enclose some errata in Insectivorous Plants    I am now correcting the proof sheets of my “Climbing Plants” which will be published early in November and is I think worth translation.1 At the same time a new & much corrected Edit of my Variation under Domestication will be published; and should a new German edit ever be wanted, I hope that you will correct it.2 I will keep the old proof-sheets, which may guide you to the parts which are materially altered. This work will never be altered again. I hope that you are enjoying your holiday & that it will do your health good3 My dear Sir | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Slg. Darmstaedter Lc 1859 Darwin, Charles, Bl. 133–134 1

2

3

Carus had agreed to translate Insectivorous plants into German (Carus trans. 1876a; see letter from J. V. Carus, 28 June 1875). Climbing plants 2d ed. was published in the first half of November 1875 (Publishers’ circular, 16 November 1875, p. 932); Carus’s translation appeared in 1876 (Carus trans. 1876b). Variation 2d ed. has an 1875 imprint but was published in the second half of February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168). A second German edition, based on the corrected first English edition, had been published in 1873 (Carus trans. 1873), so the new German edition was the third (Carus trans. 1878a). Carus suffered from breathing difficulties and had planned to visit a spa (see letter from J. V. Carus, 28 June 1875).

326

August 1875

To G. H. Darwin   [19 August 1875] If your Review is published & you have alluded to the Rabbit case, I think that you ought to send a supplement. Indeed in any case this seems worth doing. I will try & get the book where Mr Legrain is exposed, & you can see it when here. I shd. like the letter returned, but it had better perhaps be first sent to Mr Huth, for whom I am sorry1 C. D What an extraordinary piece of good luck it was that I wrote to Van Beneden.2 ApcS Postmark: AU 19 75 DAR 210.1: 46 1

2

In his book on consanguineous marriage, Alfred Henry Huth gave a detailed account of experiments by Jean Baptiste Legrain that purported to show that interbreeding rabbits for several generations produced no ill effects (Huth 1875, pp. 297–302). Following an enquiry from CD, Edouard van Beneden confirmed that Legrain’s claims had been discredited (see letter from Edouard van Beneden, 18 August 1875 and n. 2). George’s review of Huth 1875 appeared in the Academy, 28 August 1875, pp. 226–7. See letter from Edouard van Beneden, 18 August 1875. CD’s letter to Beneden has not been found.

From Otto Zacharias1   19 August 1875 Goerlitz 19. Aug. 75. Hochgeehrter Herr! Ihr neues schoenes Werk ueber insectenfressende Pflanzen habe ich erhalten und wenn ich Ihnen erst heute dafür meinen besten Dank abstatte, so kommt das daher, weil ich glaubte, ich könnte Ihnen nach Verlauf einer längern Zeit etwas Bestimmteres über die zu gründende biologische Zeitschrift mittheilen.2 Leider habe ich noch nicht die genügende Anzahl von Mitarbeitern gefunden u. ich muss daher warten, bis das geschehen ist, ehe ich mit der Herausgabe des ersten Heftes beginnen kann. Für jetzt haben 12 Herren ihre Mitwirkung zugesagt— aber es müssen mindestens 24 sein, bevor man die Sache mit Erfolg in Angriff nehmen kann.3 Ich gedenke jedoch bis zum neuen Jahr die nöthigen Kräfte zusammen zu haben. Für Ihre aufmunternden Worte danke ich Ihnen noch herzlich.4 Von Zeit zu Zeit wird die transformistische Lehre bei uns noch sehr befehdet und es ist erst neulich von einem jungen Strassburger Professor ein umfangreiches Buch über die Entwickelüngeschichte des bombinator igneus erschienen, worin gegen die Entwickelungtheorie in Ihrem Sinne zu Felde gezogen wird. Der Verfasser des Buches ist Dr. Goette.5 Auch Prof. Haeckel muss noch hier und da harten Widerspruch erfahren und sich sagen lassen, dass er dem Publicum Phantasien anstatt thatsächliche Verhältnisse vortrage. Vorzüglich hat seine Anthropogenie viel Staub aufgewirbelt und Prof. Michelis in Bonn hat eine satÿrische Widerlegung derselben unter dem Titel: Haeckelogonie geschrieben.6

August 1875

327

Unter solchen Umständen ist es schwer eine eigne Zeitschrift für Darwinismus ins Leben zu rufen. Gestatten Sie mir noch eine Frage, hochgeehrter Herr! Vor einiger Zeit kam in einer Gesellschaft von Gelehrten die Rede auf Ihre frühesten Essays u. Schriften und da behauptete Jemand, dass Sie früher einmal einen “Essay über die Heirath zwischen Blutsverwandten” geschrieben hätten. Wenn das der Fall ist, so wollte ich mir diesen Essay aus England kommen lassen und ihn übersetzen, da es äusserst interessant sein muss, Ihre Meinung über diesen Punkt zu hören.7 Vielleicht sagen Sie mir gelegentlich mit zwei Worten ob dieser Essaÿ erschienen ist u. bei welchem Herausgeber in London. Nochmals für die Zusendung der insectivorous Plants dankend zeichnet | hochachtungsvoll | Otto Zacharias. DAR 184: 2 1 2 3

4

5

6

7

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Zacharias’s name appears on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). For details of his plans to found a biological journal in CD’s honour, see the letter from Otto Zacharias, 3 June 1875. For the potential contributors, see the letter from Otto Zacharias, 3 June 1875 and n. 4. Although the periodical never appeared under the proposed title of Darwinia, many of the same contributors were involved in the launch of Kosmos, which first appeared in April 1877 and had essentially the same aims (Daum 1998, pp. 361–2; Nöthlich et al. 2006, pp. 177, 181–2). The original of the letter to Otto Zacharias, [11 June 1875], has not been found. Zacharias described it as a six-page letter in which CD gave the journal his full sympathy, his best wishes, and his support (‘seine volle Sympathie, seine besten Wünsche u. seine Unterstützung’; letter from Otto Zacharias to Ernst Haeckel, 19 June 1875, in Nöthlich et al. 2006, p. 203). In his book on the development of the toad Bombinator igneus, Alexander Wilhelm Goette accepted descent with modification but rejected natural selection as a mechanism (Goette 1874–5, pp. 890–7). For more on the reception of Darwinism in Germany, see Glick ed. 1988, pp. 81–116, and on Goette’s views, see especially ibid., pp. 101–4. Bombinator igneus is a synonym of Bombina bombina, the European fire-bellied toad. Friedrich Michelis subtitled his work (Michelis 1875) an ‘academic protest’ against Ernst Haeckel’s Anthropogenie (Haeckel 1875a). Zacharias wrote a number of reviews of Michelis 1875 (Nöthlich et al. 2006, p. 207 nn. 123 and 124). The paper ‘Marriages between first cousins in England and their effects’ was by CD’s son George Howard Darwin (G. H. Darwin 1875a); Zacharias arranged to have a translation into German made and provided an introduction (G. H. Darwin 1876).

From G. H. Darwin   20 August 1875 Trin Coll Aug 20. 75 My dear Father, I have sent a copy of the letter to Huth and also made an extract for the Academy, merely saying that it is from an illustrious scientific man. Stating facts & omitting the ‘hableur & blagueur’1 I fear it is too late for the review as I have corrected the proof, but no doubt they will put in my letter.2 It is like second sight that you shd. have suspected them to be false, & I don’t think it was to be expected that I shd. do the same.3

328

August 1875

What a scoundrel a man like Legrain must be. It is inconceivable to try & put oneself into his frame of mind. It is very hard that such men should exist; as if truth was’nt hard eno’ to discover without deliberate impostures like this. Such a man as Boudin is vexatious eno’—who is I suppose honest!4 If Huth quotes quite in extenso I think he too ought to have suspected: The exposure is not in the volume from which he quotes.5 I hope you are getting on with Animals as it must be very tedious work.6 Sidgwick & F. Balfour are having a great go at spiritualising again, but I do’nt think Sidgwick is going the right way to work.7 I continue very indifferent still as far as health goes. I don’t think extreme heat suits me as it makes me more languid & one can’t take a brisk walk Yrs affectionately | G H Darwin DAR 210.2: 47 1 2

3

4

5

6 7

Hableur, blagueur: braggart, humbug (French). See letter from Edouard van Beneden, 18 August 1875. See letter from Edouard van Beneden, 18 August 1875, and letter to G. H. Darwin, [19 August 1875]. In his book on consanguineous marriage (Huth 1875), Alfred Henry Huth had reported Jean Baptiste Legrain’s claim to have interbred closely related rabbits for many generations without ill effects. George’s review of Huth 1875 appeared in the Academy, 28 August 1875, pp. 226–7, with a note that since the article went to print CD had been informed by ‘an illustrious Belgian man of science’ that Legrain’s claims had been shown to be impossible. In two accounts of the episode, CD wrote that what aroused his suspicions was the complete absence of any accidents in Legrain’s breeding experiments, something he himself had never achieved (Variation 2d ed. 2: 100 n. 20; ‘Recollections’, p. 425). Jean-Christian-Marc Boudin’s conclusion that the offspring of consanguineous marriages exhibited an exceptionally high incidence of a range of illnesses was challenged by Huth, who criticised both the data and Boudin’s statistical analysis (Huth 1875, pp. 206–12, 231–4); George repeated the criticism at length in his review (Academy, 28 August 1875, p. 226). Legrain’s supposed experiments were published in Bulletin de l’Académie royale de médecine de Belgique (Legrain 1866). A discussion of Legrain’s results, including a claim by Jean Crocq that they were fraudulent, was published the following year (Bulletin de l’Académie royale de médecine de Belgique 3d ser. 1 (1867): 26–49). See also Huth 1875, pp. 297–302. CD was preparing the second edition of Variation (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). See letter to G. H. Darwin, 10 [February 1875]. Francis Maitland Balfour and Henry Sidgwick were colleagues of George’s at Trinity College, Cambridge. Sidgwick in particular had a long-standing interest in psychic phenomena (ODNB; see also Correspondence vol. 21, letter from G. H. Darwin to Emma Darwin, [before 24 November 1873]).

From F. J. Cohn   21 August 1875 Pflanzenphysiologisches Institut | der | K. Universität Breslau. | Liebwerda, Bohemia Aug. 21st. 1875 Dear Sir Believe me not ungrateful because I did not acknowledge till today the receipt of so precious a gift as your book on Insectivorous plants is valued by me.1 I found it impossible to limit myself to a simple expression of thanks; on the contrary I felt obliged to bestow the most sedulous study into a work affording an incredible

August 1875

329

amount of new facts, and a true model of inductive method which cautiously proceeding step by step, conducts to the most surprising biological revelations. So I took with me your book into this little place at the utmost corner of North-Bohemia on the foot of the Iser-mountains, where I am spending some weeks in quiet seclusion amidst forests and hills;2 soon I happened to gather a supply of living Drosera rotundifolia from the moors of this country which did forward me the opportunity to repeat at least the most striking of your admirable experiments, in as much the total want of scientific apparatus did allow; and a little pocket-microscope, which I happily brought there in my carpet bag, permits me to observe your wonderful discovery of aggregation.3 Many years before I had bestowed much time to the observation of Drosera, Mr. Nitschke being a pupil of mine and his principal researches about Drosera being made in my then-private laboratory under my direction for the purpose of an inaugural dissertation.4 But your book shows the whole question quite under a new light, and I congratulate you most sincerely to this last but by no means least contribution to the Advancement of science our generation is owing to your genius. Will you kindly permit me to express candidly a scrupule I was struck with, by perusing your book attentively? By descriving the aggregation in the cells of the tentacles, you always take it granted that the red masses, in incessant changes of form coalescent and again separating, are protoplasma.5 But did you really prove it? To tell the truth, I have some doubts about the protoplasmatic nature of the aggregated masses. My principal reason is their colour. By its general proprieties as well as after the spectroscopic examination of Mr. Sorby the red pigment seems not different from the common erythrophylle of red leaves, petala, fruits, which is not wanting in the tissues of stems and roots; if red, it shows always an acid reaction: if neutral, it changes in violet; if alcaline, it becomes blue or green; the blue colour is generally called anthocyane.6 Perhaps there are different pigments confound under these denominations; but they all agree: they are always dissolved in the watery fluid which fills out the inner cavity of the cells, and they are insoluble in protoplasma. Compare for instance the blue hair-cells at the stamens of Tradescantia and you will well distinguish the colourless circulating protoplasma adhering to the inner cell-wall, and the blue watery fluid of the central cavity.7 I guess, that in Drosera the true circulating Protoplasma is also colourless, and that the purple substance is not protoplasma. But how explain the wonderful phenomenon of aggregation discovered by you? To my greatest regret the microscope here in my possession does not suffice to solve the question; perhaps I shall be happier after my return at Breslau. But I dare to indicate an analogy, first described by Naegeli; put red or blue petala in a denser fluid; by exosmosis water quickley exsudates from out the cells, through their membranes; the membranes withdraw it from the colourless protoplasma and the protoplasma from the coloured watery fluid of the cells, in such a degree, that the pigment looses the necessary quantity of water for its dissolution and is reduced in dense and intensively coloured drops, smaller or larger; by adding fresh distilled water, the later enters by endosmosis into the cells, and the coloured drops dissolve

330

August 1875

in the cell-fluid once more.8 Perhaps there is the clue, for explaining the aggregation by the water-absorbing power of the protoplasma. Please to accept these remarks as a token of the deepest interest I take on your admirable researches and believe me Truly yours | Ferdinand Cohn DAR 161: 200 1 2 3

4

5 6

7

8

Cohn’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). The health resort where Cohn stayed is now known as Lazne Libverda in the Czech Republic and the mountain range is the Jizera mountains (Columbia gazetteer of the world). Most of CD’s experimental work was done with Drosera rotundifolia (common or round-leaved sundew; see Insectivorous plants, pp. 1–277). He described the aggregation of matter within cells of the tentacles and concluded, from the movement and consistency of the masses, that they consisted of protoplasm (ibid., p. 40). Theodor Nitschke’s doctoral dissertation was titled Commentatio anatomico-physiologica de Droserae rotundifoliae (L.) irritabilitate (Nitschke 1858). Nitschke published articles on the growth of round-leaved sundew, on the sensitivity of its leaves, and on its morphology and anatomy (Nitschke 1860a, 1860b, 1861a, 1861b). CD referred frequently to these papers in Insectivorous plants. See n. 3, above. Henry Clifton Sorby, who had invented a spectrum microscope, had studied the nature of pigments in several organic and inorganic substances. CD had learned from Sorby that the red pigment in hairs of Drosera rotundifolia was erythrophyll, a common red pigment found in leaves, fruit, and flowers (see Correspondence vol. 22, enclosure to letter from J. D. Hooker, 15 September 1874; see also Insectivorous plants, p. 5 n.). The term erythrophyll is no longer generally used in scientific terminology, but the substance belongs to a family of pigments that vary in appearance depending on the acidity or alkalinity of the environment, and are now known as anthocyanins. The stamen hairs in Tradescantia (spiderwort) are usually blue; each hair consists of a single row of connected bead-like cells, in which the blue pigment is located in the central vacuoles, while the clear protoplasm is near the outer cell wall. Carl Wilhelm von Nägeli described this process in 1855 (see Nägeli and Cramer 1855–8, part 1, pp. 5–7). CD’s copies of the first and fourth parts of Nägeli and Cramer 1855–8 (the first and second parts were written by Nägeli) are in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.

From William Marshall1   21 August 1875

Weimar 21 Aug. 1875

Hochgeehrter Herr! Empfangen Sie zuerst meinen aufrichtigen Dank für den gütig übersendeten Brief.2 Von grossem Interesse würden die getheilten Federn von jugendlichen Exemplaren sein, um nämlich zu constatiren, ob jeder Ast sein besonderes Dunenbündel trägt, was mir von vorn herein wahrscheinlich ist. An eine nahe Verwandschaft der Straussvögel mit den Reptilien, wie sie Gegenbaur und Huxley betonen, glaube ich nicht. Mir sind die Ratiden rückgebildete Carinaten, vielleicht Hühner vielleicht Sumpfvögel.3 Ihre Jungen sind fertige, ächte Vögel. Das Unvermögen des Flugs und hieraus erfolgte, anatomische Sonderbarkeiten haben zu jener Annahme einer Verwandschaft geleitet. Nach meiner Meinung sind die den Vögeln zunächststehenden, allerdings ausgestorbenen Reptilien sogar brillante Flieger gewesen. Die Steganopoden stehn unter allen Vögeln mit den Urinatoren, wie ich glaube, den Reptilien am Nächsten.4 Haben

August 1875

331

Sie je einen Foetus oder ganz Junges von Plotus oder Aptenodytes gesehn?5 Der Reptiliencharakter ist da sehr ausgeprägt. Und, was freilich weniges beweist, man vergleiche den Habitus, ja die Physionomie eines Pelicans und eines Strausses mit einem Reptil, und man wird von der Aehnlichkeit des einen und der Verschiedenheit des andern betroffen sein. Würden Sie sich, hochgeehrter Herr, für eine Suite microscopischer Praeparate von Hexactinelliden interessiren, so werde ich Ihnen eine solche übersenden.6 Wäre es möglich in England Embryonen und Foetus von Gürtelthieren käuflich zu erhalten? Ich möchte die Entwicklung des Panzers studiren. Sie meiner grössten Hochachtung versicherend, verbleibe ich Ihr dankbar ergebner | Dr. W. Marshall DAR 171: 49 1 2 3

4

5 6

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. CD’s letter has not been found, but was probably a reply to the letter from William Marshall, 2 June 1875. CD’s notes for his reply are annotations to that letter. Carl Gegenbaur had noted osteological similarities between Compsognathus longipes (a turkey-sized dinosaur) and birds in his paper, ‘Vergleichend-anatomische Bemerkungen über das Fussskelet der Vögel’ (Comparative anatomical remarks on the bones of the foot in birds; Gegenbaur 1863, pp. 467–9), but did not refer specifically to ratite birds (those, such as the ostrich, without a keeled sternum). In his Grundzüge der vergleichenden Anatomie (Gegenbaur 1870, p. 587), he argued that the plumage of ratites was closest to the ancestral form of feathers. Thomas Henry Huxley had argued that ratites were most closely related to reptiles (T. H. Huxley 1868a, p. 69). Marshall had opposed Gegenbaur’s view of ratite feathers in his paper on the juvenile plumage of ostriches and the relation of the feathers of the Ratitae to those of the Carinatae (Marshall 1875a, pp. 125–6). For more on the division of birds into Ratitae and Carinatae, see the letter from William Marshall, 2 June 1875 and n. 3. Steganopodes is a former division of birds, based on the characteristic feature of four-toed webbed feet; it is roughly similar to the current order Pelicaniformes. Urinatores is a former division of birds that included grebes and divers or loons, which are now placed in separate orders. Plotus is a synonym of Anhinga, the genus of snakebirds. Aptenodytes is the genus of emperor and king penguins. Marshall had promised in his letter of 2 June 1875 to send CD a copy of his work on Hexactinellida (glass sponges; Marshall 1875b). CD’s copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.

To Osbert Salvin   22 August [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Aug. 22d r My dear M. Salvin I am very much obliged for your memoir which I have read with very great interest. I am surprised that the birds from the different islands prove so similar. How much has been done since my days. It would, indeed, as you say be a fine work for anyone to investigate the perplexing forms on the spot.2 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin P.S | You will see in my Journal, that several specimens ought, if possible, to be collected, of each of the very commonest species from each island, & their habits,

332

August 1875

nests, eggs, young &c, compared.—3 What a flood of light would be thus thrown on Variation! Mrs Sybil Rampen (private collection) 1 2

3

The year is established by the reference to Salvin 1875 (see n. 2 below). CD’s lightly annotated copy of Salvin’s paper on the birds of the Galápagos archipelago (Salvin 1875) is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. CD marked a passage in which Salvin concluded that certain species did not have as restricted a range as CD had claimed (ibid., p. 465). No covering letter from Salvin has been found. For more on CD’s bird specimens from the Galápagos, and later commentary by Salvin and others, see Sulloway 1984 and Steinheimer 2004. In Journal of researches, his published account of the Beagle voyage, CD put forward evidence that different species of mocking thrushes (Mimus) inhabited different islands in the Galápagos archipelago; he suspected this was also the case with finches (Geospiza), but had not kept the specimens collected from each island entirely separate (Journal of researches (1860), pp. 394–5; see also preface, p. vii).

From Hensleigh Wedgwood   [22 August 1875] Insectivorous Plants p. 127, l. 12 from bm for lepidum r. lepidium 344, l. 7 from bm “to pour fourth” 358, l. 2 fr. bm for foliar r. folious, used in that sense by Sir T Browne  there would not be room for foliaceous.1 HW. ApcS Postmark: AU 22 75 DAR 86: B32 CD annotations 4.1 358, … foliaceous. 4.2] crossed ink; ‘stet | (not corrected in book)’ added ink 4.1 foliar] double underl ink 1

Wedgwood’s first two corrections were incorporated by Francis Darwin into Insectivorous plants 2d ed., pp. 105 and 278, but CD’s use of ‘foliar’ was preserved. Thomas Browne used the term ‘folious’ in The garden of Cyrus with the meaning ‘abounding in, or of the nature of, leaves’, as distinct from ‘foliaceous’, which he used to mean ‘leaflike’ (T. Browne 1658, OED). CD had argued that the bases of the tentacles in certain insectivorous plants were likely to have developed from the surface of the leaf rather than from the digestive glands, because while there were many instances of movement in ‘foliar organs’ there were none in hairs or trichomes (Insectivorous plants, pp. 358–60). Wedgwood’s correction was intended to clarify that CD was referring to movement in true leaves and not in leaflike structures.

To A. G. Butler   23 August 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Aug 23. 75 My dear Sir I have received the enclosed moth from Queensland Australia under the name of Ophideres fullonica. The sender gives me a curious account of having caught large numbers with the proboscides deeply embedded in oranges.1 This interests me as bearing on some of my orchis work.2

August 1875

333

Now will you have the kindness to tell me to what family the moth belongs, and more especially whether there is any English genus closely allied & with fairly large species. One of my sons has a moderate collection & I could get thus a proboscis for comparison, as that of Ophideres seems to me in my ignorance an extraordinary structure.3 Pray grant me this favour & believe me yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin P.S The moth from which the proboscis has been removed need not of course be returned LS Royal Entomological Society (28/3) 1

2 3

The specimen of Ophideres fullonica (now Eudocima phalonia, the Pacific fruit-piercing moth) was sent by Anthelme Thozet; the account sent to CD has not been found but was an article from a Queensland newspaper (F. Darwin 1875b, p. 384). According to an account in the Queensland Times (6 April 1869, p. 3), Thozet’s discovery was first reported in the Rockhampton Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser in April 1869; no copy of the original report has been found. Discussion of the damage done by the moths was revived in the Queensland newspapers in May 1875 (Rockhampton Bulletin, 4 May 1875, p. 3). CD added a reference to Ophideres fullonica in Orchids 2d ed., p. 40, as further evidence that moths and butterflies were capable of piercing the nectaries of orchids. The moth collection probably belonged to Francis Darwin, who published an article on the structure of the proboscis of Ophideres fullonica in October 1875; he described it as like a toothed, three-sided bayonet or saw (F. Darwin 1875b).

From A. G. Butler   24 August 1875

British Museum 24th. August 1875

My dear Sir The moth is rightly named (Ophideres Fallonica) it ranges from N. India to Australia, & is also found in the South Sea Islands. It belongs to the Noctuites (Family Ophideridæ),1 its nearest European allies are the species of Catocala Red-underwing moths: C. nupta would be a good English species for comparison, being both large & common: The Catocalidæ however differ much in the form of the palpi from the Ophideridæ & therefore may differ as much also in the proboscis.2 If your son3 has examples of any of the European species of Catephidæ or Ophiusidæ4 I think there will be more similarity in mouth structure amongst them; unfortunately I am just about to take my holidays, or I would relax some of our genera & tell you the result at once; as I shall not be here after today, I shall not have time at present. Of British species Catocala fraxini 5 (a rare insect) seems most similar in structure to Ophideres, it is moreover of about the same size. Believe me to be | yours very sincerely | Arthur G Butler Ch. Darwin Esq F.R.S. | &c &c &c DAR 99: 90–1 1

See letter to A. G. Butler, 23 August 1875. CD had been sent specimens of the moth Ophideres fullonica (now Eudocima phalonia, the Pacific fruit-piercing moth). Noctuites was formerly the order of full-bodied

334

2 3 4 5

August 1875

moths (see E. Newman 1841, pp. 211–12), which included the family Ophideridae. The moth is now placed in the family Erebidae (tribe Ophiderini). For more on the revision of the taxonomy of noctuid moths, see Zahiri et al. 2012. Catocala nupta (the red underwing moth) was in the former family Catocalidae of the order Noctuites. The moth is now in the family Erebidae (tribe Catocalini). Probably Francis Darwin (see letter to A. G. Butler, 23 August 1875, and n. 3). The former families Catephidae and Ophiusidae of the order Noctuites are now in the family Erebidae (tribes Catephiini and Ophiusini). The blue underwing.

To F. J. Cohn   24 August 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Aug 24 75 My dear Sir I am very much obliged for your letter which has gratified me extremely, as I value your good opinion on the subject of this book, more than that of almost any other man in Europe.1 I assumed that the matter which becomes aggregated was protoplasm, as I did not believe that any other known substance had the power of such peculiar amœboid movements. You will find that I describe the protoplasm that flows round the walls to be colourless, and that the granules which it contains are ultimately united with the central masses.2 After the process of aggregation these masses float in colourless or almost colourless fluid, and I assumed that the colouring matter of the fluid was filtered or sifted out of it by the protoplasm, as it coalesced or aggregated. Do not the grains of chlorophyll consist of protoplasm coloured by this matter; & why should not the aggregated masses be tinted in the same way by the red colouring matter? But you will know all this far better than I do. Pray again accept my thanks & believe me Dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Charles Darwin LS(A) DAR 185: 99 1 2

See the letter from F. J. Cohn, 21 August 1875, in which Cohn discussed Insectivorous plants. In his letter of 21 August 1875, Cohn had queried whether CD had shown that the substance aggregated in cells of the tentacles of Drosera rotundifolia (common or round-leaved sundew) was protoplasm. In Insectivorous plants, p. 38, CD described colourless circulating protoplasm lining the cell walls with a homogeneous purple fluid in the centre.

From E. A. Clowes   27 August 1875

Stamford Street | London. S.E. Aug: 27th. | 1875

Dear Sir, Mr. Cooke has sent to us to complain about your proofs being printed on larger paper than the book is eventually intended to be worked on as he says that it misleads

August 1875

335

him in ordering the paper and adds to the expense of the book because it has to be reimposed to fit the dimensions of the smaller paper; under these circumstances shall we in future send you proofs on the right size paper?1 Yours truly | Wm. Clowes & Sons | per E: [A:] Clowes: C: Darwin Esq Mr. Cooke did not know that you had asked us to pull your work with a large margin1 DAR 171: 467 1

2

Robert Francis Cooke was handling the publication of Variation 2d ed. for John Murray’s publishing firm (see letter from R. F. Cooke, 10 August 1875). The proof-sheets are in DAR 213.11; the first, stamped ‘Wm Clowes & Sons | sent out 25 August 75’, has a right-hand margin of 3 cm (1 14 inches), with later ones varying between 1.75 and 2.4 cm ( 34 inch and 1 inch). CD found wider margins helpful for marking revisions (see letter to R. F. Cooke, 29 August [1875]); no request from CD to Clowes for wider margins has been found.

From R. F. Cooke   27 August 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London, W. Aug.t 27 1875 My dear Sir The calculation of Animals & Plants is that Vol 1 Vol 2

will make do

444 560

pages do

this is rather unequal   could you not manage to relieve Vol 2 & add to Vol 1 in dividing the work?1 Do you wish “Climbing Plants” to be published at once?2 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke C. Darwin Esq Are stereotype plates wanted for America of “Animals & Plants” as well as “Climbing ones”?3 DAR 171: 466 1 2

When published, the two volumes of Variation 2d ed. ran to 473 and 495 pages. Climbing plants 2d ed. was, as CD had expected, not published until November 1875 (letter to J. V. Carus, 19 August 1875; Publishers’ circular, 16 November 1875, p. 932).

336 3

August 1875

See letter from R. F. Cooke, 12 August 1875. Stereotypes of Climbing plants had been requested by the US publishers (letter from D. Appleton & Co., 16 August 1875).

From F. J. Cohn   28 August 1875 Liebwerda Bohemia Aug. 28th. 1875 Dear Sir By recalling in mind what I have written to you some days ago, I fear, not to have expressed clearly enough my thoughts about aggregation.1 I beg permission to explain them more explicitly. The cells of the glands and tentacles of Drosera consist 1) of delicate, non incrassated cell-membranes, 2) of a coating of colourless protoplasma, in which granules of chlorophylle— without amylon2—are imbedded. 3) of a central cell-fluid, clear and transparent. In the living tentacles, there are dissolved in the cell-fluid, besides other substances a) erythrophylle3 b.) mucilago c.) an acid—(also in the non irritated glands.) d). a substance, which is only soluble in the acid fluid. By neutralising the acid (adding a strong solution of carbonate of ammonia) the later substance is quickly precipitated in shape of greater or smaller drops or granules which principally are tinged with erythrophylle, but soon by exosmosis of the pigment, become colourless or black, and render the cells non-transparent. The cell-membrane and protoplasma-coating of the living, but non irritated tentacles let diffuse by exosmosis a viscous fluid (mucilago?), but neither erythrophylle nor the acid. By irritation the molecular arrangement of the cell-membrane and protoplasmacoating are changed in as much as a part of the acid exsudates, and the viscous secretion thus becomes acid. By killing the cells, this change in the molecular arrangement of their cell-membranes and protoplasma-coatings proceeds so far as to permit also the exosmosis of erythrophylle; thus the tissues loose their red colour. Aggregation seems to me a process of partial precipitation of certain substances dissolved in the acid cell-fluid, in consequence of the exosmosis of the acid. The changes in the shape of the aggregated masses seem to me analogous to those of clouds which continually change their shapes by partial precipitation and redissolution of aqueous vapours. But very probably other causes may also determine the cloud-like precipitation of the dissolved substance which is intimately united with erythrophylle, if present, which, however, I consider not as protoplasma.— The lines above were written before I did receive your kind letter of Aug. 24th.. I am very proud of the expression of kindness with wich you did favour me; such words as yours are the highest honour a man of science may aspire at.4 You are quite right, that chlorophylle is dissolved in or mixed with protoplasma; but erythrophylle, as much as I know, behaves different, and is never united with protoplasma. But the

August 1875

337

remarks I dare to submit to your consideration, are only the first impressions got from the repetition of your observations with a quite insufficient microscope and without the necessary completion of microchemic reagents. Perhaps I shall be happy enough, after returning home next week, to ascertain the value of my interpretation of your discovery, the most important in biology of our time.5 Believe me dear Sir yours sincerely | Ferdinand Cohn DAR 86: B3–4 1

2 3 4 5

See letter from F. J. Cohn, 21 August 1875. Cohn refers to the process of aggregation in tentacle cells of Drosera rotundifolia (common or round-leaved sundew) first described by CD. In his essay review of Insectivorous plants (Cohn 1876, pp. 454–5), Cohn remained sceptical of the protoplasmic nature of the aggregated material, referring instead to the aggregation of particles in the red cell sap. Amylon: amylum, or starch (Greek). Erythrophyll was the name given to a common red pigment found in plants (see letter from F. J. Cohn, 21 August 1875 and n. 6). See letter to F. J. Cohn, 24 August 1875. Cohn credited CD with discovering carnivory in a number of new plants, with providing the first evidence that the leaves of Drosera not only caught and dissolved organic matter but digested it in the same way as a human stomach, and with being the first to establish a reflex response in its tentacles (‘aggregation’) analagous to that of a nervous system (Cohn 1876, pp. 454–5, especially pp. 450 and 452). For another contemporary assessment of CD’s contribution, see Leland 1876.

To R. F. Cooke   29 August [1875]1 Bassett | Southampton Aug 29th My dear Sir As the Chapters in my Var. under Domestication are consecutive there is no reason why the first or second or third chapter of Vol. 2. might not appear in Vol. I. Mssr Clowes will judge better on this head when he receives M.S of Vol. 2.2 I return home on Sat 11th. & by about 21st I shall be able to send the whole of Vol. 2.—3 I have had a letter from Mssr Clowes informing me that you complain of the extra expence of the proofs of the Climbing Plants being at my special request on wider paper.—4 I do not understand Mssr. Clowes explanation of the cost, as all that I wanted was proofs on better paper & with wider exterior margin, as this saved me much time & labour. Considering that my books sell fairly well, I must say that I have been somewhat mortified & annoyed to hear that you grudge this trifling expence, & complain of my conduct to Mssr Clowes.— I have directed Mssr Clowes to take charge of mere errors in letters in both the books now printing so as to allow me to attend solely to sense; & they must undertake the correction of Index.— I do not think that I am unreasonable in expecting this much aid. Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin National Library of Scotland ( John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 330–1)

338 1 2

3

4

August 1875

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from R. F. Cooke, 27 August 1875. See letter from R. F. Cooke, 27 August 1875 and n. 1. William Clowes & Sons were printing Variation 2d ed.; chapter 12, ‘Inheritance’, which appeared in the second volume of the first edition, was moved to the first volume of the second edition. CD started making corrections for the second edition of Variation on 6 July 1875; the Darwins stayed at the home of William Erasmus Darwin in Southampton from 28 August to 11 September 1875. In the event, CD finished work on the corrections on 3 October 1875. (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II).) See letter from E. A. Clowes, 27 August 1875.

From R. F. Cooke   30 August 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London, W. Aug.t 30 1875 My dear Sir I am very much vexed about the proofs of the new edition of “Animals & Plants” but when I wrote to Messrs. Clowes & Sons on the subject I was not aware of your wishes.1 We are continually in the habit of sending out proofs to authors on larger paper, in the form of slips, so that there may be plenty of margin, so that it was not on the score of extra expense that I wrote. Your works (& we have had just now 3 in hand) have been under my immediate management & I know all about them, but as I may be away when “Animals & Plants” are sent to press, I was afraid by having the proofs sent here on demy 8vo. paper instead of Crown 8vo., that in my absence (& as the last edition was on the larger size), a wrong sized paper would be ordered.2 It was to avoid a mistake that I asked Clowes to send our proofs on the Crown paper. But this shall now be all arranged before I go for my holiday, next week, as I will at once give directions about the paper & I shall have a paper not quite so stout as Insectivorous Plants, as the Volumes will average 500 pages each. You do not say whether Appletons are to have stereotypes of this new edition.3 1500 No will be right of Climbing Plants— a less No will not do with yr name. Regretting very much the annoyance about the proofs | I am | Faithfully Yours | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 468 1 2

See letter to R. F. Cooke, 29 August [1875]. CD had requested that the printers, William Clowes & Sons, provide proofs of Variation 2d ed. on wider paper. In addition to Variation 2d ed., John Murray was publishing Climbing plants 2d ed. and reprinting Insectivorous plants (third thousand); additional print runs of Descent 2d ed. (eleventh thousand), and of Origin 6th ed. also appeared during the year, but from stereotypes (Freeman 1977; on the difficulties of establishing the history of the reprints of Origin, see especially pp. 80–1). On the change in paper

August 1875

3

339

size between the first and second editions of Variation, see the letter from R. F. Cooke, 6 August 1875 and n. 3. Cooke had asked CD in his letter of 27 August 1875 whether D. Appleton & Co. wanted to print a new US edition from stereotypes of Variation 2d ed.

From Samuel Newington   30 August 1875

Ridgeway | Ticehurst. 30th August 1875

Dear Sir: I sh: much like you to see a bird I have here, to which the enclosed description refers.1 I have also a vine I think you would take an interest in. it is the Madresfield Court; a large oval grape, inarched on the Black Hamburgh, both vines growing on their own roots. The type ie, the B Hamburgh. has got the better of the sport, the M Court: the berries on the MC being quite round & the flavour changed to that of the B Hamburgh.2 I have several other things which I think would interest you. I see a train leaves Sevenoaks at 2-37. & arrives at Wadhurst at 3-25, where I could send to meet you.3 I find that if the type be cut off from the sport, the sap of the type causes the oval grapes of the sport to be spherical for one year, but not afterwards. believe me | Yrs Faithfully | S Newington. DAR 172: 34 1 2 3

The enclosure has not been found, but was a description of an apparent duck–fowl hybrid (see the letter from Samuel Newington, 10 December 1875). Black Hamburgh and Madresfield are varieties of Vitis vinifera (the wine grape). Newington is using ‘sport’ in the sense of ‘scion’, and ‘type’ in the sense of ‘stock’. Wadhurst in Sussex was about three miles from Newington’s residence in Ticehurst.

From George Rolleston   30 August 1875 British Association | Bristol. Aug 30. | 1875. Dear Sir, At page 4–5 of the enclosed Address you will find that I have controverted Mr Bagehot’s view as to the extinction of the Barbarians in the times of classical antiquity as also the view of Pöppig as to there being some occult influence exercised by civilization to the disadvantage of savagery when the two come into contact—1 I write to say that I took up this subject without any wish to impugn any views of yours as such, but with the desire of having my say upon certain Antisanitarian Transactions and malfeasance of which I had had a painful experience—2 On reading however what I said, and had written somewhat hastily, it has struck me that what I have said might bear the former interpretation in the eyes of persons who might not read other papers of mine, and indeed other parts of the same

340

August 1875

Address in which my adhesion, whatever it is worth, to your views in general is plainly enough implied.3 I have ventured to write this explanation to you for several reasons. I am | Yours very Truly | George Rolleston DAR 147: 554 1

2

3

The enclosure has not been found but was a copy of Rolleston’s address to the anthropology section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Rolleston 1875). Walter Bagehot, in a passage quoted by CD in Descent 1: 239, asserted that populations of native peoples had not declined when in contact with civilisation in the classical era as they had in modern times. In his address, Rolleston criticised the argument as relying on negative evidence, and suggested that a passage in Job 30: 3–8 described just such a decline (Rolleston 1875, p. 145). In 1840, Eduard Friedrich Pöppig had published an encyclopaedia entry on Native Americans, predicting their extinction within a century (Ersch and Gruber 1818–89 s.v. ‘Indier, Indianer’; see especially p. 86). In his address, Rolleston highlighted the role of disease in population decline not only in native peoples but also in the western world, referring in particular to the smallpox epidemic of 1871 (Rolleston 1875, pp. 144–6). Rolleston, as a member of the Oxford Local Board, had met considerable opposition in his campaigns to improve sanitation in the city and increase resources for the smallpox hospital (Rolleston 1884, 1: liii–liv). Rolleston had published evidence that there was no essential difference between simian and human brains, and was a noted supporter of Thomas Henry Huxley against Richard Owen in the so-called ‘hippocampus controversy’ (Rolleston 1861; see also Rolleston 1884, 1: xxxiii–xxxvii, and Correspondence vols. 8–10, especially Correspondence vol. 10, letter from T. H. Huxley, 9 October 1862 and n. 7). In his address, Rolleston stated that the unity of the human species could not be questioned (Rolleston 1875, p. 154).

To Francis Darwin   [31 August 1875 or later]1 [Bassett, Southampton.] My dear F. I send by this post Proofs of Var under D.—2 Please look to my old instructions. I have glanced only at the added passages & made few hasty corrections.— Keep carefully all old Proofs & M.S.— When returned to Printers mark “Press” unless it is necessary to consult me.— When in doubt about altered passages it will aid you to see what I have said in the first Edition.— I see already that the whole will absolutely require close looking to.— Take great care in making your corrections clear— if there are many you must have revise.— The sheets which I have looked over are marked “Frank” I have put some corrections only in pencil for your consideration & I wish I had done all in pencil.— I am sorry to think what hard work it will be for you, but it will ease me immensely C. Darwin DAR 271.3: 13 1

The date is established by the reference to Variation 2d ed. (see n. 2, below), and by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Francis Darwin, [1 September 1875 or later].

From Joseph Fayrer, Recollections of my life (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1900), plate opp. p. 382. By permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library

342 2

September 1875

CD had sent the manuscript alterations for the first volume of Variation 2d ed. to the printers William Clowes & Sons earlier in August (letter from R. F. Cooke, 12 August 1875, and letter to R. F. Cooke, 29 August [1875]). The first set of proof-sheets was sent to CD on 25 August and the second on 1 September. The proof-sheets are now in DAR 213.11.

From Joseph Fayrer   31 August 1875 India Office 16 Granville Place. 31 August 1875 Dear Mr. Darwin I have the pleasure of sending a little book in which you will perhaps find something that may interest you. May I beg you to do me the honor of accepting it   It was written from notes made during my travels and is meant more for general than scientific readers.1 But it contains facts in the natural history of the Tiger that may atone for its defects. I hope you are well! Believe me— | Yours very truly | J. Fayrer— P.S. | I am going to India with the Prince of Wales on 11 Octr—& shall be away probably till May 1876. Can I do anything to be of service to you.?2 DAR 164: 114 1 2

CD’s copy of Fayrer’s The royal tiger of Bengal (Fayrer 1875) is in the Darwin Library–Down; in it Fayrer reprinted diary entries from several tiger hunts in 1855 and 1870 (ibid., pp. 75–99). Fayrer had informed CD of his impending visit to India with Albert Edward, the prince of Wales, and offered to undertake commissions, in his letter of 8 July 1875. During the expedition, the prince opened the zoological gardens in Calcutta, which had originally been proposed by Fayrer (ODNB s.v. Fayrer, Sir Joseph).

To Francis Darwin   [September 1875 or later?]1 My dear F. Here is a horrid job which I beg you to do pretty soon, i.e. to make out Hoffmann’s conclusions about the fertilisation of Phaseolus. p. 47 to 80.—2 He gives a resumè which will perhaps tell enough.— Phaseolus multiflorus or the Scarlet Runner is plant on which I experimented, & my results (i.e. that it cannot be fertile without insects) has been since confirmed by Ogle & Belt.—3 I am aware that Ph. vulgaris is fully self-fertile.4 If Hoffmann finds that Ph.  multiflorus—(which by the way is synonymous with Ph. coccineus of Lamarck) is fertile in Germany when insects are excluded, either climate has affected the plant, which I do not believe or two species are confounded under one name.—5 C. Darwin

September 1875

343

Does Hoffman describe at all Ph. multiflorus, as whether it is a tall twining plant with scarlet flowers??6 CUL, Darwin Pamphlet Collection R112 1

2

3

4 5

6

The date is conjectured from the supposition that this letter relates to the writing of Cross and self fertilisation, which CD began in September 1875 or soon after (see ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Cross and self fertilisation was published on 10 November 1876 (Correspondence vol. 24, Appendix II). CD refers to Hermann Hoffmann’s Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung des Werthes von Species und Varietät. Ein Beitrag zur Kritik der Darwin’schen Hypothese (Researches on the determination of the value of species and variety. A contribution to the critique of the Darwinian hypothesis; Hoffmann 1869). An annotated copy is is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Many of the annotations do not appear to be in CD’s hand, and were probably made by Francis. See Cross and self fertilisation, p. 152. William Ogle reported that none of the flowers of the scarlet runner-beans protected from insect visits in his garden had produced a pod (Ogle 1870, p. 168). CD underlined this section in his copy, now in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Thomas Belt reported that in Nicaragua, where Phaseolus multiflorus was not visited by humble-bees, the plant was sterile (Belt 1874a, p. 70). Belt may have sent CD some parts of the book in August 1873 (see Correspondence vol 21, letter from Thomas Belt, 2 August 1873). Phaseolus vulgaris is the common bean; it has several cultivated varieties. Joseph Dalton Hooker had informed CD that Phaseolus multiflorus was a synonym of P. coccineus (see Correspondence vol 21, letter from J.  D.  Hooker, 30  August  1873  and n.  1). The accepted name is now Phaseolus coccineus. In Hoffmann 1869, pp. 68–9, Hoffmann described experiments where he protected Phaseolus multiflorus from insect visits; he concluded that it could not be fertilised without insect aid. CD evidently wanted to verify that he and Hoffman were referring to the same species. Hoffman described colour variation in the flowers and seeds of different plants of Phaseolus multiflorus with which he had experimented (Hoffmann 1869, p. 60). He referred to a marbled white American variety as P. multiflorus coccineus, but concluded that colour differences were caused by the more extreme American climate and that it was only a variety, not a true species (Hoffmann 1869, p. 78).

To R. F. Cooke   1 September [1875]1 Bassett | Southampton Sept. 1. My dear Sir One line to thank you for your very kind note.— It was only “Climbing plants” which I wished to have with broad margins & I wrote to Clowes that I did not care about Var. under Dom.—2 I wish I understood more about Printing; as I cannot understand why a proof shd not be always printed with exterior margin wider & this wd be a very great convenience to author, & so in present case of Var. under Dom. There will be very few corrections in this latter book, as I have resolved to read over only my new additions, & my son3 will look over the old parts, & I have instructed him to correct only downright errors.— The corrections are heavy in “Climbing Plants”, & yet I deliberately went over the M.S & old sheets three times!!. I shall be very glad of Stereotypes of “Climbing Plants” for Appleton;4 but about Var. under Dom; it is very doubtful whether I can

344

September 1875

arrange with Orange Judd & Co, who have stereotyped Plates of 1st. Edit; but I am corresponding on subject.5 My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin P.S. | Please send by Post, marking on first page “from Ch. Darwin” a copy of Belt’s Nicaragua to Professor Delpino Vallombrosa Florence Italy.—6 National Library of Scotland ( John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 328–9) 1 2

3 4 5

6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from R. F. Cooke, 30 August 1875. The printer William Clowes & Sons had written to CD that Cooke had complained of the extra expense of printing the proofs of Climbing plants 2d ed. on larger paper (letter to R. F. Cooke, 29 August [1875]. Cooke explained to CD that he had asked for smaller paper for Variation 2d ed. as he did not know that CD himself had asked for larger and he was afraid of a mistake being made about the paper size in the final printing (letter from R. F. Cooke, 30 August 1875). Francis Darwin. D. Appleton & Co., CD’s US publishers, published an edition of Climbing plants in 1876. Orange Judd & Co. had published a US edition of Variation in 1868. They did not publish it from stereotypes of the Murray edition, although they evidently made stereotypes later; the letter from George Thurber, 18–20 April 1868 (Correspondence vol. 16), indicates that they reset it to match their own preferred format. D. Appleton & Co. published the US edition of the second edition from John Murray’s stereotypes in 1876. No correspondence from CD on the subject has been found, but see the letter from D. Appleton & Co., 16 August 1875, where the writer noted that Appleton’s would be obliged to purchase Orange Judd’s plates. For Federico Delpino’s interest in Thomas Belt’s The naturalist in Nicaragua (Belt 1874a), see the letter from Federico Delpino, 11 September 1875.

From E. A. Darwin to Emma Darwin   1 September [1875?]1 1 Sept My dear Emma I am afraid the account today is rather alarming pain & tenderness less but a good deal of port wine ordered which looks as if her weakness was excessive. There never was anything so unlikely as their being from home when food is so important & so difficult of course to get.2 I shall try not to think about coming to you till the time of your return as I am now in an aguish state and any thought of moving is terrifying to me, tho’ being unwell at Down is only being in the fashion.3 Yours affec. | EAD DAR 105: B126 1

The year is conjectured from an archivist’s date on the letter.

September 1875 2

3

345

The invalid may have been Caroline Sarah Wedgwood, CD’s sister. In a letter to Leonard Darwin of 26 October 1875, Emma wrote: ‘Aunt Caroline is no better & still at Felixstowe & we seem surrounded with illness’ (DAR 239.23: 1.35). The Darwins were in Southampton from 28 August to 11 September 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

From Francis Darwin   [1 September 1875 or later]1

Down My dear Father The proofs have come all square & I will attend to all you say.2 I havn’t done any more proboscis work as I wanted to be all ready in case M. Foster does want a note on snails, but I hope he won’t—3 A friend of Amys who was here yesterday had heard of orange suckers in Melbourne—4 It will be awfully jolly coming down to Southampton5 Yrs affec | Francis Darwin We come by the train that gets to Northam at 4.3 on Wednesday6 DAR 274.1: 32 1

2 3

4

5 6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Francis Darwin, [31 August 1875 or later], which mentions proof-sheets of Variation 2d ed. The month and day are established by the reference to Francis’s impending arrival in Southampton on a Wednesday. CD was in Southampton from 28 August to 11 September 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). During this time there were two Wednesdays, 1 and 8 September. However, if Francis had been planning to visit early in CD’s stay there would have been little point in CD’s sending him the proofs, so Francis probably arrived on 8 September. This letter could not have been written before 1 September or the reference to Wednesday would have been misleading. Francis was working on the proof-sheets of Variation 2d ed. (see letter to Francis Darwin, [31  August 1875 or later]). Michael Foster had suggested that Francis work on the histology of the snail’s heart; Francis’s note was published in the Journal of Anatomy and Physiology in 1876 (F. Darwin 1876a). Proboscis work: see n. 4, below. Amy was Francis’s wife; the friend has not been identified. Francis published a paper on the proboscis of Ophideres fullonica (‘an orange-sucking moth’) in the October 1875 issue of the Quarterly Journal of the Microscopical Society (F. Darwin 1875b). Ophideres fullonica is a synonym of Eudocima phalonia (the Pacific fruit-piercing moth). CD was in Southampton from 28 August until 11 September 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Northam station was in Southampton; it was slightly closer to Bassett, where William Erasmus Darwin lived, than the central terminus.

To Joseph Fayrer   1 September 1875

Bassett, Southampton Sept. 1. 75

Dear Dr. Fayrer I am very much obliged for your present just received.1 I have always felt a strange interest about the Tiger & shall be very glad to read your book.— Thanks for your offer of assistance in India, but I have at present no enquiry to make.—2

346

September 1875

Your expedition with the Prince will be I shd. think most interesting & splendid.3 Pray believe me | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin Smithsonian Libraries (Special Collections, Dibner Library MSS 1629 A. Gift of the Burndy Library) 1 2 3

There is a copy of Fayrer’s The royal tiger of Bengal (Fayrer 1875) in the Darwin Library–Down. See letter from Joseph Fayrer, 31 August 1875. Fayrer was planning to go to India with Albert Edward, the prince of Wales (the future King Edward VII).

To Samuel Newington   1 September [1875]1 Bassett Southampton Sep 1 Dear Sir I am much obliged for your kind letter. I cannot believe in the possibility of the hybrid in question. I have examined one such bird, & cleaned its skeleton & it was a pure duck. Mr Bartlett of the Zoolog. Soc. has examined the bones of several such birds with the same result. The correlation however in all these cases between deficient swimming membrane & a deformed narrow beak, is extremely curious, & accords with some other facts.2 The case of the vine interests me more; but I do not understand whether the whole of the Madresfield Court vine now bears rounded berries, or whether a shoot has been produced from the point of inarchment.3 I do not return home untill the 11th, & the state of my health prevents my coming to see this vine, which you are so kind as to offer to shew me.4 If you are inclined to take the trouble to send me half a dozen berries (ticketed with their names) of the pure Hamburgh, the pure Madresfield Ct, 2 of the modified Madresfield, together with information, or a little sketch of the inarched specimen, the information might be of very great use to me. I have lately been writing on an allied subject, & my article is not yet printed off—5 The specimens, if you kindly agree to send them may be addressed here, or after my return home, to Down Beckenham.— If by Railway, to Orpington Station S.E.R. Dear Sir | yours faithfully | Charles Darwin LS(A) Cleveland Health Sciences Library (Robert M. Stecher collection) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Samuel Newington, 30 August 1875. Newington had described what he suspected was a duck–fowl hybrid in a now missing enclosure to his letter of 30 August 1875 (for more on the hybrid, see his letter of 10 December 1875). Abraham Dee Bartlett was superintendent of the Zoological Gardens in Regent’s Park, London. CD had briefly discussed the link between certain seemingly unrelated variations, which typically occurred together, in Origin, pp. 9 and 114–17, and gave a fuller explanation of the phenomenon in Variation 2: 319–38.

September 1875 3

4 5

347

Newington had written about two vines growing on their own roots but grafted (inarched) together, one of which seemed to have given its character to the other (letter from Samuel Newington, 30 August 1875). CD was in Southampton from 28 August to 11 September 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). The article has not been identified.

To W. D. Whitney   1 September 1875

Basset | Southampton Sept. 1. 75

My dear Sir, You will see by the above address that we are all away from home, & we shall not return there until the 11th., so that to my very great regret I shall not be able to see you, a pleasure to which I have looked forward. My son who is here & is writing this for me joins me in wishing you a prosperous voyage home.1 Believe me | Yours very sincerely | Charles Darwin LS Yale University Library: Manuscripts and Archives (William Dwight Whitney Family Papers (MS 555): Box 23, folder 619 Sep. 1-11) 1

The Darwins stayed with their son William Erasmus Darwin in Southampton from 28  August to 11 September 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). No letter from Whitney, who was from the United States, about a visit to Down in September 1875 has been found. Whitney had been invited to Down in May but was unable to come then or later (see letter to W. D. Whitney, [8 May 1875], letter from Emma Darwin to W. D. Whitney, 9 May [1875], and letter from G. H. Darwin to W. D. Whitney, 21 December 1875. The handwriting of the letter is probably George Howard Darwin’s.

To F. J. Cohn   2 September 1875

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Sep 2. 1875

My dear Sir I had resolved not to trouble you with another letter, but I cannot resist thanking you for your last note. When you have watched the aggregated masses in the cells of the tentacles for some little time, under a high power, you will be able to judge whether any other substance except protoplasm undergoes such movements.1 Your remark about the acid passing thro’ the cell-membrane of the glands when irritated has led me to think that this probably is the explanation of the process of aggregation; for, as I have attempted to show (supported as my view is by Gorup-Besanez p.362 of my book) that protoplasm is held in solution by a ferment (the same which gives to Drosera the power of digestion) together with an acid; consequently as soon as the acid passes outwards, the protoplasm is precipitated, & then displays its characteristic spontaneous movements.2 If this view is correct, it would have to be extended to the roots of Drosera, Euphorbia &c (p. 64— & 141) with this difference, that in these cases the Carbonate of Ammonia is absorbed by the roots & unites with some free acid, causing the precipitation of the protoplasm.3 I am however aware that I ought to have worked more on the roots of plants, & on the action of Carb. of Ammonia on the

September 1875

348

grains of Chlorophyll but time & strength failed me. You are very good to speak so encouragingly about my observations on the so-called process of aggregation.4 I have addressed this note to Breslau, from not knowing how long you will remain at your present residence.5 My dear Sir | yours sincerely | Charles Darwin LS(A) DAR 185: 100 1

2

3

4 5

Cohn had written to CD about his uncertainty regarding the protoplasmic nature of aggregated masses in cells of the tentacles of Drosera rotundifolia (the common or round-leaved sundew); see letters from F. J. Cohn, 21 August 1875 and 28 August 1875, and letter to F. J. Cohn, 24 August 1875. In Insectivorous plants, p 362, CD pointed out that all plants had the power of digesting ‘albuminous or proteid substances’, and speculated that this was effected by a solvent, consisting of ‘a ferment together with an acid’. He cited a paper by Eugen Franz von Gorup-Besanez, who had discovered that vetch seeds contained a ferment that dissolved albuminous substances (Gorup-Besanez 1874). In Insectivorous plants, p. 64, CD noted that he had observed a process like aggregation in roots of Euphorbia peplus (petty spurge) placed in solution of carbonate of ammonia; in ibid., p. 141, he described the effect of carbonate of ammonia on Drosera roots. Insectivorous plants, pp. 38–65. In his letter of 28 August 1875, Cohn described CD’s discovery as ‘the most important in biology of our time’. Breslau in Prussia (Germany) is now Wrocław in Poland. Cohn had written from Liebwerda in Bohemia (now the Czech Republic; letter from F. J. Cohn, 28 August 1875).

From Samuel Newington   2 September 1875

Ridgeway | Ticehurst. 2nd Septr. 1875.

My dear Sir I am glad you take an interest in the vine.1 This is the fourth year it has borne round berries. it is however only this year that the Black Hamburgh stock has produced a branch. which is evidently B Hamburgh, shewing that the sport has not influenced the type. I have three experiments in different forms. I will try & make a sketch of the two vines.

X X

O X

D C

A

X

X

X

X X B

September 1875

349

A. B Hamburgh, B. Madresfield. XX. the round berries of the Madresfield. O Black Hamburgh branch, quite natural. C. end of the Madresfield, D. end of the Hamburgh. Another experiment: Madresfield inarched on Muscadine (a type).2 all the berries were round; I cut away the Muscadine, the berries continued round for the first year. this year they are oblong. but not the natural (large) size. 3rd experiment. The Muscadine which I cut away had a long piece of the Madresfield attached to the end of the Muscadine. I allowed the Muscadine to make a shoot below the Madresfield. ‘this’ shoot I inarched on the end of the Madresfield. The Madresfield has this year oblong berries, & the Muscadine its usual round berries. I did not mention that the duck’s feet are not webbed, excepting on two of the toes & these toes are deformed, it moves very slowly on the water & the feathers get wet.3 Perhaps you would take an interest in a discovery I made some years since with regard to the pulse being synchronous with the step while walking or running; presuming that a person walks about 80 steps in a minute; you will see what Sir J. Herschell wrote to me in answer to my letter on the subject.4 I this year—I made a second experiment with potatoes. I kept the tubers in the light until it developed a small leaf (about the size of a sugar plum) & some rootlets round this leaf. I then cut off the leaf with the rootlets. to the number of 23. I told my gardener to plant them. he would have laughed at me. but he knew my vagaries. these 23 leaves &c. have produced about 12 gallons of potatoes, some of the size of an ostrich’s egg, & quite free from disease. This has caused a confusion of ideas amongst my numerous gardeners. The man who actually planted them said he never expected to see any thing above the surface of the earth. This shews that there is no necessity to plant any part of the tuber if the rootlets are allowed to be developed while on the parent tuber, but the question is does this plan cut off the disease?5 time only will prove this. Did you see that about 25  years since I wrote an article on the exudation of carbonic acid in Solution from the rootlets of plants, since then I wrote on the exudation of oxygen in solution. it struck me this might be a solution of several problems, Lindley took it up & was rather angry, he afterwards could not deny it. Daubeny I believe also entered into this theory (which I proved) but Dr Carpenter of Croydon told me he introduced it as his own idea. My articles were in the Gardeners Chronicle ie “the way that roots pass through a dry hard soil”6 I shall be very glad indeed to see you as I hope you will be interested in several of my hobbies, eccentric projects, probably derived from the too close contact with my patients.7 Yrs very truly | S Newington PS. I will send the grapes in a day or two. DAR 172: 35

350

September 1875

CD annotations On diagram: A] ‘Hamburgh | round grape’ pencil B] ‘Madresfield Court | Oval grape’ pencil D] ‘D’ pencil C] ‘C’ pencil 3.1 A.] mark illeg pencil End of letter: ‘Case of grapes very curious & extremely perplexing | give [both] of [them] | Berries | Carbonic A— not heard of— Sachs | Pulse & step, quite new | I return Sir J. Hersh letter’8 pencil 1

2 3 4 5

6 7 8

See letter to Samuel Newington, 1 September [1875]. Newington had written about two vines growing on their own roots but grafted (inarched) together, one of which seemed to have given its character to the other (letter from Samuel Newington, 30 August 1875). Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia) is a grapevine species; Black Hamburgh and Madresfield are varieties of Vitis vinifera (the wine grape). Newington had described what he thought to be a duck–fowl hybrid in a now missing enclosure to his letter of 30 August 1875 (for more on the hybrid, see his letter of 10 December 1875). The letter has not been found. The Herschel calendar, a comprehensive list of John Frederick William Herschel’s correspondence, does not include a letter answering this description. There was a severe outbreak of ‘the potato disease’ (now usually referred to as potato late blight), caused by an oomycete, or water mould, Peronospora infestans (now Phytophthora infestans) in 1875 (Gardeners’ Chronicle, 31 July 1875, pp. 135–6). The articles have not been found. Newington refers to John Lindley, Charles Giles Bridle Daubeny, and Alfred John Carpenter. Newington was superintendent of a mental hospital. CD’s annotations are notes for his letter to Newington of 17 September 1875. Sachs: Julius von Sachs.

To George Rolleston   2 September [1875]1

Bassett, Southampton Sept 2nd

My dear Sir I am much obliged to you for having sent me your Address, which has interested me greatly.2 I quite subscribe to what you say about Mr Bagehot’s striking remark, & wish I had not quoted it.—3 I can perceive no sort of reflection or blame on anything which I have written, & I know well that I deserve many a good slap on the face.— The decrease of savage populations interests me much, & I shd. like you sometime to look at a discussion on this subject which I have introduced in the 2nd. Edit. of the Descent of Man, & which you can find (for I have no copy here) in the list of additions.4 The facts have convinced me that lessened fertility & the poor constitution of the children is one chief cause of such decrease; & that the case is strictly parallel to the sterility of many wild animals when made captive. The civilisation of savages & the captivity of wild animals leading to the same result. I was pleased to see your reference to Chauncey Wright’s article.5 Again thanking you for your address, which like all your writings shows that you are determined to think on all points for yourself I remain| My dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin Wellcome Library (MS.6119/68)

September 1875 1 2

3

4 5

351

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from George Rolleston, 30 August 1875. With his letter of 30 August 1875, Rolleston had sent a copy of his address to the anthropology section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Rolleston 1875). The copy has not been found in the Darwin Archive–CUL. In Descent 1: 239 and 2d ed., p. 183, CD had cited Walter Bagehot’s remark that savages did not waste away before the classical nations as they did before modern civilised nations; had they done so old moralists would have mused over the event, but there was no lament in any writer of that period over the perishing barbarians. Rolleston objected that the absence of a historical record did not prove that barbarian races had not in fact dwindled, and cited a passage in Job 30:3 that he said could be a description of a barbarous race perishing (Rolleston 1875, p. 145). See Descent 2d ed., pp. 188–90. In Rolleston 1875, p. 150, Rolleston cited Chauncey Wright’s suggestion that human brains were were larger in relation to their bodies than those of related species possibly because of the brain power required by the use of language (C. Wright 1870, p. 295).

From A. J. Stuart   2 September 1875 Calicut. | Madras Pres.t | India1 2nd. Sept. 75. Dear Sir— Your book on animals & plants2 is my favourite resource when idle. I believe firmly in the Origin of Species by natural selection and go with Spencer3 I think to the full length of all his conclusions   allow me as a sympathiser & especially as an admirer of any one who is good eno’ to give time & trouble to collecting and recording scientific facts impartially & accurately observed to send you the following case. There is in this Station a dun pegue pony with black prints the property of Cap.t t Hole4 Sup. of Police in this district   It has 17 black stripes some very distinct others faint but all clearly perceptible to any observer from the shoulder to the flank on one side the other I have not observed. Also a deep black spinal stripe. And 9 cross stripes distinct & black on the foreleg above the knee.5 I am going to try breeding the fowls native here and shall be happy to give you any infn.  you may wish for about them    I have not yet had the opportunity of examining the ordinary jungle cock, here common all over India closely nor the G. Sonneratii but my impression is that the common country fowl of these parts resembles the latter bird, I send you a few feathers both from cock & hen—6 If the G.S. is the wild bird of these parts I dont see anything very improbable either in his having been domesticated, or in his having frequently crossed with the original fowl t w.ever that may have been. I think the human race has shown a strong inclination to domesticate & to cultivate any & every wild animal and wild plant that promised to be either useful or ornamental, and therefore it seems to me most-probable that all the different wild species of fowls would probably be domesticated in the neighbourhoods where they are abundant in the wild state. No doubt these again are from one parent if one goes back far enough. But since they branched off from him I dont see why they sd. not all have been domesticated and I think it most probable that t the jungle fowl of w.ever species & wherever found would naturally be domesticated

352

September 1875

by whatever people inhabited the country where he abounded. I think the same argument applies to other domestic animals of wh. there exist or have existed several species. What made man domesticate one species that desire wh. we see some of in the love of children for stealing & rearing young birds in our hedgerows wd. it seems to me most probably lead other branches of the human race to domesticate other species in the attempt to domesticate every wild animal within their reach. Believe me | Dear Sir | yours truly | A. J. Stuart. | Madras Civil Service DAR 177: 268 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Thanks Horses | Agree about | domestication etc— *G S [del] | In wild— some sterile be | G. Son—sterile—states’7 pencil 1 2 3 4 5

6

7

Calicut is now Kozhikode in Kerala, southern India. Variation. Herbert Spencer. Frederick Hole. CD discussed stripes in horses in Variation 1: 56–61. The Pegue or Pegu pony (now usually called the Burmese or Shan pony) is named after the district (now called Bago) in Burma from which it came. In Variation 1: 58–9, CD referred to a report by Edward Blyth, who had seen two bay Pegu ponies with leg-stripes. The feathers have not been found. ‘Ordinary jungle cock’: the red junglefowl, Gallus gallus (see Variation 1: 226, where CD refers to it as Gallus bankiva). Gallus sonneratii is the grey junglefowl (see Variation 1: 233–4). CD held that all domestic breeds had descended from Gallus bankiva (the red junglefowl; Variation 1: 236–46). CD’s reply to Stuart has not been found.

From R. F. Cooke   3 September 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London, W. Septr. 3 1875 My dear Sir As we are to stereotype the new edition of “Animals & Plants” it does not so much matter about the answer from America, as we shall always have the means of doing so.1 When authors want to make many corrections & have more margin to do so we are in the habit of sending their proofs out in slips such as the printed matter I know enclose to show you. This saves much expense also, as it is the corrections made on the proofs after the pages have been formed that are so expensive.2 I think we had better keep the publication of the “Climbing Plants” for our Annual Trade Sale as it is now so late in the season.3 I shall not be here after Monday, for a few weeks. Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 469

September 1875 1

2 3

353

The first US edition of Variation had been published by Orange Judd & Co. CD was uncertain whether the second US edition could be published by D. Appleton & Co. (see letter to R. F. Cooke, 1 September [1875]). See letter to R. F. Cooke, 1 September [1875] and n. 2. Like other leading publishers, John Murray held a sale dinner in November at which the principal booksellers were allowed to purchase stock on favourable terms (see Murray 1908–9, p. 540). Climbing plants was published around 10 November 1875 (letter from R. F. Cooke, 25 October 1875).

From F. J. Morphy   6 September 1875 Gran Ferro Carril del Sud 1 | Oficina del Administrador General | Buenos Ayres 6th. Septr. 1875. Charles Darwin Esqre. M.A.; F.R.S. &c. Sir: Having read your works entitled “The descent of Man” and “Origin of Species”, and observing that in them you make no mention of a cross-breed, which exists in Mexico, between the Ram and the Sow, although you allude several times to the crosses between different animals, it seems to me probable that you may not have heard of this cross,—which is known by the name of “Cuino”—2 but even if you have, no harm can happen from mentioning the subject to you. Having lived over twenty years in Mexico, the fact of the cross I have mentioned is well known to me, and I have never regarded it as extraordinary, but since I have left that country, and have been in other parts, I find that not only is the existence of it ignored, but that people find a difficulty in believing such a cross possible. The Cuino is the offspring of a ram and a sow, I have never heard of a boar crossing with an ewe. The ram and sow are penned up together for some time before they will have intercourse. The sow is generally chosen from a sort called “Concha”, but I believe, solely on account of its being finer than the other breeds in Mexico. The Cuino resembles very much the pig in its outward appearance,—only its nose is flatter, and it is easier to fatten, and is consequently bred for the lard rather than for the meat. It is not sterile; most of the cuinos being descended from other cuinos, and not from the parent-stock. Should you wish to enquire into the case, you had better do so through someone who has friends in the country in Mexico; for persons living in the City, might probably know nothing about the animal. In your “Origin of Species” you mention a cross between the hare and the rabbit,3 but it seems to me, that the species of the ram and the sow, are still more distinct, yet these not only produce offspring, but the offspring are highly fertile when crossed with the mother species, or with each other. I am, Sir, | Yours faithfully | F. J. Morphy DAR 171: 243 1

On the Gran Ferrocarril del Sud (Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway), see Rögind 1937.

354 2

3

September 1875

In 1902, William Bernhard Tegetmeier exhibited the skull of a supposed sheep–pig hybrid, a cuino, from Mexico, where it was domesticated; he concluded that it was a pig (Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (1902, vol. 1): 102). See Origin 6th ed., p. 240.

From Lawson Tait   7 September [1875]1

7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. Sep 7

My Dear Sir, I am engaged in working out a curious speculation as to the origin of the peculiarities of our moral nature, tracing them from the common origin of parental assistance to the young in the struggle for existence   I purpose making it the subject of my introductory lecture to my biology class next month.2 Do you know of any earlier instances of parental protection than that of the stickleback? Spiders don’t? Nor ants? Anything above vertebrata? Yours ever, | Lawson Tait I dont think it so “hopeless to speculate” on this as you seemed to be when you wrote Chap III of “Descent of Man”.3 I think I see my way into the mist at least a short distance. My difficulty is to unlearn enough! DAR 178: 18 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Lawson Tait, 10 September [1875]. Tait was a lecturer in physiology at the Midland Institute (ODNB); no publication by him on this subject has been found. In Descent 1: 80, CD had written, ‘With respect to the origin of the parental and filial affections, which apparently lie at the basis of the social affections, it is hopeless to speculate; but we may infer that they have been to a large extent gained through natural selection.’

To H. E. Dresser   [10 September 1875]1 Bassett. Southampton | ☞ (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.) Friday Dear Sir You will see by above address that I am away from home. We return home tomorrow, & if Dr Severstoff remains in London over Monday I shall have much pleasure in seeing you & him at Down on that (i.e. Monday) or any other day.— You must come to above station from Charing Cross, & I hope it would suit you to come to our Luncheon at 1 oclock.— There is a train which leaves Charing Cross at about the right time to reach Down at about 12 oclock (I forget exact hours) & you can leave us about 2 o clock.—2

September 1875

355

Orpington Station is 4 miles from my House.— Pray excuse brevity & this untidy note. I write in haste to catch morning post.— | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin The John Rylands Library, The University of Manchester 1

2

The date is established by the reference to Nikolai Alekseevich Severtsov, who visited Paris and London in 1875 (Tort 1996), and by the reference to CD’s return from Southampton ‘tomorrow’. In 1875, CD stayed at his son William Erasmus Darwin’s house in Southampton from 28 August to 11 September (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II). In 1875, 10 September was a Friday. Dresser and Severtsov visited Down on Monday 13 September; see letter to G. H. Darwin, 13 September [1875]. In a letter to Leonard Darwin on 14 September 1875, Henrietta Emma Litchfield commented: ‘A Russian ornithologist forced his way in accompanied by an English ditto as keeper’ (DAR 258: 1646).

To Lawson Tait   10 September [1875] Basset. Southampton Sept. 10th My dear Sir I can give you very little information on your subject.1 Earwigs are said, I believe—in Kirby & Spence, to take charge of their young,2 & I am sure that I have read that even Star-fishes do the same for their eggs, as everyone must have read of Spiders—3 I rather think that I have referred to star-fishes in 2d. Edit. of Descent of Man.— Other fish, besides Stickle-backs, take charge of their young; of which I give fresh instances in 2d. Edit. of Descent.—4 Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin Postmark: SP 11 75 Taylor Library, Shrewsbury School 1 2 3

4

In his letter of 7 September [1875], Tait had asked about parental instinct in various organisms. Kirby and Spence 1828, 1: 360–1. Earwigs are insects of the order Dermaptera. On maternal affection in spiders, see Kirby and Spence 1828, 1: 361–3. CD mentioned parental affection in starfish and spiders in Descent 2d ed., p. 106. Starfish are marine invertebrates of the class Asteroidea. See Descent 2d ed., pp. 106 and 344–6.

From Federico Delpino1   11 September 1875 Vallombrosa addì 11. 7bre 1875 Venerato e celeberrimo maestro! Debbo esternarle la mia profonda gratitudine per la squisita gentilezza, di cui Ella volle far prova verso di me nel mandarmi l’interessante libro di Belt “The naturalist in Nicaragua” e il classico lavoro della S.V. sulle piante insettivore.2 Questa bell’opera che è degna di stare a fianco delle antecedenti numerose publicazioni

356

September 1875

colle quali la S.V.  ha saputo rivocare e ricondurre sulla via della verità la Storia naturale, fuorviata da molti pregiudizii scolastici, quantunque da molto tempo fossi persuaso della vera natura e funzione degli organi entomoctoni di dette piante, la lessi con mio grande profitto ed istruzione, ed ebbi occasione di ammirare il talento nella esperimentazione dalla S.V. spiegato in questo lavoro. Ultimamente spedii alla S.V. una mia breve memoria sui “rapporti tra gl’insetti e i nettarii che nelle piante non servono alla dicogamia”.3 Ora è stato un grande piacere per me il vedere come Belt, con osservazioni affatto indipendenti dalle mie e fatte in località dall’Italia tanto distante, sia venuto a conclusioni molto analoghe. Così anche ebbi la soddisfazione di vedere confermata da Belt la mia congettura concernente la fecondazione delle Marcgravie mediate i trochilidi.4 Oramai quella interessante parte della Botanica che studia gli adattamenti di vita esteriore delle piante, ossia i rapporti tra le piante e gli agenti esterni, mediante il vigoroso impulso dato dalla S.V. col mirabile lavoro sulla fecondazione delle Orchidee,5 ha preso un grandioso sviloppo, e domanda urgentemente che uno spirito paziente ed accurato raduni tutte le osservazioni, esperimenti, studii fatti in proposito, e ne formi un trattato completo, il quale riuscirebbe interessante al più alto grado. A questa parte della Botanica che vanta per genitori la S.V. e C. C. Sprengel, io diedi il nome di biologia. Forse il nome non è appropriato, ma io non ne trovai nessun altro migliore. Credo per altro, se non sono in errore, che da qualche autore in Inghilterra sia stato accettato il temine “biologia” nello stesso preciso significato di “scienza dei rapporti esterni ossia della vita esteriore.6 Godo assai dello sviluppo che la dottrina darwiniana va di giorno in giorno prendendo nella dotta Germania; ma mi rincresce che la stessa cosa non si possa dire per l’Italia.7 Troppi interessi contrarii vi sono, ed io, nella mia piccola sfera, ho avuto ed avrò non poche contrarietà a superare. Ma coi principii non si transige. Mi dichiaro della S. V. | Ossequentissimo discepolo | F. Delpino DAR 162: 154 1 2 3

4 5 6

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Delpino refers to Thomas Belt and Belt 1874a. Delpino’s name appears on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (Appendix IV). No article with this exact title (Relations between insects and nectaries that do not serve dichogamy in plants) has been found. A summary of Delpino’s article ‘Rapporti tra insetti e tra nettarii estranunziali in alcuni piante’ (Illegitimate relations between insects and nectaries in some plants appeared in Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali in 1875 (Delpino 1875). There is an annotated copy in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL; CD wrote ‘9 Sept 1875’ on the back. See Belt 1874a, pp. 128–30. Delpino’s conjectures on the fertilisation of the Marcgraviaceae were published in Delpino 1869. Orchids. The term biology had been in use in English since at least 1799, but was still controversial in some quarters (Correspondence vol. 11, letter from Asa Gray to J. D. Hooker, 6 July 1863 and n. 9; OED). Herbert Spencer in his Principles of biology had defined life as the continuous adjustment of internal

September 1875

7

357

relations to external relations (Spencer 1864–7, 1: 80). Sprengel was one of the earliest to study the interrelatedness of flowers and insects, and CD studied the morphology of orchids as it related to the insects that aided in their fertilisation. On the reception of Darwinism in Germany and Italy, see Corsi and Weindling 1985 and Brömer 2008.

From Fritz Müller1  12 September 1875 Itajahy, S. Catharina, Brazil, 12. September 1875. Verehrter Herr! Vor etwa 14 Tagen empfing ich Ihr bewunderungswürdiges Buch über Insecten fressende Pflanzen, welches ich mit ausserordentlichem Vergnügen und Interesse gelesen habe, da der Gegenstand mir ganz neu war.2 Wie ausserordentlich und wunderbar sind doch diese Insecten fressenden und verdauenden Pflanzen! Ich darf Ihnen meine herzlichste Dankbarkeit für Ihre unveränderliche Freundlichkeit ausdrücken. Ich bedaure, dass hier am Itajahy weder Drosera-, noch Utricularia-Arten zu finden sind; auf der Insel S. Catharina giebt es eine gelbe und eine blaue Utricularia und auch eine Art von Drosera.3 In einem früheren Briefe theilte ich Ihnen mit, dass eine von unseren Meliponen als Parasit in den Nestern anderer Arten lebte.4 Wirklich hatte ich in den Nestern zweier verschiedener Arten von Melipona einige Weibchen gefangen, die kleiner waren als die übrigen Bewohnerinnen und ganz abweichend gefärbt; auch hatten sie etwas längere Antennen, wie sie für parasitische Bienen characteristisch sind. Diese Weibchen waren kaum zu unterscheiden bei den beiden Arten, aber im Aeusseren sehr verschieden von den Bienen, mit welchen sie zusammen lebten. So wurde ich zu der irrigen Vermuthung geführt, dass sie Parasiten wären. Als nun mein Bruder diese vermeintlichen Parasiten der einen Art mit der Königin desselben Nestes verglich, so fand er sie mit dieser identisch, abgesehen natürlich von dem stark geschwollenen Hinterleib der Königin.5 Noch ehe ich diese Nachricht erhielt, war ich zu demselben Schluss gekommen, dass nemlich die vermeintlichen Parasiten junge Weibchen der Art sind, mit welcher sie zusammen leben. Ich kenne diese Weibchen bei 4 Arten von Melipona; diejenigen von 3 Arten sind kaum zu unterscheiden ohne genaue Untersuchung und diejenigen der 4. Art weichen nur durch erheblich geringere Grösse ab, während dagegen die Männchen und unfruchtbaren Weibchen (Arbeiter) der verschiedenen Arten grosse Verschiedenheiten in Farbe, Behaarung u.s.w. zeigen. Bei jeder Art gleichen sich die Männchen und unfruchtbaren Weibchen ausserordentlich, während sie von den fruchtbaren Weibchen sehr verschieden sind. Es ist eine sehr merkwürdige Thatsache, dass die beiden Sorten von Weibchen (fruchtbare und unfruchtbare) dermassen verschieden sind, dass die unfruchtbaren Weibchen mit den Männchen übereinstimmen, und die fruchtbaren vielmehr denjenigen von fremden Arten gleichen als den unfruchtbaren Weibchen

September 1875

358

und den Männchen ihrer eigenen Art. Die fruchtbaren Weibchen haben sich offenbar viel weniger von den gemeinsamen Vorfahren entfernt, als dies mit den Männchen und den unfruchtbaren geschehen ist, und dies mag auf den Umstand zurückzuführen sein, dass die fruchtbaren Weibchen wahrscheinlich nur einmal das Nest verlassen, um befruchtet zu werden, während sie die ganze übrige Lebenszeit im Dunkeln verbringen, wo denn Farben von geringer Bedeutung für sie sind …6 〈some text missing〉7  larger than those of the worker and are themselves much larger, even before having been fertilised.— I lately received from a friend of mine a Crustacean which surprised me extremely by its habitat; it lives in fresh water, in small rivulets of our Serra do Mar, whereas the whole family to which it belongs, lives in the sea, and its nearest relative, from which it is hardly to be distinguished, the Aeglea lævis is an inhabitant of the shores of Chile.8  You have stated in your “Variation under domestication” that peloric flowers are peculiarly apt to make their appearance as terminal flowers of ears, which commonly have no terminal flowers.9  Now I lately had an opportunity of examining the flowers of a very stately species of Gunnera (the gigantic leaves not springing from the ground, but from the tip of an erect palm-like stem, about 4 Met. high), and in this the terminal flowers all were provided with petala, which were wanting in the lateral flowers. Here, as in the case of peloria, the terminal flowers apparently shows the primitive condition of the flowers, the petala having been lost by the most densely crowded lateral flowers. As I learn from Endlicher’s and from Hooker and Bentham’s Gen. plant.10 there are some apetalous species of Gunnera, while in others the petala are present.  It is interesting to see in our species both the forms of the flowers combined. Gunnera (manicata?)11

s

(25:1)

p

p a

a a

ov. Terminal flower a. anthera p. petala. s sepala ov. ovarium

s.

s. ov

Lateral flower, (one of the 2 stamens having been removed)

September 1875

359

I hope, Mr. Häckel will have sent you a paper of mine, lately published, on the young stages of Calotermes.12  During the last year I have done hardly anything in the way of natural history and I doubt whether I shall ever be able, to return to my favourite occupations. To be forced to abandon natural history just now, when I had hoped to be able of dedicating to it my whole time, is of course rather painful to me; but whoever has to deal with Brasilian authorities, must be prepared to such disappointments.13  Wishing that this letter may find you in good health, I am, dear Sir, with sincere gratitude and the most profound respect | Yours very faithfully | Fritz Müller. Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 318; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (PrP 08-0011) CD annotations 3.1 larger … Chile. 4.5] crossed blue crayon 5.1 You] after opening square bracket blue crayon 6.1 I … respect 8.2] crossed blue crayon 1

2 3

4

5

6

7 8

For a translation of the first part of this letter, see Appendix I. According to Alfred Möller, all Fritz Müller’s letters to CD were written in English (see Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 72 n.); most of them have not been found. Many of the letters were later sent by Francis Darwin to Möller, who translated them into German for his Fritz Müller: Werke, Briefe und Leben (Möller ed. 1915–21). Möller also found final drafts of some Müller letters among the Fritz Müller papers and included these in their original English form (ibid. 2: 72 n). Where the original English versions are missing, the published version, usually appearing in German translation, has been used. One sheet of this letter was forwarded to Joseph Dalton Hooker and is now in the archive of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; it has been transcribed from the original. Müller’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). Utricularia praelonga, which has yellow flowers, and U. reniformis, which has blue-violet flowers, are found in Santa Catarina, Brazil (see P. G. Taylor 1989 for details of their distribution). Drosera communis is a common species in Santa Catarina, but other species have been found there as well. Utricularia is the genus of bladderworts; Drosera is the genus of sundews. Müller did find a parasitic species, but of the genus Trigona (T. limâo, now Lestrimelitta limao ). See Correspondence vol. 22, letters from Fritz Müller, [c. January 1874] and 20 April [1874]. Melipona, Trigona, and Lestrimelitta are genera of stingless bees. In late 1872, Müller had sent several specimens of bees to his brother, Hermann Müller, who forwarded them to Frederick Smith for identification (letter from Fritz Müller to Hermann Müller, 15 December 1872, Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 208–10). In January 1873, Fritz sent Hermann around forty bee specimens, including nine species that he described as belonging to the genera Melipona and Trigona (letter from Fritz Müller to Hermann Müller, 29 January 1873, Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 214–18). For more on Fritz Müller’s work on stingless honey bees, see Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 208ff., and West 2003, pp. 178–82. Müller had planned to publish his observations on stingless bees, but only published a short work (F. Müller 1875; see letter from Fritz Müller, 20 April [1874] and n. 20). The text of a lecture he gave to a local cultural society on the comparative anatomy of stingless bees and details of cell construction in different species is reproduced in Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 257–92. The extent of the missing text is unknown, but is likely to consist of at least one manuscript sheet, since the surviving English section of the letter is a complete manuscript sheet. Aeglea laevis is a synonym of Aegla laevis. Müller believed it was a saltwater species because Henri Milne-Edwards in Histoire naturelle des crustacés (Milne-Edwards 1834–40, 2: 260) described it as inhabiting the coasts of Chile (see F. Müller 1876a, p. 13). Aegla is an exclusively freshwater genus of anomuran

360

9 10 11 12

13

September 1875

crustacean, and a relative of squat lobsters. Müller named the new species Aeglea odebrechtii (now Aegla odebrechtii) after the friend who discovered it, Emil Odebrecht. Müller’s description of the new species, together with his discussion of its taxonomic place, was published in 1876 (F. Müller 1876a); CD’s copy of F. Müller 1876a is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. For a recent analysis of the taxonomic status of Aegla, see McLaughlin et al. 2010. See Variation 2: 345. Endlicher 1836–42; Bentham and Hooker 1862–83. Gunnera manicata is giant rhubarb. Ernst Haeckel had evidently sent CD the fourth part of Müller’s ‘Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Termiten’ (Contributions to the understanding of termites; F. Müller 1873–5); CD’s lightly annotated copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Müller described the morphological changes in the larval stages of the termite species Calotermes rugosus (now Rugitermes rugosus). Müller had described some of their morphological characteristics in his letter of 16 January 1872 (Correspondence vol. 20). Since July 1874, Müller had not been paid the small monthly stipend that had allowed him to continue to work in natural history, and his expected appointment to a government-sponsored post in the national museum as a travelling naturalist was stalled because of a ministerial crisis. For more on Müller’s difficulties with the provincial government at this time, see West 2003, pp. 185–90.

To G. H. Darwin   13 September [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Sept. 13th. My dear George I am glad that Mr. Huth is thinking of trying to experiment himself on rabbits.—2 I wonder that formerly it never occurred to me to do so.— As far as I can see any hearty common breed would do. I would avoid the tender & perhaps already closely interbred lop-eared fancy breeds & Angoras.— There is a little book “Pigeons & Rabbits” published by Routledge 1854. (author calling himself Delamer, but really Revd. E. S. Dixon) which I shd. think could be trusted about treatment & age for breeding &c.—3 If Mr Huth happened to have any servant who had kept rabbits as a boy it wd be a great aid.— Our old James had done so; & by giving him a quarterly premium I managed to keep my experimental rabbits in excellent health.—4 If I were Mr H. I wd not complicate the experiment by trying about albinism.—5 As soon as 2 or 3 pairs of young of each generation came to breeding age, I would kill off all the old ones, so as to prevent accidents from crossing.— It is wonderfully difficult to prevent accidents.— I wd. never trust to less than 3 pairs in each generation, especially in the later generations, on account of chance deaths.— I wd. keep conditions as uniform as possible.— I think the rabbits of 1st & succeeding generations ought to be weighed at some fixed age, say 6 months. After 4 or 5 or 6 generations of matching brothers & sisters, I wd. try the effect of a cross with some quite new blood. If you think that Mr H. cd decipher my scrawl, you cd send him this; otherwise you cd. copy it. Yours affectionately C. Darwin

September 1875

361

An awful Russian bore has been here & has tired me, so I can tell no news.6 DAR 210.1: 47 1 2

3 4

5 6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from G. H. Darwin, 20 August 1875. No letter from George giving CD news about Alfred Henry Huth’s plans has been found. In his book on consanguineous marriage (Huth 1875), Huth had published extracts from Legrain 1866, in which Jean Baptiste Legrain claimed he had interbred closely related rabbits for many generations without ill effects. CD had found Legrain’s account to be fraudulent. George had published a review of Huth 1875 in the Academy, 28 August 1875, pp. 226–7. See letter from Eduard van Beneden, 18 August 1875, letter to G. H. Darwin, [19 August 1875], and letter from G. H. Darwin, 20 August 1875. There is an annotated copy of Delamer 1854 in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 190). Edmund Saul Dixon wrote under the pen name Eugene Sebastian Delamer. Although he had worked extensively on rabbit skeletons (see especially Correspondence vol. 6), CD seems not to have bred rabbits himself except in 1872, when he was looking after the rabbits that Francis Galton was using in his transfusion and breeding experiments (see Correspondence vol. 20, letters from Francis Galton, 26 May 1872 and 28 May 1872, and letter to Francis Galton, 27 May [1872]). Old James has not been identified. Legrain’s experiments on rabbits had been designed to disprove the theory that inbreeding led to albinism (Huth 1875, pp. 297–8). The visitor was Nikolai Alekseevich Severtsov. See letter to H. E. Dresser, [10 September 1875].

From M. C. Stanley   14 September 1875 Fairhill, | Tunbridge. Sept 14/75 Dear Mr. Darwin It was very good of you to write to me yesty. & I thank you much for telling me such exact truth. I was very much disappointed not to go to Down, but shd. have been in despair had I found myself arriving at an inconvenient moment.1 I must now defer my visit till November, for we go to the North early next week. I went on to Keston to see Mr. Carlyle; the country air has done him great good & I want him to linger on at Keston till the fine weather leaves us.2 I suspect he is getting rather dull, & is half sorry to have been so unsociable to his neighbours on his first arrival! I was in the New Forest the other day & saw some birch trees with bark exactly like that of the birch in Holwood which I remember hearing you speak of.3 Believe me | dear Mr Darwin | Yrs very sincerely | M C Derby I hope Mrs Darwin’s headache has passed away DAR 162: 167 1

CD’s letter to Stanley (Lady Derby) has not been found, but evidently concerned a planned visit to Down on 13 September 1875, the same day as Nikolai Alekseevich Severtsov and Henry Eeles Dresser visited (see letter to H. E. Dresser, [10 September 1875] and n. 2). In a letter to Leonard Darwin, 14 September 1875, Henrietta Emma Litchfield wrote, ‘the horror was great when there came a letter from Ly. Derby proposing to come at the very same time & special messengers had to be sent off to stop them’ (DAR 258: 1646).

362 2

3

September 1875

Lord Derby (Edward Henry Stanley) had put Keston Lodge, Keston, Kent, at Thomas Carlyle’s disposal for the summer of 1875 (D. A. Wilson 1898, p. 334). Carlyle visited Down on 26 August and 12 and 19 September 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Holwood House is a country house in Keston, Kent. CD had known the previous owner, Robert Monsey Rolfe, Lord Cranworth. Lady Derby herself had stayed there for a time (letter from M. C. Stanley, [16 November 1871] (to be published in the next supplement), and died there (ODNB).

From J. W. Clark   16 September 1875 18 High Street | Southampton Sept 16. 1875. Dear Sir, As promised by my letter of yesterday I forward a few instances briefly described— respecting the dilation of the pupils of animal’s eyes when suffering from fear.1 The appearance is that of Gratiolet quoted in the “Expression of the Emotions”—as if “gazing into profound darkness”—but with associated actions & appearances it also conveys to my mind most distinctly the impression of fear or dread.2 Should I be able to get any more opinions or observations I shall make note of them & should you desire it shall be happy to forward them to you at any time. Believe me I remain dear Sir, yours very truly, | J W Clark P.S. Any further inquiries or suggestions you have to make respecting my experiments on the Drosera I shall esteem an honour.3 DAR 161: 155 1 2

3

Clark’s letter to CD of 15 September 1875 has not been found, but see the letter from J. W. Clark, 25 June 1875. The quotation from Louis Pierre Gratiolet’s De la physionomie et les mouvements d’expression (Gratiolet [1865]) is in Expression, p. 304. The observations sent with this letter have not been found, but a note added in the second edition of Expression, which was published after CD’s death, suggests that they may have concerned a cat (Expression 2d ed., p. 321 n. 37). Clark published on Drosera (sundew) in September 1875 ( J. W. Clark 1875). CD had published Insectivorous plants, the first part of which was devoted to Drosera, in July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

From Woodward Emery   17 September 1875 Mr. Charles Darwin My dear Sir This communication is made to inform you of the death of Mr Chauncey Wright of Cambridge, which took place on the twelfth day of September.1 Mr. Wright was found on Sunday morning in his room in a state of profound coma, from which he never rallied, dying within half an hour after medical aid was summoned. The result

September 1875

363

of the autopsy, conducted under the direction of Dr. Morril Wyman2 seems to point to congestion of the brain as the cause of death— Mr Wright was last seen on Saturday evening about eleven o’clock in his apartments in his usual state of health, and was discovered about seven on Sunday morning in the condition above described. Lying open on the table beside him was your recent work on insectivorous plants.3 The remains have been taken to and interred in his family tomb at Northampton Mass. The minute examination of the brain is not yet concluded, but the brain is pronounced to be of a high type—4 As an intimate friend of Mr. Wright, occupying the same apartments, it seems to me proper that I should inform you of the foregoing facts— I have the honor to be, My dear Sir, | Your obedient servant, | Woodward Emery 8 Barristers Hall | 7 Court Sq. | Boston, Mass. Sept. 17th 1875 DAR 163: 18 1 2 3 4

Wright, of Cambridge, Massachusetts, was 44 years old; he had corresponded with CD since 1871. Morrill Wyman. Insectivorous plants was published in London in July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). The US edition was published from stereotypes in the same year (Freeman 1977). The size and convolutions of the brain had long been thought to have a bearing on intelligence; see, for example, Solly 1847, pp. 124, 131–2. More recently, Paul Broca had worked on brain anatomy (Schiller 1979, pp. 166–205).

To Samuel Newington   17 September 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Sep 17. 75 My dear Sir I am much obliged for your letter of Sep 2nd explaining to me about the vines. I should expect that the Madresfield vine was originally a sport of the Hamburgh & reverted to it after being in-arched.1 The case is very curious, but does not immediately concern me. I have not received the specns. of berries which you intended to send me, but this is now of no importance. I have never heard of yr observations of roots secreting carbonic acid; but Prof: Sachs has proved this by growing plants in polished marbe pots.2 I return Sir J. Herschel’s letter; yr observation on the coincidence of the pulse & step are quite new to me.3 Dear Sir | Yrs faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS American Philosophical Society (475) 1

See letter from Samuel Newington, 2 September 1875.

364 2

3

September 1875

See letter from Julius von Sachs, 4 July 1875 and n. 8, and Sachs 1860 and 1864. Sachs had noted that air in the soil contained much more carbonic acid than air above ground, and that the source of the acid was the roots of plants (Sachs 1860, p. 118). See letter from Samuel Newington, 2 September 1875. John Frederick William Herschel’s letter has not been found.

From R. D. Fitzgerald   20 September 1875

Surveyor Generals Office | Sydney 20 Sep 75

Dear Sir Please accept my best thank’s for your very kind and encouraging letter and for the present of your work on Insectivorous Plants, which I have just received and in the perusal of which I expect great pleasure.1 Nothing could have afforded me greater satisfaction than the expression of your approval. There are many things I have made out respecting various species, which will I think interest you, and which I hope to be able to publish in succeeding parts. Respecting Dendrobium Hillii you suggest that the pollen of a distinct plant should be applied in order to try whether barrenness would be thereby overcome; but in fact D Hillii is not in the least barren from any other cause than that no pollen reaches the stigma.2 When its own or that of any other Dendrobium is placed on the stigma a capsule is readily produced. As to the Calli on Caladenia I have frequently examined specially whether they were attractive to insects as food; but could never find that they were eaten in preference to any other part of the flowers and I am convinced that the Caladenias are principally fertilised by large flies brought into contact with the anther and stigma by the spring of the labellum.3 I have absolutely observed such fertilisation in two instances one in a house and the other in the “bush” I have just noticed a remark in “My Garden” by A Smee FRS which I think curiously supports my suggestion as to the method in which Angræcum sesquipedale may be fertilised. speaking of it he sais “having a long appendage which the crickets delight to eat making the flower look ridiculous” p. 302.4 I am in hopes that I may be able soon to send you the second part of the Orchids in which you will find remarks on our spiranthes that will I think interest you5 I remain Dear Sir | Yours truly | Robt D Fitzgerald DAR 164: 130 CD annotations 1.1 Please … approval. 1.4] crossed ink 2.4 but … stigma. 2.6] scored blue crayon 2.7 Caladenia] underl red crayon Top of letter: ‘Read over introduction & rest of book marked’ pencil 1 2

See letter to R. D. Fitzgerald, 16 July 1875. Fitzgerald’s name appears on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (Appendix IV). See letter to R. D. Fitzgerald, 16 July 1875 and n. 6. In his Australian orchids (Fitzgerald 1875–94, vol. 1, part 1: 2), Fitzgerald had described a specimen of Dendrobium hillii that from around 40,000 flowers

September 1875

3

4

5

365

produced not a single seed; he attributed the failure to mechanical obstructions to pollination. Dendrobium hillii is a synonym of D. speciosum var. hillii, the king orchid. There is an annotated copy of Fitzgerald 1875–94 (all seven parts of vol. 1, and parts 1, 3, 4, and 5 of vol. 2) in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 229–30). CD had asked whether the calli (non-secreting glands) on the labellum of Caladenia (the spider orchid) were gnawed by insects (letter to R. D. Fitzgerald, 16 July 1875). In Orchids 2d ed., p. 89, CD quoted Fitzgerald’s description of a fly landing on the lip of a specimen of Caladenia dimorpha and transferring pollen from the anther to the stigma in its efforts to escape, and Fitzgerald’s conviction that some species of Caladenia were exclusively insect-pollinated (Fitzgerald 1875–94, vol. 1, part 1). Fitzgerald refers to Alfred Smee and Smee 1872. In Fitzgerald 1875–94, vol. 1, part 1: 2, Fitzgerald had speculated that Angraecum sesquipedale (Darwin’s orchid)was pollinated not by insects with unusually long probosces to reach into the deep nectary (see Orchids, pp. 197–203), but by small insects that crawled in for refuge or ate their way in. In Orchids 2d ed., pp. 114–15, CD referred to Fitzgerald’s description of self-fertilisation in Spiranthes australis in Fitzgerald 1874–94, vol. 1, part 2. Spiranthes australis is a synonym of S. sinensis (austral ladies tresses).

From Ernst von Hesse-Wartegg   20 September 1875 address: Grand Hotel Les Petites Dalles par Sassetot Dpt. Seine inf r. France 20 Sept 1875. Dear and honoured Sir, One of my German papers, the “Pionier” of Leipzig asked me, to write an article of about two “Times”—columnes on your life. As the articles in the mentioned paper serve as sources for the German Encyclopedias and other Lexica, I thought it right, to adress my request for nearer dates of your life directly to you, because the hitherto known descriptions are generally wanting of truth and correctness. I therefore take the liberty, to ask you for lending me for a few days any description of your illustruouss life and your working (in any language), as well as a fotograf of yours, to bring a large picture.1 Not only the circumstance, that here in the little watering place is no library,2 but more the desire, to bring correct statements and an similar picture caused me, to produce my request, and I hope in consideration of the importance of the paper, that you kindly will fullfil my request. As I (after a short stay here) go soon to Italy, I expect your kind answer as soon as possible, and remain, with the assurance of my high respect | most obediently yours | Ernest von Hesse Wartegg | [illeg].— DAR 166: 194 1

2

No reply to this letter has been found, but Hesse-Wartegg’s article about CD and an image of him was published in Der Pionier: illustrierte Zeitschrift zur Unterhaltung und Belehrung für Jedermann (Hesse-Wartegg 1875a). See also letter from Ernst von Hesse-Wartegg, 16 August 1875. In his ‘Recollections’, p. 355, CD recalled that a German editor had asked for an account of the development of his mind and character with a sketch of his autobiography, and that this had inspired him to write on the subject. Les Petites Dalles is a coastal village in Normandy.

366

September 1875

From Francis Galton   22 September 1875

42 Rutland Gate Sept 22/75

My dear Darwin In “Domestication” II.  253.  you quote as a striking instance of variation a case communicated by Dr. Ogle of 2  girl twins who had a crooked finger, no relative having the same.1 It happened, in my twin enquiries, that a case was sent me which is possibly, or probably the same as your’s—but which is a case of reversion. I send the particulars of this over leaf.2 You might think it worth while in the view of your 2nd. edition, to ask Dr. Ogle if his case was that of the Misses Macrae.3 I am not acquainted myself either with the Misses Macrae or with Dr. Murchison—Dr. Gilchrist of the Crichton Institution Dumfries, sent me Dr Murchisons communication.4 We are only lately back in England and are not even yet settled in town.5 Will Frank kindly send me a line about the sweet peas?6 With united kind remembrances to you all | Ever sincerely | Francis Galton I have been delighting in your Insectivorous plants7 Extract from a private letter to me, written by Dr Finlay Murchison. (No address on this letter but it is from Scotland, & was enclosed by Dr. Gilchrist of Dumfries.) The Misses Macrae (twins. æt 16 in 1875) “There is a congenital flexion at the second phalangeal joint of the little finger in each case, but the flexion is not so marked as to cause unsightliness or discomfort. I have ascertained that they inherited this peculiarity from their grandmother on the mother’s side.8 The parents had no trace of it, nor any one of four brothers and three sisters.” DAR 105: A80–1 1 2

3

4

5 6

7 8

See Variation 2: 253. The case was given by William Ogle. Galton discussed his twin studies in Fraser’s Magazine (Galton 1875a) and with revisions and additions in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (Galton 1876a); he aimed to use them to show the relative influence of nature and nurture. CD was working on a second edition of Variation (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). The Misses McRae were Alexandrina Cornfute McRae and Elizabeth Anne McRae of Harris, in the Outer Hebrides, Scotland. CD mentioned the McRae twins (but not by name) in Variation 2d ed. 2: 240. Finlay Murchison was medical officer on North Harris in the Outer Hebrides, Scotland, in 1874 and 1875, but in 1876 or earlier became assistant physician at the Crichton Royal Institution, Dumfries, where James Gilchrist was medical superintendent (Medical directory). Galton and his wife, Louisa Jane, had been in France (Pearson 1914–30, 2: 180; see also letter from Francis Galton, 2 June 1875). For Galton’s sweetpea experiments, see the letters from Francis Galton, 14 April 1875 and 2 June 1875. He published on the experiments in Galton 1877a, 1877b, and 1889, pp. 79–82 and 225–6. Frank: Francis Darwin was CD’s secretary. Insectivorous plants was published in July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Annabella Miller.

September 1875

367

To Francis Galton   22 September 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Sep 22nd. 75 My dear Galton I am particularly obliged for your letter, & will write to Dr Ogle.1 I think his case is different, and if you do not hear from me again, you will understand this to be the case. I enclose a letter which when read kindly return to me.—2 With respect to the sweet peas if you have time I think you had better come down & sleep here & see them. They are grown to a tremendous height & will be very difficult to separate. The ought to have been planted much further apart. They are covered with innumerable pods. The middle rows are now the tallest. Three of the plants are very sickly & one is dead. The row from the smallest peas are still the smallest plants.3 See what I say in Var under Dom Vol II p 347 about the peculiar properties of plants raised from the small terminal peas of the pods.4 I am surprised & very much pleased at your liking my “Insectivorous Plants.” I hope that your tour has done you much good—5 My dear Galton | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS UCL Library Services, Special Collections (GALTON/1/1/9/5/7/16) 1

2 3

4

5

See letter from Francis Galton, 22 September 1875, and letter to William Ogle, 22 September 1875. Galton had queried whether a case of twin girls with deformed fingers given in Variation 2: 253 on Ogle’s authority was the same as one he had heard of from Scotland. The enclosed letter has not been identified. For Galton’s sweetpea experiments, see also the letters from Francis Galton, 14 April 1875, 2 June 1875, and 22 September 1875. He published on the experiments in Galton 1877a, 1877b, and 1889, pp. 79–82 and 225–6. In Variation 2: 347, CD described William Masters’s observation that Blue Imperial peas tended to revert to the smaller Blue Prussian pea variety that they were derived from, and that they did so more often if they were grown from the terminal pea in the pod, which was smaller than the others. Galton and his wife, Louisa Jane, had been in France (Pearson 1914–30, 2: 180).

From C. E. Norton   22 September 1875 Ashfield, Massachusetts September 22, 1875. My dear Mr. Darwin,— I am sorry to have to send you intelligence which I know will cause you regret. Ten days ago our friend Chauncey Wright died suddenly, apparently without suffering, from congestion of the brain.1 He was found in the morning seated at his desk in an easy attitude, unconscious, but still breathing. He died in a few minutes. He had apparently not been in bed during the night, but had been writing. He was busy with an article on your last book,2 which lay open beside him. A week before I had brought down to him from

368

September 1875

Ashfield a box full of specimens of Drosera which my little girl Sally, knowing his interest in the plant, had secured for him.3 The last letter any of us had from him was a pleasant note to Sally telling her what he had been observing of the habits of the Sundew. He had stayed with us here for more than a week in August, and had seemed uncommonly well. The last time I saw him was about ten days before his death at Cambridge, when he came to read me the proof of his article in the “Nation” on “German Darwinism,” and to tell me of some changes which he proposed to make in this essay which he had read to me in manuscript some time before.4 I was particularly struck with his animation and his cheerfulness, and with his readiness to be interested in other subjects than that which for the time was chiefly occupying his thought. I believe that he had contemplated the probability of such a death as it was his good fortune to die by. He had no shrinking from death, and no desire to die. He was far too much of a philosopher to form wishes about life or death. And, so far as he is concerned, there is no reason to regret his death. The prospect of his life was not unclouded. But to his friends his death is an irreparable, lifelong loss. The vigour of his intelligence was not more remarkable than the sweetness of his heart, and the simplicity of his whole nature. The clearness and power of his mind were plain in his work, but only those who knew him most intimately could know how wise and trustworthy his judgment was, not only in matters of philosophy but also in those of practical life, or how generously his wisdom was put at the service of all who sought help from him. His death, following so soon on that of Wyman,5 is a great blow, not merely to Cambridge, but to the interests of sound thought and scientific inquiry throughout the country. But he was not widely known, and there are but few persons who will know what a great loss we have suffered … P.S. I ought, perhaps, to add that besides Wright’s interest as a scientific man in your work, he had a strong moral and personal interest in it. Your work was the illustration and exhibition of the spirit which he sought in scientific enquiry. I think that in his late years, he had no greater gratification than the recognition you gave to his work, and the occasional receipt of a letter or note from you.6 He was radically modest, but he was pleased with your expression of interest in or approval of what he wrote. His visit to you was the most prized experience of his stay in Europe, and from that time his feeling toward you was one in which a certain shy affection gave a still deeper character to the complete respect he had long cherished.7 Norton and Howe eds. 1913, 2: 57–9 1 2 3 4 5

See also letter from Woodward Emery, 17 September 1875. Insectivorous plants. CD discussed Drosera (sundew) in the first part of Insectivorous plants. Sally: Sara Norton. Wright’s essay ‘German Darwinism’ was published in Nation on 9 September 1875 and reprinted in his posthumously published Philosophical discussions (C. Wright 1877, pp. 398–405). Jeffries Wyman died in September 1874 (DAB).

September 1875 6

7

369

CD and Wright had corresponded since 1871 (see Correspondence vols. 19, 20, 22, and this volume). CD had had Wright’s review of St George Jackson Mivart’s Genesis of species (Mivart 1871) republished in London (C. Wright 1871). Wright visited Down in September 1872 (see Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242), Thayer 1878, p. 248, and Correspondence vol. 20).

To William Ogle   22 September 1875

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Sep 22. 75

My dear Dr Ogle You will remember giving me a curious case about the fingers & teeth of twins, which I have quoted at Vol II p 253 of my Variation under Domn. Now will you kindly tell me whether the twins were named Macrae? I ask because F. Galton tells me of a similar case with twin Miss Macrae’s, & in this instance the crooked little fingers were inherited from their maternal grand mother.1 You will thus see why I wish to know whether the cases are distinct. Pray believe me | Yours very sincerely L DAR 261.5: 14 (EH 88205912) 1

See letter from Francis Galton, 22 September 1875. In Variation 2: 253, CD had written that no member of the twins’ family shared their peculiarity. The McRae twins were Alexandina Cornfute McRae and Elizabeth Anne McRae; their maternal grandmother was Annabella Miller.

From William Ogle   [23–4 September 1875]1 Oxford and Cambridge Club the passage in which A. states this, I am inclined, though not certain, to believe his statement to be correct. Supposing bees or other insects to have such a habit, its utility is of course apparent, since your works on fertilisation of flowers.2 I should very much like to know whether bees or other insects do so limit themselves, and whether the fact has been observed either by yourself or by any other Naturalist. Of what advantage would such a habit be to the insects themselves? I trust you have recovered from the fatigue of your last work; which I read with great delight; though unfortunately with the help of very unhealthy specimens of Drosera, with which London air did not seem to agree.3 Believe me | Yrs. very sincerely | W. Ogle. P.S. | In Latin Renuo, and Annuo answer to ἀνανέυειν and κατανέυειν.4 Incomplete DAR 46.2: C63–4 CD annotations 1.1 the passage … Naturalist. 1.5] crossed blue crayon

370

September 1875

3.1 I trust … κατανέυειν 5.2] crossed blue crayon End of letter: ‘Dr Ogle says that Aristotle observes that Bees on any single journey from the hive limit their visits to a single kind of flower   The bee for works for a time, that is as long as it can find flowers of the same sp. on the principle that an if [above del ‘man can engine’] a man [‘by habit can make’ del] had to make 6 [above del ‘several’] engines, he wd complete the work quicker, if he made [‘[illeg] 6’ del] 6 of the wheels of each kind one after the other. habit above consists of an [above del ‘are complex’] apparatus consisting of several parts’ ink 1 2

3 4

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letters to William Ogle, 22 September 1875 and 25 September 1875. In this incomplete passage, Ogle was evidently writing about bees’ habit of returning repeatedly to flowers of the same species; see CD’s annotation to this letter, and CD’s letter to Ogle of 25 September 1875. Aristotle made his observation in his History of animals 624b. CD mentioned Aristotle’s observation in Cross and self fertilisation, pp. 415–16. CD discussed Drosera (sundew) in the first part of his Insectivorous plants. On Greek words for the upward, negative, nod (renuo) and the downward nod of agreement (annuo), see also Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Chauncey Wright, 3 September 1874. For CD’s comments on gestures of affirmation and negation in various cultures, see Expression, pp. 273–7.

To ?   23 September [1875–6?]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Sept. 23d Dear Sir I have the pleasure to comply with your request, as far as lies in my power— I enclose also a photograph & remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Remember When Auctions (dealers) (26 February 1996) 1

The year range is conjectured from the address; CD crossed out ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ in the printed stationery, a custom that seems to have been common in 1875 and 1876.

From Francis Galton   24 September 1875 42. Rutland Gate Sept 24th./75 My dear Darwin We have stayed on in town another day so I have got from the Royal Society and send herewith Parts XIV & XV of the Revue Scientifique which contain the part of Claude Bernard’s lectures which you wished to see. I have put pencil x at pages 324, 325, 327, 352 (in each case on the 2nd. column of the page) These are the principal passages.1 Please send the pamphlets back, when done with, to the Royal Society, as returned by me. Also I return the slips from “Nature” (Romanes) with many thanks.2 Overleaf I send a note about the continuation of my Pangenesis experiments.3 I see I made a great mistake about the number of generations. when we spoke yesterday.

September 1875

371

These were only 3 generations operated on, on both sides. I don’t care to claim cases in which a great grand son was matched with a grand daughter as an additional generation. Besides, the cases were few. Very sincerely your’s | Francis Galton DAR 105: A82 1

2

3

The papers Galton refers to were part of Bernard’s 1874 lectures, ‘Phénomènes de la vie communs aux animaux et aux végétaux’ (Bernard 1874); specifically lectures in Revue scientifique, 3 October 1874 and 10 October 1874: ‘Sexualité de l’œuf—préfécondation’, ‘Fécondation de l’œuf—élément male’, and ‘Impregnation de l’élément femelle par l’élément male’. According to Pearson 1914–30, 2: 181 n. 1, the pencil crosses can still be seen in the Royal Society of London’s copy of Revue scientifique. There are four letters to Nature by George John Romanes dated before September 1875 in the Darwin Archive–CUL: ‘Natural selection and dysteleology’, Nature, 12 March 1874 (G. J. Romanes 1874a; DAR 52: D15); ‘Rudimentary organs’, Nature, 9 April 1874 (G. J. Romanes 1874b; DAR 52: D16); ‘Disuse as a reducing cause in species’, Nature, 2 July 1874 (G. J. Romanes 1874c; DAR 52: D17); and ‘Sense of humour and reason in animals’, Nature, 27 May 1875 (G. J. Romanes 1875a; DAR 53.1: B43). Galton had experimented on transfusing rabbits with other rabbits’ blood and breeding from them in an attempt to test CD’s hypothesis of pangenesis; he felt that his experiments had been inconclusive. See Correspondence vols. 18–21, Variation 2: 357–404, and Galton 1871. In his letter to G. J. Romanes, 24 September [1875], CD wrote that during a visit on 23 September, Galton seemed much less sceptical about pangenesis than he had been.

To G. J. Romanes   24 September [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Sept. 24th My dear Mr Romanes I shall be very glad to propose you for Linn. Soc. as I have just done for my son Francis.2 There is no doubt about your Election.— I have written for blank form.— Please let me hear your title. B.A. or M.A. & title of any book or papers, to which I could add “various contributions to Nature”.3 Also shall I say “attached to Physiology & Zoology”? When I have signed shall I send the paper to Hooker & others at Kew;4 or do you wish it sent to some one else for signature? Three signatures are required.— The paper will have to be read twice or thrice when Soc. meets in November. But you could get books out of Library or out of that of Royal Soc. by my Signature or that of any other member. I am terribly sorry about the Onions, as I expected great things from them; the seeds coming I believe always true. As tubers of potatoes graft so well, wd. it not be good to try other tubers as of Dahlias & other plants?—5 I have been rewriting a large portion of the Chapt. on Pangenesis, & it has been awfully hard work.— I will of course send you a copy when the work is printed6 How I do hope that your fowls will survive. F. Galton was here for a few hours yesterday: I see that he is much less sceptical about pangenesis than he was.—7

372

September 1875

I am heartily glad of your great success about Medusæ8 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin American Philosophical Society (476) 1 2 3 4 5 6

7

8

The year is established by the reference to Romanes and Francis Darwin becoming fellows of the Linnean Society (see n. 2, below). Romanes and Francis Darwin were both elected to fellowship of the Linnean Society on 2 December 1875 (List of the Linnean Society of London). Romanes had written a number of letters to Nature, mostly on zoological subjects. Joseph Dalton Hooker was the director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; he had given Romanes facilities there to carry out experiments on grafting (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 17 January [1875] and n. 6). Romanes’s letter to CD about the onions has not been found. Romanes was working on grafting in his investigations of CD’s hypothesis of pangenesis. CD discussed his hypothesis of pangenesis in Variation 2: 357–404. A second edition of Variation was published in the second half of February 1876 (Publishers’ circular 1876), although it was dated 1875. The revised chapter on pangenesis was in Variation 2d ed. 2: 349–99. CD wrote, ‘The chapter on Pangenesis has been largely altered and re-modelled; but the essential principles remain the same’ (Variation 2d ed. 1: xiv). On pangenesis, see the letter from G. J. Romanes, 14 January 1875 and n. 2. Francis Galton had experimented on transfusing rabbits with other rabbits’ blood in an attempt to test CD’s hypothesis of pangenesis; his results were inconclusive. See Correspondence vols. 18–21 and Galton 1871. In papers read before the Royal Society of London and the Royal Institution of Great Britain, Romanes argued that the excitable tissue of medusae responded to stimuli in a similar way to the nervo-muscular tissue of higher animals, and that medusae possessed rudimentary nerves (G. J. Romanes 1875b and G. J. Romanes 1876).

To Francis Galton   25 September 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Sep 25./75 My dear Galton Many thanks for yr note & for the Révue which shall be returned in yr name to the R. Soc.1 Dr Ogle tells me privately that the twins were his own sisters, & that a child of one of the twins has the bicuspid tooth misplaced. I cannot make up my mind whether this case is one of reversion like yours.2 I have a book Puvis “Sur la Dégéneration” which when I get my catalogue I can find & which from its title may be worth your looking at, tho’ I can remember nothing about its merits.3 My dear Galton | Yrs very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS UCL Library Services, Special Collections (GALTON/2/4/3/13/5) 1 2

Galton had sent parts of the Revue scientifique borrowed from the Royal Society of London with his letter of 24 September 1875. William Ogle probably included this information in his letter of [23–4 September 1875], but the relevant section is now missing. Ogle’s sisters were Amelia Mozley and Caroline Johnson. Galton had asked whether the twins with crooked little fingers and misplaced bicuspid teeth described in Variation 2: 253 on Ogle’s authority were the same twins he had heard of in the course of his own research (letter from Francis Galton, 22 September 1875). The twins described by Galton (Alexandrina Cornfute McRae

September 1875

3

373

and Elizabeth Anne McRae) seemed to have inherited crooked little fingers from their grandmother Annabella Miller. There is an annotated copy of Puvis 1837 in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 688–9). A handwritten catalogue of CD’s library was compiled by Thomas William Newton, the assistant librarian at the Museum of Practical Geology in London; it is dated August 1875 and is now in DAR 240.

To William Ogle   25 September 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Sep 25/75 My dear Dr Ogle Many thanks for yr letter, which like every one that I have ever received from you, has interested me much. From Galton’s case & the inheritance of the bicuspid tooth I can hardly avoid the suspicion that some progenitor of yours had the peculiarities in question.1 If ever I bring out a new edit of my book on Expression your letter which I will preserve will be very usful to me; & I have a bundle of notes sent to me by various persons on the subject of signs of assent.2 I had no idea that Aristotle had noticed bees visiting flowers of the same kind.3 I have accepted this general belief without much investigation; but I have noticed bees succesively visiting varieties of the same plant with very different coloured flowers.4 I remember also some detailed statements on this subject in a very old paper I think in Phil: Trans: but I cannot at present give you the reference.5 As bees evidently desire to save time, as shown by their cutting holes, I have imagined that they could suck the flowers of the same species more quickly than other flowers by knowing exactly how far to exsert their proboscis &c.6 I am very glad to see that you keep up yr interest in these subjects. It pleases me also much that my book on Insectivorous Plants has interested you. With many thanks | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS DAR 261.5: 15 (EH 88205913) 1

2 3 4 5

6

See letter from William Ogle, [23–4 September 1875]. In a missing part of this letter, Ogle had revealed that the girl twins with crooked fingers that he had mentioned to CD (see Variation 2: 253) were his sisters, and that a child of one of them had a misplaced bicuspid tooth (letter to Francis Galton, 25 September 1875). Francis Galton had described a similar case, wondering whether they were in fact the same twins (letter from Francis Galton, 22 September 1875). Ogle’s twin sisters were Caroline Johnson, who had six children, and Amelia Mozely, who died in 1872 and was childless. Apart from a brief postscript, the part of Ogle’s letter dealing with signs of assent is missing. Expression 2d ed. does not mention any new information from Ogle on this subject. See letter from William Ogle, [23–4 September 1875] and n. 2. See Cross and self fertilisation, p. 416. In Cross and self fertilisation, p. 416, CD cited a 1750 paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, on the subject of bees visiting one species of flower for as long as possible (Dobbs 1750; although CD said the paper was published in 1736). CD repeated this hypothesis in Cross and self fertilisation, p. 419.

374

September 1875

From N. A. Severtsov   25 September [1875]1 Sir I have the honour to send you the second part of my travel into the inner part of the Tian-shan mountains; I think you have already received the first part, which I left to Mr. Dresser, Tenderden street 6, for sending this book to you.2 It contains general observations about the nature, the geological and orographical formation and the nomade inhabitants of these very little known innermost asiatic mountains, and some zoological observations, which may be perhaps of some interest for you. If you would allow me to translate in english a monographical study about the relations between systematic affinities and geographical range of the wild sheep, and the probable influence of struggle for life with the domesticated sheep on some modifications of zoological characters of the different wild species—and if you find this paper worthy to be added as an appendix to a new edition of your “domesticated animals and cultivated plants”— (This book I have read only in a russian translation, not english, and therefore translate again the russian title of it.) that will be an honour of which I dreamed for two years, since that paper is published in russian.3 And now I have a fear that such a suggestion is an indiscreet one. I fear also that this very first attempt of investigating a quite untouched question, and a difficult one will prove weak enough—but its subject is one of high interest and a beginning must be done—may abler men continue—and therefore the protection of your high authority to my essay may be useful for provoking new investigations. I have also left to Mr. Dresser, for showing you, a sery of central asiatic thrushes, to which he promised to add some instructive chinese specimens from Mr. Swinhoe.4 This sery is to illustrate the modification of Turdus mystacinus into Turd. atrogularis, by sexual selection: the males having originally a spotted throat (T. mystacinus), this growing gradually blacker, to complete black   Now the black throated males are the most numerous, their number increasing with each generation; the females in inverse proportion, mostly maintaining the original spotted throat of both sexes— but some females already black throated like the males, though not so completely. By this hereditary extension of male characters to both sexes this change will appearingly come to a close: the stages of modifications being so. 1. Both sexes alike, spotted throat; Turd. mystacinus; males then changing; 2. A great sexual difference; male alone black throated; females then changing 3. Both sexes alike again, and both changed in the same way from 1), both black throated. Now is a transition stage between 2 and 3, and very few males of the 1st stage, perhaps atavistic; and one specimen somewhat intermediate between Turd. mystacinus and the european T. musicus. The specimens of Mr. Swinhoe illustrate the origin of Turd. fuscatus and T. Naumanni from the same old type. A paper of me about this will appear in Mr Dresser’s birds of Europe, with a few separate prints, the first of which for your.5

September 1875

375

I have the honour, Sir, of being with utmost respect | most truly yours | N. Severtzow Berlin, 25 September. If you honour me with an answer, please send if so: 6, Tenterden-str., Hanover square—to Mr. H. E. Dresser for N. Severtzov. DAR 177: 143 1 2

3

4 5

The year is established by the reference to Sewerzow 1875 (see n. 2, below). Henry Eeles Dresser visited Down with Severtsov on 13 September 1875 (see letter to H. E. Dresser, [10 September 1875], and letter to G. H. Darwin, 13 September [1875]). There are copies of both parts of Severtsov’s travels in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL (Sewerzow 1875; the text is in German). The pages have not been cut and there is a note on both parts, ‘not read’. The Tien Shan mountains are in China and Kyrgyzstan. Tenterden Street is in Mayfair, London. The Russian translation of Variation was V. O. Kovalevsky trans. 1868–9. The second edition of Variation was already at an advanced stage (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)), although it was not published until the second half of February 1876 (Publishers’ circular 1876). Severtsov’s monograph on sheep is Severtsov 1873; it was not referred to in Variation 2d ed. Robert Swinhoe. See Dresser 1871–96, 2: 85–6; no copy has been found in the Darwin Libraries at CUL or Down. In his description of Turdus atrigularis, the black-throated thrush (Dresser 1871–96, 2: 85–6), Dresser discussed Severtzov’s separation of T. mystacinus from T. atrigularis as a distinct species, but remained doubtful of Severtzov’s conclusion. He pointed to the high degree of individual variation among Siberian thrushes as the chief reason for the ongoing confusion in determining species. Turdus musicus is a synonym of T. iliacus (the redwing). The name T. fuscatus had been used by different authors for different species.

From Oswald Heer1   28 September 1875 Mein geehrtester Freund! Verzeihen Sie, dass ich erst so spät Ihnen meinen wärmsten Dank sage für das schöne Buch über die Insektenfressenden Pflanzen, welches Sie mir zu übersenden die Güte hatten.2 Ich war bei seiner Ankunft sehr beschäftigt u.  hatte das Lesen desselben auf die Ferien versparrt, welche ich auf dem Lande zubringen wollte. Die von Ihnen gewonnenen Resultate haben mich aufs lebhafteste interessiert u. die mit bewundernswerther Umsicht u. Ausdauer durchgeführten Beobachtungen machen einen überwältigenden Eindruck. So auffallend es ist, dass dieselben Zellen zersetzende Stoffe ausscheiden u. andere Stickstoffhaltende aufsaugen u. als Nahrung verwenden, dass ohne Nervensubstanz so complicirte Bewegungen ausgeführt werden, so wunderbar, dass ein Minimum von gewissen Stoffen schon solche Bewegungen u. Umbildungen in den Zellen veranlassen kann,—ist diess u. so vieles andere durch Ihre Untersuchungen nachgewiesen. Sie werden aber auch vielen neuen Untersuchungen rufen; die vielen mit klebrigen Drüsenhaaren besetzten Pflanzen müssen auf ihr Verhalten zur Insectenwelt geprüft werden u. auch die Aufsaugung der Nahrung durch die Wurzelfasern wird einer neuen Prüfung unterzogen werden

376

September 1875

müssen, indem der Ausscheidung der Wurzelzellen wahrscheinlich eine grössere Bedeutung zukommt, als man bis jetzt annimmt. Auch dieses Ihr Werk wird daher wieder nach den verschiedensten Richtungen hin Licht u. Leben bringen! Ich war in den letzten Monaten mit der Untersuchung der Jura=Flora Ostsibiriens u. des Amurlandes beschäftigt, zu welcher mir die Petersburger Akademie die Materialien geliefert hat.3 Es besteht die Flora aus zahlreichen Farn, aus Cycadeen u. Coniferen, unter letztern zeichnen sich die Taxineen durch Ihr zahlreiches Auftreten aus.4 Die Gattung Ginkgo (Salisburia) erscheint in 6 Species, welche nicht nur in vielen, vortrefflich erhaltenen Blättern, sondern z. Th. auch in den männlichen amentis u. Früchten dargestellt werden konnten, dazu kommt eine nahe verwandte, ausgestorbene Gattung, die auch in Blättern, Blüthen u. Früchten erhalten ist.5 Es scheint Ginkgo zur Jurazeit das Maximum der Entwicklung erreicht zu haben u. lässt sich von da durch den Wealden, das Urgon, Cenoman u. Miocen bis zur Jetztwelt verfolgen. Ginkgo adiantoides, der im Miocen von Grönland u. Mittel Italien auftritt u. mir neuerdings auch von der Insel Sachalin zugekommen ist, ist kaum mehr von G. biloba L. zu unterscheiden.6 Anderseits enthält die raetische Formation mehrere Pflanzenformen, die als Jeanpaulia u. Baiera beschrieben wurden, welche nahe an Ginkgo sich anschliessen u. von den Carbon=Pflanzen stehen offenbar Noeggerathia u. Cordaites mit dieser Gattung naher Beziehung.7 Sie aufs freundlichste begrüssend | Ihr hochachtungsvollst ergeben | Oswald Heer Zürich 28 Septemb. 1875. DAR 166: 132 1 2 3 4

5 6 7

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Heer’s name appears on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (Appendix IV). The book was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Heer published his observations in Heer 1876. Academy of St Petersburg: the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St Petersburg. Cycads are now in the family Cycadaceae. In his classification, Heer divided the Coniferae into two sections, Taxineae and Taxoidieae, and placed the genus Ginkgo in Taxineae. Ginkgo is now placed within its own class Ginkgoopsida, while the present class Pinopsida (conifers) includes the family Taxaceae (yews). Salisburia was an alternative genus name for Ginkgo (Smith 1796), but is now considered to be illegitimate. The extinct genus that Heer identified as closest to Ginkgo was Baiera (Heer 1876, p. 11). Heer listed Ginkgo adiantoides of Sakhalin Island, off the east coast of Siberia, in Heer 1878, pp. 21–2. Jeanpaulia is a synonym of Baiera.These genera were seen to represent the phylogeny of Ginkgo, from the earliest Cordaites and Trichopitys to Noeggerathia, then Baiera and finally Ginkgo.

From W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   28 September 1875

Royal Gardens Kew Septr. 28. 75

Dear Mr Darwin Before I heard from you I found in another number the illustration of the Citronorange and here is a rough tracing of it.1

September 1875

377

In the Gardeners’ Chronicle Septr. 25. p. 398 there is a remarkable account of some hybrid Aroids by Prof. Karl Koch of Berlin which exhibit in a modified degree the same curious phenomena of dissociation which are so wonderful in Cytisus Adami.2 When I was in Switzerland I collected a head of fruits of a species of Geum which externally are in no respect different to those of some species Anemone or Clematis. You might like to try if these will bury themselves (if they are not spoilt by pressure—but probably they would come all right after damping and then drying)   It is very curious finding fruits so similar in two so different natural orders.3 We have now at Kew a sensitive plant Schrankia aculeata which was new to me. The pinnæ drop when the pinnules close but the main rachis does not as in mimosa pudica4

I am afraid I trouble you with very trivial matters Yours very truly | W. T. Thiselton Dyer DAR 209.6: 208 CD annotations 1.1 Before … natural orders. 3.5] crossed pencil 4.1 Schrankia aculeata] underl red crayon 4.1 Schrankia aculeata … mimosa pudica 4.3] double scored red crayon 4.1 new to me] underl red crayon 4.2 mimosa pudica 4.3] ‘(& Sea-shore Plants)’ added pencil 1 2

3

4

CD’s letter to Thiselton-Dyer has not been found. Karl Heinrich Emil Koch commented in Gardeners’ Chronicle, 25 September 1875, pp. 398–9, that hybrid aroids resembled Cytisus adami in that one branch of a plant was often like the male parent, while another was like the female, and a third was intermediate. Aroids: members of the Araceae family, or arums. CD discussed the hybrid laburnum Cytisus adami (now known as +Laburnocytisus adamii) in Variation 1: 387–91. See also, for example, Correspondence vol. 13, letter to J. D. Hooker, [1 May 1865] and n. 3. Cytisus adami was a graft hybrid of the common yellow laburnum C. laburnum (now Laburnum anagyroides) and C. purpureus, a dwarf purple broom (Bean 1970–88, 2: 510–11). Cytisus adami was noted for its red, sterile flowers, but frequently some branches would revert to either parent form, bearing yellow or purple flowers. Francis Darwin mentioned Anemone and Clematis in his paper on the hygroscopic properties of awned seed (F. Darwin 1876c). Geum belongs to the family Rosaceae, Anemone and Clematis belong to the family Ranunculaceae. CD mentioned Schrankia aculeata in Movement in plants, pp. 381, 403. He discussed Mimosa pudica at greater length (e.g. ibid, pp. 37, 105, 375–9). Schrankia aculeata is an unresolved name. According to a

378

September 1875

herbarium sheet (K000791092) at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, it may be Mimosa quadrivalvis var. latidens.

From G. J. Romanes   29 September 1875 Dunskaith, Nigg, Ross-shire, N.B., Sept. 29, 1875. My dear Mr. Darwin,— Many thanks for your kind letter.1 I am an M.A. and a fellow of the Philosophical Society of Cambridge, but otherwise I am nothing, nor have I any publication worth alluding to. I suppose, however, this will not matter if I am proposed by yourself, Dr. Hooker, and Mr. Dyer.2 I think there would be no harm in saying ‘attached to Physiology and Zoology.’ I may read a paper before the Linnean next November on some new species of Medusæ, but I think it is better not to allude to any contributions in advance.3 Your letter about Pangenesis made me long for success more even than does the biological importance of the problem. Yesterday I dug up all my potatoes.4 Some of the produce looked suspicious, but more than this I should not dare to say. By this post I send you a box containing some of the best specimens, thinking you may like to see them. The lots marked A and B are sent for comparison with the others, being the kinds I grafted together. If you think it worth while to have the eyes of any of the other lots planted, you might either do so yourself or send them back to me. Lot C is the queerest, and to my perhaps too partial eye looks very like a mixture. In the case of this graft the seed potato was rotten when dug up yesterday, and this may account for the small size of the tubers sent. I did try dahlias and peonies, but in the former the ‘finger and toe’ shape of the tubers, with the eyes situated in the worst parts for cutting out clearly, prevented me from getting adhesion in any one case. With the peonies I was too late in beginning. It was also too late in the year when I began Pangenesis to try the spring flowers, but I hope to do so extensively this winter. Next year I shall try grafting beets and mangolds by cutting the young white root into a square shape and placing four red roots all round. In this way the white one will have a maximum surface exposed to the influence of the red ones. I shall also try grafting the crown of the red in the root of the white variety, and vice versâ. I have already done this very successfully with carrots—making a little hole in the top of the root, and fitting in the crown like a cork in a bottle. I shall look forward with great interest to the appearance of the new edition of the ‘Variation.’ I only wish I had begun Pangenesis a year earlier, when perhaps by this time the graft-hybrid question might have been settled. Perhaps, however, it is as well to have this question once more presented in its à priori form, for if it can soon afterwards be proved that a graft hybrid is possible, the theoretical importance of the fact may be more generally appreciated. A day or two ago I saw on a farm near this a beautiful specimen of striping on a horse. The animal is a dark dun cob, with a very divided shoulder stripe coming

September 1875

379

off from the spinal one on either side. Each shoulder stripe then divides into three prongs, and each prong ends in a sharp point. All the legs are black as far as the knees (carpi and tarsi), and above the black part for a considerable distance all four legs are deeply marked with numerous stripes. I can get no history of parentage. If you would like a drawing I can send one, but perhaps you have already as many cases as you want in the ‘Variation.’5 Very sincerely and most respectfully yours, | Geo. J. Romanes. E. D. Romanes 1896, pp. 34–7 1 2 3 4

5

See letter to G. J. Romanes, 24 September [1875]. CD had offered to propose Romanes for membership of the Linnean Society. Joseph Dalton Hooker and William Turner Thiselton-Dyer. Romanes’s paper on medusae (G. J. Romanes 1876–7) was read at the Linnean Society on 6 April 1876 and 18 January 1877. On CD’s hypothesis of pangenesis, see Variation 2: 357–404. In his letter of 24 September [1874], CD had mentioned that he was rewriting the section on pangenesis for the second edition of Variation. Romanes was attempting to test the hypothesis by grafting potatoes and other plants. CD discussed stripes in horses in Variation 1: 55–65 and 2: 41; he made additions in the second edition.

To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   30 September 1875 Down | Beckenham Sep 30. 75 My dear Dyer I am very much obliged to you for writing to me about what you call trivial matters. I take in the Gard: Chronicle at present, but by an odd chance last number has failed.1 I have sent for it as I should be very sorry to miss seeing the account to which you refer, though Gärtner has described seminal hybrids in which the characters became dis-sociated with advancing age.2 I have put the curious seeds of the Geum on damp sand but I doubt much whether they will bury themselves. I am particularly obliged about the Schrankia wh is quite new to me, and if ever I go on with the subject I may perhaps be able to borrow the plant from Kew3 With many thanks | Yrs very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Thiselton-Dyer, W.T., Letters from Charles Darwin 1873–81: 27–8) 1 2

3

In his letter of 28 September 1875, Thiselton-Dyer had given a reference to an article on hybrid aroids in Gardeners’ Chronicle, 25 September 1875, pp. 398–9. See Variation 2d ed. 1: 424–5. CD cited Karl Friedrich von Gärtner’s Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Bastarderzeugung im Pflanzenreich (Experiments and observations on the production of hybrids in the plant kingdom; Gärtner 1849, pp. 549–50) on the subject of hybrids from seed that showed characteristics of one parent (rather than mixed characteristics) after a time. See letter from W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 28 September 1875 and nn. 3 and 4.

380

October 1875

From W. M. Canby   1 October 1875 No 1101 Delaware Av. | Wilmington, Delaware, U.S. Oct. 1st 1875 Mr Charles Darwin, F.R.S. &c Dear Sir, I fear you will think me very remiss in not sooner acknowledging the receipt (in perfect order) of the copy of your “Insectivorous Plants” which you were so good as to send me.1 My excuse is that I have just escaped from a year’s engagement in public duties which have entirely absorbed my time and which have required an amount of mental and physical labor which forbade the least attention to more congenial pursuits. But though unexpressed, I have really felt your kindness very much and now beg you to accept my grateful thanks. Your work is so much a record of careful experiment and acute observation leading to very wonderful but indubitable results, that there can be no adverse criticism; so that all here, including even those most opposed to “Darwinism”, unite in their appreciation of your labors. For myself I may say that although somewhat prepared for these results by intercourse with Dr. Gray2 they have very far exceeded my anticipations and seem to me to be as wonderful as any facts recorded in the history of vegetable physiology. I think you may feel entirely certain that the blade of the leaf of Drosera filiformis bends or curves more or less around its prey in many cases, and of course this can only come about by a “motor impulse” imparted by the action of the prey on the glands of the tentacles. But an impulse which causes the leaf to bend, as I have seen it, so as to nearly encircle the prey, must be much stronger than that required to cause the delicate tentacles to bend, even to the extent of 90o.3 I might say also that the fluid in the leaves of Darlingtonia seems to show an acid reaction, and that it is said to be much increased by the action of certain salts. I think we shall soon be able to prove the absorbtion of the animal matter by the leaves. It may be considered certain that they have, like Sarracenia variolaris, a sweet secretion or lure on the inside of the hoods and on the appendages.4 I am, dear sir, very truly | Your obliged | Wm M Canby. I enclose an article cut from a Philadelphia paper but which I suspect was taken from some other publication.5 I have however seen many such notices of your book in different periodicals. DAR 86: B5–B5a CD annotations 1.1 I fear … physiology. 2.7] crossed blue crayon 3.1 I think … 90o. 3.6] enclosed in square brackets blue crayon 4.1 I might … periodicals. 6.3] crossed blue crayon End of letter: ‘I think I ought by Heading or some other means make it clearer that I discuss origin of Digestion | Development’ blue crayon 1

Canby’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). Canby had provided CD with information on Dionaea muscipula (Venus fly trap; see Correspondence vol. 21).

October 1875 2 3

4

5

381

Asa Gray had put Canby in touch with CD (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from W. M. Canby, 1 February 1873). In Insectivorous plants, p. 281, CD had referred to Canby’s observation that the blades of Drosera filiformis (thread-leaved sundew) bent over captured insects, but added that the movement was probably not pronounced since another observer, Mary Treat, had not mentioned the phenomenon. In Insectivorous plants, p. 453, CD noted, citing Canby’s observations, that Darlingtonia and Sarracenia probably belonged to a class of plants that absorbed the products of decay from animals. Darlingtonia is the monospecific genus of California pitcher-plants. Sarracenia is a North American genus of pitcher-plants, known as trumpet pitchers. Canby sent a review of Insectivorous plants published in the Philadelphia Daily Evening Telegraph, 3 August 1875; CD’s copy is in DAR 139.18: 17.

From Mr Turner   2 October 1875 [Farnborough, Kent] [when the tails of horned cattle are rubbed ‘just below the root,’ they invariably twist their bodies, stretch their necks, and begin to lick their lips.]1 Incomplete Expression 2d ed., p. 47, n. 19 1

The text of the letter is as given in Expression 2d ed., p. 47 n. 19. Mr Turner has not been further identified. The observation was added to the discussion of habitual movement in animals.

From John Storer to William Boyd Dawkins   [before 3 October 1875]1 [you] 〈a〉re a scientific naturalist, I an unscientific observer; & whatever advantages I may possess, they came solely from having spent many years in studying cattle as they are, & in noting small peculiarities of breed. I mentioned in my last that Mr. Darwin had I believed accepted too readily Culley’s statements with regard to the continuous inter-breeding of the Chillingham cattle.—2 Stronger still is the case with regard to Clarissa, bred by Rob.t Colling;— See “Anls. & Plants”— Vol. II l.17. page 118.—3 In the 1st. Vol.  of the Herd Book she was entered as having six descents from Favourite (252).— But in the same Vol. her son “Grandison” was separately entered with four descents only. It wa〈s〉 a palpable mistake, though often since quoted, & impossible too;— for Favourite was born in 1793 or 4, & ceased to get calves in 1806 or 7.— In all subsequent editions the mistake has been corrected.—4 t At the time the first vol. of the Herd Book was published (& his acc. of his cattle r t 5 had been badly kept) M. Rob. Colling was dead,— so that I more than doubt the correctness of the four crosses;—no names of the dams are given, as they ought to be, & I consider the number of crosses was put down at haphazard. It is also said—“she bred valuable offspring”;—she certainly bred two bulls,—but one heifer

382

October 1875

only, & in the next generation her progeny became extinct.— I thought Mr. Darwin ought to know how badly authenticated this case, so often quoted, is— Believe me | Yrs. very faithfully, | John Storer Professor W. Boyd Dawkins— Incomplete DAR 177: 343 (fragile) CD annotations 1.1 〈a〉re … breed. 1.3] crossed pencil 2.3 Stronger … Colling;—] scored red crayon 2.3 Clarissa] underl red crayon 3.2 so that … be, 3.3] scored red crayon 3.5 she certainly … extinct.— 3.6] scored red crayon 1

2

3 4

5

The date is established by the content of the letter, some of which was referred to by CD in the second edition of Variation (see n. 4, below), and by CD’s entry in his diary stating that he finished correcting the second edition of Variation on 3 October 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). George Culley was, according to Storer, the earliest historian of the Chillingham wild cattle (Storer [1879], pp. 144–5). CD had cited Culley’s claim about long-continued interbreeding of half-wild cattle in Variation 2: 119, and kept the reference in Variation 2d ed. 2: 97. In Variation 2: 118, CD had described the pedigree of Robert Colling’s shorthorn cow Clarissa, noting that ‘she yielded valuable offspring’. George Coates published the General short-horned herd-book in 1822 (G. Coates 1822); subsequently, the series continued as Coates’s herd book, and a revised version covering cows from the first three volumes was published (G. Coates 1847). For a comparison of the entries on Clarissa, see G. Coates 1822, p. 235, and G. Coates 1847, p. 144. For the pedigree of Clarissa’s calf, Grandison (279), see G. Coates 1822, p. 60. CD gave Storer’s information on the pedigree of Clarissa in Variation 2d ed. 2: 96 n. 5. Colling died in 1820 (ODNB).

To Thomas Meehan   3 October 1875 Down. | Beckenham. Kent. Oct. 3. 1875. My dear Sir. I received several days ago either from you or some one else, the New York Independent & was much gratified by the excellent review of my book.—1 Yesterday I received the Press. with your Essay.—2 I am glad that the parts which you have marked are not accurate, for as given they are almost a burlesque, on what Lubbock & that excellent observer H. Müller have said.3 I have this day begun to prepare for press observations continued for 10 years on the effects of crossing plants, & I think that these will convince you & every one else that it is a great advantage to plants to intercross—4 It is however still more important for every plant to propagate itself by self fertilization unless crosses can be effected with much certainty— I am very much obliged for your kind letter & remain my dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch Darwin. Copy DAR 146: 354

October 1875 1 2

3

4

383

CD’s copy of the unsigned review of Insectivorous plants US ed. that appeared in a New York newspaper, the Independent, 9 September 1875, p. 10, is in DAR 139.18: 10. In August 1875, Meehan had presented a paper at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, ‘Are insects any material aid to plants in fertilization?’ (Meehan 1875). CD’s copy of the version of Meehan’s paper that was reprinted in the Philadelphia Press, 13 August 1875, has not been found. It is not known which parts of the essay were marked as ‘not accurate’ by Meehan, but the conclusion is as given in Meehan 1875, p. 251. Meehan argued that insects played a limited role in plant fertilisation and that self-fertilised plants were as vigorous as and more productive than those dependent on insect aid. Both John Lubbock and Hermann Müller had recently written on the importance of insects in aiding fertilisation, describing the adaptations of both insects and flowers to ensure cross-fertilisation (see Lubbock 1875, and H. Müller 1873 and 1873–7). In his ‘Journal’, CD noted that he began writing Cross and self fertilisation on 1 September 1875, but this may be an error, since he also noted that he was working on corrections to Variation 2d ed. until 3 October 1875 (see Appendix II). In Cross and self fertilisation he extended his earlier morphological work on flower adaptation to study the progeny of crossed and self-fertilised plants over several generations.

To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   3 October [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Oct. 3d My dear Dyer I wish that I had seen your very curious specimen two months ago.— I never saw nearly such large adhesive discs; but the fact is not new, & when you receive in November a copy of my little book on Climbing Plants, do look at my account of Bignonia Capreolata, as it is worth reading, though I say it who should not.—2 The Geum seeds are motionless, ill-luck to them.—3 Will you please to ask Hooker to sign enclosed & will you do so also & return paper to me.—4 I have a great wish next summer to experimentise on some Marantaceous plant to make out meaning of 2 sets of differently coloured stamens. I formerly tried Monochætum eurifolium, having with great difficulty raised seedlings, but these all died.5 The troublesome thing is that it is indispensable that I shd. have 2 seedling plants (i.e. not propagate from cuttings) of the same species. I once raised 2 sets of seedlings of Monochætum which appeared different from the pollen of the 2 sets of stamens; but illness cut short my observations—6 Will you enquire & think of any species which I could raise from seed this autumn, or which could be raised for me at Kew, as they are bad germinators—or again whether 2 seedling plants exist at Kew of any species which could be lent to me.— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin I have just read (thanks to you) the Aroid paper in G. Chronicle with much interest.7 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Thiselton-Dyer, W.T., Letters from Charles Darwin 1873–81: 29–30) 1

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 30 September 1875.

384 2

3

4 5

6

7

October 1875

The climbing plant specimen has not been identified. Thiselton-Dyer’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Climbing plants 2d ed. (see Appendix IV). In Climbing plants 2d ed., pp. 100–2, CD described the formation of adhesive discs in Bignonia capreolata (crossvine). Thiselton-Dyer had sent CD seeds of a Geum species he had collected in Switzerland; plants of the species (probably G. montanum, alpine avens) had hairy seed-heads similar to those of Anemone or Clematis. See letter from W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 28 September 1875). CD’s son Francis Darwin was studying the ability of some awned seeds to bury themselves in the ground (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 13 October [1875]). CD enclosed the form nominating George John Romanes for membership of the Linnean Society (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 24 September [1875], and letter to J. D. Hooker, 13 October [1875]). CD evidently wrote ‘Marantaceous’ and ‘eurifolium’ by mistake; Monochaetum belongs to the family Melastomaceae (now Melastomataceae), not Marantaceae (see also letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 22 October 1875). He had made observations on Monochaetum ensiferum (a synonym of M. calcaratum,) between February 1862 and May 1863 (Correspondence vols. 10 and 11). Flowers of this species have two sets of stamens that differ both structurally and in colour, having both large crimson and small yellow anthers. CD’s notes on the crossing experiments with Monochaetum ensiferum are in DAR 205.8: 22–40. They include a final tabulation, dated 28 May 1863, of the numbers of seeds produced following crosses using pollen from the two different kinds of anther and from flowers of different ages (DAR 205.8: 40). Having noticed that there were changes over time in the positions of the pistils and stamens, CD had speculated that the pistil might react differently to the two kinds of pollen produced by this species, depending on its age and position (see Correspondence vol. 10, letter to Asa Gray, 16 February [1862]). CD became ill around mid-May 1863 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Thiselton-Dyer had alerted CD to Karl Heinrich Emil Koch’s article ‘Aroid hybrids’ (Koch 1875) in Gardeners’ Chronicle, 25 September 1875, in his letter of 28 September 1875. Koch had raised three hybrids of Philodendron species and one hybrid of Anthurium (laceleafs). Both genera are in the family Araceae (arums). Koch noted that the hybrids, like Cytisus adami (now +Laburnocytisus adamii), produced some branches resembling one or the other parent and others that exhibited a blend of characteristics of both parents.

From R. F. Cooke   5 October 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London, W. Octr. 5 1875 My dear Sir We have now retd. from our holidays & are busy with the arrangements for our Trade Sale.1 I hope the printer has been satisfying you with his progress on the “Animals & Plants”.2 I see “Climbing Plants” is complete.3 The enclosed letter has come during my absence. Sigr Canestrini is the gentleman, who never paid us, on a former occasion.4 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 470 1

John Murray held an annual sale dinner in November at which the principal booksellers were allowed to purchase stock on favourable terms (see J. Murray 1908–9, p. 540).

October 1875 2 3 4

385

William Clowes & Sons were printing Variation 2d ed., which was published in February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168), although it carried an 1875 publication date. Climbing plants 2d ed. was published in November 1875 (Publishers’ circular, 16 November 1875, p. 932). The enclosure has not been found, but Giovanni Canestrini’s publisher, Carlo Vincenzi, had not paid for electrotypes of the illustrations for the first edition of Variation and the translation had remained unpublished (see Correspondence vol. 18, letter from Giovanni Canestrini, 21 April 1870). Canestrini had a new publisher for his translation of the second edition (Canestrini trans. 1876), Unione TipograficoEditrice of Turin.

To R. F. Cooke   6 October 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Oct 6. 75 My dear Sir I fear Var: under Dom: will not be ready for yr sale, unless you can get the printers to send proofs more quickly.1 I have only corrected to Ch X as yet, & the corrections have been very slight, with only one sheet revised; but the corrections will I fear be heavier in the remainder, as much more has been added & omitted. The repaging of the index will also take up much of Messrs Clowes time I will write to Italy & tell the Publishers, that they can have the wood blocks for £10 on pre-payment2  I suppose that you will write about Lyell’s work, & if so please inform them of the cost of blocks & photographs of my Expression book.3 If you do not write, let me hear the cost & I will inform them Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin PS | Let me hear the result of yr trade sale4 LS National Library of Scotland (John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 326–7) 1

2 3

4

William Clowes & Sons were printers to John Murray, CD’s publisher. Publication of the second edition of Variation in November would have meant that copies could be sold at Murray’s annual sale dinner (see letter from R. F. Cooke, 5 October 1875 and nn. 1 and 2). Cooke had reminded CD that Murray had not been paid for stereotypes of the illustrations for the Italian translation of Variation (see letter from R. F. Cooke, 5 October 1875 and n. 4). CD probably refers to a possible translation of the posthumous edition of Principles of geology by Charles Lyell (Lyell 1875). The Italian translation of Expression was published in 1878 (Canestrini and Bassani trans. 1878). See n. 2, above.

From Emma Darwin to John Tyndall   7 October [1875]1 Down, Oct. 7 Dear Professor Tyndall We are expecting Professor and Mrs. Huxley on Sat. the 16th to stay over the Sunday with us, and Mr. Darwin and I would be so glad if we could persuade you

386

October 1875

to come for the same time.2 I am in hopes we may still have a remnant of summer to receive you. Believe me | very truly yours | Emma Darwin. Copy DAR 148: 393 1 2

The year is established by the reference to the visit (see n. 2, below). According to Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242), Thomas Henry Huxley, Henrietta Anne Huxley, and Tyndall stayed at Down on the weekend of 16 and 17 October 1875.

To C. E. Norton   7 October 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Oct. 7. 1875 My dear Mr Norton I am very much obliged for your kind letter. I had already heard with great regret the news of Chauncey Wright’s sudden death.1 In my answer to my informant, I am glad to think that I used almost the same words which you do in your letter, for I spoke of my admiration for his high intellectual powers & of his great kindness of heart. It is touching to me to hear that he felt so kindly towards me, & that he died with my last book before him.2 I had no idea that he would have cared for it, otherwise I would assuredly have sent him a copy. I must try to see his “Darwinism in Germany” in the Nation.3 I entirely agree with you about the power shewn in many of his almost casual remarks, & I see that others have been struck with them, for Prof. Rolleston, in a recent address, alludes with admiration to one on the relation of the brain of Man to his power of acquiring language.4 As for myself I have nothing to say, except that I am able to go on working daily with much enjoyment, yet with many groans & sighs. You say nothing about your own health, which I sincerely hope is better than when you were in England. Pray give our kindest remembrances to all your party. We have a very pleasant remembrance of your stay at Keston—5 Leonard, to whom you & the Sedgwicks were so very kind, started about 3 weeks ago for Malta, where he will be stationed for some years.6 Believe me my dear Mr Norton | yours very sincerely | Charles Darwin P.S. That is a very striking & nice article, whoever wrote it, in the Boston Advertiser, which I suppose I owe to you—7 LS Harvard University, Houghton Library (MS Am 1088 (1595)) 1 2

See letter from C. E. Norton, 22 September 1875. See also letter from Woodward Emery, 17 September 1875. Wright had died on 12 September 1875. CD’s response to Woodward Emery has not been found. Emery had noted in his letter of 17 September 1875 that Wright was reading Insectivorous plants at the time of his death; so had Norton in his letter.

October 1875 3 4

5

6

7

387

Wright’s article, ‘German Darwinism’ (C. Wright 1875), appeared in Nation, 9 September 1875. George Rolleston, in his address to the department of anthropology at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Rolleston 1875, p. 150), had referred to Wright’s ‘brilliant suggestions’ concerning the ratio of brain to body size in the human species compared with its close relatives as an explanation for the development of language in humans. Rolleston had sent CD a copy of his address (see letter from George Rolleston, 30 August 1875). Norton and his wife, Susan Ridley Sedgwick Norton, had stayed for four months at Keston Rectory near Down in 1868 (see Correspondence vol 16, letter to J. D. Hooker, [8–10 September 1868]). According to Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242), the Darwins saw the Nortons several times during their stay. In May 1875, Leonard Darwin had visited the Norton family in Boston on his return journey from the transit of Venus expedition in New Zealand; he mentioned meeting Sara Price Ashburner Sedgwick, the sister of Susan Ridley Sedgwick Norton, who had died in 1872 (letter from Leonard Darwin to Emma Darwin, 20 May [1875] (DAR 239.1: 2.13)). Leonard, who was an officer in the Royal Engineers, arrived at his posting in Malta on 16 September 1875 (letter from Leonard Darwin to Emma Darwin, 14 and 17 September [1875] (DAR 239.1: 3.2)). The article in the Boston Daily Advertiser has not been identified.

From R. F. Cooke   8 October 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London. W. Octr. 8 1875 My dear Sir It is Sigr. Canestrini, who owes us still £10 for the Electro’s supplied in 1869 for the 1st. edition of “Domestication” & now he wishes I presume the new woodcuts in the edition now printing.1 Are there any & many? The price for a set of the ones in the Expression is also £10.2 I have seen Messrs. Clowes & urged them on with the printing. It does not much matter as we have “Climbing Plants” ready, if “Domestication” is not finished before Decr. We can show a made up copy of Vol 1.3 I will write about Lyell’s work direct to Chiantore.4 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq I suppose you have not heard whether they want a set of stereotypes of Domn for America.?5 DAR 171: 471 CD annotations 1.1 Canestrini] underl blue crayon 1.3 Are there any & many?] triple scored red crayon 2.1 a set of … also £10] triple scored red crayon 7.1 I suppose … for America.? 7.2] scored red crayon End of letter: ‘How many Copies printed off & Stereotypes’ red crayon Verso of last page: ‘8.2.9’ ink 1

Giovanni Canestrini had ordered electrotypes of the illustrations from the first edition of Variation for his translation, which remained unpublished; he had evidently asked for information about the

388

2 3

4

5

October 1875

illustrations for the revised translation that he was about to publish with a new publisher, Unione Tipografico-Editrice (Canestrini trans 1876); see letter from R. F. Cooke, 5 October 1875 and n. 4. The Italian translation of Expression was also published by Unione Tipografico-Editrice (Canestrini and Bassani trans. 1878). William Clowes & Sons were printers to John Murray. Climbing plants 2d ed. was published in November 1875 (Publishers’ circular, 16 November 1875, p. 932). Variation 2d ed. was published in February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168), although it had an 1875 imprint. Cooke planned to have a ‘made-up’ copy of vol. 1 of Variation 2d ed. for John Murray’s November sale dinner (see J. Murray 1908–9, p. 540). G. Chiantore was the director of Unione Tipografico-Editrice of Turin. Murray may have been discussing a possible translation of the posthumous edition of Charles Lyell’s Principles of geology (Lyell 1875), but no Italian translation has been identified. There was some doubt over whether CD’s US publisher, D. Appleton & Co., could publish the second edition of Variation, since the first US edition had been published by Orange Judd & Co. D. Appleton & Co. did publish Variation 2d US ed. from Murray’s stereotypes in 1876. See letter to R. F. Cooke, 1 September [1875] and n. 5, and letter from D. Appleton & Co., 11 October 1875.

To G. J. Romanes   8 October 1875

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Oct 8. 75

My dear Mr Romanes I dispatched the certificate to Kew immediately after receiving it, but from some reason it has not yet come back. As there is no hurry & as Huxley is coming here tomorrow week I will retain the certificate for his signature.1 The potatoes arrived yesterday; considering the descriptions of the German observers, it seems to me that two of the lots are certainly hybridised.2 You will however be able to judge much better by looking at a large number of the tubers of all sizes of the two parent kinds, & if none are mottled like yr. supposed hybrids, I should think you might speak confidently. I would suggest yr looking at a large number of the pure kinds grown in the same soil; & to give the reader some definite idea I would say that I had looked over so many bushels, & that a bushel contains so many potatoes. It will be much better for you to plant the hybrids next season, than for me to keep any; & I have not seen any exact account of how far the produce reverts to the two pure forms. To ascertain this you would have to keep an account of each potatoe when planted. Shall I send the potatoes to you in Scotland? I suspect that the potatoes ought to be kept in almost dry sand to prevent their drying too much. It almost makes me weep to think of the onions, as the nature of seminal hybrids from a graft hybrids would be so absolutely new. Many thanks about the drawing of the striped horse, but this subject is finished & printed off.3 Let me hear soon where I shall send the potatoes my dear Mr Romanes | yrs sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS American Philosophical Society (477) 1

CD had proposed Romanes for membership of the Linnean Society (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 24 September [1875] and n. 2). He had sent the nomination form to William Turner Thiselton-Dyer for his

October 1875

2 3

389

signature and that of Joseph Dalton Hooker (see letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 3 October [1875] and n. 4). Thomas Henry Huxley visited CD on 16 and 17 October 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). See letter from G. J. Romanes, 29 September 1875. Romanes had sent some of the best specimens from his potato-grafting experiments. See letter from G. J. Romanes, 29 September 1875 and n. 5.

From Edouard Bergson1   10 October 1875 Varsovie, le 10 Octobre 1875. Monsieur, C’est pour la seconde fois que je prends la liberté de venir Vous importuner. La bienveillance que Vous m’avez témoignée, en me faisant l’honneur de répondre à ma première lettre, m’encourage encore à avoir recours à Votre extrême obligeance.2  Il s’agit aujourd’hui d’une question sur laquelle je Vous supplierai de daigner me donner Votre opinion décisive. Il y a quatre ans qu’il m’est venu une idée singulière: en réfléchissant aux merveilles de la nature, en en considérant la régularité et en voyant (grâce à Vos recherches) que tout y réglé et nous représente un développement et une perfection continuels, je me suis dit, que, comme il y a un lien incontestable entre les animaux supérieures et les inférieures (consistant en une perfection incessante), il en est peut-être ainsi entre le monde animal et le végétal. En un mot, je croyais qu’il y avait eu un moment propice à ce que la cellule végétal quelconque s’était transformé en celle d’une créature animale. Comme j’ai déjà 21 ans et un peu plus d’expérience, cette idée me paraît bien étrange; cependant si elle est absurde, elle renferme en elle des circonstances qui ne s’opposent pas à la possibilité de sa justesse. En l’approfondissant, j’ai trouvé que toutes les preuves qui furent désignées comme déterminant la différence, soit dite évidente, entre l’animal et la plante, sont en partie insuffisantes, en partie malfondées. Pendant longtemps, on a considéré le mouvement ad libitum,3 comme étant exclusivement propre aux animaux; mais on a trouvé qu’il y a des germes de plantes aquatiques, ne donnant pas de fleures, qui, en état de vésicules encore, avant de perdre leurs cils et avant de pousser des racines, se meuvent à leur gré. On a prouvé que, comme il y a de l’azote dans l’organisme animal, il y en a aussi dans celui de plantes. Link a supposé que l’estomac est l’unique marque servant de distinction entre les deux mondes, dont il est parlé ci-dessus.4 Mais, comme il y a des créatures qui sont privées de cet organe, ce point de vue tombe de lui-même. Schleiden voulut faire valoir son opinion, en tâchant de nous persuader que les parties les plus importantes de l’animal sont intérieures, celles des plantes cependant—extérieures: ce qui est évidemment faux.5 En voyant que toutes ces opinions sont insuffisantes, Siebold pensait que la différence définitive gît dans la construction des parties primitives. Il prouva donc que

390

October 1875

la membrane de la cellule végétale diffère de celle de l’animal en ce que la première change seulement de forme par l’accroissement, et que l’autre possède, outre cette spécialité, encore celle de l’élasticité; mais Hermann Schacht a démontré la fausseté de cette affirmation.6 Il n’existe donc aucune différence entre les parties primitives de l’animal et celles de la plante, si ce n’est que la force vitale en change les formes et qu’elle est, peutêtre, parallèle à celle qui distingue les minéraux des plantes. Mes occupations ne m’ont pas permis de trouver plus de preuves justifiant mon idée et mes recherches sont donc plutôt théoriques et superficielles; c’est pourquoi j’ose Vous demander, Monsieur, par la présente, de bien vouloir me dire: s’il y a une différence saillante entre la forme primitive de l’animal et celle de la plante? En supposant qu’il n’en existe point, mon opinion est elle absurde? Vous êtes, sans contredit, l’homme unique qui peut répondre sous ce rapport quelque chose de décisif. Il est certain que cette nature, si bizarre dans ses mystères pour nous, hommes profanes, est bien réglée et bien simple aux yeux du génie. L’histoire du progrès universel nous donne des preuves infaillibles de sa simplicité et de sa régularité. Heureux les génies à qui l’humanité doit l’explication des choses qui lui paraissent merveilleuses! Vous êtes, Monsieur, l’un de ces élus! Vous avez mis en ordre ces masses d’animaux dispersés, en désignant qu’ils sont parents et en assignant le rôle respectif qu’ils ont joué dans l’histoire de la création. Je viens donc recourir, Monsieur, à Votre indulgence, en Vous priant de bien vouloir répondre aux questions énoncées précédemment. Vous me prendrez, sans doute, ou pour un exalté ou pour un ignorant; les extrémités se touchent: si mon idée n’est pas juste, elle en est le contraire; mais pardonnez-la moi: c’est un des rêves de jeunesse et ce que Vous considérerez comme une impossibilité, mettez-le sur le compte d’un esprit rêveur, sur celui des recherches d’un adolescent. Avant m’être décidé à Vous écrire, Monsieur, j’ai hésité entre la crainte de Vous importuner et le plaisir d’avoir Votre opinion. La première s’empara souvent de moi en me laissant dans un état du doute, cependant le cauchemar de mon idée me poursuit sans cesse; veuillez donc, Monsieur, me bien pardonner mon insistance à cet égard et agréer, avec mes remercîments anticipés, les assurances de ma respectueuse considération. Edouard Bergson. P.S. Daignez, Monsieur, me faire parvenir Votre bienveillante réponse par l’intermédiaire du Consulat Général de France à Varsovie (Pologne). DAR 160: 173 1 2

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Neither Bergson’s first letter nor CD’s reply has been found.

October 1875 3 4 5

6

391

Ad libitum: at one’s discretion; at will (Latin). Heinrich Friedrich Link’s remark on the animal stomach has not been identified. Matthias Jacob Schleiden had proposed that cells were the basic structural elements of all plants in Beiträge zur Phytogenesis (Contributions to phytogenesis; Schleiden 1838). His remarks regarding differences between animals and plants have not been identified. Karl Theodor Ernst von Siebold had discussed differences in plant and animal cells, noting that the principal difference was the rigid cell wall present in plants but not in animals (Siebold 1848, pp. 8–9). Hermann Schacht discussed the morphology and physiology of plant cells in Die Pflanzenzelle, der innere Bau und das Leben der Gewächse (The plant cell, the inner structure and life of plants; Schacht 1852).

From D. Appleton & Co.   11 October 1875 549 & 551 Broadway, | New York. Oct 11/75 Charles Darwin Esq Dear Sir We have at last succeeded in negociating with Judd & Co. for the plates of yr. work on “Animals & Plants under Domestication” paying them 350$. and allowing them 50% discount on 150 copies of the new Edn.1 This is a considerable sum as we can make no use of the plates yet we felt it was for yr. advantage, as well as our own to have all yr. works together. We hope the casts of the plates of the new edition to be furnished by Mr Murray will not exceed the cost of the taking the casts of plates & letter press.2 Messrs. Judd made a very small sale of the work & suffered very considerable loss by the undertaking.3 We shall be glad to know how soon the new edn. will appear | We remain | very faithfully | & truly | D. Appleton & Co P.S. We will add that in our negociation with Messrs. Judd we stated you did not wish to interfere with their rights, but you wd. be glad for the change if they could see it was for their interest— All was amicable & kind. Yrs. DA & Co DAR 159: 96 CD annotations 1.1 Judd … new Edn. 1.3] double scored pencil 2.1 Messrs. … appear 2.2] ‘Must they have new stereos of Blocks’ added ink Top of letter: ‘Write to Murray | about sale’ pencil 1 2

3

The first US edition of Variation had been published by Orange Judd & Co. in April 1868 (see Correspondence vol. 16, letter from George Thurber, 18–20 April 1868). Orange Judd & Co. reset Variation to conform to their usual format and then stereotyped the printing plates (see Correspondence vol. 16, letter from George Thurber, 18–20 April 1868, and Correspondence vol. 17, letter from Orange Judd & Co., 21 April 1869). John Murray had provided stereotype plates of most of CD’s later books to D. Appleton & Co. at slightly above cost (see, for example, letter to R. F. Cooke, 29 June [1875] and n. 2). When the edition by Orange Judd & Co. appeared, Asa Gray had written to CD, noting that it was ‘not very nicely printed’ (Correspondence vol. 16, letter from Asa Gray, 18 May 1868). The publisher had

392

October 1875

informed CD that sales were not as large as hoped (see Correspondence vol. 17, letter from Orange Judd & Co., 21 April 1869).

From Lawson Tait   11 October 1875 7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. Oct 11 1875 My Dear Sir, I have a short paper in hand on “The glandular structure and its function in pitcher plants” Would you favour me by presenting it to the Royal Society for me?1 I would ask r D. Hooker,2 but I do not know him. I am going over the question of the digestion principle but am far from being settled about it. Its presence is essential, but the presence of the acid is far more important. Yours faithfully, | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 19 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘(Please return)’ red crayon 1

2

Tait’s paper was not published by the Royal Society of London. CD returned it to Tait after it was rejected (see Correspondence vol. 24, letter to Lawson Tait, 24 April 1876). Tait later published two papers, possibly using some of the material from the paper he had sent to CD (see letter from Lawson Tait, 16 June [1875] and n. 5). Joseph Dalton Hooker.

From R. F. Cooke   12 October 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London. W. Oct. 12 1875 My dear Sir The charge for 500 sets of the Heliotype Illustrations, in your work on Expression is £37.10.0 on paper the same size as our edition1 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 472 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘£10 Woodblocks’ pencil 1

In his letter of 6 October 1875, CD had asked Cooke to tell him the cost of the illustrations for Expression so that he could inform his Italian publisher. The heliotype process was used to reproduce the photographs in Expression.

October 1875 From G. H. Darwin   12 October 1875

393 Trin. Coll. Camb Oct 12. 75

My dear Father, Please read the enclosed & return them.1 If you will let me know what answer to give to Zacharias I will write. I am much surprized to hear that any publisher will publish it.2 Would it be impertinent to tell him to pocket any profits,—it is so excessively improbable that there will be any.? Jevons’ letter is very pleasing to me & encourages me to believe that I perhaps may do something health notwithstanding.3 I have just finished an account of the Globes for the Philosoph. Mag., & I hope they will put it in, as it has never appeared anywhere yet.4 It took me rather longer than I expected to draw the figures & write it. I have always been in the habit of going in very late to hall so as to escape a sit of 25 min. before I get anything to eat, but 3 of the very dullest men the world has seen have just taken their M.A’s & come to our table & always sit at the bottom so that I have been cut off from human intercourse for 4 or 5 days— So last night I thought it better to try the waiting dodge, & I shall pretty often in future as the other is very depressing.5 I was repaid last night by meeting a very pleasant American Prof. Gilman, who has come to Europe to get hints about Universities. He is to be president of a new Univ. at Baltimore to wh. some one has given 14 million doll.s 6 He had met Leo. in S. Francisco, & knew the Nortons well tho’ not a Bostonian.7 How small the world is! Tell Horace that Rendal has got a fellowship.8 We have just reelected Cayley wh. is a good thing, as his professional stipend is not very high.9 I received a pamphlet from Germany this A.M10 Doctor G. H. D Esq. Our titles seem an endless mystery to foreigners. I had hardly written the other day when the sickness began again, tho’ not very bad; but today I am too unwell to do anything except write letters. It is the usual bilious business.11 I do not expect wine abstinence will do much for me. At times I feel an intense desire for something strong tasting & eat salt to satisfy it, but I suppose it is the wine I want; however I shall persevere for my month & certainly my average for the last 10 days has been very much higher. I’m afraid my pitch experiments must wait again for a few days, as it requires making observations every 5 min. for a long time together.12 I have had one short turn at it & find it very difficult as one has to look at a watch & observe an index at same time. I almost think I shall have to get a chronometer & someone to help me, but I shall persevere without for a time & see whether it is likely to lead to any results. It will require hundreds of observations & each of them requires several hours preparation because I must get the pitch to a given temperature thro’out before I can begin.

394

October 1875

The fear haunts me that it won’t be of any value when I do get my results. However after a month or two, if I can work, I shall begin to see my way Your affectionate son | G. H. Darwin DAR 210.2: 48 1 2

3

4 5 6 7

8 9

10 11

12

The enclosures have not been found, but were probably letters regarding the translation of an article written by George on marriages between cousins (G. H. Darwin 1875a; see n. 2, below). Otto Zacharias had mentioned his desire to arrange for a German translation of George’s work on cousin marriage (G. H. Darwin 1875a) in his letter to CD of 19 August 1875. The translation, with an introduction by Zacharias, was published in 1876 (G. H. Darwin 1876), and a favourable review of it appeared in the Zeitschrift für Ethnologie (Lewkowitsch 1876). The letter from William Stanley Jevons has not been found. George had written in support of Jevons’s Theory of political economy (Jevons 1871) in the Fortnightly Review in February 1875 (G. H. Darwin 1875d). Jevons suffered from chronic health problems but managed to continue to produce work in economics and logic (ODNB). George also suffered from periodic bouts of illness; see n. 11, below. George’s paper, ‘Maps of the world’ (G. H. Darwin 1875c) appeared in the Philosophical Magazine in December 1875. George, who was a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, refers to meals served in the dining hall. The men who had recently taken their MA degrees have not been identified. Daniel Coit Gilman became the first president of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in January 1875. In 1867, Johns Hopkins had endowed $3.5 million for the establishment of the university (ANB). Gilman was educated in Connecticut and New York before spending a year at Harvard. Charles Eliot Norton and his family had spent four months living near Down in 1868, and had socialised frequently with the Darwins (see letter to C. E. Norton, 7 October 1875 and n. 5). Before becoming president of Johns Hopkins University, Gilman had been president of the University of California at Berkeley. He evidently met Leonard Darwin when Leonard was in San Francisco on his return from the transit of Venus expedition in New Zealand. Gerald Henry Rendall, a contemporary of Horace Darwin, was elected a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1875 (Alum. Cantab.). Arthur Cayley had been a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, from 1842 until 1852; he was an honorary fellow from 1872 and was re-elected fellow in 1875. He was also the first Sadlerian (now spelled Sadleirian) Professor of mathematics at Cambridge (Alum. Cantab.). The pamphlet has not been identified. George suffered from chronic stomach problems, as did CD; both tried various diets and other treatments. Andrew Clark, their current physician, relied on a strict dietary regimen (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from Andrew Clark, 3 September 1873, and Correspondence vol. 24, letter from Andrew Clark, 8 July 1876). George’s experiments on pitch related to his study of tidal friction and the rigidity of the earth. He later published several papers on the motion of viscous and elastic spheroids that benefited from his observations on the flow of pitch (see G. H. Darwin 1907–16, vol. 2).

To Edouard Bergson   13 October 1875 Down | Beckenham. Kent. Oct 13— 75. Dear Sir. I am much obliged for your kind expressions towards me, I fully agree with what you say about the impossibility of distinguishing between animal & vegetable organisms.1 This is well shown by Häckel having formed an intermediate kingdom—2

October 1875

395

There is therefore no difficulty in believing that some low animal was descended from some low vegetable form. But it seems to me hopeless to speculate about organisms which lived at so remote a period As I have many letters to write I hope you will excuse my brevity. Dear Sir. | Yours faithfully. | Ch. Darwin. Copy DAR 143: 111 1 2

See letter from Edouard Bergson, 10 October 1875. Ernst Haeckel’s kingdom Protista included various single-celled organisms such as rhizopods and diatoms; in his phylogenetic tree, it was depicted as the central kingdom with Plantae and Animalia on either side (see Haeckel 1866, 2: plate 1).

To G. H. Darwin   13 October [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Oct 13th My dear George Stanley Jevon’s letter has pleased me more than anything which I have read for many a long day.— Please say to Dr. J. that I am very much obliged for information & have ordered Dr [Cohens’s] book, so will give him no further trouble.—2 I think on the whole you you had better say nothing about profit— if there shd. be any, you might then say it was the Translator’s due.—3 I am very sorry to hear about sickness.— I am convinced that the craving for something tasting strong will wear away.— I do not in the least fear that if there is anything to be made out by your method with respect to viscous fluids, you will succeed— such energy as yours almost always succeeds.—4 Look at the success of your cousin papers, for these certainly have been highly successful.5 Yours affect | 〈C. Darwin〉 AL DAR 210.1: 48 1 2

3 4 5

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from G. H. Darwin, 12 October 1875. The letter from William Stanley Jevons to George has not been found, but see the letter from G. H. Darwin, 12 October 1875. CD probably refers to Gustav Cohn’s Untersuchungen über die Englische Eisenbahnpolitik (Investigations concerning English railway policy; G. Cohn 1874–83); the first two volumes appeared in 1874 and 1875. Many of CD’s investments were in railways (CD’s Investment book (Down House MS). See letter from G. H. Darwin, 12 October 1875 and n. 2. Otto Zacharias had proposed arranging for a German translation of George’s work on cousin marriage (G. H. Darwin 1875a). See letter from G. H. Darwin, 12 October 1875 and n. 12. CD refers to George’s papers on marriages between first cousins (G. H. Darwin 1875a and 1875b; see n. 3, above) and possibly to his earlier paper ‘On beneficial restrictions to liberty of marriage’ (G. H. Darwin 1873).

396

October 1875

To J. D. Hooker   13 October [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Oct. 13th My dear Hooker I am dreadfully perplexed about the enclosed note.2 It is not at all nice in the confounded man (who has bothered me almost out of my life) to write on Nepenthes when he & all the world know that you have taken up the subject.3 What had I better do? Do for Heaven sake advise me soon through Dyer.— Am I bound to read his paper over before sending it to the Royal Soc. that is if you advise me to agree to his request? I feel that I could not judge his paper fairly.4 Forgive me for bothering you. Yours affect | C. Darwin P.S.— | (Ask Dyer to return the certificate for Romanes, as Huxley will be here on Sunday & I will get him to sign.—5 You know Glycerine strongly attracts water, & Frank can work the twisted seeds splendidly by putting them alternately in water & glycerine, & I think that he will thus make out mechanism.—6 DAR 95: 392–3 1 2 3

4 5

6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 October 1875. CD evidently enclosed the letter from Lawson Tait, 11 October 1875, in which Tait asked CD to submit his paper on pitcher-plants to the Royal Society of London. Tait had written several letters to CD discussing his experimental work on insectivorous plants and other subjects. In 1873, CD had asked Hooker to do some work on the tropical pitcher-plant genus, Nepenthes (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter to J. D. Hooker, 19 September [1873]). Both Hooker and William Turner Thiselton-Dyer had worked periodically on the subject from that time. In his address to the department of botany and zoology at the 1874 meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Hooker described his efforts to test the digestive power of Nepenthes by following the methods that CD had developed for Dionaea muscipula (Venus fly trap) and Drosera (sundew; see J. D. Hooker 1874a). Thiselton-Dyer was assistant director at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Hooker was the director). Hooker was also president of the Royal Society. CD had sent the form proposing George John Romanes for membership of the Linnean Society to Thiselton-Dyer for his and Hooker’s signatures (see letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 3 October [1875] and n. 4). Thomas Henry Huxley visited Down on 16 and 17 October 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Glycerine (now often referred to as glycerol) absorbs water from air. Francis Darwin’s paper ‘On the hygroscopic mechanism by which certain seeds are enabled to bury themselves in the ground’ appeared in 1876 (F. Darwin 1876c).

From Friedrich Max Müller   13 October [1875]1 Parks End, | Oxford. 13 Oct. My dear Sir, Allow me to present you my defence against Prof. Whitney’s attacks.2 I think you will see from what I have stated, that Professor Whitney is not an ally whom either

October 1875

397

you or your son would approve of. I should never have noticed him, had not your son brought him so prominently before the English public.3 However even controversy helps sometimes, though not often, to clear away error & bring out truth, and so I hope I have not simply wasted my time in answering Prof. Whitney’s charges. The point at issue between you & me is a very simple one: is that which can pass a certain line in nature the same as that which cannot? It may be, no doubt, & in that case the highest animal would simply be a stunted man. But this seems to me a narrow view of nature, particularly if we consider that everything organic is after all much more truly that which it can be than that which it is. In the higher animals the potential traces of language are smaller than in some of the lower, but even where the phonetic organs are most perfect, there has never been the slightest attempt at language in the true sense of the word. Why should natural science be unwilling to admit this— why should it not at all events leave the question an open question until some truly scientific evidence has been brought forward showing at least the potentiality of language in any known animal. “More facts & fewer theories” is what we want, at least in the Science of Language, and it is a misfortune if the collectors of facts are discouraged by being told that facts are useless against theories. I have no prejudice whatever against the faculty of language in animals: it would help to solve many difficulties. All I say is, let us wait, let us look for facts, & let us keep la carrière ouverte.4 Believe me, | Yours sincerely | F. Max Müller DAR 171: 286 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the reference to the fourth volume of Max Müller 1867–75 (see n. 2, below). Max Müller enclosed a copy of his essay ‘In self-defence: present state of scientific studies’, recently published in the fourth volume of his Chips from a German workshop (Max Müller 1867–75, 4: 473–549; see Publishers’ circular, 2 November 1875, p. 857). CD’s copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. William Dwight Whitney had written a critical essay review of Max Müller’s lectures on Darwinism and language (Max Müller 1873) in the North American Review (Whitney 1874). In November 1874, George Howard Darwin published a review of Whitney 1874 titled ‘Professor Whitney on the origin of language’ in the Contemporary Review (G. H. Darwin 1874). In his review, he defended CD in his debate with Max Müller. Max Müller responded to G. H. Darwin and Whitney in ‘My reply to Mr. Darwin’ in the January 1875 issue of the Contemporary Review (Max Müller 1875). Whitney replied in April 1875 in the same journal (Whitney 1875). Max Müller’s latest essay in Max Müller 1867–75 continued the debate (for more on the dispute, see Alter 2005, pp. 174–206, and Radick 2008, pp. 47–9). Max Müller alludes to a phrase of Napoleon I, ‘carrière ouverte aux talents’ (the career open to talents; or in the translation by Thomas Carlyle, ‘the tools to him that can handle them’; Carlyle 1837, p. 387).

To J. V. Carus   14 October [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Oct 14th. My dear Sir I send by this post clean sheets of my little book on Climbing Plants.2 I might have sent it a month ago but quite forgot. It will be published Nov. 6th. As you have

398

October 1875

not yet nearly finished Insectivorous Plants, which is a very heavy work for you I much fear, I would strongly suggest that you shd employ some one to make the Translation under your superintendence otherwise there must be such great delay. I have mentioned this to Herr Koch, from whom I received copies of my Journal, the appearance of which I much admire.—3 My Orchis book is out of Print, & I hope to correct & improve it, but this I shall not do until I have finished my book on the advantages of intercrossing in the vegetable kingdom; & I guess this book will take me a year.—4 The new Edit of Var. under Dom: will be published in December, & I hope that I have considerably improved it— I will keep old sheets for you, as many Chapters are not altered—others rather largely.5 I most truly hope that your Italian tour has done you good.6 How you can get through so much work as you do is astonishing to me.— My dear Sir | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Slg. Darmstaedter Lc 1859 Darwin, Charles, Bl. 135–136 1 2 3

4 5

6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. V. Carus, 20 November 1875. Carus’s translation of Climbing plants 2d ed. appeared in 1876 (Carus trans. 1876b). Carus was translating Insectivorous plants, which had been published in English on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)); the German translation (Carus trans. 1876a) appeared by early March 1876 (see Correspondence vol. 24, letter from J. V. Carus, 19 March 1876). CD’s letter to Eduard Koch, the head of E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, has not been found. Koch was producing a collected German edition of CD’s works and the translation of Journal of researches was the first volume of the collection (Carus trans. 1875b and Carus trans. 1875–87). Cross and self fertilisation was published on 10 November 1876 (Freeman 1977); Orchids 2d ed. was published in January 1877 (Publishers’ circular, 1 February 1877, p. 93). Variation 2d ed. was published in the second half of February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168); however, it carried an 1875 publication date. There had already been a second German edition of Variation (Carus trans. 1873); the third German edition of the book was based on Variation 2d ed. (Carus trans. 1878). See letter from J. V. Carus, 28 June 1875. Carus wrote he planned to spend September in the south with his family; CD evidently assumed he meant Italy.

From J. D. Hooker   14 October 1875 Kew Oct 14/75 Dear Darwin Your awned carpels are those of Anemone alpina or montana, which are undistinguishable.1 Where did you say that you had noticed the sports of Paritium which I took away?.2 Your’s of 13th just arrived. It is cool of Mr. L. Tait to say that he does not know me!— true I never saw him, but I only yesterday answered a letter from him asking

Dischidia rafflesiana. From Nathaniel Wallich, Plantae Asiaticae rariores, or, Descriptions and figures of a select number of unpublished East Indian plants (London: Treuttel and Würtz, 1830–32), plate 142. Image from the Biodiversity Heritage Library. Digitized by Missouri Botanical Garden, Peter H. Raven Library. www.biodiversitylibrary.org

400

October 1875

me to shew him our Insectivorous plants, & to give him Nepenthes pitchers. I told him that I would do both gladly. I suspect that he is an impudent fellow—& I would, were I you, on no account accept the task of reading his paper.3 I should tell him that you are engaged on other investigations, which it would disturb, & that you have not health for such work— I know no task more detestable than that of reading other men’s lucubrations in which you have a priori no confidence.— Frank’s observations on the action of Glycerine are very suggestive—4 What would be the action of a little carefully laid on the articulation of Mimosa sensitiva or pudica?— Though for that matter I suppose it must have been tried.— When you say that G. attracts water how do you mean— it is a colloid is it not?5 You cannot bother me— you do not know what pleasure your letters & queries give me. We are enquiring about Imantophyllum & the Melastomaceae.6 We have just completed the plan of the Laboratory & shall send out for tenders tomorrow.7 Ever yr affec | J D Hooker DAR 104: 38–9 1

2 3 4

5

6

7

No letter in which CD inquired about identifying a specimen has been found, but Hooker had visited CD on 10 October 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)), so the request was probably made in person. Anemone alpina is the alpine anemone or pasque flower; Anemone montana is the mountain pasque flower; both have seed-heads with long hairy awns. Francis Darwin was engaged in a series of experiments on awned seeds (see n. 4, below). Paritium is a genus of the plant family Malvaceae (mallows). CD’s specimens had been sent by George King (see Correspondence vol. 19, letter to George King, 27 January [1871]). See letter to J. D. Hooker, 13 October [1875] and nn. 2 and 3. Lawson Tait had asked CD to submit a paper by him to the Royal Society of London. Nepenthes is the genus of tropical pitcher-plants. Francis Darwin was trying to work out the mechanism by which some seeds were able to bury themselves in the ground. He evidently observed that the twisted awns of some seeds would untwist when wet (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 13 October [1875] and n. 6). He could then reverse the process by immersing the seeds in glycerine, which would draw out the water, causing the awns to re-twist. See letter to J. D. Hooker, 13 October [1875] and n. 6. Glycerine is not a colloid, that is, a suspension of tiny, but larger than single molecule, particles in a liquid. It is soluble in water in any concentration. Mimosa sensitiva and M. pudica are two species of sensitive plant. The mechanism by which leaflets and leaves in these species folded up in response to touch had yet to be worked out, but CD made several observations on the process, later published in Movement in plants. See letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 3 October [1875] and n. 5. CD had evidently meant to ask William Turner Thiselton-Dyer for a specimen of a plant of the family Melastomaceae (now Melastomataceae) in order to observe differences in the two types of stamens characteristic of some plants in this family. CD may have discussed obtaining a specimen of a species of Imantophyllum for crossing experiments when Hooker visited him on 10 October 1875 (see n. 1, above). Imantophyllum is a synonym of Clivia; it is in the family Amaryllidaceae. According to an entry in the Outwards book (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), a plant of Imantophyllum cyrtanthiflorum (a synonym of Clivia × cyrtanthiflora) was sent to CD on 14 October 1875 (see letter from W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, [16–22 October 1875] and n. 2. The Jodrell Laboratory at Kew, a research institution for plant physiology, was funded by a donation from Thomas Jodrell Phillips-Jodrell (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from J. D. Hooker, 22 December 1874 and n. 2). The building was completed in 1876 (Thiselton-Dyer 1910).

October 1875 To Lawson Tait   14 October [1875]1

401 Down, Beckenham, Kent 14th Oct.

I shall be happy to do what you ask & present your paper on Nepenthes to the Royal Society2 Incomplete3 Christie’s (dealers) (11 December 1969) 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Lawson Tait, 11 October 1875. See letter from Lawson Tait, 11 October 1875 and n. 1. Nepenthes is the genus of tropical pitcher-plants. The original letter is complete and is described in the sale catalogue as being one page long.

To J. D. Hooker   15 October [1875]1

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Oct 15th

My dear Hooker I thank you much for your note, but after agonies of doubt I found that I cd. not endure to refuse sending L. Tait’s paper to the Royal, as he has been here & wishes to do everything to oblige me, But he is a coarse impudent fellow.2 Yet he is a clever man, & his paper may very probably contain good matter, though I have seen that he rushes to his conclusions very rashly.— I am very very sorry that you had trouble to telegraph; I had remembered “Charles St” & this wd. have found him.—3 Frank is very glad to know name of the Anemone & I am uncommonly obliged about Imatophyllum & Melastomaceæ.4 Paritium is mentioned by me under name of “Cistus tricuspis” in Var. under Dom. (see Index); but I shall give D.r Kings statement to the 2d Edit. which will appear in December.—5 I do not know whether Glycerine is a colloid; but it is said to attract water strongly, & so I have found it with Drosera. We will try it with Mimosa, but I suspect that water on articulation causes movement, & if so it, will tell nothing.6 Ever yours affect | C. Darwin P.S. I have kept back & opened my note to say that Imatophyllums have come all safely.— I have put them in greenhouse for the present, but will move them when winter comes on to Hot-house, as I suppose this wd. be right.—7 I have tried glycerine of the articulations of leaflets of Cassia with no effect whatever.8 DAR 95: 394–6 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 October 1875. CD had asked Hooker’s advice on whether to present a paper to the Royal Society of London on behalf of Lawson Tait. CD was reluctant because the subject of Tait’s paper was similar to research being

402

3

4 5

6

7

8

October 1875

carried out by Hooker on tropical pitcher-plants (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 13 October [1875]). Hooker counselled CD to refuse on the grounds of poor health and too much work (letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 October 1875). Tait had visited Down on 17 April 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Lawson Tait’s address was 7 Great Charles Street, Birmingham. Hooker forgot to return Tait’s letter to CD with his letter of 14 October 1875 and telegraphed Tait’s address to CD in case CD needed it in order to reply to Tait (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 19 October 1875). See letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 October 1875 and n. 6. Imantophyllum is a synonym of Clivia; the family Melastomaceae is now known as the Melastomataceae. See letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 October 1875. CD referred to Cistus tricuspis in Variation 1: 377; he expanded his discussion in Variation 2d ed. 1: 402, referring to it as (Hibiscus) Paritium tricuspis, and citing George King for information about a tree of Paritium tricuspis that produced a branch that was buried in the ground and grew like a bush, with leaves and flowers resembling those of P. tiliaceum. King’s manuscript on the phenomenon was later sent by CD to Thiselton-Dyer and published in the Journal of the Linnean Society (King 1875; see letter W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 22 October 1875). Hibiscus tricuspis and Paritium tricuspis are synonyms of Talipariti hastatum (Tahiti hibiscus; Fryxell 2001, p. 247). Paritium tiliaceum is a synonym of Talipariti tiliaceum (beach hibiscus). See letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 October 1875 and n. 5. CD described the action of glycerine on Drosera rotundifolia (common or round-leaved sundew) in Insectivorous plants, p. 52. CD probably refers to the effect of water dropped on the pulvinus or joint of the petiole; he described the action of the pulvini of the leaflets of Mimosa pudica in Movement in plants, p. 113. According to an entry in the Outwards book (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), a plant of Imantophyllum cyrtanthiflorum was sent to CD on 14 October 1875 (see letter from W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, [16–22 October 1875] and n. 2). Imantophyllum cyrtanthiflorum is a synonym of Clivia × cyrtanthiflora. According to an entry in the Outwards book (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), six species of Cassia were sent to CD on 14 April 1874. In a note dated 18 July 1874 (DAR 209.1: 19), CD described the reaction of Cassia mimosoides (a synonym of Chamaecrista mimosoides, feather-leaved cassia) to water being dropped on its leaves. No notes on the effects of glycerine have been found.

To Friedrich Max Müller    15 October [1875]1 Down Oct 15 My dear Sir I am greatly obliged to you for so kindly sending me your essay, which I am sure will interest me much.2 With respect to our differences, though some of your remarks have been rather stinging they have all been made so gracefully I declare that I am like the man in the story who boasted that he had been soundly horsewhipped by a Duke!3 Pray believe me | Yours very sincerely | Charles Darwin Copy DAR 146: 427 1 2

3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Friedrich Max Müller, 13 October [1875]. See letter from Friedrich Max Müller, 13 October [1875] and nn. 2 and 3. CD’s annotated copy of Max Müller’s essay, ‘In self-defence: present state of scientific studies’ (Max Müller 1867–75, 4: 473–549), is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. The anecdote is taken from an article by Thomas Babington Macaulay that first appeared in the Edinburgh Review ([Macaulay] 1827, p. 246).

October 1875 From W. E. Darwin   16 October 1875

403 Bank, Southampton, Oct 16 1875

Dear Father, I have sent off the Orchis Bk. to Gentry.1 I send some of the penholders we find so nice.2 You should have Morley’s article on Diderot & the Encyclopædia in Septr. Fortnightly read aloud it is very interesting.3 When you get some more copies of the new edition of the “Descent” will you put one on one side for me.4 Your affect son | W. E. Darwin Cornford Family Papers (private collection) 1

2 3

4

William sent a copy of Orchids to Thomas George Gentry, who had sent CD a copy of his article ‘The fertilization of certain flowers through insect agency’ (Gentry 1875); CD’s annotated copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. The nib or quill slip of a dip pen was secured to a holder or shaft. CD used Bramah pens while on the Beagle voyage (see Voyage, p. 252). No other mention of a specific type of pen has been found. In his article ‘Diderot’ ([Morley] 1875), John Morley discussed the history and development of the encyclopaedia as well as the production of the Encyclopédie, whose principal editor was Denis Diderot (Diderot and Alembert eds. 1751–84). A reprint of Descent 2d ed. (eleventh thousand) with corrections and text changes was printed in 1875 (Freeman 1977). William had not been on CD’s presentation list for Descent 2d ed. (Correspondence vol. 22, Appendix IV).

To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   16 October [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Oct 16th My dear Dyer I write to thank you for all your varied information. I am particularly glad to hear about the Imatophyllum, for if I can get the plants to flower I am particularly curious to know whether Beatons story of the direct action of the pollen is true.2 The arms of the anemone do rotate splendidly, but Frank has made only one trial as yet about their power of burying themselves.3 These seeds were some which one of my sons gathered in Switzerland, & Hooker told us nothing of your being sent any, which we shd be glad of4   I have no doubt Dr. Heckel is right, for I have shown that certain (though not all) glandular hairs especially of Saxifrages do absorb weak carbonate of Ammonia, & I have attempted to show how this gave rise to power of digestion.—5 With many thanks for all your kindness | yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Thiselton-Dyer, W.T., Letters from Charles Darwin 1873–81: 33–4) 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 October 1875. Thiselton-Dyer’s letter with information on Imantophyllum has not been found, but Joseph Dalton Hooker had informed CD that they were inquiring about the plant (see letter from J.  D.  Hooker,

404

3 4

5

October 1875

14 October 1875 and n. 6). Imantophyllum is now Clivia, a South African genus of the family Amaryllidaceae; Imatophyllum was an alternative spelling. CD received a plant of Imantophyllum cyrtanthiflorum (now Clivia × cyrtanthiflora) on 15 October 1875 (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 15 October [1875] and n. 7, and letter from W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, [16–22 October 1875] and n. 2). Donald Beaton had reported that when two species of Imatophyllum were crossed, the pods of the female parent took on the appearance of pods characteristic of the male parent (Beaton 1860, p. 254; see also Correspondence vol. 11, letter to Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener, [before 27 January 1863] and n. 4). See letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 October 1875 and n. 4. Francis Darwin was experimenting with a number of seeds that could bury themselves in the ground. It is not known which of CD’s sons collected the seeds, but Francis had made botanical observations while on his honeymoon in Switzerland (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Francis and Amy Darwin, 8 August [1874]). Edouard Marie Heckel’s observation may have related to his experiments on the ability of the glands of Parnassia palustris (marsh grass of Parnassus) to dissolve and absorb animal matter. His results were published in 1876 (Heckel 1876). CD had also been interested in the species (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Francis and Amy Darwin, 8 August [1874] and n. 4). See also Insectivorous plants, pp. 345–8 (on Saxifraga).

From W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   [16–22 October 1875]1 P.S. I had almost forgotten about the Imantophyllum. On looking into the matter it turns out that Imantophyllum Cyrtanthiflorum is a hybrid between Imantophyllum miniatum and Clivia nobilis (= Imantophyllum Aitoni). We have both cyrtanthiflorum & miniatum if you would like to have them, The former has flowered and has some fruits. These happen to be nearly erect. But no doubt the rest if they had set would have drooped2 W. T. T. D. DAR 185: 152 CD annotations 1.1 P.S. … Fruits. 1.9] ‘I infer from 2d note that the Kew I. cyrtanthiflorum is a hybrid & that there is a true I cyrtanthiflorum’3 ink 1.3 Cyrtanthifolium 1.4] underl blue crayon End of letter: ‘(Dyer)’ blue crayon; ‘Gunnera’ pencil del blue crayon; ‘No 19’ blue crayon 1 2

The date range is established by the relationship between this letter, the letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 16 October [1875], and the letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 22 October 1875. According to an entry in the Outwards book (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), a plant of Imantophyllum cyrtanthiflorum (a synonym of Clivia x cyrtanthiflora) was sent to CD on 14 October 1875. A note inserted in pencil next to the entry reads, ‘probably not the thing | miniatum’. In his letter to ThiseltonDyer of 16 October [1875], CD mentioned his plan for experiments with Imantophyllum and thanked Thiselton-Dyer for information on it. Thiselton-Dyer may have informed CD that the plant sent on

October 1875

3

405

14 October was probably Imantophyllum miniatum (a synonym of Clivia miniata, the Natal lily or bush lily) in a missing part of his letter of 20 October 1875. A plant of Clivia nobilis (green-tip forest lily; Imantophyllum aitoni is a synonym) was sent on 26 October and a plant of I. cyrtanthiflorum was sent on 22 November (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Outwards book). For CD’s interest in the habit of the fruit (erect or drooping) of crosses between species of Imantophyllum, see the letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 16 October [1875] and n. 2. CD’s annotation is a note for his reply of 26 October [1875].

From Thomas Belt   17 October 1875 Cornwall House Ealing October 17 1875 Dear Mr Darwin, A short time since Mr T. C. Renshaw of Sandrocks, Haywards Heath sent me some flowers of the Tritoma containing bees & other insects that had been caught by them with the following remarks—“Yesterday my daughter pointed out that many of the bees frequenting the Tritoma had found a grave in the corolla where they are folded up like mummies & quite dead— The bee enters in as far as he can and frequently returns again as I have observed— When it does so it is evidently not stupified as they can then fly away at once— The death therefore appears to arise from some action of the organs of the flowers or from the bee being tightly packed in the flower”1 This has probably been observed before but it appears to be a contrivance for preventing the visits of useless insects that I have not myself noticed or heard of before and I enclose a few of the flowers containing insects as if new   I am sure the fact will be interesting to you and if not I can only ask you to pardon me for troubling you with them2 Yours very truly | Thomas Belt DAR 160: 130 1

2

The former plant genus name Tritoma is a synonym of Kniphofia (red-hot poker or torch lily). The long corolla tube of the flower is widest at the mouth and tapers toward the base. The daughter Renshaw refers to has not been identified. In Cross and self fertilisation, p. 427, CD mentioned Tritoma in his discussion of flowers that had holes made at the base of the corolla. No other mention of Tritoma has been found.

From Charles Voysey   18 October 1875 Camden House | Dulwich | S.E. Oct. 18. 1875 My dear Sir I have a chance which may never occur again. A wealthy friend of mine who is anxious to promote Theism & to carry it into the homes of England offers to bear the cost of starting a magazine bearing my name as conductor, & containing contributions of the first class.1 Each contributor to be responsible only for his own article.

406

October 1875

I enclose the list of names of those whom we propose to ask to help us—2 And earnestly beg you, if you have health & time, to send us a contribution for the first number which is to appear in January next. I am to be nearly sole contributor of the Religious article; and I intend to write in a moderate & conciliatory spirit so as to win confidence among people who call themselves Religious.3 Any fragment of yours will be most gratefully accepted. There is no time to be lost, as the “Copy” ought to be sent to the printer by the middle of November. Just think what your name will do for me. & remember it is an act of the highest charity.4 Ever most truly Yrs | Charles Voysey DAR 180: 18 1

2 3 4

Voysey’s friend has not been identified. The journal was called the Langham Magazine, after Langham Place in London, where Voysey had preached since 1869 (ODNB). The first issue was published in March 1876; it was discontinued after the fourth issue in May 1876. The enclosed list has not been found. Voysey had been expelled from the Church of England in 1871 for his theistic doctrines (ODNB). In 1871, CD had subscribed to a charity fund to support Voysey after he had been deprived of his Church living (see Correspondence vol. 19, letter from F. A. Hanbury, 4 September 1871).

From J. D. Hooker   19 October 1875 Kew Oct 19/75 Dear Darwin Imantophyllum are quite greenhouse plants. Keep them cool & not too wet in winter & if well potted in Spring they will flower superbly.1 There is some mistake in calling the Paritium a Cistus. It is the Hibiscus tiliaceus L, a name now adopted Paritium being a section of Hibiscus.2 P.S. I see it is Hibiscus in the work from which the Extract is taken.3 Ever aff yrs | Jos D Hooker I am horridly ashamed of myself for forgetting to enclose this, & fear I have put you to the expense of a Telegraph message— I thought you would be in a hurry to answer Tait & so telegraphed that you might know his address4 DAR 104: 40–1 1 2

3

CD had received plants of Imantophyllum (a synonym of Clivia) from Hooker (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 15 October [1875] and n. 7). See letter to J. D. Hooker, 15 October [1875] and n. 5. In modern botanical nomenclature, a subdivision of a genus such as a section is indicated by the section name given in parentheses between the genus and species epithet (International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, III.3.21). Common practice varied at this time, with many botanists using only the subgeneric name and species epithet. The genus name Paritium is now considered to be illegitimate (Fryxell 2001, p. 226). Hooker probably refers to William Bell’s description of the sport of Hibiscus tricuspis published in Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh 8 (1860–3): 565–6; CD had referred to this in Variation 1: 377–8. The species is now known as Talipariti hastatum.

October 1875 4

407

See letter to J. D. Hooker, 15 October [1875] and n. 3. Hooker had sent a telegraph with Lawson Tait’s address. Hooker returned the letter from Tait of 11 October 1875, which CD had sent with his letter to Hooker of 13 October [1875]. The Post Office took over the telegraph service from the railway companies in 1870; it charged 1s for twenty words with free delivery within a mile of the receiving telegraph office. Delivery over a mile was paid by the addressee. See Correspondence vol. 19, letter to John Lubbock, [1871 or later], and Kieve 1973, p. 289).

From W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   20 October 1875 Royal Gardens Kew Octr. 20. 75 Dear Mr Darwin I have been looking with Prof. Oliver at the specimens of the Saharunpore Hibiscus.1 Assuming that the facts are as they have been stated it is a very striking case indeed. Hibiscus tricuspis is indigenous in the Pacific Islands whence according to Roxburgh it was introduced into India.2 There it produces a sport according to Mr Bell and Dr King which appears to Prof. Oliver and myself identical with the Hibiscus tiliaceus which is indigenous in India.3 Now it is an empirical fact which has come out in the sorting of large collections of plants in the Kew Herbarium that the foliage of plants growing in islands has a tendency to be heteromorphic—that is to say plants with entire leaves are apt to produce divided leaves. This is especially the case with the collections recently made at Rodriguez.4 According to Dr Hooker5 it is also true for New Zealand. It is difficult to see any reason, but the fact seems to rest on a sufficient basis. Incomplete DAR 47: 205–6 CD annotations 1.1 I have … India. 1.6] crossed blue crayon 2.1 Now it is] opening square bracket blue crayon Top of letter: ‘Leaves on Insular Plants often divided | Effects of Conditions’ blue crayon End of letter: ‘(T. Dyer)’ blue crayon 1

2

3

George King had sent CD from the botanic garden at Saharunpore (now Saharanpur) in India specimens of a hibiscus (Hibiscus tricuspis or Paritium tricuspe) that had apparently produced a sport resembling a different species. Hooker had taken the specimens with him after visiting CD on 10 October 1875. See letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 October 1875 and n. 2; see also letter to J. D. Hooker, 15 October [1875] and n. 5. Daniel Oliver was keeper of the herbarium at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. In Flora Indica (Roxburgh 1832, 3: 202), William Roxburgh noted that seeds of Hibiscus tricuspis (now Talipariti hastatum, Tahiti hibiscus) had originally been sent by missionaries from Otaheite (Tahiti) to the botanic garden in Calcutta. William Bell’s letter of 29 March 1863, describing the sport of Hibiscus tricuspis in botanic garden at Saharunpore, was published in Transactions of the Botanical Society 8 (1860–3): 565–6. CD had referred to Bell’s description in Variation 1: 377. CD added a reference to observations of the same plant made by George King to Variation 2d ed. 1: 402. Hibiscus tiliaceus (now Talipariti tiliaceus, beach hibiscus) is native to coastal areas of the Indian Ocean and western Pacific Ocean (Fryxell 2001, p. 260).

408 4

5

October 1875

Rodriguez is one of the Mascarene Islands in the Indian Ocean, east of Madagascar. The Tahitian species of hibiscus (see n. 2, above) had three-lobed leaves while the species native to coastal India had heart-shaped ones. Joseph Dalton Hooker.

To John Tyndall   20 October [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Oct. 20th My dear Tyndall Your tube with the solution dated Oct. 16th. was quite clean at 8o 30′ am on the th 19 , but at 4o 30′ p.m was slightly muddy. At 8o am today (20th) it was more muddy & contained many Bacteria (& apparently vibrios) in lively movement. I believe that this is all that you wanted to hear.—.2 I very greatly enjoyed your visit & the talking has done me no harm.— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Sue and Gerald Friedman (private collection) 1 2

The year is established by the refeence to a visit that evidently took place on 16 October; Tyndall visited Down on 16 and 17 October 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Tyndall probably brought the test tube when he visited Down (see n. 1, above). Tyndall was engaged in a series of experiments on spontaneous generation and had enlisted a number of prominent observers, including CD, Joseph Dalton Hooker, and others, to confirm his results. For more on Tyndall’s work at this time and his dispute with Henry Charlton Bastian about spontaneous generation, see Strick 2000, pp. 162–7.

To John Fiske   21 October [1875] Many thanks for excellent notice of C. Wright.—1 Will you think me unreasonable for asking of a copy of the Nation with “Darwinism in Germany”?2 C. Darwin Down, Beckenham, Kent Oct. 21st. ApcS Postmark: OC 21 | 75 The Huntington Library (HM 8264) 1 2

Fiske probably sent the obituary that had appeared in Nation, 23 September 1875 ([ James] 1875). It mentioned Wright’s recent review article (see n. 2, below). Wright’s article, ‘German Darwinism’ (C. Wright 1875) appeared in Nation, 9 September 1875. See also letter to C. E. Norton, 7 October 1875.

October 1875

409

To J. D. Hooker   21 October [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Oct. 21st My dear Hooker Having as a wonder no letters to write, I am going to amuse myself by scribbling a few lines to you.— Perhaps you wd. like to read enclosed on Gunnera: anyhow it need not be returned.2 I wonder whether the same explanation can apply to odd little flower in middle, or on axis of umbel of Carrot, which has always been a mystery to me.3 By the way a Melastoma (I know not what or whence) has just flowered in my hot-house, but the 2 sets of stamens do not differ except in size: I have however fertilised a few flowers with pollen from both.4 The boys have been observing Stipa, & Horace has made a hygrometer with a bit of the twisted awn or pistil (or whatever it may be) & mounted it on a graduated circle; & I have never in my life been more astonished than at its sensitiveness.5 If you blow gently at it from 1 or 2 feet distance, it absorbs moisture & instantly rotates. It is still more surprising that the moisture from a finger held near, not touching, instantly & repeatedly caused a slight movement of about a degree.— What a strong attraction for water the cells must have! We have been disgusted to find in Watts Dict. of Chemistry that some one has used Stipa as a hygrometer.6 I have been nicely sold: I saw in a Journal that Dr Pfeiffer gigantic Nomenclator Botanicus is now published, & I assumed that it was like Steudel’s with a list of the species & Habitats, so ordered it.7 And now I find it costs £12"s12.0 & that it contains no species,, only genera, & is of not the least use to me or to anyone, except a describer. Would it be real use to Linn. Soc? If so I wd give it to the Soc. or to any poor working Botanist, or I will ask William & Norgate whether they could sell it for 1 8 2 price. It is folly for me to keep such a book. Ever yours affecty | C. Darwin DAR 95: 397–8 1 2 3

4

5

6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, 23 October 1875. CD enclosed a sheet of the letter from Fritz Müller, 12 September 1875, with Müller’s remarks on terminal flowers in the inflorescence of Gunnera manicata (giant rhubarb). CD had noted that the central floret in umbels of wild carrot (Daucus carota) was dark purple and different from the others (see Correspondence vol. 9, letter to Journal of Horticulture, [before 18 June 1861], and Correspondence vol. 22, letter to Thomas Meehan, 9 October 1874). See letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 3 October [1875] and n. 5. CD was interested in species of the family Melastomaceae (now Melastomataceae) that had flowers with two forms of stamens, differing in both size and colour. Francis Darwin was studying the ability of some seeds to bury themselves in the ground and had noted the hygroscopic properties of the awns of the seeds (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 13 October [1875] and n. 6, and letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 October 1875 and n. 4). Horace Darwin’s hygrometer is described in F. Darwin 1876c, pp. 155–6. Stipa: needlegrass. CD’s annotated copy of Henry Watts’s Dictionary of chemistry is in the Darwin Library–Down (see Marginalia 1: 195–6). CD’s copy consists of the first three volumes of the second edition (Watts 1872–4), volumes four and five of an 1871 reprint of the first edition (Watts 1863–8), and a supplement to the

410

7

8

October 1875

first edition dated 1872. See Watts 1872–4, 3: 233, for the reference to the awn of a seed of Stipa being used as a hygrometer. CD’s copy of Ernst Gottlieb Steudel’s Nomenclator botanicus (Steudel 1841) is in the Darwin Library– CUL. Ludwig Pfeiffer’s Nomenclator botanicus (Pfeiffer 1873–4) contained subgeneric names but did not list species. CD’s copy of Pfeiffer 1873–4 was given to the the library of the Linnean Society. A slip pasted in the first volume reads, ‘For the Linnean Soc. presented by Ch. Darwin | Down. Oct. 26 1875’.

From Giovanni Canestrini1  22 October 1875

Padova 22/10 75

Hochgeehrtester Herr, Die Unione tipografico-editrice torinese hat mir mitgetheilt dass ein Theil der Zweiten Auflage der Variation under Domestication bereits erschienen ist;2 wollen Sie, geehrtester Herr, so gefällig sein, mir das bereits erschienene direkt nach Padova zu senden, und dasselbe zu thun mit den in der Folge erscheinenden Bogen. In dieser Weise werden wir im Stande sein, die Uebersetzung ins italienische der zweiten Auflage in Kurzer Frist auf das Erscheinen der englischen folgen zu lassen. Nach der Veröffentlichung der oben genannten Uebersetzung hoffe ich auch die Uebersetzung Ihres Werkes Expression of Emotions gleich zu publicieren, da die Arbeit nahezu vollendet ist, und die oben genannte Union sich mit Herrn Murray bezüglich der Clichets und Photographien zu verständigen gedenkt.3 Die Uebersetzung des Werkes Origin of Species ist fast ganz veröffentlicht, es fehlen nur noch zwei Hefte, das eine mit den letzten Kapiteln, das anderes mit meinen Noten, und einem Anhange, in dem die italienische Literatur über Ihre Theorie zusammengestellt ist. Die Noten selbst enthalten meistens Auszüge von Arbeiten italienischer Forscher, die auf Ihre Ideen Bezug haben.4 Mit der grössten Achtung | Ergebenster | Prof. G. Canestrini. DAR 161: 37 CD annotations 3.1 Die Uebersetzung … haben. 3.5] scored pencil 3.3 Literatur] ‘([Correcting])’ in left margin pencil 1 2

3

4

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Although Variation 2d ed. had an 1875 imprint, it was published only in the second half of February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168); the Italian translation appeared in 1876 (Canestrini trans. 1876). Proof-sheets of all of the first volume were probably not yet available (see letter to Gustavus Fritsche, 27 October 1875). Unione Tipografico-Editrice of Turin was publishing a number of CD’s works in Italian; Canestrini was the translator. An Italian translation of Expression was published by Unione Typografico-Editrice (Canestrini and Bassani trans. 1878); CD’s publisher, John Murray, was supplying copies of the heliotype prints of the photographs and clichés (stereotypes) of the engraved illustrations to the Italian publisher (see letter from R. F. Cooke, 12 October 1875 and n. 1). Canestrini’s translation of Origin 6th ed. was published in 1875 (Canestrini trans. 1875).

October 1875

411

From R. F. Cooke   22 October 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London. W. Oct. 22 1875 My dear Sir I send you by post a copy of “Climbing Plants” for your inspection & also to inform you that we dont think we can fix the retail price at more than 6/-   The work is stereotyped & of course future reprints will not be costly—only this edition will not yield much & we dont think we could expect to pay you more than £60 for the edition.1 In regard to the “Variations” which we are also stereotyping, the same will hold good, we are printing 1250 & our idea if you approve is to fix the price at 18/-, but at present we cannot say what they will produce, as we have not the expenses yet.2 You will let me know what copies you require & also send your list for presentation copies I hope you are keeping in good health. Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 473 CD annotations Top of letter: ‘(Reviews)’ pencil; ‘send all Plates of ’ ink Verso of last page: ‘Fritz Muller | Cohn Breslau | Sachs | De-Vries | Asa Gray | Hildebrand | Delpino | Hackel | [‘Kerner | Nageli | Wallace | Bennett | Huxley | Linn. soc | Royal Soc.’ del] | (V. Carus | Reinwald sent) | 4 Children ’3 ink 1

2 3

Climbing plants 2d ed. was published in November 1875, priced at 6s. (Publishers’ circular, 16 November 1875, p. 932). An entry in CD’s Account books–banking account (Down House MS) for 23 November 1875 records a payment of £63 for ‘Climbing plants’. John Murray stereotyped all of CD’s later publications, which lowered the cost of future printings since the type would not need to be reset. Variation 2d ed. was published in the second half of February 1876, priced at 18s. (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168); however, it carried an 1875 publication date. CD’s annotations are notes for his reply to Cooke of 23 October [1875] and for the accompanying presentation list. For the names on the presentation list, see Appendix IV.

To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   22 October 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Oct 22 1875 My dear Dyer As you seem interested about the Paritium, I have hunted for & found Dr King’s M.S., which need not be returned.1 Please to thank Hooker for his note; why I called the plant Cistus instead of Hibiscus, I cannot conceive, it was like my writing to you about Marantaceæ instead of Melastomaceæ.2

412

October 1875

As it appears from your former note. that Imant: cyrtanthiflorum is a hybrid, can you let me have Clivia nobilis, as this wd. be much better for me for the cross.3 I could return all these bulbs if required, after they have flowered & I have crossed them. That is an extraordinary fact which you tell me about the leaves of insular plants.4 With many thanks | yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Thiselton-Dyer, W.T., Letters from Charles Darwin 1873–81: 35–6) 1

2 3 4

See letter to J. D. Hooker, 15 October [1875] and n. 5, and letter from W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 20 October 1875 and n. 3. George King’s manuscript was read in December 1875 and published in the Journal of the Linnean Society of London (Botany) in May 1876 (King 1875). Paritium was a subgenus of Hibiscus; the species is now called Talipariti hastatum. See letter from J. D. Hooker, 19 October 1875, and letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 3 October [1875] and n. 5. See also letter to J. D. Hooker, 15 October [1875] and n. 5. See letter from W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, [16–22 October 1875] and n. 2. Imantophyllum cyrtanthiflorum is now known as Clivia × cyrtanthiflora. See letter from W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 20 October 1875. Thiselton-Dyer had commented on the tendency of island flora to produce heteromorphic leaves.

To R. F. Cooke   23 October [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Oct 23d My dear Sir Many thanks for all your information.— I am pleased at appearance of the book & hope it may sell fairly. Please distribute fairly well to Reviews, so that it may be heard of.—2 I hope that you will very soon send the stereotyped Plates to Appletons3 I send list of 22 copies to be sent “from Author”— Do not write “from Author” on the 12 copies for self.—4 I have had 1 copy for self, & 2 in sheets for Translation.— = 25 copies Is there any objection to your despatching copies before your Sale—5 if no objection please despatch them.— I am particularly glad you stereotyped Var. under Dom.6 My dear Sir | Yours very sincerely | Ch Darwin I had a letter a few weeks ago from America from a Botanist complaining he cannot buy “Fert. of Orchids”, & I have since in vain endeavoured to get a second-hand copy in London.— This ought to be reprinted as a revised Edit.—7 N.B Please send me (with the 12 Climbing Plants) a copy of the last reprint (with some errata corrected) of Insectivorous Plants. As if a new Edit is ever required, I shall have all the same plague as I had about copy of Var. under Domestication.8 National Library of Scotland ( John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 324–5) 1

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from R. F. Cooke, 22 October 1875.

October 1875 2

3

4 5 6

7 8

413

See letter from R. F. Cooke, 22 October 1875. Cooke had sent CD a copy of Climbing plants 2d ed. A brief notice of the book appeared in Gardeners’ Chronicle, 6 November 1875, p. 587; a long review was published in Nature, 25 November 1875, pp. 65–6. CD’s US publisher, D. Appleton & Co., was routinely supplied with stereotype plates of CD’s books by John Murray at a small percentage over cost (see, for example, letter from R. F. Cooke, 24 May 1875 and n. 3). For CD’s presentation list, see Appendix IV. Like other leading publishers, John Murray held a sale dinner in November at which the principal booksellers were allowed to purchase stock on favourable terms (see J. Murray 1908–9, p. 540). The production of stereotype plates allowed subsequent print runs to be made at lower cost, since the type did not need to be reset. Variation 2d ed. was the last edition to be published in CD’s lifetime; it was reprinted several times (see Freeman 1977). The letter from the American botanist has not been found. Orchids 2d ed. was published in January 1877 (Publishers’ circular, 1 February 1877, p. 93). Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875; a second printing (second thousand) was issued with an errata slip, and the third printing was issued with a different errata slip, the first corrections having been incorporated into the text (Freeman 1977). All three printings were probably made in July 1875 or shortly after (letter from R. F. Cooke, 16 July 1875). The second printing of Variation had a number of textual changes, but no indication on the title page that it was revised (Freeman 1977).

From Gustavus Fritsche   23 October 1875

Częstochowa 23 October | 1875

My dear Sir I beg very much your pardon that I did not answer to your letter till now, but I was in Warsaw with my poor mother, who was very dangerously ill—1 Now as she is better and I returned to my usual occupations, I must first of all thank you for your kind letter from 21 Sept. I have written to some publishers in Warsaw. Some of them are disposed to publish the work about the Variation under Domestication but they require an exact notice: how large the work will be, how many woodcuts it will contain, if I could procure the woodcuts from London etc. I will be very much obliged to you Sir if you had the kindness to send the promised copy (perhaps the first Volume, as soon as it will be published) to my booksellers: Mers. Gierth and Werner Booksellers in Kattowitz Prussia— but you must write on the book that it is destined for me—2 The copy will be for me a dear remembrance for your sake. I have translated your description of Terra del Fueggo and some other chapters of your Voyage round the world and insert it in one of our weekly papers.3 After my arrival from England the editor of an illustrated paper from Warsaw begged me to give him the photograph of the house you inhabit, because he wished to insert a picture of it in his paper. I did not possess it and I would not trouble you with such a trifle, but now as the opportunity presents itself, I dare beg you, Sir, to send me it with the book. I enjoyed my visit to England very much, but I was obliged to return to my country very soon after my visit in Down, because I had a letter that my wife was not quite well.4 Mr. Maslowski begs me to inform you that the Polish translation of the Descent of Man is finished and the work will appear in the next month.5

414

October 1875

Believe me, dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Dr. Gustavus Fritsche P.S. Be good enough, dear Sir to satisfy my curiosity and let me know: if Sir John Lubbock who inhabits the pretty house in your neighbourhood is the author of: “Prehistoric times” and “the origin of civilization”6 DAR 164: 217 CD annotations 1.6 they … etc. 1.7] scored blue crayon 1.9 Mers. … me— 1.11] scored blue and red crayon 3.2 because … book. 3.5] scored blue crayon 7.1 P. S. … civilization” 7.3] scored blue crayon Top of letter: ‘The whole vol to be sent see address [illeg del] in letter’ blue crayon Margin of first page: ‘1st Vol sent to Dr F & Corrections— but not chosen Title’ blue crayon 1 2

3 4 5 6

CD’s letter has not been found. Fritsche visited CD in February 1875 (see letter to Gustavus Fritsche, 13 February 1875). Fritsche’s mother has not been identified. Variation 2d ed. was published in the second half of February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168); however, it carried an 1875 publication date. In the event, a translation into Polish by Fritsche was never made. Kattowitz, Prussia, is now Katowice, Poland. The Polish newspaper in which excerpts from Journal of researches translated by Fritsche had appeared has not been identified. CD discussed Tierra del Fuego in Journal of researches 2d ed., pp. 204–40. Fritsche’s wife has not been identified. Ludwik Masłowski’s translation of Descent was published in two volumes, the second of which appeared in 1875 (Masłowski trans. 1874–5). Lubbock 1865 and Lubbock 1870.

From J. D. Hooker   23 October 1875

Kew Oct 23d/75.

Dear Darwin Thanks for the note on Gunnera   it is suggestive. Its petals are so fugacious that I am sure I should not have detected the fact of certain flowers only being petaliferous from dried specimens— I had always regarded Gunnera as a degraded type of Halorageæ, & Mueller seems to take this view of the apetalous flowers.1 I remember having seen a hygrometer made of the “wild oat” when I was a boy.—2 There is a horrid grass in India that bores through your trousers & used actually to pin my “ducks”3 to my calves, (as the Ticks did the woollen trouzers to my thighs) but it never occurred to me that the twisted awn had anything to do with the operation   I shall hunt up specimen & send you   it was a dreadful thing If you were to give Pfeiffer to the Linnean it would be a godsend & a piece of princely generosity—4 if not let me have it at 12 price & I will no doubt soon get that at least, for you, perhaps more— What an excellent drawer Mueller is. I am at a loss about the flower of Carrot5 Ever yr affec | Jos. D. Hooker DAR 104: 42–3

October 1875 1

2 3 4 5

415

See letter to J. D. Hooker, 21 October [1875] and n. 2. CD sent Hooker a sheet of the letter from Fritz Müller, 12 September 1875. The genus Gunnera was placed in the order (now family) Halorageae in Genera plantarum (Bentham and Hooker 1862–83, 1 (pt. 2): 676). It is now in the family Gunneraceae. Müller had suggested that the terminal flower with petals on the apex of the inflorescence of Gunnera manicata (giant rhubarb) showed the primitive condition of the flowers, while the petals had been lost by the most densely crowded lateral flowers (see letter from Fritz Müller, 12 September 1875). See letter to J. D. Hooker, 21 October [1875] and n. 3. Wild oat is Avena fatua. Ducks: trousers made of duck, a strong untwilled linen or cotton fabric (OED). See letter to J. D. Hooker, 21 October [1875] and nn. 7 and 8. The book CD donated to the library of the Linnean Society was Ludwig Pfeiffer’s Nomenclator botanicus (Pfeiffer 1873–4). Müller had included a drawing of a terminal and a lateral flower of Gunnera manicata in his letter to CD of 12 September 1875 (see n. 1, above). CD had suggested to Hooker that the anomalous central flower in an umbel of wild carrot (Daucus carota) might be analogous to the terminal flower of Gunnera (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 21 October [1875] and n. 3).

To T. H. Huxley   23 October [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Oct 23d My dear Huxley Your essay on species seems to me excellent—the whole subject in a nut.— I do not know whether I may keep it— If I may, please tell me title of book in which it in.—2 But, though I shd. like to keep it, do not hesitate to have it returned, as it a mere chance whether I shall ever again write on large & general questions. I think it will be wiser to keep to easier & special subjects, such as Insectivorous plants or Climbing Plants.— By the way I hope you got the former book.— I told Murray to send a copy to you to make the series of my books, complete; though I do not suppose you wd. care about it. & so it shall be with my Climbing Plants.3 Ever yours | C. Darwin Imperial College of Science, Medicine and Technology Archives (Huxley 5: 320) 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from T. H. Huxley, 30 October 1875. Huxley’s essay has not been found in the Darwin Library, but was the entry on species in the American cyclopædia 15: 233–6, which was published in 1876. Huxley’s name appears on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants in the section of copies to be sent by his publisher John Murray (see Appendix IV). Huxley evidently also received a copy of Climbing plants 2d ed., but there is no mark next to his name on the list that would indicate that this was the case.

From Hermann Müller   23 October 1875 Lippstadt Oct. 23. 1875. My dear Sir. Many thanks for your kind letter of Oct. 9. Today I have written to my brother that I have received your cheque of £8–2–9.1

416

October 1875

Your work on the comparative growth, fertility etc.  of plants raised from self-fertilised and crossed seeds will be of the highest value for further searching into the mutual relations between flowers and insects.2 I am the more glad to hear that you have begun putting your notes thereabout together, as newly some Italian and American botanists have done their best work in order to obscure this matter. Pedicino and Orazio Comes of Naples have published some observations on self-fertilisation of flowers and, taking no notice of what hitherto has been written on the frequency and relative importance of self fertilisation, have inferred from their observations that intercrossing may not be of any general importance.3 At the anniversary meeting of the American Naturalists in Detroit of Aug. 12. 1875 Thomas Meehan of German town has read a paper: “Are insects any material aid to plants in fertilisation?”4 the results of which he comprehends in the following sentences: “1) that the great bulk of colored flowering plants are self-fertilisers 2) that only to a limited extent do insects aid fertilisation 3) that Selffertilisers are every way as healthy and vigourous, and immensely more productive than those dependent on insect aid 4) that where plants are so dependent, they are the worse fitted to engage in the struggle for life, the great underlying principle in natural selection.” The whole paper, published in “The Philadelphia-Press, Friday, August 13, 1875” abounds with perversities and is, I think, no worth of any refutation.5 But the following passage has struck me, as I am quite ignorant as to the memoir alluded to, and I would be very much obliged to you for information whether these statements of Mr Meehan are correct and in what work or journal your sons memoir alluded to has been published. The words run thus: “Quite recently Mr. George Darwin has shown, in a remarkable paper made up of an extensive study of the old families among the English nobility where intermarriages among relatives have been a sort of social necessity for ages, that the popular idea (sc. of a sort of necessity for cross-fertilisation) is erroneous. These intermarriages have resulted as productively and as heathily, mentally and morally, as the average marriages of the rest of the world.”6 With very sincere respect I remain, | my dear Sir | yours faithfully | H. Müller DAR 171: 305 CD annotation Verso of last page: ‘Gardener  He is one of those men who take a pleasure in denying & disputing everything  He wrote to me saying he did not wish to [‘dispute’ del] deny my conclusion & the report not accurate. I assume then that his remarks on you were a mere burlesque | Even Sexuality of Plants he denied | I have had occasion to look to Befruchtung, with even greater admiration than at first— It is excellent—’7 blue crayon 1

CD’s letter has not been found, but an entry in CD’s Account books–banking account (Down House MS) for 9 October 1875 recorded that he had received a cheque from his publisher, John Murray, for £8 2s. 9d., for Fritz Müller’s publication and sent it directly to Hermann Müller. The publication was the English translation of Fritz Müller’s Für Darwin (F. Müller 1864; Dallas trans. 1869).

October 1875 2

3 4 5

6 7

417

CD noted in his ‘Journal’ that he began writing Cross and self fertilisation on 1 September 1875, but this may be an error, since he also noted that he was working on corrections to Variation 2d ed. until 3 October 1875 (see ‘Journal’ (Appendix II); see also letter to Thomas Meehan, 3 October 1875). Nicola Antonio Pedicino and Comes had published papers on fertilisation in Rendiconto dell’Accademia delle Scienze Fisiche e Matematiche (Pedicino 1875; Comes 1875). Meehan had sent a copy of his paper (Meehan 1875) as reprinted in the Philadelphia Press to CD (see letter to Thomas Meehan, 3 October 1875 and n. 2). Meehan evidently told CD that the reprinted version of his paper contained inaccuracies (letter to Thomas Meehan, 3 October 1875), but the sentences quoted by Müller are identical (other than in spelling) to the version that appeared in the Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Meehan 1875). Meehan referred to George Howard Darwin’s paper on marriages between first cousins (G. H. Darwin 1875a) in Meehan 1875, p. 244. CD’s annotations are notes for his reply to Müller (see letter to Hermann Müller, 26 October 1875).

From Lawson Tait   23 October [1875]1

7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. Oct 23

My Dear Sir, Thanks for your kind assent to my request. The paper will be ready in two or three weeks2 May I draw your attention to an article of mine in today’s Spectator on Pitcher Plants.3 Yours truly | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 20 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Lawson Tait, 14 October [1875]. See letter to Lawson Tait, 14 October [1875] and n. 2. CD agreed to present Tait’s paper on Nepenthes (the genus of tropical pitcher-plants) to the Royal Society of London. ‘Pitcher-plants’, Spectator, 23 October 1875, pp. 11–12.

From John Tyndall   23 October [1875]1 Royal Institution 23rd Oct. My dear Darwin I am very much obliged to you for your note.2 I wonder if I send two or three other tubes down whether Mr Henry (he lives near you I believe) would kindly place them somewhere in the open and observe them for me?3 Trust me, your friends were delighted to see you so joyful on Sunday, and it is a doubled pleasure to learn that you have not suffered from the dissipation.4 Ever yours | John Tyndall DAR 106: C19

418

October 1875

CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Microscopical Journal | Proof-sheets’ pencil; ‘micro’ blue crayon del pencil 1 2 3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to John Tyndall, 20 October [1875]. See letter to John Tyndall, 20 October [1875]. Mr Henry has not been identified. For more on Tyndall’s experiments, see the letter to John Tyndall, 20 October [1875] and n. 2. According to Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242), Thomas Henry Huxley, Henrietta Anne Huxley, and Tyndall stayed at Down on the weekend of 16 and 17 October 1875.

From R. F. Cooke   25 October 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London. W. Octr. 25 1875 My dear Sir The Stereotype plates of “Climbing Plants” were sent off to Appleton’s agent, on the 16th.1 We will at once send out yr copies & the Press copies of the work & shall issue it to the Booksellers about the 10th. of November.2 Yes, the “Orchids” is enquired for & I have no doubt a new edition revised would be desirable & would move off quicker than the last edition because we shall be able to advertise an Uniform edition then of your works.3 You say nothing as to the proposed prices of Climbing Plants 6/- & Variations 18/but I suppose “silence means assent”.4 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq DAR 171: 476 1 2 3 4

See letter to R. F. Cooke, 23 October [1875] and n. 3. Charles Layton was the agent of the US publisher D. Appleton & Co. See letter to R. F. Cooke, 23 October [1875] and nn. 2 and 4. See letter to R. F. Cooke, 23 October [1875] and n. 7. The first edition of Orchids had been published by John Murray in 1862. See letter from R. F. Cooke, 22 October 1875. CD often commented on both the price and quality of his books (see, for example, Correspondence vol. 22, letter to R. F. Cooke, 10 April [1874]).

To G. H. Darwin   [25 October 1875] Can you spare a copy of your Cousin paper?1 if so send one to “Dr. Hermann Müller” “Lippstadt” “Prussia.” He writes that he much wishes to see it.2 Send me a card to tell me.—

October 1875

419

Mc.Lennan3 here yesterday to lunch, & expressed again great admiration at this paper “as a model.”— C. D. ApcS Postmark: OC 25 | 75 DAR 210.1: 49 1 2 3

The reference is to George’s paper on marriages between first cousins (G. H. Darwin 1875a). See letter from Hermann Müller, 23 October 1875. John Ferguson McLennan was the author of Primitive marriage (McLennan 1865), a work CD had referred to frequently in Descent.

From G. W. Morehouse   25 October 1875 Wayland Depot, Steuben Co, | New York, U.S.A. Oct. 25, 1875, Mr Charles Darwin, Dear Sir: I have only read notices in the Journals of your work on Insectivorous Plants, and therefore do not know whether the point to which I wish to call your attention is new to you or not.1 With a good 14 th inch objective, I found a single spiral fiber in each tentacle of a prepared leaf of Drosera rotundifolia.2 The leaf as prepared is transparent. The spiral fiber very closely resembles the spiral muscular fiber of animals, as now prepared for microscopic observation, but is probably a slight modification of the ordinary spiral fiber of plants. A bundle of the fiber may be seen passing into the body of the leaf, and branching here and there, until finally each tentacle is supplied with a single fiber, which may be traced through between the elongated cells into the gland. Evidently the movement of the tentacle is caused by contraction of the “muscles”, induced by the motion of the protoplasmic cell contents, communicated from the centre of excitement. We have here sensitiveness of a very high order, and taken with the ability to change the direction of the contraction and clasp an object lying one side of the center of the leaf.— a seeming approach toward consciousness. Hoping you will pardon me for troubling you, I am yours with great respect, | Geo. W. Morehouse. DAR 171: 237 1 2

Insectivorous plants was reviewed in the New York Times, 29 July 1875, and in the New York Tribune, 20 August 1875. CD’s copies of these reviews are in DAR 139.18: 8 and 21. CD examined the role of spiral vessels in leaves of Drosera rotundifolia (common or round-leaved sundew) in his discussion of the nature of the tissues through which the motor impulse was transmitted. He concluded that the motor impulse was not sent through the spiral vessels (see Insectivorous plants, pp. 247–52).

420

October 1875

To John Tyndall   25 October [1875]1 ☞ Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Oct 25th My dear Tyndall My son Frank has been in Cambridge & only returned this evening so that I cd. not answer your note by return of Post.2 He will be very glad to do his best in what you require.— Give us full instructions.— Direct the tubes as above.3 If it is necessary that they shd reach us quickly, please write outside “to be forwarded by foot-messenger”. Otherwise parcels always wait till carriage goes to station, which is never long.— Ever yours | C. Darwin DAR 261.8: 23 (EH 88205961) 1 2

3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from John Tyndall, 23 October [1875]. See letter from John Tyndall, 23 October [1875]. Francis had visited his brother George Howard Darwin in Cambridge for three days (letter from Emma Darwin to Leonard Darwin, 26 October 1875 (DAR 239.23: 1.35)). CD refers to test tubes filled with boiled infusions used by Tyndall in experiments on spontaneous generation. For more on Tyndall’s experiments, see the letter to John Tyndall, 20 October [1875] and n. 2.

From G. H. Darwin   [26 October 1875]1 Tuesd. Dear Father, I have sent a copy to Müller, I stupidly did not have eno’ of the last printed, so that I have now only two left 2  I have been wonderfully well the last few days & manage an hours tennis in the a.m besides working most of the day. If I cd. cut myself in 3 I shd. have work eno’ for all, because my observations accumulate faster than I can work them out & besides there is some Mathcs. wh. I must do. I am beginning to see that it’s a fearfully tough nut to crack. I have already found that it does not do what Maxwell said it wd or ought to do3 So I’ve already found out something, tho’ not quantitatively yet. It’s exceedingly interestg work, but there are so many considerations that I don’t know if I shall be able to master them all & bring mathematics into play. The mechanical difficulties are very great— Tell Fr. I will bring his slippers & the Hygroscope (wh. is v. pretty) on Sat. I will come by the 4.12.4 I hope to see Galton & the Cooksons.5 I’m afraid my letters smell of pitch, but I can think of O else. I’m glad to hear of McL’s approval. I hope he is better.6 Yours affectionately | G. H. Darwin I think F enjoyed his Sunday v. much7 DAR 210.2: 49

October 1875 1 2 3

4

5

6 7

421

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to G. H. Darwin, [25 October 1875]. In 1875, the Tuesday after 25 October was 26 October. CD asked George to send a copy of his paper on marriages between first cousins (G. H. Darwin 1875a) to Hermann Müller (see letter to G. H. Darwin, [25 October 1875]). George probably refers to equations devised by James Clerk Maxwell for modelling viscoelasticity (Maxwell 1866, pp. 81–3). George was making experiments on the flow of pitch as part of his work on tidal friction; his early results were published in his paper ‘On the bodily tides of viscous and semi-elastic spheroids, and on the ocean tides upon a yielding nucleus’ (G. H. Darwin 1878). Francis Darwin had visited George in Cambridge for three days, returning to Down on 25 October 1875 (letter from Emma Darwin to Leonard Darwin, 26 October 1875 (DAR 239.23: 1.35)). Francis was studying the ability of some seeds to bury themselves in the ground and had noted the hygroscopic properties of the awns of the seeds (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 21 October [1875] and n. 5). According to Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242), George arrived on Saturday 30 October 1875. There is no mention of a visit to Down by Francis Galton or Blanche Althea Elizabeth and Montague Hughes Cookson, but George may refer to seeing them in London, where both families lived. George had spent time with the Cookson family in 1874; see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from G. H. Darwin, 6 [August] 1874 and n. 8. CD had mentioned John Ferguson McLennan’s admiration of George’s paper on marriages between first cousins (G. H. Darwin 1875a; see letter to G. H. Darwin, [25 October 1875]). During Francis’s visit (see n. 4, above), George had given a breakfast party attended by fourteen people (letter from Emma Darwin to Leonard Darwin, 26 October 1875 (DAR 239.23: 1.35)).

From James Jameson   26 October 1875 Gallowgate Barracks. | Glasgow. 26th Oct 1875. Dear Sir, I have been induced by reading your book on the “Expression of the Emotions”, to mention an occurrence in my own experience.1 While stationed in the Bahamas two years ago, a Negro boy, whose appearance denoted unmixed African blood, was engaged training a horse for a race. In galoping round the race-course the horse bolted into the bush and ran against a tree. The injury sustained by the rider was very severe and resulted in a compound comminuted Fracture of Thigh bone. He was removed to the Civil Hospital and an attempt was made to save the limb which accordingly was put up in the usual long splint. About a week afterwards I saw the case along with the Surgeon in charge. There was much swelling and discharge of pus from the wound while the fractured ends of the bone did not appear to be in the best possible position and I suggested that extension should be made and the foot everted. Accordingly this was done and without chloroform when our attention was directed to most extraordinary sounds proceeding from the boy unlike anything I had ever heard before and consisted of a succession of sounds like chit-chit-chit-chit-it-tit-tit and to my mind resembled closely the sounds of a monkey frightened and angry. At every renewed effort to adjust the fractured Thigh the same sounds were repeated and continued until the splints were satisfactorily arranged. Every one present interpreted the sounds in the same way.

422

October 1875

I am happy to state that the fracture united but I regret that I had no opportunity of informing myself in how many other respects this boy resembled the animal which he unconsciously so well imitated. I remain | Yours sincerely. | J Jameson, M D. | Surgeon Major Charles Darwin Esqr. | 6 Queen Anne St. | Cavendish Square. | London. DAR 168: 44 1

CD discussed vocalisation in humans and animals in Expression, pp. 83–94.

To Hermann Müller   26 October 1875 Down, Beckenham, Kent Oct: 26. 1875 My dear Sir … There will always be men who dispute and differ about everything that is discovered; and we may take comfort by remembering that even the sexuality of plants was disputed for half a century after Kölreuter’s papers.1 I have had occasion lately often to refer to your “Befruchtung &c” and I have done so even with greater admiration than at first.2 It is an excellent and most useful work. My dear Sir | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Copy incomplete DAR 146: 436 1

2

See letter from Hermann Müller, 23 October 1875. CD alludes to Thomas Meehan’s recent work, in which he argued that the role of insects in aiding plant fertilisation was limited (Meehan 1875, p. 251). CD’s heavily annotated copy of Johann Gottlieb Kölreuter’s Vorläufige Nachricht von einigen das Geschlecht der Pflanzen betreffenden Versuchen und Beobachtungen (Preliminary notes on some experiments and observations regarding the sex of plants; Kölreuter 1761–6) is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 458–71). CD was probably using Müller’s Die Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten und die gegenseitigen Anpassungen beider (The fertilisation of flowers by means of insects and the reciprocal adaptations of both; H. Müller 1873) in his research for Cross and self fertilisation.

To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   26 October [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Oct. 26 My dear Dyer I am very glad that you think Dr. King’s notes worth sending to Linn. Socy.2 If I understand the case rightly, the Imant. Cyrtanthiflorum, which I have got from Kew is a hybrid, but that there is also a true I. cyrtanthiflorum. I certainly ought to possess the latter for my experiments, if you have no scruple in getting a plant from M J. Henderson.3

October 1875

423

Please thank Hooker for the seeds which are a treasure to Frank.4 I have despatched Pfeiffer to Linn. Socy.5 Many thanks for the paper on Thallophytes which you were so kind as to send me.—6 I have begun reading it with great interest, as it is almost all new to me.— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Thiselton-Dyer, W.T., Letters from Charles Darwin 1873–81: 37–8) 1 2 3

4 5 6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 22 October 1875. No letter from Thiselton-Dyer mentioning George King’s notes has been found, but see the letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 22 October 1875 and n. 1. CD had already asked Thiselton-Dyer for one of the parent species of the hybrid Imantophyllum cyrtanthiflorum (a synonym of Clivia × cyrtanthiflora), Clivia nobilis (see letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 22 October 1875 and n. 3). According to entries in the Outwards book (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), a plant of Clivia nobilis (green-tip forest lily) was sent to CD on 26 October 1875 and a plant of I. cyrtanthiflorum on 22 November 1875. The synonymy of what is referred to in this letter as a ‘true I. cyrtanthiflorum’ is uncertain, but CD may have misunderstood what Thiselton-Dyer had told him. John Andrew Henderson was a nurseryman . In his letter of 23 October 1875, Joseph Dalton Hooker had promised to send a specimen of grass seed from India for Francis Darwin’s experiments with awned seeds. See letter from J. D. Hooker, 23 October 1875 and n. 4. CD donated his copy of Ludwig Pfeiffer’s Nomenclator botanicus (Pfeiffer 1873–4) to the library of the Linnean Society. Thiselton-Dyer had sent a copy of his study on the classification and sexual reproduction of thallophytes (Thiselton-Dyer 1875). CD’s copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Thallophyta is a former division of plants that originally included algae, lichens, and fungi.

To Gustavus Fritsche   27 October 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Oct 27./75 My dear Sir As soon as Vol I is complete, I will send it to the address which you name; & then you will be able to judge about the translation.1 The second vol is about as large as the first. There are 43 woodcuts, and Mr Murray will supply stereotypes for £10 on pre-payment.2 I have the pleasure to enclose the photograph of my house3 My neighbour Sir J. Lubbock is the author of Prehistoric Times &c4 Believe me my dear Sir | Yours sincerely | Charles Darwin LS Wellcome Library MS.7781/13 1 2

See letter from Gustavus Fritsche, 23 October 1875. Fritsche hoped to translate Variation 2d ed. into Polish. CD’s publisher, John Murray, generally sold stereotypes of the illustrations to CD’s books to foreign publishers at a small profit over cost. He probably required prepayment after an Italian publisher failed to pay for a set of stereotypes (see letter from R. F. Cooke, 8 October 1875).

424 3

4

October 1875

See letter from Gustavus Fritsche, 23 October 1875. The photograph has not been identified, but there are a number of photographs of Down House taken around this time, for example a photograph taken sometime after 1872 is in DAR 225: 29a. See letter from Gustavus Fritsche, 23 October 1875 and n. 6. John Lubbock lived very near CD at High Elms.

From Edward Cardwell   28 October 1875 74. Eaton Square. S.W. 28 October. 1875 Sir My colleagues in the Royal Commission on the subject of Experiments upon Living Animals for scientific purposes have desired me to say, on their part & my own, how great is the value we shall attach to your opinions, if you should feel able to give them to us.1 We know that your health renders it necessary for you to be very careful,—& do not feel sure that you will be able to comply with our request. At the same time we know also that you feel a great interest in the subject, on the score of humanity, as well as of science:—& are confident that you will be disposed to give us your assistance, if it shall be in your power to do so. We shall sit every day next week except Friday, and will readily make any appointment which may be most convenient to yourself.2 I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient faithful Servant | Cardwell Charles Darwin Esqr &c. &c. &c. DAR 161: 48 1 2

Edward Cardwell was the chairman of the Royal Commission on vivisection, which had been set up on 22 June 1875 (Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, pp. v–vi). CD appeared before the Royal Commission on vivisection on 3 November 1875 (see Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, pp. 233–4).

To Edward Cardwell   29 October 1875 Oct 29— | 1875 Ld. Cardwell My Lord. From the strong interest which I feel with respect to experiments on living animals in the cause both of humanity & science, I shd feel bound willingly to attend the commission, if I could give evidence of any value.1 But I have never been concerned directly or indirectly with experiments on living animals. I could only express my conviction on general grounds, (firstly, that the [important] science physiology can progress only by the aid of such experiments; secondly that all Physiology wd come judging from a wide-spread analogy to confer sooner or later great benefits on mankind; & thirdly that most experiments can be performed on animals in a state of

October 1875

425

insensibility; & that to hesitate to try experiments, on animals in this state, whether for original research or for training future physiologists, is mere folly. On the other hand to try any experiment on an animal, which causes suffering, without full deliberation & the belief that it is necessary, seems to me a great crime Should the Commission wish me to express those opinions viva voce, I shall feel bound to attend at any time which may be appointed, though my health would suffer considerably, & it is possible I may be incapable of attending at the specific time.2 I have the honour to remain | Your Lordship | obed & obliged Servt ADraft DAR 97: C4–6 1 2

CD had been asked to give evidence before the Royal Commission on vivisection (see letter from Edward Cardwell, 28 October 1875). CD appeared before the Royal Commission on vivisection on 3 November 1875 (see Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, pp. 233–4). For more on CD’s involvement in drafting a bill on vivisection, see Appendix VI.

From T. H. Huxley   30 October 1875 4 Marlborough Place Oc.t 30th 1875 My dear Darwin The inclosed tells its own story— I have done my best to prevent your being bothered—but for various reasons which will occur to you I did not like to appear too obstructive and I was asked to write to you—1 The strong feeling of my colleagues (and my own I must say also) is that we ought to have your opinions in our minutes— At the same time there is a no less strong desire to trouble you as little as possible—and under no circumstances to cause you any risk of injury to health What with occupation of time worry & vexation, this horrid Commission is playing the deuce with me— I have felt it my duty to act as Counsel for Science and was well satisfied with the way things were going But on Thursday when I was absent at the Council of the Royal Society, Klein was examined and if what I hear is a correct account of the Evidence he gave—I may as well throw up my brief—2 I am told that he openly professed the most entire indifference to animal suffering—and said he only gave anaesthetics to keep animals quiet! I declare to you I did not believe the man lived who was such an unmitigated cynical brute—as to profess & act upon such principles—and I would willingly agree to any law, which should send him to the treadmill— The impression his evidence made on Cardwell & Forster3 is profound: and I am powerless (even if I had the desire which I have not) to combat it— He has done more mischief than all the fanatics put together— I am utterly disgusted with the whole business Ever | Yours | T H Huxley

426

November 1875

Of course keep the little article on Species. It is in some American Encyclopedia published by Appleton4 And best thanks for your book.5 I shall study it some day & value it as I do every line you have ever written— Don’t mention what I have told you outside the circle of discreet Darwindom— [Enclosure] 4 Marlborough Place | N. W. October 30. 1875 My dear Darwin I have just come from a meeting of the Vivisection Commission at which your letter was read,6 and, by the desire of my colleagues I write to you to say, that considering the great weight which would be attached to your opinion by the Public they hardly feel justified in abstaining from asking you to state them in person, unless they are distinctly assured, that such an exertion on your part, would be injurious to your health I understand that, should you be able to appear before us you will be troubled with as few questions and detained for as short a time as possible; and the Commission will be glad to consult your convenience with regard to the time of your coming7 Ever | Yours very faithfully | T H Huxley DAR 166: 351, DAR 166: 343 1

2

3 4 5 6 7

The enclosure was evidently the official request that Huxley was asked to make to CD to give evidence to the Royal Commission on vivisection. The Royal Commission had been set up on 22 June 1875 with Huxley as one of the commissioners (Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, pp. v–vi). Huxley was a secretary of the Royal Society of London (Record of the Royal Society of London). Edward Emanuel Klein was a researcher at the Brown Animal Sanatory Institution. He had testified that he used anaesthetics only for the sake of convenience (Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, p. 184). For more on the impact of his testimony on the commission, see French 1975, pp. 103–6. Edward Cardwell was the chairman of the Royal Commission on vivisection and William Edward Forster was a commissioner (Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, pp. v–vi). See letter to T. H. Huxley, 23 October [1875] and n. 2. The American cyclopædia was published by D. Appleton & Co. Huxley had been sent a copy of Insectivorous plants (see letter to T. H. Huxley, 23 October [1875]). See letter to Edward Cardwell, 29 October 1875. CD appeared before the Royal Commission on vivisection on 3 November 1875 (see Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, pp. 233–4).

To Smith, Elder & Co   30 October 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Oct 30th 1875. Dear Sir I beg leave to acknowledge & thank you for 2£"8s"10d, being half Profits on sale of 2d. Edit of Coral Reefs up to June 30th.1

November 1875

427

I have received this cheque with infinite satisfaction, for I have gone on fearing that the publication of the 2d. Edit, might have caused you actual loss.—2 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin To | Messrs. Smith & Elder Lehigh University Library (Honeyman Collection) 1 2

An entry in CD’s Account books–banking account (Down House MS) for 23 November 1875 records the receipt of £2 8s. 10d. for Coral reefs 2d ed.; no earlier entry for the same amount has been found. CD had approached Smith, Elder & Co to publish a new edition of Coral reefs, but worried that they might not want to undertake the risk of producing the edition (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter to Smith, Elder & Co, 17 December [1873]). Coral reefs 2d ed. was published in June 1874 (Publishers’ circular, 1 July 1874, p. 420).

To T. H. Huxley   1 November [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Nov. 1st My dear Huxley I am astounded & disgusted at what you say about Klein. I am very glad he is a foreigner; but it is most painful as I liked the man.—2 No doubt there will be severe & ruinous legislation against physiology.— Of course I will attend; it will do me no harm, except probably knocking me up for some days. I hope I shall not be nervous, so as to be able to answer any questions reasonably.3 I will come up to 6. Queen Anne St early on Wednesday morning, & will you be so very kind as to let me have a note then telling me the place & hour on Wednesday where I must attend.—4 If Wednesday will not do, will you be so very good as to telegraph to me. If I do not hear, I will be in Q. A. St on Wednesday morning, for my wife thinks I shall get through it best on the same day.— If my head should fail on that day, I would send a note & inform you & attend on Thursday.— I am very very sorry to trouble you with all your present troubles. Yours affecy.— | C. Darwin Imperial College of Science, Medicine and Technology Archives (Huxley 5: 322) 1 2

3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from T. H. Huxley, 30 October 1875. Huxley had heard that Edward Emanuel Klein had professed entire indifference to animal suffering in his testimony to the Royal Commission on vivisection (see letter from T. H. Huxley, 30 October 1875). Klein had assisted CD in his research on insectivorous plants and had visited CD at Down House on 11 April 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letters from E. E. Klein, 14 May 1874 and 10 July 1874; Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). CD had been asked to appear before the Royal Commission (see letter from T. H. Huxley, 30 October 1875). Six Queen Anne Street was the home of CD’s brother, Erasmus Alvey Darwin. CD gave his testimony on Wednesday 3 November (Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, pp. 233–4).

428

November 1875

To Francis Galton   2 November [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Nov. 2d My dear Galton I hear from George that you are going to write on inheritance & therefore I think it worth telling you that Huxley does not at all believe in Balbianis views & statements.2 He says he published some years ago some strange facts & then went right round & gave them all up.—3 I send you Wedderburns note & a pamphlet by him which will amuse you & which need not be returned4 Your’s very sincerely | Ch. Darwin UCL Library Services, Special Collections (GALTON/1/1/9/5/7/17) 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Francis Galton, 3 November 1875. No letter from George Howard Darwin mentioning Galton’s work on inheritance has been found. No letter from Thomas Henry Huxley mentioning Édouard-Gérard Balbiani has been found; however, Huxley visited Down on 16 October 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Balbiani’s controversial work on the reproduction of aphids (Balbiani 1866) was discussed in Fripp 1866 and Lubbock 1867, pp. lv–lvii (see also T. H. Huxley 1858). CD’s annotated copy of Balbiani 1866 is in his collection of unbound journals in the Darwin Library–CUL. For CD’s views on the paper, see Correspondence vol. 14, letters to B. D. Walsh, 20 August [1866] and 24 December [1866]. A pamphlet by the colonial civil servant William Wedderburn, ‘“Be ye therefore perfect:” a lay sermon’, is in the Darwin Pamphlet collection–CUL. It discussed the application of ‘scientific selection’ to problems of over-population and the moral and physical deterioration of the race; Wedderburn described the project as ‘applying Darwinian principles to human affairs’ (Wedderburn n.d., p. 4). Wedderburn’s note has not been found; his brother, David Wedderburn, had written to CD in 1871 (Correspondence vol. 19, letter from David Wedderburn, 6 April 1871).

From T. H. Huxley   2 November 1875 4 Marlborough Place | N.W Novr. 2. 1875 My dear Darwin Our Secretary has telegraphed to you to Down & written to Queen Anne St—1 But to make sure I send this note to say that we expect you at 13  Delahay St at 2 o’clock tomorrow2 And that I have looked out the highest chair that was to be got for you! Ever | Yours very faithfully | T. H. Huxley DAR 166: 344 1

2

CD had agreed to appear before the Royal Commission on vivisection (see letter to T. H. Huxley, 1 November [1875]). The secretary to the Royal Commission was Nathaniel Baker (Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, p. xxi); his letter to CD has not been found. Thirteen Delahay Street, Westminster, London, had been used for previous Royal Commissions (Post Office London directory 1875).

November 1875

429

From Francis Galton   3 November 1875 42 Rutland Gate SW Nov 3/75 My dear Darwin It was truly kind of you, to write me with your own hand, a note of warning about Balbiani;1 but I do not use his statements in any way, in my forthcoming memoir which is to be read next Tuesday at the Anthropological Socy.2 The general line of it, is this:— First, I start with the 4 postulates, in favor of which you have so strongly argued, and which may reasonably be now taken for granted:— 1. Organic units in great number 2. Germs of such units in still greater number & variety (existing somewhere) 3. That undeveloped germs do not perish; but multiply and are transmissable. 4. Organization wholy depends on mutual affinities. From these 4 postulates, I logically deduce several results, one of which is the importance and almost the necessity of double parentage in all complex organisations, and consequently, of sex. Then I argue, that we must not look upon those germs that achieve development as the main sources of fertility; on the contrary, considering the far greater number of germs in the latent state, the influence of the former, i.e. of the personal structure, is relatively insignificant. Nay further, it is comparatively sterile, as the germ once fairly developed, is passive; while that which remains latent continues to multiply. From this follows:— (1) the extremely small transmissibility of acquired modifications, (to which I recur)— 2. the fact that exceptional gifts are sometimes barely transmissable (here the sample was over rich & drained the more fecund residue)— (3.) The fact of some diseases skipping 1 or more generations; (here the supposition is made of the germs of those diseases being peculiarly gregarious, hence the general outbreak of them leaves but a small residue, which has not strength to break out in the next generation, but being husbanded in a latent form, there multiplies & recovers strength to break out in the next or in a succeeding generation) Next, I go into the question of affinities & repulsions; which I put as necessarily numerous & many sided (while professing entire ignorance of their character) & I argue thence, a long period of restless unsettlement in the newly fertilized ovum accompanied, as we know it to be, with numerous segregations & segmentations, in each of which the dominant germs achieve development, while the residue is segregated to form the sexual elements. But I argue, that as our experience of political and other segregations shews, that they are never perfect, we are justified in expecting that numerous alien germs will be lodged in every structure and that specimens of all of them will be found in almost all parts of the body. In this way, I account for the reproduction of lost parts, &c, as well as for the inheritance of all peculiarities that had been congenital in an ancestor. I then consider the cases of inheritance of what had been non-congenital in an ancestor, but acquired by him. I shew, that the deductions usually made, that the

430

November 1875

structure reacts on the sexual elements is not justified by the evidence of adaptivity of race, when this depends on conditions which act equally on all parts of the body. My reason is, that since the same agents, (viz the germs,) are concerned both in growth and in reproduction, the conditions that would modify the one, would simultaneously modify the other; hence they would be collaterally affected and the apparent inheritance is not a case of inheritance at all, in the strict sense of the word. Nay the progeny may begin to vary under changed conditions sooner than the parent, (as in the hair or fleece of the young of dogs & sheep, transported to the tropics) As regards Brown-Sèquard’s guinea-pigs;— If I rightly understand & am informed of his experiment, it is open to fatal objection.3 The guinea pigs that were operated on, appear to have been kept separate from the rest. If so, we shd. expect the young sometimes to have convulsive attacks from mere imitation, just as we should expect of children brought up in a ward of epileptic patients, or among hysterical people, (revivals, dancing mania, &c)   Besides, there is not the least evidence that the mutilation of the spinal marrow on which the parental epilepsy primarily depended, was inherited. I also disparage much other evidence of the inheritance of acquired modication, leaving but a very small residue to accept. For this residue, I account by supposing the germs thrown off by the structure during its regular reparation, to frequently find their way into the circulation & some of these occasionally to reach the sexual elements and to become lodged and naturalised there, either by finding an unoccupied place or by dislodging others, like immigrants into an organized society, coming from a foreign country. Thus I account both for the fact, and for the great rarity & slowness of the inheritance of acquired modifications In conclusion, I restate a former definition, that I gave of the character of the relationship between parent and child, which I make out to be, not like that which connects a parent nation and its colonists, but like that which connects the representative government of the parent nation with the representative government of the colot the parent country is empowered nists; with the further supposition, that the gov. of to nominate a small proportion of the colonists. I have now, so far as the limits of a letter admit, made a clean breast of my audacity in theoretically differing from Pangenesis:—4 (1) in supposing the sexual elements to be of as early an origin as any part of the body (it was the emphatic declarations of Balbiani on this point that chiefly attracted my interest)5 and that they are not formed by aggregation of germs floating loose & freely circulating in the system, and (2) in supposing the personal structure to be of very secondary importance in Heredity, being as I take it, a sample of that which is of primary importance, but not the thing itself.— If I could help, even in accustoming people to the idea that the notion of Organic Germs is certainly that on which the true theory of Heredity must rest, and that the question now is upon details & not on first principles, I should be very happy Ever yrs. Francis Galton

November 1875

431

Thanks for the letter on the Hindoo family, wh: I will keep & for the pamphlet on the wholesale execution of weakly people, which I return by book post.6 DAR 105: A83–6 CD annotations 3.1 From … sex. 7.3] ‘Parthenogenesis’ red crayon 8.3 If … imitations, 8.4] cross, red crayon 1 2

3

4

5 6

Édouard-Gérard Balbiani. See letter to Francis Galton, 2 November [1875] and n. 3. Galton’s paper, ‘A theory of heredity’, was read before the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland on 8 November 1875. It was first published in the Contemporary Review (Galton 1875b), and then in revised form in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute (Galton 1876a). CD’s copy of Galton 1876a is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Charles Édouard Brown-Séquard had induced epileptic convulsions in guinea pigs by means of surgical operations; he claimed that the epileptic tendency was transmitted to offspring (Brown-Séquard 1860). CD had been convinced by Brown-Séquard’s experiments (see Correspondence vol. 8, letter to Jeffries Wyman, 3 October [1860], and Variation 2: 24). Galton discussed Brown-Séquard’s work in Galton 1875b, pp. 344–5. CD had presented his hypothesis of heredity (‘Provisional hypothesis of pangenesis’) in Variation 2: 357404. See letter from G. J. Romanes, 14 January 1875, n. 2. Galton had been unable to confirm CD’s theory through a series of experiments (see letter from Francis Galton, 24 September 1875 and n. 3). Balbiani had described the formation of distinct male and female cellular masses prior to the development of the embryo in aphids (Balbiani 1866, pp. 64–5). See letter to Francis Galton, 2 November [1875] and n. 4. CD had sent a note from William Wedderburn and a pamphlet on selective breeding (Wedderburn n.d.). The note has not been found.

From G. J. Romanes   [before 4 November 1875]1 Dunskaith: November 7. I have to-day sent you a beautifully successful graft. It is of a red and white carrot, each bisected longitudinally, and two of the opposite halves joined. You will see that the union is very intimate, and that the originally red half has become wholly white.2 The graft was made about three months ago, at which time the carrots were very small, but the colours very decided. I think, therefore, that unless red carrots ever turn into white ones—which, I suppose, is absurd— the specimen I send is a graft-hybrid so far as the parts in contact are concerned. It will be of great importance, as you observed in your last letter, in a case like this, to see if the other parts are affected—i.e. to get the plant to seed if possible.3 This, I suppose, can only be done at this late season with so young a plant by putting it in a greenhouse. Perhaps, therefore, you might pot it, as soon as it arrives, and keep it till I go up. If you do not care, to take charge of it altogether, I can then get a home for it somewhere in the South. It will not require a deep pot, for I see that I have cut through the end of one of the roots. It would be as well, before potting, to cut off the end of the other root also, so that the one half may not grow longer than the other, and thus perhaps assert an undue

432

November 1875

amount of influence during the subsequent history of the hybrid. If the plant when you get it, or after potting, shows signs of drooping, I should suggest clipping off the older leaves to check evaporation: having found this a good plan with beets, &c. In the same box with the hybrid there is another carrot. This is for comparison, it having been from the same seed and grafted (upon the crown) at the same time as the originally red half of the hybrid. I am doubtful about the potatoes I sent.4 On looking over a number of ‘red flukes,’ I find some here and there are mottled. At any rate, I shall try other varieties next year, and not say anything about this doubtful case. I forgot to say that the hybrid carrot is the only specimen of longitudinal grafting which I tried with carrots, having been somewhat disheartened with this method by the persistent way in which beets and mangolds refuse to blend when grafted longitudinally. There have thus been no failures with carrots grafted in this way. If it is not too late, I may suggest that the passage in the ‘Variation’ about the deformity of the sternum in poultry had better be modified. I have this year tried some experiments upon Brahma chickens, and find that the deformity in question is caused by lazy habits of roosting—the constantly recurring pressure of the roost upon the cartilaginous sternum causing it to yield at the place where the pressure is exerted. The experiments consisted merely in confining some of a brood of young chickens in a place without any roost, and allowing the others to go about with all the March chickens. The former lot have the sternum quite straight, and the latter lot have it deeply notched.5 E. D. Romanes 1896, pp. 42–4 1

2

3 4 5

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to G. J. Romanes, [4 November 1875]. An incorrect date of 7 November 1875 is given in E. D. Romanes 1896, p. 44. Romanes’s phrase, ‘keep it till I go up’, suggests that the letter was sent not from Dunskaith in Scotland but from his London address. Romanes was experimenting with graft hybrids of tuberous and root vegetables to determine whether characteristics of one variety could be transmitted to another. He mentioned his success in grafting carrots in his letter of 29 September 1875. The most recent extant letter from CD to Romanes was that of 8 October 1875. Romanes had sent specimens from his potato-grafting experiments (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 8 October 1875). In Variation 1: 287–8, CD had presented a table showing the reduced depth of the sternum in domestic fowls; he argued that this was caused by a curvature of the furcula arising from disuse of the pectoral muscles. See also Correspondence vol. 22, letter from G. J. Romanes, 10 July 1874 and n. 7.

To Francis Galton   4 November [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Nov. 4th My dear Galton I have just returned from London where I was forced to go yesterday for Vivisection Commission.—2

November 1875

433

I have read your interesting note & am delighted that you stick up for germs. I can hardly form any opinion until I read your paper in extenso.3 I have modified parts of the Chapt. on Pangenesis which is now printing & have allowed that the gemmules may, or probably do, multiply in the reproductive organs.4 I write now as I fancy that you have not read B. Sèquards last paper, in which he gives 17 or 13 (I forget which) instances of deficient toes on the same foot, in the offspring of parents, which had gnawed off their own gangrenous toes owing to the sciatic nerve having been divided.—5 You speak “almost of the necessity of double parentage in all complex organisations;” I suppose you have thought well on the many cases of parthenogenesis in Lepidoptera & Hymenoptera; & surely these are complex enough.—6 I am very glad indeed of your work, though I cannot yet follow all your reasoning. In Haste | Most sincerely yours | C. Darwin UCL Library Services, Special Collections (GALTON/1/1/9/5/7/18) 1 2

3 4

5

6

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Francis Galton, 3 November 1875. CD had been requested to appear before the Royal Commission on vivisection (see letter from T. H. Huxley, 30 October 1875). He gave testimony on 3 November 1875 (Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, pp. 233–4). Galton had summarised his forthcoming paper on heredity (Galton 1875b) in his letter of 3 November 1875. CD’s revised chapter on pangenesis was published in Variation 2d ed. 2: 349–99; on the multiplication of gemmules in reproductive organs, see p. 379. On the printing of Variation 2d ed., see the letter from R. F. Cooke, 22 October 1875; the book was not published until the second half of February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168). See letter from Francis Galton, 3 November 1875 and n. 3. The case of missing toes was reported by Charles Édouard Brown-Séquard in Brown-Séquard 1875. CD cited this paper in Variation 2d ed. 1: 468–70 as providing conclusive evidence that the effects of operations on, or injuries to, the parent were sometimes inherited. Parthenogenesis, a form of asexual reproduction, is common in the Hymenoptera, the order that includes wasps, bees, and ants; it is more rare in the Lepidoptera, the order that includes butterflies and moths.

To G. J. Romanes   [4 November 1875]1 6. Q. Anne St. Thursday 8th My dear Romanes I came up here yesterday to be examined by vivisection Commissioners, but return home today & hope soon to receive the carrots.2 I do not think there will be a chance to get the plant to seed during the winter. I will enquire & read up; I shd think the roots ought to be kept as dormant as possible all winter & then start them in spring out of doors. The mere diffusion of colour from side to side though curious does not seem to me very important. If the seed wd yield white & red or mottled

434

November 1875

carrots it wd be grand— I hope you have got pure seeds of the 2 grafted kind to sow at the same time.3 I saw for 12 hour B. Sanderson4 & he is the first man who seemed to me to appreciate physiological importance of [fixing] graft-Hybrids. He told me a little about the medusæ— I do not yet fully understand the case, but enough to see that you have done splendid work & I most heartily congratulate you.—5 Your papers in Nature, especially the last is most curious & amused & interested us all greatly, I never read anything funnier than about the ferrets.—6 It is also very important. It is too late about the sternums, but I did add a note giving your belief.—7 You shall hear when I have seen carrots Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin American Philosophical Society (478) 1 2

3 4 5 6

7

The date is established by the reference to CD’s visit to London to testify before the Royal Commission on vivisection (see n. 2, below). CD evidently wrote ‘Thursday 8th’ in error. CD went to London on Wednesday 3 November 1875, staying with his brother Erasmus Alvey Darwin at 6 Queen Anne Street; he gave testimony before the Royal Commission on vivisection and returned to Down the following day (Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, pp. 233–4). See letter from G. J. Romanes, [before 4 November 1875] and n. 2. John Scott Burdon Sanderson. On Romanes’s work on the nervous system of medusae, see the letter to G. J. Romanes, 24 September [1875] and n. 8. In Nature, 28 October 1875, pp. 553–4, Romanes described the maternal instincts of a hen that kept three young ferrets in her nest, returning each time they cried in distress. Romanes had also published letters in Nature on the pugnacity of rabbits and hares (30 September 1875, p. 476), and on the tails of rats and mice (14 October 1875, p. 515). See letter from G. J. Romanes, [before 4 November 1875] and n. 5. In Variation 2d ed. 1: 288, CD added, ‘Mr. Romanes, however, believes that the malformation is due to fowls whilst young resting their sternums on the sticks on which they roost.’

To G. J. Romanes   4 November 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Nov 4. 75 My dear Romanes I send a PS to my letter of this morning, to say that the carrots have arrived, and as they are so small it seemed the best plan to pot them & place them in the greenhouse.1 After they have grown for a short time, then I think it would be better to let the earth dry somewhat & let them remain almost dormant till the spring— The label came off—but you will know to which it belonged Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS American Philosophical Society (479) 1

See letter to G. J. Romanes, [4 November 1875].

November 1875 From Francis Galton   5 November 1875

435 42 Rutland Gate Nov 5/75

My dear Darwin 3 proofs reached me from the Contemporary Review of my “Theory of Heredity”1 so I can spare one, and as I know you like to mark what you read, do not care to return it. I hope it will make my meaning more clear. The remarks printed as a note in p 5, but which I ought to have put in the text, will meet what you wrote about the Hymenoptera.2 I am most obliged for what you tell me about Brown-Séquard; I did not know of it, & will hunt up the passage to day (Thanks for the reference, received this morning)3 I should be truly grateful for criticisms which might enable me to modify or make clear before it is too late. Ever yrs | Francis Galton What a nuisance this modern plan is, of sending proofs in sheet, & not in slip. One can’t amend freely. DAR 105: A87 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Sweet Peas’ pencil 1 2

3

Galton 1875b. CD questioned Galton’s view that double parentage was essential for complex organisms, citing the Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera (see letter to Frances Galton, 4 November [1875]). Galton argued that the genetic material transmitted by asexual reproduction gradually deteriorated over many generations, whereas in sexual reproduction any deficiency of germs in one parent would be compensated for by germs from the other parent (Galton 1875b, pp. 83–5; the note is on p. 84). Brown-Séquard 1875. See letter to Francis Galton, 4 November [1875] and n. 5.

From Lawson Tait   6 November [1875]1

7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. Novr. 6

My Dear Sir, I have made a very curious discovery within the last few days. My “Droserin” is a compound substance containing the digestive principle which I propose to designate by that name and another substance so deliquescent that it cannot be kept in a dry condition and has the peculiar property, like glycerine, of wandering about & wetting everything2 It is the substance which kills the flies by enabling the water to enter their tracheae. Plain water does not wet flies. They swim for days on its surface. But water containing this substance wets & kills flies in a few minutes. What shall I call it? I wish your name would allow its being ‘coined’ into “Darwinin”

436

November 1875

I have polished up my greek to get a term descriptive of its peculiar properties, but I am at a loss I have no doubt your son Francis3 is a good Grecian & can help me. This substance also accounts for the never-drying nature of the secretion Yours ever | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 21 1 2 3

The year is established by the reference to Tait’s experiments on digestion in plants (see n. 2, below). Tait was trying to isolate substances in the digestive fluid of insectivorous plants. On ‘droserin’, see the letter from Lawson Tait, 15 July [1875] and n. 5. Francis Darwin.

To Francis Galton   7 November [1875]1 Down. Nov. 7th My dear Galton.— I have read your essay with much curiosity & interest, but you probably have no idea how excessively difficult it is to understand.2 I cannot fully grasp, only here & there conjecture, what are the points on which we differ.— I daresay this is chiefly due to muddy-headiness on my part but I do not think wholly so.— Your many terms not defined, “developed germs”—“fertile” & “sterile germs” (the word “germ” itself from association misleading to me) “stirp”—“sept” “residue” &c &c quite confounded me.3 If I ask myself how you derive & where you place the innumerable gemmules4 contained within the spermatogen formed by a male animal during its whole life I cannot answer myself.— Unless you can make several parts clearer I believe (though I hope I am altogether wrong) that very few will endeavour or succeed in, fathoming your meaning. I have marked a few passages with numbers,5 & here make a few remarks & express my opinion, as you desire it, not that I suppose it will be of any use to you.— (1) If this implies that many parts are not modified by use & disuse during the life of the individual, I differ widely from you, as every year I come to attribute more & more to such agency. (2) This seems rather bold, as sexuality has not been detected in some of the lowest forms, though I daresay it may hereafter be. (3) If gemmules (to use my own term) were often deficient in buds I cannot but think that bud-variations wd be commoner than they are in a state of nature: nor does it seem that bud-variations often exhibit deficiencies which might be accounted for by absence of the proper gemmules. I take a very different view of the meaning or cause of sexuality. (4) I have ordered Fraser’s Mag. & am curious to learn how twins from a single ovum are distinguished from twins from 2 ova.6 Nothing seems to me more curious than the similarity & dissimilarity of twins.—

November 1875

437

(5) Awfully difficult to understand. (6) I have given almost the same notion. (7) I hope that all this will be altered. I have received new & additional cases, so that I have now not a shadow of doubt.—7 (8) Such cases can hardly be spoken of as very rare, as you wd say if you had received half the number of cases which I have.— I am very sorry to differ so much from you but I have thought that you wd desire my open opinion.— Frank is away; otherwise he shd have copied my scrawl. I have got a good stock of pods of Sweet Peas, but the autumn has been frightfully bad; perhaps we may still get a few more to ripen.8 My dear Galton | Yours very sincerely | Ch Darwin UCL Library Services, Special Collections (GALTON/1/1/9/5/7/19) 1 2 3

4

5 6 7

8

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Francis Galton, 5 November 1875. Galton had sent CD a proof copy of his essay, ‘A theory of heredity’ (Galton 1875b; see letter from Francis Galton, 5 November 1875). Galton used the term ‘germs’ to refer to the hereditary material stored in each organism and transmitted to offspring; he defined ‘stirp’ as the sum total of the germs in a newly fertilised ovum or bud (Galton 1875b, p. 81). According to Galton’s theory, some germs developed, giving rise to all of an individual’s characteristics, such as eye-colour; however, most germs remained dormant. He argued that the developed germs were rendered ‘sterile’ by their activity in the organism, and so exerted little or no influence on offspring; whereas the inactive germs (also referred to as the ‘residual germs’) were concentrated in the sexual elements and transmitted to offspring unmodified (ibid., pp. 82, 88). ‘Septs’ were divisions or aggregations of germs within the stirp (ibid., p. 89). ‘Gemmules’ was CD’s term for the material of heredity and development: they were minute granules dispersed throughout an organism and thrown off by its various parts, as well as concentrated in the reproductive organs (Variation 2d ed. 2: 374). The proof copy of Galton 1875b with CD’s marks has not been found, so that it is not possible to identify what passages CD is referring to. Galton’s article on twins was published in Fraser’s Magazine (Galton 1875a). Some of the results of this study are discussed in Galton 1875b, p. 87. CD is probably referring to cases in which injuries to a parent were apparently transmitted to offspring (see letter to Francis Galton, 4 November [1875] and n. 4). Galton questioned the evidence for such cases (Galton 1875b, pp. 92–3). Galton asked CD and other friends to experiment with sweetpeas (see letter to Francis Galton, 22 September 1875 and n. 6).

From Ernst Haeckel1   7 November 1875 Jena 7 Nov. 75 Hochverehrter theurer Freund! Durch Ihre Güte erhielt ich gestern die neue Auflage Ihrer schönen Schrift über “Climbing Plants”. Den herzlichsten Dank dafür verbinde ich mit demjenigen für die “Insectivorous Plants”, welche mit ihren höchst interessanten AnpassungsPhaenomenen nicht allein unter den Naturforschern, sondern auch in den

Title page of Ernst Haeckel’s Arabische Korallen (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1876). Image from the Biodiversity Heritage Library. Digitized by Harvard University, MCZ, Ernst Mayr Library. www.biodiversitylibrary.org

Octocorallien named after CD. Ernst Haeckel, Arabische Korallen (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1876), p. 8. Image from the Biodiversity Heritage Library. Digitized by Harvard University, MCZ, Ernst Mayr Library. www.biodiversitylibrary.org

440

November 1875

philosophischen Kreisen Deutschlands das lebhafteste Interesse erregt haben.2 Ich hoffe, aus Ihrer rüstigen und unermüdlichen Thätigkeit schliessen zu dürfen, dass Ihre Gesundheit jetzt zufriedenstellend ist, und wünsche von Herzen, dass Sie mit unverminderter Arbeitskraft uns noch viele werthvolle Werke schenken! Ich selbst habe mich im ganzen letzten Sommer mit der ontogenetischen Beobachtung und phylogenetischen Deutung der fünf ersten Entwickelungs-Stufen des Thierkörpers beschäftigt, und glaube dieselben nunmehr überall auf eine und dieselbe ursprüngliche Entwickelungs-Weise zurückführen zu können. Diese Theorie habe ich in der beifolgenden Schrift über “die Gastrula und die Eifurchung” ausführlich zu begründen gesucht, als Consequenz und Ergänzung der “Gastraea-Theorie”.3 Die Keimung von Gastrophysema (auf Taf. VIII) stellt den reinen ursprünglichen Entwickelungs-Modus dar, wie er auch bei Amphioxus, Ascidia etc sich findet.4 Alle übrigen Formen der Gastrula-Bildung lassen sich auf jenen ersteren zurückführen. Dieselbe ursprüngliche Form habe ich auch bei einer neuen Koralle aus dem rothen Meere beobachtet, deren Beschreibung und Abbildung ich Ihnen im nächsten Monat schicken werde, und welche ich Ihnen zu Ehren Monoxenia Darwinii getauft habe.5 Diese kleine Koralle (eine solitaere Alcyonarie) ist auch desshalb interessant, weil sie eine der primitivsten und ältesten Formen darstellt. Sie steht der von Perceval Wright beschriebenen Hartea nahe, ist aber noch einfacher gebaut; sie enthält gar kein Skelet, keine Spicula.6 Da diese Form unter allen lebenden Korallen der Stammform (wenigstens der Octactinien) am nächsten stehen dürfte, glaubte ich ihr keinen anderen Namen beilegen zu dürfen, als denjenigen des grossen Naturforschers, dem wir die ersten und besten Aufschlüsse über die Bildung der Korallenbänke verdanken.7 Die “Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte” ist nun auch in englischer Übersetzung erschienen, und ich hoffe das Ihnen Mr. King das für Sie bestimmte Exemplar richtig zugesandt haben wird. Ich hatte Mr.  E.  Ray-Lankester gebeten, dafür Sorge zu tragen.8 Die englische Übersetzung der “Anthropogenie” (welche in New-York erscheint) hoffe ich Ihnen auch noch in diesem Jahre senden zu können.9 Wie sehr der Darwinismus in Deutschland jetzt anerkannt wird, können Sie daraus sehen, dass ein Dr. Zacharias eine besondere Zeitschrift unter dem Namen “Darwinia” heraus geben will und dass sogar Theologen die Selections-Theorie ernstlich acceptiren!10 Mit den besten Wünschen für Ihre theure Gesundheit, bleibe ich, mein hochverehrter Freund, Ihr | treu ergebener | Ernst Haeckel DAR 166: 65 1 2

3

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. Climbing plants 2d ed. was published in the first half of November 1875 (Publishers’ circular, 16 November 1875, p. 932). Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Haeckel’s name is on CD’s presentation list for both books (see Appendix IV). Haeckel sent an offprint of ‘Die Gastrula und die Eifurchung der Thiere’ (The gastrula and egg-cleavage of animals; Haeckel 1875b); CD’s lightly annotated copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.

November 1875

4

5

6

7 8

9

10

441

Haeckel had first outlined his gastraea theory in his monograph on calcareous sponges (see Haeckel 1872, 1: 344–5; see also Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Ernst Haeckel, 20 December 1874 and n. 10). In his new work, Haeckel identified four principal cleavage types in embryogenesis and related these to modifications in the original form of the egg (Haeckel 1875b, pp. 78–111). See Haeckel 1875b, p. 167. Gastrophysema (a synonym of Halyphysema) is a genus in the phylum Foraminifera (unicellular amoeboid protists). Amphioxus (the lancelet; now Branchiostoma lanceolatum), formerly considered to be a primitive fish, is now placed in the subphylum Cephalochordata (lancelets). Ascidia is a genus of sea squirt in the subphylum Urochordata (tunicates). Haeckel’s description of Monoxenia darwinii was published in Arabische Korallen (Arabian corals; Haeckel 1876b, pp. 6–8), a profusely illustrated book based on popular lectures with additional scientific explanation. Haeckel sent CD a copy in early 1876 (Correspondence vol 24, letter from Ernst Haeckel, 31 January – 1 February 1876); it is now in the Darwin Library–Down. Alcyonaria is a former name of the subclass Octocorallia (soft corals, sea pens). The genus Hartea was described by Edward Perceval Wright as a solitary form, unlike most Alcyonaria, which are typically aggregated forms; he described the basal portion of its body as thickly studded with small star-shaped spicula (E. P. Wright 1865, pp. 214, 216–17). Octactinia is a former name of Octocorallia (see n. 6, above). Haeckel alludes to CD’s work Coral reefs, the second edition of which was published in June 1874 (Publishers’ circular, 1 July 1874, p. 420). Haeckel’s History of creation (Haeckel 1876a), a translation of the sixth edition of his Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (Haeckel 1875a), was published in 1876. Henry Samuel King was the publisher of History of creation. CD’s annotated copy is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 357). The English translation of Haeckel 1877 (the third edition of his Anthropogenie, first published in 1874) was published in 1879 by C. Kegan Paul & Co. in England and by D. Appleton & Co. in the US (Haeckel 1879a and 1879b). CD’s lightly annotated copy of The evolution of man (Haeckel 1879a) is in the Darwin Library–Down (see Marginalia 1: 355). The publishing business of H. S. King was sold to Kegan Paul in October 1877 (Publishers’ circular, 16 October 1877, p. 764; see n. 8, above). Otto Zacharias had written to CD about his plans for a journal to be called Darwinia (letter from Otto Zacharias, 3 June 1875).

From Hugo de Vries1   7 November 1875 Würzburg. 7 Nov 75. Hochverehrter Herr! Empfangen Sie meinen besten Dank für die grosse Freundlichkeit, mir die zweite Auflage Ihres Werkes über Climbing Plants zu schenken.2 Noch mehr aber danke ich Ihnen für die freundliche Anerkennung meiner beiden Aufsätze über diesen Gegenstand, welche gar keinen Anspruch machen sollten auf eine so grosse Ehre, als Sie ihnen zukommen lassen.3 Erst vor wenigen Tagen, als ich von einer längeren Reise, nach Würzburg zurückkam, fand ich Ihr werthvolles Geschenk hier vor, und jetzt mache ich mir ein Vergnügen daraus, es genau durchzustudiren. Für die viele neue Belehrung, welche ich hierin, so wie stets in Ihren Werken finde, bringe ich Ihnen meinen aufrichtigsten Dank. Erlauben Sie mir, diese Gelegenheit zu benützen, Ihnen speciell meine Bewunderung für Ihr letztes Werk, über Insektenessende Pflanzen auszusprechen.4 Ich hatte die Gelegenheit in diesem Sommer fast alle Hauptversuche mit den verschiedenen Pflanzen theils bei Hofrath Sachs zu sehen, theils selbst nach zu machen, und mich

442

November 1875

dabei nicht nur von der Richtigkeit Ihrer Beobachtungen und Folgerungen zu überzeugen, als Zumal diese eingehender würdigen und bewundern zu lernen.5 Sie tragen Bedenken gegen die Auffassung, dass bei den Ranken der Unterschied im Längenwachsthum der beiden Seiten die Ursache der Krümmungen sei. Ich muss gestehen, dass Sie hier einen Schwachen Punkt getroffen haben. Meine Versuche beweisen direct nur, dass diese Krümmungen für gewöhnlich von einer solchen Aenderung des Längenwachsthums begleitet sind, und ich gestehe dass es eine rein theorethische, für den speciellen Fall nicht bewiesene Auffassung ist, dass ich diese Wachsthumsänderung im Eingang zu meiner Arbeit als die Ursache der Krümmungen hingestellt habe. Ihre Auffassung, dass die Krümmung eine andere Ursache habe, und selbst den Unterschied in der Wachsthumsgeschwindigkeit herbeiführe, scheint mir ebenso berechtigt alswie die andere, und die von Ihnen angeführten Thatsachen sprechen sehr zu ihrem Gunsten.6 Ihr Bedenken trifft aber, wie ich meine, sämmtliche bis jetzt sogenannten Wachsthumskrümmungen in gleichem Maasse, und ich möchte deshalb kein Urtheil aussprechen, bis die Sache von einem allgemeinem Gesichtspunkt aus bearbeitet ist. Indem ich Ihnen nochmals meinen warmen Dank für Ihre freundliche Gesinnung gegen mich ausspreche, empfehle ich mich Ihnen höflichst und zeichne | Mit wahrer Hochachtung | Ihr dienstf. Diener | Hugo de Vries. [Contemporary translation] Würtzburg Nov 7./ 75

Highly honoured Sir Accept my best thanks for your great kindness in sending me the 2nd. Edition of your work on Climbing Plants.2 I thank you still more however for your kind recognition of my two essays on this subject which did not think worthy of so much honour as you have assigned to them.3 On returning to Würzburg a few days ago after a somewhat lengthened absense, I found your valuable present, and now I am enjoying the pleasure of studying it thoroughly. I give you my sincerest thanks for the fund of new information which I find in this as in all your works. Permit me to make use of this opportunity to express to you my especial admiration for your last work “Insectivorous Plants.”4 I have had the opportunity during this summer of seeing almost all the principal experiments repeated partly at Hofrath Sachs’, and partly having tried them myself; and I have by these means not only convinced myself of the correctness of your observations & conclusions, but also learned to value and admire them with deeper appreciation.5 You do not agree with me as to the view that the difference in the growth in length of the two sides of the tendrils is the cause of their spiral form (Krümmungen). I confess that you have here hit a weak point. My experiments prove only that these spiral forms are generally accompanied by such a difference of growth in length & I admit that in stating in the introduction to my work this difference in growth to be the cause of the spiral form I have given a purely theoretical view not proved by

November 1875

443

any special case. Your view that there is another cause for the spiral form and it is the spiral form which causes the difference in the rapidity of growth seems to me of equal value, and the facts given by you are much in its favour.6 But your doubt it seems to me equally attaches to all spiral growths (hitherto so called) and I do not like therefore to give an opinion until the matter shall have been worked out from a more general point of view. I thank you once more for your kind consideration and remain with great respect Your obed servt. | Hugo de V. DAR 180: 19 1 2 3

4 5

6

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. A contemporary translation found with the letter is included above. Vries’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Climbing plants 2d ed. (see Appendix IV). CD’s annotated offprints of Vries’s two articles on climbing plants, ‘Längenwachsthum der Oberund Unterseite sich krümmender Ranken’ (Longitudinal growth of upper and lower sides of twining tendrils; Vries 1873a) and ‘ Zur Mechanik der Bewegungen von Schlingpflanzen’ (On the mechanics of movement in climbing plants; Vries 1873b) are in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. CD mentioned Vries’s two essays as worthy of careful study in the preface to Climbing plants 2d ed., p. v, and cited them frequently throughout the book. Vries’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). Julius Sachs, in whose laboratory Vries worked from 1871, had been so interested in Insectivorous plants that he acquired most of the species mentioned by CD and repeated several of the experiments in lectures and demonstrations (letter from Julius Sachs to Hugo von Thiel, 1 August 1875; quoted in Pas 1970, p. 180). Hofrath: literally ‘court counsellor’, but also an honorary title given to senior civil servants, including, in the nineteenth century, academics (for a contemporary explanation of the usage, see, for example, United States Literary Gazette, 1 May 1826, p. 102). See Climbing plants 2d ed., pp. 132–3,179–82. CD described an experiment he performed on a twining tendril of Echinocystis lobata (wild cucumber) that showed that the convex side of the tendril did not increase in length as the tendril coiled around a stick, and concluded that the curvature resulted from contraction of the cells on the concave side (ibid., pp. 180–1).

From A. R. Wallace   7 November 1875 The Dell, Grays, Essex. Novr. 7th. 1875 Dear Darwin Many thanks for your beautiful little volume on Climbing plants,—which forms a most interesting companion to your Orchids & Insectivorous Plants.1 I am sorry to see that you have not this time given us the luxury of cut edges.2 I am in the midst of printing and proof sheets,—which are wearisome in the extreme from the mass of names & statistics I have been obliged to introduce, & which will I fear make my book insufferably dull to all but zoological specialists.3 My trust is in my pictures & maps to catch the public. Hoping yourself and all your family are quite well | Believe me | Yours very faithfully | Alfred R. Wallace DAR 106: B123

444 1

2 3

November 1875

Wallace’s name is not on the presentation list for Climbing plants 2d ed. (Appendix IV). He had also received presentation copies of Orchids and Insectivorous plants (Correspondence vol. 10, Appendix IV, and this volume, Appendix IV). CD had urged his publisher, John Murray, to sell his books with the pages cut (see Correspondence vol. 20, letter to John Murray, 27 January [1872]). Wallace was proofreading his book The geographical distribution of animals (Wallace 1876).

From Francis Galton   8 November 1875 42. Rutland Gate Nov 8/75 My dear Darwin Alas! alas!— and I had taken such pains to express myself clearly, and I see what I mean, so clearly!—1 I was most obliged for the Brown-Séquard reference in the Lancet, & will certainly alter the paragraph. His non-publication of the paper even in abstract read by him at the Brit. Assocn.  in 1870, had given me additional fear that there was something wrong.2 All the other points you refer to in your letter, I will do what I can, about:— viz:– make clearer, answer, or amend; but it is too late to make more than small alterations in the proof. Thank you for reference & offer to send Panum, but I have a description of his results, so far as I want them, in C. Dareste (Ann: Sc: Naturelles 1862 sur les œufs à double germe p.34.3 In my ‘Fraser’ article, there is a most unlucky & absurd collocation of words, which I heartily hope no critic will seize upon, for which I simply ca’nt account except in the supposition of badly scratching out in the MS & variously altering some passage   It is about “double yolked eggs” & “single germs”. I ought never to have passed it in proof; but there it is.4 That twins born in one chorion:— never mind whether 2 ammions or not,— is Kleinwächter’s dictum which he fortifies by numerous modern German authorities.5 Kiwisch6 being the only one who, it appears, still talks of fusion of membranes. I also noted the remark in the Catalogue of the Museum Coll: Surgeons “Teratology” that twins in one chorion are probably (I think that was the word) derived from 2 germinal spots on one ovum.7 If you care to see Kleinwächter, I could send it you. Very sincerely Yrs | Francis Galton DAR 105: A88–9 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘To be returned’ pencil 1

CD had criticised the obscure terminology in a proof copy of Galton’s ‘Theory of heredity’ (Galton 1875b; see letter to Francis Galton, 7 November [1875]).

November 1875 2

3

4 5 6 7

445

Charles Édouard Brown-Séquard had communicated a paper ‘On apparent transmission of abnormal conditions due to accidental causes’ at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Liverpool in 1870, but it was not published (see Report of the 40th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1870), Transactions of the sections, p. 134). CD had referred Galton to a recent summary of Brown-Séquard’s research on the inheritance of acquired conditions (Brown-Séquard 1875; see letter from Francis Galton, 3 November 1875 and n. 3, and letter to Francis Galton, 4 November [1875] and n. 5). Galton discussed Brown-Séquard’s experiments in Galton 1875b, pp. 344–5. CD’s reference to Panum has not been found. Peter Ludwig Panum’s work on the formation of double monstrosities in birds (Panum 1860) is mentioned in Camille Dareste’s ‘Mémoire sur l’histoire physiologique des oeufs a double germe’ (Dareste 1862, p. 34). Galton’s article on twins published in Fraser’s Magazine contains the expression ‘double-yoked eggs’, but not ‘single germs’ (Galton 1875a, p. 567). Ludwig Kleinwächter’s work on twins (Kleinwächter 1871) is cited in Galton 1875a, p. 567. The chorion and amnion are, respectively, the outer and inner membranes around an embryo. Franz Kiwisch. Galton referred to twins produced by ‘double-yolked eggs that are due to two germinal spots in a single ovum’ in Galton 1875a, p. 567. The formation of double embryos is discussed in the Descriptive catalogue of the teratological series in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (London: R. Hardwicke, 1872, pp. xiv–xix).

To the secretary of the Royal Commission on vivisection   8 November 1875 Sir When I had the honour of being examined by H. M. before commissioners I was asked whether I had not been concerned in preparing a draft of a bill in relation to experiments on living animals;1 & it has occurred to me that H. M. Commissioners might perhaps wish to see this draft.— It was prepared with the advice of several eminent, phys experts,, & it seemed to us to guard against wilful cruelty, & to protect physiology from injurious interference.— The differences to which I alluded in my examination between our bill & that laid before parliament are on the second copy indicated in M. S in the second copy; the important point being that demonstration on an animal rendered insensible is is made illegal in the altered bill.2 I have the honour to be | Sirs | Your obedient serv | C. D. November 8th. 1875— | To Secr of Commission on Vivisection ADraftS DAR 97: C3 1

2

CD appeared before the Royal Commission on vivisection on 3 November 1875 (see letter from T. H. Huxley, 2 November 1875 and n. 1). His testimony appears in the Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, pp. 233–4. The secretary of the Royal Commission was Nathaniel Baker. CD had worked with John Scott Burdon Sanderson and Thomas Henry Huxley to prepare a draft bill for the regulation of vivisection. On the changes made to the bill before it was introduced to Parliament, see the letter from T. H. Huxley, 19 May 1875 and n. 2, and letter from Lyon Playfair, 27 May 1875. The final copy of the draft before the changes were made is in DAR 139.17: 22.

446

November 1875

To R. F. Cooke   9 November [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S. E. R. Nov. 9th My dear Sir I hope that you & Mr. Murray are satisfied with the sale of my Books.— I am highly pleased; 3012 copies having been sold.—2 Climbing Plants have gone off better than I expected.3 I imagine you will soon have to print another 1000 of Origin;4 if so let me hear, though I do not remember any errata to be amended. I have heard from Appletons, & in a few days, when you are not so busy, I will write on this matter.—5 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin National Library of Scotland (John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 322–3) 1 2 3 4 5

The year is established by the reference to Climbing plants 2d ed. (see n. 3, below). The sales figure was probably for CD’s most recently published book, Insectivorous plants. It appeared in July and was reprinted twice in 1875, making a total of 3000 copies (Freeman 1977). Climbing plants 2d ed. was published in the first half of November 1875 (Publishers’ circular 1875, p. 932). See letter to R. F. Cooke, 23 October [1875]. Origin 6th ed. was reprinted in 1876; this was the eighteenth thousand with slight textual changes (Freeman 1977). The most recent extant letter from CD’s US publisher, D. Appleton & Co., is that of 11 October 1875, regarding the US edition of Variation 2d ed.

From Arthur Nicols   [before 10 November 1875]1 I hoped therefore that I should be able to do higher work than “pot-boiling”—feeling as I do if not a capacity for something better than general reviewing and scraps of nat. history contributions to various papers, at least the kind of enthusiasm for the study of Nature which generally brings some result however small. I intended to pass three years in Australia working in some fashion at the interesting ants there had he fulfilled his promise—the non fulfilment of which is totally inexplicable.2 I must then do the best I can although the disappointment is at times very bitter when I see men of better opportunities occupying these glorious fields of work—but even at 35. years of age and with perfect health I should not be doing right in giving up ambition. Pardon this mere personal reference, which I should not have had the courage to make had I not found both in history and experience that those who have achieved most have the widest sympathies. yours faithfully | Arthur Nicols. P.S I have just heard of a habit of the rat which, I think, will interest you. I have it from my landlord an intelligent fellow, who is a practical smith. I was aware that rats on board ship frequently gnaw through the side of a cask until the wood is so

November 1875

447

thin that they can suck the water through it, because I have seen such places; and I believe they never make an entire breach in the wood. It was quite new to me however that they did this with leaden pipes. Some years ago my informant was called to a house where one of the floors was always damp. The service pipe of the house he found to have been drilled in many places by rats, and the water was escaping at a great number of pin holes along about a yard of its length. He preserved a piece of this pipe for some time and thinks he may find it now. The teeth marks of the rats were quite distinct and they had pared the lead down to such a thinness that it broke at the centre of the incision and supplied them. This must have been the general drinking place of a great number of rats. Arthur Nicols. Incomplete DAR 172: 62 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘11. Church row—Hampstead’ blue crayon 1 2

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Arthur Nicols, 10 November 1875. The person referred to has not been identified; the first part of Nicols’s letter is missing. Nicols had sent CD observations on animal behaviour made on a previous visit to Australia (see Correspondence vols. 19 and 20).

To Francis Galton   10 November [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Nov. 10th night My dear Galton I have this minute finished your article in Fraser & I do not think I ever read anything more curious in my life.2 It is enough to make one a Fatalist. I am in a passion with the Spectator who always muddles if it is possible to muddle.3 But after all he does not write so odiously as I did in my letter, which you received so beautifully.4 I shd be glad to be convinced that the obscurity was all in my head, but I cannot think so, for a clear-headed (clearer than I am) member of my family read the article & was as much puzzled as I was— To this minute I cannot realise what are “developed” “sterile” & fertile germs.—5 You are a real Christian if you do not hate me for ever & ever.— I shall try you when we come to London in a month or six weeks time, as I want to ask a question about averages, which can be asked in a minute or two, but wd. fill a long letter.— Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin PS. As soon as I am sure that no more pods of Sweet Peas will ripen, I will send all the bags in a Box per Railway to you.—6 UCL Library Services, Special Collections (GALTON/1/1/9/5/7/20)

448 1 2 3 4 5 6

November 1875

The year is established by the reference to Galton 1875a (see n. 2, below). Galton’s article on twins was published in Fraser’s Magazine (Galton 1875a). A critical review of Galton 1875a was published in the Spectator, 6 November 1875, pp. 1387–9. CD had commented on a proof copy of Galton’s article ‘A theory of heredity’ (Galton 1875b) in his letter of 7 November [1875]. See also letter from Francis Galton, 8 November 1875. See letter to Francis Galton, 7 November [1875] and n. 3. See letter to Francis Galton, 7 November [1875] and n. 8.

From Arthur Nicols   10 November 1875 11. Church Row | N. W | Hampstead Nov 10th. 1875 My dear Sir. I am infinitely obliged to you for finding my poor MS.1 It really was not worth troubling you for a moment: since I, at 35 years of age, ought to have ample time to repeat everything. The tone of your letter distresses me beyond measure, and since this is probably the last letter which will pass between us (for I will not add one grain to your labours) I will speak my whole mind. I am only one of many thousands of men who have taken from you the line of investigation which should lead to the true understanding of this complex life of man and the animals & plants from which he must have sprung. You, in what you term “old age” have given no doubt the true solution of the case of the rats with the leaden pipe.2 They heard the trickling water (as you say) no doubt, and bored into the lead until they reached it. But this testifies to their intelligence and experimental knowledge, I venture to believe. This solution of the circumstance is due to you, and I can see no other— I have the perforated pipe here, and I shall deposit it in one of the museums of the country. Perhaps the B.M. would not accept it. It may interest you to know that I am trying in my small way to bring the past of our earth within the ken of the populace by a series of articles on the Tertiary vertebrata in comparison with living (and perhaps representative) forms—for “Frazer” or “Blackwood”.3 Let me subscribe myself—perhaps for the last time— yours faithfully & affectionately, | R. Arthur Nicols. DAR 172: 63 1

2 3

The manuscript has not been identified; however, CD had encouraged Nicols to write a short paper on his observations of animal communication in Australia (see Correspondence vol. 20, letter from Arthur Nicols, 23 August 1872). See letter from Arthur Nicols, [before 10 November 1875]. He wrote to CD about the case again in his letter of 8 December 1875. No articles by Nicols have been found in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine or Fraser’s Magazine. He later wrote two popular histories of geology and palaeontology (Nicols 1877 and 1880; see Correspondence vol. 24, letter from Arthur Nicols, 24 February 1876).

November 1875 To Hugo de Vries   10 November 1875

449 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Nov 10. 75

Dear Sir Your very kind letter has pleased me greatly.1 I write now to suggest, if you make any more observations on tendrils, to attend to the very curious case described at p 132 of my book under Echinocystis,—namely that the extremity of a tendril which has curled half round a small cylindrical stick, can by an undulatory movement, curl twice or thrice round the stick. This seems to me a point worthy of further investigation, and if my measurements can be trusted shows that the movement is not due to growth along the convex surface.2 With much respect | I remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Artis Library (De Vries 2) 1 2

See letter from Hugo de Vries, 7 November 1875. See letter from Hugo de Vries, 7 November 1875 and n. 6. CD’s observations on Echinocystis lobata (wild cucumber) are in Climbing plants 2d ed., pp. 128–34.

To T. H. Huxley   12 November [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Nov 12th My dear Huxley Many thanks for your Biology which I have read.— It was a real stroke of genius to think of such a plan.— Lord how I wish that I had gone through such a course.2 Ever yours | C. Darwin Imperial College of Science, Medicine and Technology Archives (Huxley 5: 324) 1 2

The year is established by the reference to T. H. Huxley and Martin 1875 (see n. 2, below). A copy of Course of practical instruction in elementary biology is in the Darwin Library–CUL (T. H. Huxley and Martin 1875). Each chapter of the book described a plant or animal organism, with a series of observations and experiments to be performed in a laboratory. The plan for the book arose out of Huxley’s teaching at the Royal School of Mines in South Kensington (see A. Desmond 1994–7, 2: 35–9, 73).

To Ernst Haeckel   13 November 1875

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Nov. 13. 75

My dear Häckel It is a real pleasure to me to receive a letter from you, as they are always so kind and sympathetic.1 I will begin at once to read your paper as I see the full importance of the subject.2 I have often wondered about the differences in the first developement of ova. I am very much obliged to you for your kindness in directing a copy

450

November 1875

of your History of Creation to be sent to me; but I ordered one long ago from my Bookseller, and received it this very morning.3 When the duplicate copy comes, I will present the purchased one to one of our best Scientific Libraries viz the Royal or Linnean, so that others may profit by your work. Many thanks for the promised copy of your paper on the coral which is to do me honour.4 I hope you enjoyed your stay on the shores of the Red Sea, but I shall be able to learn something of your travels from the pamphlet which you have sent me. I have little to say about myself. My health is certainly better than it was, but I still waste much time by daily discomfort, but this is forgotten when I am at work. I am now busy in drawing up an account of ten years experiments on the growth and fertility of plants raised from crossed and self-fertilised flowers.5 It is really wonderful what an effect pollen from a distinct seedling plant which has been exposed to different conditions of life, has on the offspring, in comparison with pollen from the same flower or from a distinct individual but which has been long subjected to the same conditions. The subject bears on the very principle of Life, which seems almost to require changes in the conditions   I have also been preparing a new & revised Edition of my “Variation under Domestication” and have endeavoured to improve the chaper on Pangenesis.6 What I shall do in Future if I live, Heaven only knows: I ought perhaps to avoid general and large subjects as too difficult for me with my advancing years, and I suppose enfeebled brain Believe me | my dear Häckel | with every good wish | Yours very sincerely | Charles Darwin LS(A) Ernst-Haeckel-Haus (Bestand A-Abt. 1:1-52/34) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Letter from Ernst Haeckel, 7 November 1875. Haeckel’s paper was ‘Die Gastrula und die Eifurchung der Thiere’ (The gastrula and egg-cleavage of animals; Haeckel 1875b). See letter from Ernst Haeckel, 7 November 1875 and n. 3. Haeckel 1876a. See letter from Ernst Haeckel, 7 November 1875 and n. 8. CD often used the booksellers Williams & Norgate. The ‘paper’ on coral was Arabische Korallen (Arabian corals; Haeckel 1876b). See letter from Ernst Haeckel, 7 November 1875 and n. 5. Cross and self fertilisation. For the chapter on pangenesis (CD’s theory of heredity and development), see Variation 2d ed. 2: 349–400. For Haeckel’s comments on pangenesis, see Correspondence vol. 20, letter from Ernst Haeckel, 1 March 1872 and n. 8.

From W. H. Scott   13 November 1875

Wanderers’ Club, | Pall Mall. 13th Nov 1875

Chas Darwin Esqre MA. FRS &c &c Sir, Upon the several occasions of my reading your admirable work on “The Descent of Man”, I was always much struck with your remarks on the Powers of Reasoning

November 1875

451

in animals, yet, I always thought that the instance you gave in which such powers had been demonstrated in dogs were not quite as startling as one would have imagined.1 I have often since first reading your interesting work, intended writing you of a clear case of reasoning which took place with a Dog, which I knew well, belonging to a very old friend of my father (Dr Scott of Exeter),2 but I have delayed doing so, thinking, I should only be taking up your time which I know is so exeedingly valuable, without doing a corresponding amount of good. To make quite sure of the facts I wrote my friend, (Mr Wentworth of Beckhampton Wilts)3 the owner of the dog, a short time since, setting out the circumstances as I remembered them, & he replied stating they were correct as related by me. They are as follows; To begin with I should state, that the dog was a cross between a Retriever & Newfoundland, taking after, in appearance, more of the latter than the former. He was an exceedingly intelligent animal and had been taught by his owner to do several tricks & also make himself useful and among other things would ring the Bell, which was one of the old fashioned ones having a pulley & tassel; shut the door, take the slippers put them into the cupboard & bring back the Boots etc etc. The dog had however one bad habit, as a sporting dog, & that was he would persist in chasing a hare when he saw one. The day when my friend was going out shooting & not wishing to take “Shot” as the dog was called with him, he shut him up in the Dining room giving strict injunctions to the Housemaid not to let him out. My friend had not however gone very far on his road before “Shot” overtook him. When Mr Wentworth returned home in the evening he naturally made enquiries as to who had let the dog out, when the Housemaid stated that hearing the Dining room Bell ring she answered it & on her opening the door “Shot” jumped out over her shoulder & made his escape. That this was a clear case of reasoning I think cannot be questioned, and as to its truth I have not the least particle of doubt, as my friend Mr Wentworth is a gentleman well known in Wiltshire having resided there for a large number of years. Furthermore I knew the dog myself & can testify as to the great amount of intelligence he always displayed. I trust you will excuse the liberty I have taking in writing to you, but, I thought the above an interesting illustration of Reasoning in a dog & one you would like to be acquainted with. Believe me Sir | Yours obedly | W H Scott DAR 177: 123 1 2

3

CD discussed the mental powers of dogs in Descent 1: 40–2, 44–7, 50. William Robson Scott had supplied CD with information on sign language and had assisted George Howard Darwin with his research on cousin marriage (see Correspondence vol. 18, letter from W. R. Scott to E. B. Tylor, 28 June 1870, and Correspondence vol. 22, letter from G. H. Darwin, 18 April 1874 and n. 7). John Wentworth was a farmer in Beckhampton, Avebury, Wiltshire (Census returns of England and Wales 1851 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/1904/20/31)).

452

November 1875

To Herbert Spencer   13 November 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Nov. 13th— 75 Dear Spencer I have not yet read Bridge’s article, but have looked at the final passages. I see your drift, & if you can make out a fairly good case for men of science it is a most just defence which you intend making.1 I cannot remember whether I was nominally on the Committee of the Jamaica affair.— I generally refuse out of principle to be a member of a committee, on which from ill-health I cannot attend, but I sometimes break my rule.— I see by my accounts that I subscribed 10£.—2 Lyell was a very likely man to have been on the Committee & certain to have subscribed.3 If you will apply to W. Shaen 15 Upper Phillimore Garden solicitor for the prosecution (& whom you probably know better than I do) he would almost certainly be able to lend you a list of the Committee & subscribers. Considering how few men of science there are, I expect & hope that you may make out a good case.—4 How curious & amusing it is to see to what an extent the Positivists hate all men of science: I fancy they are dimly conscious what laugable & gigantic blunders their prophet made in predicting the course of science.5 Good fortune to you— | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin University of London, Senate House Library (791/111) 1

2

3 4

5

In an article published in the November 1875 issue of Fortnightly Review, John Henry Bridges criticised British mercantile policy in China for promoting the trade in and illegal trafficking of opium and risking war. In the conclusion, he suggested that scientific authorities had failed to speak against this policy because it was consistent with ‘the cherished theory of Evolution by Survival of the Fittest’: ‘Can it be that the Science prevalent in our time ... ignores the truth that ... Human Progress consists essentially in the upward struggle against the brute barbaric competitions of pre-human life?’ (Bridges 1875, p. 663). Spencer had coined the expression ‘survival of the fittest’; CD had used it many times in Origin 5th ed. (see Spencer 1864–7, 1: 444–5, and Correspondence vol. 14, letter from A. R. Wallace, 2 July 1866). CD had subscribed to the Jamaica Committee fund to support the prosecution of Edward John Eyre, the former governor of Jamaica, for his role in the suppression of an uprising of the ex-slave population (see Correspondence vol. 14, letter from Herbert Spencer, 2 November 1866, and letter to J. D. Hooker, 20 November [1866]). CD recorded a payment of £10 under the heading ‘Jamaica’ for 19 November 1866 in his Account books–cash account (Down House MS). Charles Lyell had served on the Jamaica committee (ODNB s.v. Jamaica Committee). CD, Lyell, and Thomas Henry Huxley had joined the Jamaica committee; however, a number of men of science, including Joseph Dalton Hooker and John Tyndall, had opposed the prosecution of Eyre (see ODNB s.v. Jamaica Committee, and Correspondence vol. 14, letter from J. D. Hooker, [22 November 1866]). Bridges was a leader of British positivism, a movement of philosophical, political, and religious reform based on the work of the French philosopher Auguste Comte. Comte had outlined a scheme of historical progression for the sciences that culminated in sociology. Though indebted to Comte, Spencer had distanced himself from aspects of his work (see Eisen 2000). Huxley had criticised Comte’s views

November 1875

453

on science (see T. H. Huxley 1869 and Correspondence vol. 17, letter to J. D. Hooker, 24 July [1869]). On British positivism and the reception of Comte, see Kent 1978 and T. R. Wright 1986.

From R. F. Cooke    16 November 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London. W. Nov. 16 1875 My dear Sir A set of Electrotypes of the woodcuts in “Climbing Plants” can be had for £3.0.0. & I have ordered to sets to be taken. The woodcuts are electrotyped & inserted in the stereotype plates & will be done so, in the new edition of “Animals & Plants” & it would confuse not to have them done so now, for Appletons.1 I have ordered the stereotypes to be made & we will take care that they shall have them at a reasonable figure. Insectivorous Plants is still standing in type. Have you any corrections to make, if not we will stereotype that work like all the rest, except the Orchids & Expression.2 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Chas. Darwin Esq DAR 171: 477 1 2

CD was arranging with the US publisher D. Appleton & Co. for American editions of Climbing plants 2d ed. and Variation 2d ed. (see letter to R. F. Cooke, 9 November [1875] and n. 5. Permanent stereotype plates were made from the original moveable type plates, reducing the cost of reprints but making substantial revisions to the text impossible. Second editions of Orchids and Expression were published by John Murray in 1877 and 1890, respectively.

From Lawson Tait   16 November [1875]1 7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. Novr. 16 My Dear Sir, Have you seen the Dischidia Rafflesiana? Carpenter describes it (quotum, Dr. Wallich’s Plantae Asiaticae Rariores) at p 152 Principles of Comparative Physiology 4th. Edition.2 Do you know if it is in cultivation? Yours faithfully, | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 22 1

The year is established by the reference to pitcher-plants; Tait was experimenting on the tropical pitcher-plant, Nepenthes, in 1875.

454 2

November 1875

Dischidia rafflesiana, now Dischidia major, was first described in Nathaniel Wallich’s Plantae Asiaticae rariores (Wallich 1830–2, 1: 32, 2: 142). In Principles of comparative physiology, William Benjamin Carpenter compared the plant’s pitchers, which often contained large quantities of ants, to the stomach of animals (Carpenter 1854, p. 152). CD had asked Joseph Dalton Hooker about the pitchers of Dischidia (see letters from J. D. Hooker, 16 April 1875 and 17 April 1875).

From Lawson Tait   16 November [1875]1 7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. Novr. 16 My Dear Sir, Let me acknowledge your reference, with thanks for your thoughtfulness2 I have had some correspondence with Prof Blackie & asked him about my new substance. He made some ingenious suggestions, but the results were awkward and I prefer “Azerin” to any other word I can coin.3 There is no doubt that this substance will be found in many places now that we know of its existence. It is very curious. A temp of 212o does not interfere with its properties, but alcohol does. It dries into a straw coloured substance, transparent, but as soon as you remove heat & allow the access of air it absorbs very many times its bulk of water—probably over 30 or 40 times its bulk. Please do not answer this. Yours faithfully, | Lawson Tait. Winter has put a stop to my enquiries in many directions when I think there is much to be done. DAR 178: 23 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Lawson Tait, 6 November [1875]. CD’s letter has not been found. John Stuart Blackie was professor of Greek at Edinburgh University. Tait wanted to name a substance that he believed he had isolated in the digestive fluid of insectivorous plants (see letter from Lawson Tait, 6 November [1875]).

To R. F. Cooke   17 November 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Nov 17. 1875 My dear Sir Many thanks about the stereotypes.1 Please to remember that I shall lose 200 dollars unless Var. under Dom. sells pretty well in the States, & this will largely depend on Messrs Appleton selling it at a low price.2 With respect to Insectivorous Plants, I am unwilling that it shd be stereotyped at once: I have never done that until my books have been published for some years, so

November 1875

455

that I have profitted by criticisms & new facts. I know that many men are working at the subject both in England & on the Continent & therefore I think it wd be better to wait for a few years, & then if there is a demand for it to correct the book thoroughly & finally & stereotype it.3 I suppose the 3000 copies cannot possibly have been sold, but if nearly so, & you think there will be any more sale, have 250 or 500 more printed off; & for this contingency I enclose 2 errata.4 I should like to hear what you decide on this head— My dear Sir | yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS(A) National Library of Scotland ( John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 320–1) 1 2

3 4

Stereotypes had been made of Climbing plants 2d ed., and were to be made for Variation 2d ed. (see letters from R. F. Cooke, 25 October 1875 and 16 November 1875). Variation 2d ed. was to be published in the US by D. Appleton & Co. (see letter from D. Appleton & Co, 11 October 1875). Cooke had proposed a price of 18s. for the London edition (see letter from R. F. Cooke, 25 October 1875). The two hundred dollars might have been a portion of the costs for purchasing the printing plates from Orange Judd & Co, the publisher of the first US edition of Variation (see letter from D. Appleton & Co., 11 October 1875, and Correspondence vol. 24, letter from D. Appleton & Co., 18 February 1876). See letter from R. F. Cooke, 16 November 1875 and n. 2. A second edition of Insectivorous plants was published in 1888, edited by Francis Darwin. A fourth thousand of Insectivorous plants was printed in 1876 (see Freeman 1977, p 149). The enclosed errata slip has not been found. According to Freeman 1977, p. 149, the fourth printing carried the same errata slip as the third.

From Hugo de Vries1   17 November 1875

Würzburg 17 Nov 75.

Hochverehrter Herr Empfangen Sie meinen besten Dank für Ihren letzten Brief.2 Ich weiss nicht ob ich im nächsten Sommer wieder die Gelegenheit haben werde, meine Untersuchung der Rankenpflanzen fortzusetzen—sollte dies aber der Fall sein, so werde ich es als meine erste Aufgabe betrachten, die Thatsachen, welche Sie in Ihrem Werke hervorgehoben, selbst zu beobachten. Hoffentlich werden Echinocystis lobata und Passiflora gracilis bis dahin zu beschaffen sein, doch denke ich, dass auch andere, sehr reizbare Ranken, das nämliche zeigen werden. Wahrscheinlich werden dann wohl bei allen Krümmungen von Ranken die Beziehungen des Längenwachsthums zu der Krümmung anders aufzufassen sein, als ich es früher gethan habe.3 Mich Ihnen höflichst empfehlend | Hochachtungsvoll | Ihr dienstf. Diener | Hugo de Vries. DAR 180: 20 1

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I.

456 2 3

November 1875

See letter to Hugo de Vries, 10 November 1875. CD had used Echinocystis lobata (wild cucumber) and Passiflora gracilis (crinkled passionflower) in his research on the twining of tendrils; see Climbing plants 2d ed., pp. 128–34, 153–6. Vries continued to study the causes of tendril curvature in 1879, after having worked out the mechanics of cell growth in plants (letter from Hugo de Vries, 7 August 1879, Calendar no. 12186).

From John Murray   19 November [1875] 50, Albemarle S.t | W. Novr 19 My Dear Sir The sale of your work has been going on so prosperously & I have made so much way with the Editions that it is time I shd arrange with you for payments wch I propose to do in the manner following. For 1500 Origin of Species £130"— 3000 Insectivorous Plants 560"— 1500 Climbing Plants 63"—1 If you consider this equitable I will forward at once cheques for above amounts. We have still copies on hand of all the works. Of Climbing Plants 300, but I think we might print of 500 more before distributing the type. Your two corrections shall be mad2 I am My Dear Sir | yours very faithfully | John Murray Chas Darwin Esq Endorsement: ‘1875’ DAR 210.11: 3 CD annotations 1.6 63"—]underl; ‘753’ added below ink 3.1 Climbing Plants] ‘Climbing Plants’ circled and line to ‘Insectivorous’ ink 1 2

The figures are the number of copies printed of Origin 6th ed., Insectivorous plants, and Climbing plants 2d ed. Murray meant Insectivorous plants rather than Climbing plants 2d ed. CD had enclosed an errata slip for a reprinting of Insectivorous plants in his letter to Cooke of 17 November 1875).

From J. V. Carus   20 November 1875 Leipzig. Nov. 20th. 1875. My dear Sir, I ought to have written to you long before now, to thank for your kind letter of Oct. 14th. and for the clean sheets of the Climbing Plants.1 But unfortunately, about a week after my return home I was laid up with a swollen liver and a very bad state

November 1875

457

of almost all my different bowels, in consequence of a rather trying vexation Now I am recovering, but very slowly, and I am sorry to say, I cannot yet stand as much work as I used to do before. However, the Insectivorous Plants are done with two thirds and it is especially this book that I venture to ask you some questions.2 First, please read the last ten lines on page 105 and the first six on page 106. According to the whole description of the bits of bone, I think, on l. 3. p 106 it must be read “earthy” matter instead of “animal” matter. Then, would you not give the Volume of Schiff’s Leçons in footnote to page 111?3 But the most important question is: What are “minims” and what do you mean by “ml”. You say, for instance p. 124 about the middle, “2 dr. (7, 1. ml),” meaning the weight by giving the drachms and most likely meaning the cubic contents by giving the “ml”. According to analogy “ml” would be millilitre (like mgr. = milligramm); but the thousandth part of a liter is a cubic centimeter, for which the symbol c.c. is generally used. I asked our chemist, Professor Kolbe (Professor Frankland’s friend)4 about it, but he didn’t know it. I should be very much obliged, if you would send me an explanation as soon as possible, as I am only waiting for it before I send the manuscript to the printer’s. I am exceedingly sorry for the delay, which my illness caused. We had all come home so well and happy and thoroughly satisfied.5 And scarcely a week later I was laid up. It is annoying, but it could not be helped. Believe me | My dear Sir, | Yours very sincerely | J. Victor Carus DAR 161: 102 1 2 3 4 5

See letter to J. V. Carus, 14 October [1875]. CD sent Carus sheets of Climbing plants 2d ed. Carus was preparing a German translation of Insectivorous plants (Carus trans. 1876a). Schiff 1867 was published in 2 volumes. Adolf Wilhelm Hermann Kolbe and Edward Frankland. Carus had been on holiday with his family (see letter from J. V. Carus, 28 June 1875).

To John Murray   20 November 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Nov. 20. 1875 My dear Sir I am greatly pleased that the sale of my book is so flourishing, & shall be glad to receive your cheque.—1 I do not, however, understand about the Origin of Species: I have a memorandum that 2000 copies were last printed off & am sure that there was no mistake in this number. Therefore I suppose that I neglected to record 1500 since printed off, or that you forgot to tell me at the time.—2 You say in your note that you have 300 copies of “Climbing Plants”, but this must have been written by mistake for “Insectivorous Plants”, & you propose to print off 500 more copies before distributing the type.3 So that you will have 800 copies &

458

November 1875

these I shd think in all probability would last for ever, & I shall not be sorry to escape the labour of correcting a new & final Edition.— My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin P.S I owe you a large account for copies of Insectivorous Plants for distribution; & if you will send it, deducting your presentation copies to me, I will immediately send you a cheque.—4 I have also had copies of some of my other books from you.— National Library of Scotland (John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 318–19) 1 2 3 4

Murray had listed the print runs and profits for Origin 6th ed., Insectivorous plants, and Climbing plants 2d ed. (see letter from John Murray, 19 November [1875]). In his letter of 19 November [1875], Murray had listed 1500 copies for the 1875 reprint of Origin 6th ed.; see, however, letter from John Murray, 22 November [1875]. See letter from John Murray, 19 November [1875] and n. 2. For CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants, see Appendix IV.

From Lawson Tait   20 November [1875]1

7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. Novr. 20

My Dear Sir, I have just finished my paper.2 It remains to be fair-copied, but that will take only a few days. It is longer than I expected, facts have such a habit of accumulating, but I have made it as succinct as possible. Shall I send it to you or to the Society? In the event of your wanting to read it might I suggest that I could save you the labour by reading it to you. I shall be in town on Friday night, having to lecture on Sunday, and I could bring it with me to Down on Saturday forenoon and read it to you. I need not say how much I should like to have your opinion of it. I think I could read it in an hour to you but I trust you will not bore yourself with it. The abstract which will accompany it will give you most of the conclusions. Yours truly, | Lawson Tait DAR 178: 24 1 2

The year is established by the reference to Tait’s paper for the Royal Society of London (see n. 2, below). Tait had been working on a paper on the tropical pitcher-plant, Nepenthes; CD had agreed to send it to the Royal Society for possible publication (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 15 October [1875] and n. 2).

To J. V. Carus   22 November [1875]1

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Nov 22nd.

My dear Sir I am most sincerely grieved to hear of your illness & earnestly hope that you will soon be completely recovered. I will now answer your question as well as I can.2

November 1875

459

There can be no doubt that “animal matter” l 3 p 106 ought to be earthy matter. A “minim” is the unit in our Apothecaries’ Measure of Fluids which is as follows 60 minims 8 drachms 20 oz

= = =

1 fluid drachm 1 fluid oz 1 pint

Our clumsy nomenclature in which the same words drachm and ounce are used for weight or fluid measure, is very puzzling— You will see therefore that in yr example p 124, “2 dr” is fluid measure, the equivalent in the metric system being given in brackets, as in the case of grains and grammes. Using “ml” instead of the universally employed “cc” was an unfortunate mistake which was not detected till it was too late to rectify it. The note on p 111 should be Schiff ‘Lęcons &c’ T ii p 2493  I am exceedingly sorry that these errata should have given you the trouble they must have done & am very much obliged to you for calling my attention to them I give the following errata, which may possibly have escaped your eye— p 127 l 12 from bottom for “lepidum” read “lepidium” p 344 l 7 from bottom for “pour fourth” read “pour forth”—(merely false spelling) My dear Sir | Yours very sincerely. | C. Darwin Insectivorous Plants have sold well in England.— You do not say what you think of my suggestion to employ some one to translate “Climbing Plants,” under your superintendence. Ch. Martins is doing this in France.4 LS(A) Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Slg. Darmstaedter Lc 1859 Darwin, Charles, Bl. 127–128 1 2 3 4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. V. Carus, 20 November 1875. Carus had suggested several corrections for the German translation of Insectivorous plants (see letter from J. V. Carus, 20 November 1875). Schiff 1867 (see letter from J. V. Carus, 20 November 1875 and n. 3). Charles Frédéric Martins was employing Richard Gordon to translate Climbing plants 2d ed. into French (Gordon trans. 1877; see Correspondence vol. 24, letter from C. F. Martins, 5 July 1876).

From E. A. Darwin   [c. 22 November 1875]1 Dear Charles The Useful K. Almanac does not contain fluid measure as used by Apothecaries & the London Pharm:2 says nothing (for us), except that the pint contains 20 oz.

460

November 1875

Taking the oz as 201 of pint it = 437.5 grs the same as you have it & the pint 114 lb. The rest is hypothetical if P′ = old pint = 1 lb (as we thought) then P′ P (imperial) , or 16 = 20 16 oz (of 437.5 grs) = old pint 20 oz (of Do) = imperial pint I looked in my old Duncan & found the same discrepancy underlined.3 It is enough to make one swear | E D DAR 58.1: 130–1 1 2

3

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to J. V. Carus, 22 November [1875]. The British almanac for the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge was published annually from 1828 by Baldwin and Cradock. Apothecaries weight was a system of measurement officially superceded in 1826 by the imperial system; similarly, the capacity measurements of the London pharmacopoeia were superceded by those of the imperial system (5. George IV. cap. 74). Because the systems coincided in some, but not all, measurements, there was often confusion if the system used was not specified. Andrew Duncan, in an appendix to the Edinburgh new dispensatory (Duncan  1830, pp.  109–34), gave tables of equivalents for the various English measuring systems and the continental metric system.

From John Murray   22 November [1875]1 50, Albemarle S.t | W. Novr 22 My Dear Sir In consequence of your note I now enclose cheques for £130" £560" & £63" for Editions of your 3 Works2 Of “Origin” were printed 2000 copies in March 1873— settled for with cheque for £180" The present Edn. of 1500 was printed March 1875—3 Of Insectivorous Plants”, I propose to throw off 500 before distributing. Please excuse the mistake in writing “Climbing”4 With comps & best wishes for your health I remain My Dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | John Murray Chas Darwin Esqr DAR 171: 478 1 2

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to John Murray, 20 November 1875. The cheques were for CD’s share of the profits for Origin 6th ed., Insectivorous plants, and Climbing plants 2d ed. (see letter to John Murray, 20 November 1875). CD recorded deposits for these amounts in his Account books–banking account (Down House MS) on 23 November 1875.

November 1875 3 4

461

See letter to John Murray, 20 November 1875 and n. 2. On the payment for Origin 6th ed., see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from John Murray, 29 July [1874]. See letter from John Murray, 19 November [1875] and n. 2.

From D. Appleton & Co   23 November 1875 D. Appleton & Co | 549 & 551 Broad〈wa〉y, | New York: Nov, 23rd. 1875 Dear Sir: If the illustrations fo〈r〉 the new edition of “Varieties under Domestication” are the same as in the first edition we can, as you suggest cut the electros from the plates.1 We have just received the plates for “Climbing Plants” & will begin printing immediately.2 Yours very truly | D. Appleton & Co Chas. Darwin Esq DAR 159: 97 1

2

CD’s letter to Appleton’s has not been found. D. Appleton & Co. had purchased stereotypes of Variation from Orange Judd & Co., the publishers of the first US edition (see letter from D. Appleton & Co, 11 October 1875). They were producing the second US edition from stereotypes provided by John Murray; these in fact included the illustrations (letter from R. F. Cooke, 16 November 1875). Climbing plants US ed. was published in 1876 (see letter from R. F. Cooke, 10 August 1875 and n. 3).

To John Murray   23 November 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Nov 23. 75 My dear Sir I return with many thanks the receipts signed, and am obliged to you for saving me so much trouble.1 Please always let me hear when more copies of any of my books are struck off, as there may be errors to correct. Can you find out from your books, how many copies of the ‘Origin’ have been printed from the first, as I shall soon want to know for the list of my books in the new Edit of ‘Var: under Dom’: The number seems to me a good puff.—2 I enclose a cheque for yr account which please return receipted, & you then can let me know about the ‘Origin’. You have been very handsome about presentation copies of ‘Insectivorous Plants’3 My dear Sir | Yrs very faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS(A) National Library of Scotland (John Murray Archive) (Ms. 42152 ff. 316–17)

462 1 2 3

November 1875

See letter from John Murray, 22 November [1875]. A list of CD’s publications appeared on the verso of the title page of Variation 2d ed. Origin 6th ed. was listed as the seventeenth thousand. CD had asked Murray to send his account for copies of Insectivorous plants distributed on CD’s behalf, deducting CD’s own presentation copies, which were free (see letter to John Murray, 20 November 1875).

From John Murray   23 November [1875]1 50, Albemarle S.t | W. Novr 23 My Dear Sir Of Origin of Species I have printed since the Commencement 16250 Copies2 Thanking you for the cheque3 | I remain My Dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | John Murray Chas Darwin Esq DAR 171: 479 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to John Murray, 23 November 1875. See letter to John Murray, 23 November 1875 and n. 2. CD sent a cheque for extra presentation copies of Insectivorous plants.

From Lawson Tait   23 November [1875]1 7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. Novr 23 My Dear Sir, Thanks for your reply. The paper and its abstract shall be sent to you by post tomorrow or next day at latest.2 If you read it & notice any defects of a serious kind I should be glad to have a chance of rectifying them before it is sent. Yours truly, | Lawson Tait You were right to be sceptical on the matter of the acid in the secretion of the virgin pitcher (detailed in Nature)3 I found the source of the error to be the litmus paper. You will find it alluded to in the paper.4 DAR 178: 26 1 2

3

The year is established by the reference to Tait’s paper on the tropical pitcher-plant (see n. 2, below). CD’s letter to Tait has not been found; see, however, letter from Lawson Tait, 20 November [1875]. CD had agreed to send Tait’s paper on the tropical pitcher-plant, Nepenthes, to the Royal Society of London for possible publication (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 15 October [1875] and n. 2). Tait published the results of some of his experiments on the tropical pitcher-plant in Nature, 29 July 1875, pp. 251–2. For CD’s comment about the acid in the secretion, see the letter to Lawson Tait, 15 August [1875] and n. 3.

November 1875 4

463

Tait’s paper was not accepted for publication and no copy of the submitted manuscript has been found. Tait described his experiments in a later publication, and mentioned the mistake with the litmus paper (Tait 1879, p. 128).

From J. D. Hooker   24 November 1875

Royal Gardens Kew Nov 24/75

Dear Darwin I have taken in the enclosed, not doubting but that it is meant for you1 I am groaning over the RS.  Anniversary address which has to deal with much of the current work of the year, & am wringing my hands over the toasts & speeches for next Tuesday.2 So no more from your tortured | J D H. DAR 104: 44 1 2

The enclosure has not been found. Hooker gave the presidential address at the anniversary meeting of the Royal Society on London on 30 November 1875 (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 24 (1875–6): 72–94).

To Ernst Haeckel   25 November 1875

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Nov: 25/75

My dear Häckel I have now read yr History of Creation, and am not surprised at its great success.1 I have been much struck with many of your brilliant & original remarks; but from having read several parts in the original German Edition, there was not much quite new to me.2 You will perhaps be surprised to hear, that the part which I liked best is your history in the earlier chapters. The way in which you speak of my books gratifies me deeply; but it is indeed much too strong, and I fear that critics will attack you for what you have said.3 The amount of knowledge which you possess, as shown from the beginning to the end of your Book, & the number of your original investigations, is really wonderful. Believe me my dear Häckel | Yours gratefully | Charles Darwin PS. I have read a great deal of yr Essay on the developement of ova & though much too ignorant to form any judgement, I can see how important the essay is, & I hope that you are right, for if so you will have removed some great difficulties.4 Do not forget to send me yr paper on the Coral from the Red Sea.5 LS Ernst-Haeckel-Haus (Bestand A-Abt. 1:1-52/35) 1 2

CD’s annotated copy of Haeckel 1876a is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 357). CD had read the first German edition of Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (Haeckel 1868; see Marginalia 1: 358–60).

464 3 4 5

November 1875

Origin and other works by CD were referred to extensively in Haeckel 1876a; see especially 1: 130–7. Haeckel 1875b. See letter from Ernst Haeckel, 7 November 1875 and nn. 3 and 4. Haeckel’s ‘paper’ was his Arabische Korallen (Arabian corals; Haeckel 1876b). See letter from Ernst Haeckel, 7 November 1875 and n. 5.

From Lawson Tait   25 November [1875]1

7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. Novr. 25

My Dear Sir, Your plan of registration is so good that I adopt it in transmitting my paper to you.2 One point about which you may differ from me is the introduction of the word “rhine” (a nostril). The organs referred to are undoubtedly respiratory only, and as we have adopted the word stoma in animal physiology for a minute nutrient orifice, I think botanist ought to adopt another description of the ascertained function of the structure.3 I trust everything else will meet with your approval. Yours faithfully, | Lawson Tait P.S. My amanuensis, my wife,4 is off work for a day or two with a cold, but she will transmit you the abstract by tomorrow evenings or Saturdays post. Would you kindly include it with paper if you transmit it to the R.S. | L.T. DAR 178: 25 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the reference to Tait’s paper (see n. 2, below). CD’s letter to Tait has not been found. He evidently suggested sending Tait’s paper on the tropical pitcher-plant to the Royal Society of London by registered post (see letter from Lawson Tait, 23 November [1875]). Tait’s paper was not accepted for publication and no copy of the submitted manuscript has been found; however, in a later publication Tait used the word ‘stoma’ throughout to refer to the pores on the leaves of pitcher-plants (Tait 1879–80). Sybil Anne Tait.

From Francis Galton   26 November 1875 42 Rutland Gate SW Nov 26/75 My dear Darwin How can I thank you sufficiently for the trouble you have taken with the peas, which arrived last night in beautiful order.1 You must let me know when we next meet, if there is anything I owe you for payments of any kind connected with them. Will you in the mean time, give the enclosed 10.s (I send an order made out in your name) to the gardener, from me?— & tell him that I am much obliged for his care.2 Ever yr.s | Francis Galton Romanes has told me much of his wonderfully interesting results with the Medusæ.3

November 1875

465

DAR 105: A90–1 1 2 3

CD had sent a box of sweetpea seeds to Galton for his experiments (see letter to Francis Galton, 22 September 1875 and n. 6, and letter to Francis Galton, 10 November [1875]). The gardener who normally assisted CD in botanical experiments was Henry Lettington. George John Romanes had been working on the nervous system of medusae (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 24 September [1875] and n. 8).

To the secretary of the Royal Society of London  27 November 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Nov. 27th. 75 Dear Sir I beg leave to communicate to the Royal Society the enclosed paper by Mr Lawson Tait.1 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin To the | Secretary Royal Socy.— American Philosophical Society (480) 1

CD sent Lawson Tait’s paper on the tropical pitcher-plant Nepenthes (see letter to Lawson Tait, 27 November [1875]). The secretaries of the Royal Society of London were George Gabriel Stokes and Thomas Henry Huxley (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 23 (1874–5): 73.

To Lawson Tait   27 November [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Nov. 27th My dear Sir I have looked through the whole of your paper,2 but have not read it very carefully, as I have been unwell & confined to bed, & now a pile of proof is waiting for correction.3 Your paper seems to me, as far as I can judge, a very important contribution to science; & I hope that your chemical observations which must have been extremely difficult will be hereafter confirmed. It seems a great anomaly that two substances with an acid shd be requisite for digestion.4 I will despatch your paper registered tomorrow to the R. Soc. My dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin You speak of the several “Varieties” of Nepenthes; are they not commonly ranked as species? You alluded to some abstract:5 this I have not received & you had better send it direct to R. Soc.—if meant for the Proceeding, or for reading aloud.— Photocopy DAR 221.5: 30 1

The year is established by the reference to Tait’s paper (see n. 2, below).

466 2 3 4 5

November 1875

CD had agreed to send Tait’s paper on the tropical pitcher-plant, Nepenthes, to the Royal Society of London for possible publication (see letter from Lawson Tait, 25 November [1875]). CD was correcting proofs for Variation 2d ed. Printing had been delayed by floods affecting William Clowes & Sons (letter from H. E. Darwin to Leonard Darwin, 21 November [1875] (DAR 258: 1648)). On the two substances, see the letters from Lawson Tait, 6 November [1875] and 16 November [1875] (second letter). See letter from Lawson Tait, 25 November [1875].

From Quintino Sella1   28 November 1875 Reale Accademia de’Lincei | Roma 28 Novembre 1875. | Del giorno | Oggetto | Nomina a

Protoclo. N.o 448 | Risposta al foglio N.o Socio dell’Accademia | Allegati N.o 1 Al Chiarissimo Signore | Sigr Carlo Roberto Darwin | Londra. Illustre Signore. Sua Maestà il Rè d’Italia con Suo decreto del 4 Febbrajo 1875, si degnò rifermare l’Accademia dè Lincei.2 Nell’astratto delle sedute dell’Accademia del 24. e 25 Gennajo 1875, che ho l’onore di trasmetterle, Ella vedrà le ragioni, e la natura della riferma. Ella vi troverà pure il nuovo Statuto dell’Accademia.3 Oltre al dividersi l’Accademia in due Classi, l’una per le Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche, e Naturali, e l’altra per le Scienze Morali, Storiche, e Filologiche, vennero assegnati a ciascuna delle due Classi 10 Soci Straniei (art 2o dello Statuto) i quali godono di tutti i diritti che spettano ai Soci Nazionali. Prendono parte alle adunanze, ed alle votazioni (Arti 18. 21). Quando sono in Italia prendono anche parte alla elezione dei Soci (Arto 12). La Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche, e Naturali procedette già alla elezione di otto de’ Suoi Soci stranieri. Mi è ora gratissimo il potere annunziare alla S.V. Chiarissima, che Ella fù [eletta] uno dei X Soci stranieri della Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche, e Naturali, e che la Sua nomina fù approvata da S.M. il Rè d’Italia, con Suo Decreto del 2 Luglio 1875. Mi faccio un dovere di mandarle copia del Decreto di Sua Maestà, ed a Suo tempo avrò l’onore di mandarle il Diploma Accademico.4 Io mi rallegro coll’Accademia che hà acquistato in Lei un Collega, ed un Collaboratore che ha reso servizi così eminenti alla Scienza; e spero che del pari Ella gradirà la manifestazione di stima che Le volle dare l’Italia unita nell’eterna Sua Capitale, aggregandola come Suo Socio straniero effetivo alla più antica delle Accademie Scientifiche esistenti. Tutti i Colleghi si terrebbero onorati, se Ella mandasse all’Accademia memorie, o communicazioni originali. Esse verranno tosto stampate nel Volume Accademico nella lingua in cui faranno scritte, e l’autore riceverà cento copie della stampa a parte della memoria, o communicazione.

November 1875

467

Gradisca, Egregio Collega, i miei fraterni saluti. Il Presidente | Q Sella P.S. La S.V. riceverà presto il primo, e secondo volume della seconda Serie degli Atti dell’Accademia. Della prima Serie non si hanno copie sufficienti per poterne fare distribuzione ai Soci. Mi pregio però mandarle una copia del Volume 1o. di detta Serie, il quale potrà interessarla pei ragguagli storici intorno all’Accademia, che contiene.5 [Enclosure] VITTORIO EMANUELE II PER GRAZIA DI DIO E PER VOLONTÀ DELLA NAZIONE RE D’ITALIA Visto lo Statuto dell’Accademia de’ Lincei di Roma approvato col Nostro Decreto del 14 Febbrajo 1875; Vista la lettera del Presidente di detta Accademia del 16 Giugno 1875; Sulla proposta del Nostro Ministro Segretario di Stato per la pubblica Istruzione:6 Abbiamo decretato e decretiamo: Sono approvate le nomine, fatte dalla suddetta Accademia, de’ Signori: Carlo Roberto Darwin (Londra) a Soci Stranieri della classe di scienze fisische, matematiche e naturali dell’Accademia de’ Lincei di Roma. Il predetto Nostro Ministro è incaricato della esecuzione del presente Decreto, che sarà registrato alla Corte dei Conti. Dato a Sant’Anna a di 2 Luglio 1875 fo. Vittorio Emanuele | f. Ruggiero Bonghi Reg.to alla Corte dei Conti | Li 16 Luglio 1875 | Ro. 432 D. Lerf. a Cte152 | fo. Ayres.7 Visto conforme all’Originale esistente | nell’Archivo dell Accademia | Roma | Il Presidente | per | P. Volpicelli Sego.8 Per estratto dall’originale Decreto | Vo. Il Direttore Capo della Divisione 2ei. fo. DAR 229: 43, DAR 230: 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. The king of Italy was Victor Emmanuel II. The minutes and statutes of the Accademia have not been found. For the diploma, see Appendix III. Issues of the Atti dell’Accademia dei Lincei from 1875–80 are in the collection of unbound journals in the Darwin Library–CUL. Ruggiero Bonghi was the minister of education from 1874 to 1876 (DBI). Ayres has not been identified. Paolo Volpicèlli was a secretary of the Accademia dei Lincei (EI).

468

November 1875

From Lawson Tait   29 November [1875]1

7, Great Charles St. | Birmingham. Novr. 29

My Dear Sir, Thanks for your kind letter. The chemical part of my paper is the weak one, for my experience in that point is limited. I posted the abstract on Saturday, so that you probably have received it by this time.2 Yesterday I met Mr Bennett, whom I find to be very charming, and very much interested in the matters under observation.3 Yesterday my lecture was a great success.4 A large audience listened very attentively & seemed greatly struck by the facts I was able to lay before them. I was greatly pleased that when I passed upon you an inadequate but well merited eulogium, I “brought down the house” “Darwinismus” is making rapid progress amongst the public. I deeply regret that you have been ailing, but hope that you may long be spared for the good of our common cause against ignorance and superstition. With reiterated thanks for your great kindness to me, | Believe me | Yours faithfully, | Lawson Tait May I just remind you that two substances, ptyalin & pepsin, are always required for digestion; & in some cases four, ptyalin, pepsin pancreatic juice & intestinal mucous.5 DAR 178: 27 1 2

3

4 5

The year is established by the reference to Tait’s paper (see n. 2, below). See letter to Lawson Tait, 27 November [1875]. CD had agreed to send Tait’s paper on the tropical pitcher-plant, Nepenthes, to the Royal Society of London for possible publication. The abstract has not been found. Alfred William Bennett had corresponded with CD about insectivorous plants and had written a favourable review of CD’s book (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from A. W. Bennett, 21 September 1874, and this volume, letter to A. W. Bennett, 17 July [1875]). In his letter of 20 November [1875], Tait mentioned that he was giving a lecture in London on Sunday 28 November; the lecture has not been identified. See letter to Lawson Tait, 27 November [1875] and n. 4.

From W. B. Dawkins   1 December 1875

The Owens College, | Manchester, 1 Dec. 1875

My dear Sir, When I was out last summer in Sydney I met Mr. Clarke the old hero, who has survived most of his European scientific friends, and found out that the wish of his heart was F.R.S. He seems to me to be well deserving of that recognition, and as I heard that you knew of his work, and had also a personal knowledge of him I have sent his proposal paper to you thinking that you might like to sign it.1 Murchison,

December 1875

469

Sedgwick, Phillips, Lyell, alas! are dead, with all of whom Mr. Clarke had an intimate friendship and who would have given him their cordial support.2 If he be elected the Colony will take it as a compliment: for out there the few scientific men believe that “out of sight is out of mind.” Wishing that you are quite well in spite of the East wind,3 | I am | My dear Sir | Yours truly | W. Boyd Dawkins Charles Darwin Esq F.R.S. DAR 162: 131 1

2

3

William Branwhite Clarke, a clergyman and geologist in Sydney, had surveyed the mineral resources of New South Wales, and discovered evidence of gold there in 1841, although the discovery was only made public later. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of London on 1 June 1876 (Record of the Royal Society of London). CD had commented on a paper of Clarke’s in 1840 (see Correspondence vol. 2, letter to Geological Society of London, 22 January 1840), and received information from him in the 1860s (see Correspondence vol. 9, letter from W. B. Clarke, [August 1861], and Correspondence vol. 10, letter from W. B. Clarke, 16 January 1862). Roderick Impey Murchison, Adam Sedgwick, John Phillips, and Charles Lyell. The relationship between Murchison and Clarke was not as cordial as Dawkins states; Clarke’s recognised claim as the scientific predictor of gold in Australia had brought him into conflict with Murchison, who claimed priority for his own prediction in 1844 that gold would be found in Australian rocks from the Silurian period (ODNB s.v. Clarke, William Branwhite). In Britain, the east wind, coming from northern continental Europe, is cold and raw, giving rise to the proverb, ‘When the wind is in the east, ’tis neither good for man nor beast’ (Speake ed. 2008, p. 347).

To J. D. Hooker   1 December [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Dec 1st My dear Hooker I most heartily rejoice that yesterday is over. I thought often over the troubles of my “tortured friend”.2 I cannot conceive getting through those horrid speeches, toasts, addresses &c; but other men do it, so I suppose it can be done; & it is my private opinion from what I have heard, that you a dead hand3 at such work, however horrid you think it.— My object in writing now is to say that I have communicated to R. Soc a long paper by Lawson Tait on Nepenthes &c.—4 If his results are trustworthy it is a very valuable paper; but he owns that he is not strong in chemistry & I cannot help doubting much about the 2 ferments necessary for digestion.— I do not doubt that he has separated what he has named azerin (or a non-drying substance) & this seems a very curious discovery.5 I hope the Council will not refer the paper to me, as I am so mixed up with the business—feel somewhat prejudiced against the man—& more especially the referee ought to be a vegetable histologist, & I know nothing of subject.— I shall at some future day be very curious to hear what you or Dyer think of his account of structure of Nepenthes, Sarracenia &c.—6 Ever yours | Ch. Darwin.

470

December 1875

P.S. When Dyer has a bit of leisure, I hope you will be able to spare smallest scrap of Byblis for Frank.—7 DAR 95: 399–400 1 2

3 4 5

6

7

The year is established by CD’s reference to Tait’s paper (see n. 4, below). Hooker had referred to himself as tortured when he informed CD that he was preparing his presidential address for the anniversary meeting of the Royal Society of London (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 24 November 1875); the meeting was held on 30 November 1875 (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 24 (1875–6): 72–94). ‘Dead hand’: an expert (at doing something) (OED). See letter to the secretary of the Royal Society of London, 27 November 1875. Nepenthes is the genus of tropical pitcher-plants. Tait claimed to have isolated two substances in the digestive fluid of insectivorous plants; he named one droserin and the other azerin (see letter from Lawson Tait, 6 November [1875] and n. 2, and second letter from Lawson Tait, 16 November [1875]). The term ferment refers to substances that would later be explained by the concept of enzyme. Hooker and William Turner Thiselton-Dyer had begun investigating the digestive power of Nepenthes on CD’s behalf in 1873 (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 October 1873 and n. 2). Sarracenia is a genus of North American pitcher-plants known as trumpet pitchers. For Hooker’s low opinion of Tait’s paper, see Correspondence vol. 24, letter from J. D. Hooker, 28 January 1876. Francis Darwin may have wanted scraps of Byblis (the genus of Australian rainbow plants) to investigate their digestive processes. CD had earlier received dried specimens of Byblis from Kew, but had returned them (see Correspondence vol. 22, letters from Daniel Oliver, 12 October 1874 and 20 October 1874 and n. 1).

To Lawson Tait   1 December [1875] Abstract sent to R. Soc.1 It seems to me uncommonly clear & well-done.— C. Darwin Down | Dec. 1st. ApcS Postmark: DE 1 75 Josh E. Rosenblum (private collection) 1

Tait sent the abstract of his paper on Nepenthes (the tropical pitcher-plant) to CD on 27 November 1875 (see letter from Lawson Tait, 29 November [1875]).

From J. D. Hooker   2 December 1875

Royal Gardens Kew Dec 2/75

Dear Darwin Thanks for your kind congratulations— thank God it is over; though what with nervousness & bad wine I am done up with headache & had a purging today.— It is dreary work. It was the largest dinner ever known (150) but we were bored out of our lives by the speeches of Ramsay, Stokes, Hoffman & Brodie.1 Tyndall2 writes

December 1875

471

“I never heard from the chair of the R. S. so good an Address, as your’s of yesterday”—but adds,—“The speeches at the dinner were most intolerable”— I believe the last part, but cannot swallow the first. I will see that Lawson Taits paper is not sent to you, but I shall have to consult you about it.—3 Dyer shall see to Byblis at once— he is overtroubled with “much serving”— he gets on capitally with Smith & the men—4 He is in an awful way— the beasts of the Brit. Mus: have taken it into their heads to oppose Lankesters election because the Council has put him forward for remission of fees, & there are some who would actually black-ball him on that account.!.5 The Election came off tonight. In the first place the suggestion, it is no more, of remission of fees should never have been mentioned outside the Council!. My views are that it is a matter which should be left wholly in the hands of Zoologists, who are unanimous. & in the council the minority is of one only—& he a Botanist I am ashamed to say—but a most disagreeable fellow. My impression is that it was a mistake to bring Lankester forward. The action is one of pure charity towards the individual.— it is very rarely taken & only in cases of patent inability on the part of the candidate to pay without serious inconvenience— Such 〈as〉 the case of Owen, Huxley, Bates, Hancock Wallace & Parker.6 These are all who ever had their fees remitted by the Council. Now with regard to Lankester, he is an unmarried man, a Fellow of an Oxford College, & Professor in U. College; and could find the money to join the Royal!—7 added to this his manners are not enticing, & have made him personal enemies: for though I am strong for the election & remission of fees—I am of opinion that his case is not at all a good one. If you add to this that all the cases hitherto acted on are those of Zoologists,—& that zoologists have never been liberal to the Society in gifts or paying for their plates &c I cannot wonder that Lankesters case has excited the odium of the Brit. Mus. Botanists. & in short that poor Dyer with the very best intentions has “put his foot in it”.— Dyer rather mistook the whole thing— he regarded the remission of fees as an honour whereas it is only a mark of “consideration”—& he was loyally anxious to attach a first rate man to the Society to whom it was not convenient to pay the fees. Ever aff yrs | J D Hooker. DAR 104: 45–8 1

2 3 4

CD had written to congratulate Hooker on the success of his presidential address at the anniversary meeting of the Royal Society of London on 30 November (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 1 December [1875] and n. 2). Andrew Crombie Ramsay received a Royal Medal on behalf of Thomas Oldham. George Gabriel Stokes was a secretary of the Royal Society. August Wilhelm von Hofmann had been awarded the society’s Copley Medal. Benjamin Collins Brodie Jr attended the anniversary dinner. See The Times, 1 December 1875, p. 11. John Tyndall. CD had sent a paper by Lawson Tait to the Royal Society for possible publication (see letter to the secretary of the Royal Society of London, 27 November 1875). CD had asked for a scrap of the Australian insectivorous plant Byblis for Francis Darwin (see letter to J. D. Hooker, 1 December [1875] and n. 6). William Turner Thiselton-Dyer had been appointed

472

5

6 7

December 1875

assistant director of the Royal Botanic Gardens on 12 June 1875 (R. Desmond 1995, p. 251). John Smith was the curator of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Thiselton-Dyer had proposed Edwin Ray Lankester for fellowship of the Linnean Society of London; Lankester, however, was blackballed at the meeting on 2 December 1875 (see letter to J. D. Hooker, [12 December 1875]). The ‘beasts of the Brit. Mus:’ probably refers to the botanists employed by the British Museum who, as Hooker states later in the letter, may have opposed Lankester because of the favouritism shown to zoologists by the Linnean Society in cases where fees had been remitted. Richard Owen, Thomas Henry Huxley, Henry Walter Bates, Albany Hancock, Alfred Russel Wallace, and William Kitchen Parker. Lankester was a fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, and professor of zoology at University College, London. He had been elected a fellow of the Royal Society on 3 June 1875 (Record of the Royal Society of London).

From W. R. S. Ralston   2 December 1875 8 Alfred Place | Bedford Sq Decr. 2. 1875 Dear Mr. Darwin Your unknown correspondent is not a Russian. His letter comes from Tiflis, and is written, I believe, in Georgian.1 I am not acquainted with anyone who knows that tongue, and some years ago, when I wanted to get a short Georgian inscription deciphered, I had to send it to Russia. However, if you will allow me, I will keep the letter for a few days before returning it. If no interpreter can be found I should suggest that the letter be returned to the writer at Tiflis, with a line (in Russian, which he is sure to understand, and which I shall be happy to supply) asking him to write in some European tongue. He gives his address in the postscript. Hoping to have the pleasure of meeting you at Litchfield’s when you come to town,2 and with renewed assurances of the pleasure I shall always feel when I can be of any service to you, I remain, with kind regards to Mrs. Darwin, | Yours very truly | W R S Ralston DAR 176: 5 1

2

The letter has not been found nor has the correspondent been identified. Tiflis (present-day Tbilisi) is the capital of Georgia. Georgian has a different alphabet from Russian. Ralston had earlier offered to help CD with Russian matters (see letter from W. R. S. Ralston, 26 April 1875). CD stayed with Henrietta Emma Litchfield and Richard Buckley Litchfield at 2 Bryanston Street, London, from 10 to 20 December 1875 (see ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

From Francis Darwin   [after 2 December 1875]1 Pantlludw, | Machynlleth. Dear Father Many thanks for making me F.L.S— I hope there are no red hot pokers & skulls & crossbones at the admittal2

December 1875

473

I am sorry to see that they are very dawdling about publishing Zoolog: Papers.3 Thank you for the Natures4   I like seeing them very much Dyer has sent me some Erineum which doesn’t look very hopeful for studying spiral movements, it looks like a mere crustlike lichen growing on a leaf; he doesn’t seem to know much about it but quotes from the Micrograph: Dict that it was thought to be a fungus, but is really an abnormal growth of the epidermis of the trees on which it is parasitic.5 Dyer says his life has been a complete scrimmage, & he is just rushing off to examine at Cambridge. When I wrote to thank him I said I was very sorry I had bothered him about the specimens just when he was so busy. We have had splendid skating here, going on by moon light one night till 8.30. We had no snow so it is a delightful clean dry thaw— I and Arthur had a jolly walk yesterday up to the Quarry & saw them loading waggons with the slates Mr Ruck is selling, he gets about £20 profit from 3 waggon loads; we went through the levels   there are about 400 yds of them.6 I hope you are all prospering. | Yrs affec | Frank Darwin Amy sends her love7 DAR 274.1: 33 1 2

3

4 5

6 7

The date is established by the reference to Francis Darwin’s election as a fellow of the Linnean Society (see n. 2, below). Francis Darwin was elected a fellow of the Linnean Society on 2 December 1875 (Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1875–6): ii). The president of the society formally admitted newly elected fellows to the society at one of the meetings. From 1857, the Linnean Society had published separate botanical and zoological journals; by 1876, the botanical journal was being published more regularly than the zoological journal. Volume 12 of the zoological journal covered the period 1873–6. Francis refers to copies of the periodical Nature. Erineum is a pathological growth of the epidermis of plants; it was thought to be a fungus until the cause was discovered to be mites (OED). William Turner Thiselton-Dyer quoted from the Micrographic dictionary (Griffith and Henfrey 1856, p. 243). Francis’s interest in spiral movements might relate to his study of the twisting mechanism by which some seeds can bury themselves in the ground (F. Darwin 1876c). Francis was staying in Pantlludw, Wales, the home of his parents-in-law. Arthur Ashley Ruck was his brother-in-law; Lawrence Ruck, his father-in-law, evidently had a slate quarry on his property. Amy Richenda Darwin was Francis’s wife.

From W. R. S. Ralston   3 December 1875 8 Alfred Place | Bedford Square Decr. 3. 1875 Dear Mr. Darwin The Librarian of the India Office, Dr. Rost, confirms my supposition that the Tiflis letter is in Georgian, and he says that the only person capable of reading it he knows of is the Rev. S. C. Malan, Rector of Broadwindsor.1 When you come to Town2 perhaps you will decide on whether there would be any objection to consulting

474

December 1875

that scholar, or whether the letter should be returned to Tiflis. Meanwhile, with your leave, I will retain it in custody, and have it put to the question if an opportunity arises— Believe me | Yours very truly | W. R. S. Ralston. DAR 176: 6 1

2

Reinhold Rost and Solomon Caesar Malan were both orientalists. Ralston had informed CD that the letter from Tiflis (now Tbilisi) might be written in Georgian (see letter from W.  R.  S.  Ralston, 2 December 1875). CD was in London from 10 to 20 December 1875 (see ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)).

To Quintino Sella   4 December 1875 Down, Beckenham, Kent. Dec 4 1875 Sir I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your very obliging letter of November the 28th together with the Diploma of the “Reale Accademia de Lincei”.1 I request that you will inform the Academy how deeply I feel the distinguished honour of being elected a Foreign Associate. It is peculiarly gratifying to me to have been thus honoured by the chief Scientific Society of the Italian nation in the eternal city of Rome. With the greatest respect I beg leave to remain, | Sir | Your obedient & grateful servant | Charles R. Darwin Al Presidente | R. Accad. de’Lincei LS(A) Fondazione Sella – Biella (archivio: carte di Quintino Sella, serie Accademia dei Lincei, m. 6, f. 20, s.f. Charles Darwin) 1

See letter from Quintino Sella, 28 November 1875, which accompanied a decree confirming CD’s election as a foreign member of the section of physical, mathematical, and natural sciences of the Accademia de’ Lincei of Rome.

To August Weismann   6 December 1875 Down, Beckenham, Kent Dec: 6th. 1875 My dear Sir I have been profoundly interested by your essay on Amblystoma, and think that you have removed a great stumbling block in the way of evolution.1 I once thought

December 1875

475

of reversion in this case; but in a crude and imperfect manner. I write now to call your attention to the sterility of moths when hatched out of their proper season: I give references in Chap. 18 of my Variation under Domestication (Vol. 2 p. 157 of English Edit.) and these cases illustrate, I think, the sterility of Amblystoma.2 Would it not be worth while to examine the reproductive organs of those individuals of wingless Hemiptera which occasionally have wings, as in the case of the bed-bug.3 I think I have heard that the females of Mutilla sometimes have wings.4 These cases must be due to reversion. I dare say many anomalous cases will be hereafter explained on the same principle. I hinted at this explanation in the extraordinary case of the black-shouldered peacock, the so-called Pavo nigripennis, given in my Var.  under Domest.; and I might have been bolder, as the var. is in many respects intermediate between the two known species.5 With much respect | Yours sincerely, | Ch. Darwin P.S.— There is a more appropriate case among Plants. Peloric flowers must be considered as cases of reversion to a symmetrical form; and many of these flowers are quite sterile and others quite fertile: see Chapt. 18 of Dom. under Var. in section Monstrosities as a cause of Sterility.6 I quote Godron on Corydalis solida; but he has since found other peloric flowers on this same species fertile; so sterility is variable in same species; so indeed with Pelargonium, as I show.—7 Copy DAR 148: 345 1

2

3

In his essay ‘Ueber die Umwandlung des mexicanischen Axolotl in ein Amblystoma’ (On the transformation of the Mexican axolotl into an Amblystoma; Weismann 1875b), Weismann argued that the apparent metamorphosis of some axolotls (which were then classified as Siredon mexicanus) into the salamander Amblystoma (a synonym of Ambystoma) was due to reversion caused by adaptation to conditions different from their normal high-altitude, deep-water environment. Weismann stressed that all evidence showed that axolotls never transformed in their natural environment (Weismann 1875b, pp. 303–4). He further disagreed with the accepted view that the axolotl represented a lower phyletic stage and that transformed individuals had been induced to advance to a higher stage (ibid., p. 306). CD’s annotated copy of Weismann 1875b is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. For the impact of the axolotl on nineteenth-century zoology, see H. M. Smith 1989. In Variation 2: 157–8 and n. 61, CD mentioned that the sterility of a number of moths, especially the Sphingidae, when bred out of season, was ‘still involved in some obscurity’. Weismann had pointed out an analogy between seasonal dimorphism in some butterflies and the changes in axolotls: just as the summer form of the butterflies could be induced to change into the winter form by exposing the pupae to cold temperatures, so the axolotl could be induced to metamorphose into an air-breathing land form by forcing it to breathe air. Weismann further noted that the so-called Amblystoma that developed from an axolotl was always sterile; he referred to Origin 5th ed., p. 325, for CD’s view that sterility was caused by the operation of widely varying circumstances of life. He concluded that the genus Siredon should be retained for species that reproduced at the gill stage while Amblystoma should be reserved for species that bred only when they reached the air-breathing stage (Weismann 1875b, pp. 327–8). Hemiptera is a large order of insects that possess sucking mouthparts. Adult bedbugs (Cimex lectularius) usually have no wings but do possess small wing pads or vestigial wings (Harlan 2006, p. 99).

476 4 5

6 7

December 1875

Mutilla is a genus of parasitoid wasps often known as velvet ants because the wingless females resemble hairy ants. See Variation 1: 290–1. The two known species CD refers to are Pavo cristatus (the common or Indian peafowl) and P. muticus (the green peafowl). Pavo nigripennis is now considered to be a colour variation of P. cristatus. See Variation 2: 166–7. Peloric flowers are aberrant forms in which a usually irregular floral structure appears regular or symmetrical. In Variation 2: 167 and n. 91, CD referred to Dominique Alexandre Godron’s observations on Corydalis solida (fumewort; Godron 1864). In Variation 2d ed. 2: 150, CD mentioned Godron’s disovery that not all peloric flowers of C. solida were sterile, and noted that no seed had been obtained from the peloric central flower that often appeared on the trusses of pelargoniums raised in greenhouses.

To W. R. S. Ralston   7 December [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Dec. 7th Dear Mr. Ralston We are snowed up & cannot go to London tomorrow. Probably we shall not go for several days.2 When there I will write & inform you—3 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Bradford Galleries (dealers) (1992) 1 2 3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from W. R. S. Ralston, 3 December 1875. CD was in London from 10 to 20 December 1875 (see ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). CD’s letter has not been found.

From Francis Darwin   [before 8 December 1875]1 Pantlludw, | Machynlleth. My dear Father Here are the Linnean papers, I have signed the obligation tho’, it appears to say that it is not wanted if you compound2 We have very jolly here with skating at the top of the hill, we have a fire in the cottage there which is very luxurious Mr Ruck lends me a good pair till L’s acmés come; it wasn’t my fault as I brought Amy’s believing them to be mine.3 I hope you wont work yrself into an appleplexy in London—4 Love to Mother & Bessy—5 Amy is not in just now | Yrs affec | Frank Darwin DAR 274.1: 29 1

2

The year is established by the reference to Francis’s election as a fellow of the Linnean Society (see n. 2, below); the day and month are established by the reference to CD’s visit to London (see n. 4, below). Francis had been elected a fellow of the Linnean Society of London on 2 December 1875 (Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1875–6): ii). The ‘obligation’ was probably a payment of fees to the society;

December 1875

3

4

5

477

fellows were allowed, after their payment of an admission fee of £6, to compound their fees, that is, to pay a lump sum of £30 in lieu of all future annual payments (notice bound into Journal of the Linnean Society (Zoology) 13 (1878)). Francis was staying with his in-laws, the Ruck family, in Pantlludw, Wales. He was probably waiting for Leonard Darwin’s ice skates. Acme skates, manufactured in Halifax, Canada, were metal skates that adjusted to fit tightly to the skater’s boots instead of being held on by leather straps (Martin Jones, Hockey’s home, www.hockeyshome.ns.ca/starr.htm, and Bert van Voorbergen, The virtual ice skates museum, www.iceskatesmuseum.com (accessed 20 May 2014)). Amy Darwin was Francis’s wife; Lawrence Ruck was his father-in-law. CD intended to leave for London on 8 December 1875 but was delayed by bad weather (see letter to W. R. S. Ralston, 7 December [1875]); he was in London from 10 to 20 December 1875 (see CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Elizabeth Darwin.

From Arthur Nicols   8 December 1875 11. Church Row | Hampstead | N.W Decr. 8th. 75. Dear Sir. Many thanks for your sympathy.1 If I am ever able to do anything it will be greatly owing to the encouragement you have given me. Do not trouble yourself about the notes on the sense of smell in cats if they do not come to hand easily.2 I remember perfectly the details of the experiment but am not quite certain that I remember the results with absolute fidelity. I will however procure a couple of kittens and bring them up myself, so that I shall be familiar with any peculiarities of disposition or habit which might import an element of doubt or error into the experiments and repeat the trial of the sense of smell in two or three different ways. I sent you the notes about March 20 1873, as I know from the date of your letter in answer to mine.3 You make no remark upon the case of the rats gnawing through the leaden pipe to get at the water, so I suppose you overlooked it: or it may be familiar to you.4 It seems to me to be a very intelligent act: for as in my experience rats never make an experimental hole or waste their energies in any way (I have observed their habits rather carefully during several very long voyages) I think they must have discovered the existence of water in the pipe: but how I cannot conceive. I can easily understand that on board ship they may be led to the knowledge that a cask contains water from the accidental leakage of one and then generalize about others. I am Dear Sir. | Yours faithfully | Arthur Nicols Chas Darwin Esq F.R.S etc DAR 172: 64 1 2

CD’s letter has not been found. Nicols had suggested that the sense of smell was less developed in cats than in dogs on the basis of their ability to find food in a darkened room (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from Arthur Nicols, [before 20 March 1873]).

478 3 4

December 1875

See Correspondence vol. 21, letter to Arthur Nicols, [20 March 1873]. See letter from Arthur Nicols, [before 10 November 1875].

To Archibald Geikie?1   9 December 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Dec. 9th. 1875 Dear Sir I have signed Mr. Croll’s certificate with real pleasure2 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin Centre for Research Collections, Edinburgh University Library (Gen 524) 1 2

The recipient is conjectured from this letter’s provenance in the correspondence of Archibald Geikie at Edinburgh University Library. CD refers to James Croll’s certificate of nomination to the Royal Society of London. CD recommended Croll from general rather than personal knowledge (The Royal Society archive GB 117, EC/1876/08). Croll was elected a fellow of the society in June 1876 (Record of the Royal Society of London).

To J. D. Hooker   10 December [1875]1 2. Bryanston St | Portman Sqr Dec 10th My dear Hooker We have come up for 10  days holiday; the first half here & second half at 6, Queen Anne St.—2 Now if by any lucky chance you shd be forced to come to London do try & come to luncheon any day at 1 oclock. Ever Yours | C. Darwin St Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SPbB ARAS) 1 2

The year is established by the reference to CD’s visit to London (see n. 2, below). CD was in London from 10 to 20 December 1875 (see ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)); he and Emma Darwin planned to divide their time between Henrietta Emma Litchfield’s home at 2 Bryanston Street, and Erasmus Alvey Darwin’s home at 6 Queen Anne Street. In the end they spent the whole time at 2 Bryanston Street because George Howard Darwin, who was already staying at 6 Queen Anne Street, was unwell (Emma Darwin to Leonard Darwin, 20 December [1875] (DAR 239.23: 1.39)).

To T. H. Huxley   10 December [1875] 1 2. Bryanston St. | Portman Sqr Dec. 10th My dear Huxley We have come up for a ten days lark,2 & my greatest lark is to come & see you in the morning.

December 1875

479

May I come about 10 o clock next Sunday & my wife with me, if she is strong. If I do not hear, I will (health willing) come3 Ever Yours | C. Darwin Imperial College of Science, Medicine and Technology Archives (Huxley 5: 325) 1 2 3

The year is established by the reference to CD’s visit to London (see n. 2, below). CD, Emma Darwin, and Elizabeth Darwin stayed with Henrietta Emma Litchfield in London from 10 to 20 December 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). CD and Emma Darwin visited Huxley on Sunday 12 December 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)).

From Samuel Newington   10 December 1875 Ticehurst. 10th Decr 1875 Dear Sir. I am about to bother you again. I beg to enclose another letter from Mr Parish respecting the hybrid.1 You will see that there were 3 broods of these distorted duckfowls. & that the cock trod the ducks, not one duck only. I only wish he had preserved the one like the cock. My hybrid I believe has its brain distorted. at all events its mind is, it has very queer habits. I suppose you are aware that there have been several cases of half dogs & half human beings. I have heard of three cases. these seem more extraordinary ie, a cross between a quadruped & biped. The grafted vines referred to in a former letter, 1st, Maddresfield on B Hamburgh, 2nd Maddresfield on Muscadine, in each case the berries on the Maddresfield were quite round.2 On the removal of the Muscadine from the Maddresfield the berries continued round for the first year, this year, ie the second after removal, the berries on the Maddresfield have been oval. Can you account for the following. I took out the yolk of an egg & kept it several days on the hob close to the fire until it became so dry I was able to pulverize it. I placed it away in a closed vessel, but the air I presume must have entered. in a year’s time. when I was about to use the powder I found it full of small acarites. not the same as those of cheese.3 I kept them until they devoured all the yolk. when they died. About 7 years since I planted an orange pip in a green-house, some distance from any other house. it has grown about 4 feet in height. this year the leaves are covered with the orange scale.4 Can you account for this? believe me | dear Sir | Yrs very truly | S Newington DAR 172: 36 1

2

Newington had first written to CD about a duck–fowl hybrid in August, when he enclosed a description of it, now missing, possibly written by Mr Parish (see letter from Samuel Newington, 30 August 1875 and n. 1); Parish has not been further identified and his second letter has not been found. CD did not believe that such a hybrid was possible (see letter to Samuel Newington, 1 September [1875]). Newington had mentioned these grape grafts in his letter of 30 August 1875. Madresfield, a vine with oval-shaped fruit, and Black Hamburgh, a vine with round berries, are varieties of Vitis vinifera (the

480

3 4

December 1875

wine grape). Muscadine is a variety of Vitis rotundifolia, an American grapevine with round berries, also used to make wine. The genus of mites known as Acarus in the family Acaridae includes cheese mites and flour mites among others. Orange scale is any species of immobile sucking insect that attaches itself to the leaves of orange trees.

To ?1   [after 11 December 1875]2 My dear Sir— You have always shown so friendly a feeling towards me, that I have thought that you wd excuse me for writing to you on a subject which deeply interests me. I heard on Saturday that R. L. had been black-balled at the Linnean Soc.—3 I did not even know that he was a candidate; & my personal acquaintance with him is slight, having seen him only on a single occasion.4 But I have read many of his papers on Embryology5 &c & have seen the way in which he is spoken of by foreigners. Therefore I cannot doubt that as far as his scientific claims are concerned, he ought to have been elected.— I therefore agree most willingly to second, a new proposal, which is to be immediately suspended.—6 I am told on good authority that the reason of his being blackballed is that the Council intended to remit his fees.7 I know not & care not whether the Council was justified in their intention from some accounts which I have received it seems quite unjustifiable, from other accounts justifiable; But if they did wrong they ought to have been called to account & severely blamed at the anniversary or at a special meeting. (& which would be I think better to have later for other [illeg] Now what I earnestly beg you to do is to put yourself in [imagination] in the position of R. L, Suppose that you as a young man had done some good work & had been proposed for the Linnean Soc., & that the Council wished to remit, the fees, but that some person thought this was a very improper proceeding on their part; how could you not have thought yourself cruelly treated if you as an upright & honourable man had been blackballed on this account, & a stigma thus cast on you for the rest of your life; for it will be said of R. L “oh he was blackballed at the Linnean, & no one else has been for the last 50 years.”.— I feel this so strongly on this head, that I wd do almost anything to get him (though not my personal friend), elected by a large majority; & I further believe that such blackballing is enough to half ruin the Linn. Soc.— I have lately proposed one of my sons & Mr Romanes, & had this blackballing occurred earlier, I shd have doubted much before doing so.7 I beg you to have the [illeg] to let me hear from you, whether my argument has any weight on your mind, & in any case I trust that you will forgive me for troubling you. as I am [myself] concerned in the case [from being] agreed to second Dr Lankester on his second candidature ADraft DAR 97: C1–2

December 1875 1

2

3 4 5 6

7 8

481

The recipient is not indicated on the draft, but it is possible that it was George James Allman, who was president of the Linnean Society. The draft might also have served as the basis of all the letters CD wrote in support of Edwin Ray Lankester’s second nomination for fellowship of the society (see, for example, letter to J. J. Weir, 18 December [1875]). The month and year are established by the reference to the blackballing of Edwin Ray Lankester (see n. 3, below); the day is conjectured from CD having heard the news on Saturday 11 December (see letter to J. D. Hooker, [12 December 1875] and n. 2]). CD heard from Joseph Dalton Hooker that Lankester had been blackballed at a meeting of the Linnean Society on 2 December 1875 (letter from J. D. Hooker, 2 December 1875). Lankester had visited CD at Down on 18 July 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Lankester had published a large number of papers by 1875. CD had been impressed by his writing since 1869 (see Correspondence vol. 17, letter to E. R. Lankester, 25 June 1869). CD agreed to second Thomas Henry Huxley’s proposal that Lankester be put forward for election a second time (see letter to J. J. Weir, 18 December [1875] and n. 5); he had met Huxley on 12 December 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Proposals of fellows for election to the Linnean Society were suspended in the society in advance of the election meeting. See letter from J. D. Hooker, 2 December 1875. Francis Darwin and George John Romanes were elected fellows of the Linnean Society on 2 December 1875 (Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1875–6): ii); Lankester was blackballed at the same meeting.

To J. D. Hooker   [12 December 1875]1

2. Bryanston St Sunday 11th

My dear Hooker I have not felt so angry for years, & could hardly get to sleep after receiving your letter last night.2 I will urge Frank (now in N. Wales) to get admitted on Jan 25th. & we will come & vote together.— I shall feel it a duty to come up, & will attend, if my head will possibly allow me.3 I hope & think that the voting is before the papers are read aloud.— I will call on Allman4 one of these first mornings, as I want much to hear who the malcontents are. It seems to me the most disgraceful act which any scientific Socy. has done in my time.— I wish that I knew what the malcontents have to say for themselves.— I will speak to Romanes to get admitted so as to vote.—5 I wish that I had got a list of members to see whether there is anyone whom I could interest. What a waste of time & good feelings these blackguards cause. Ever affecty. yours | C. Darwin I am off in an hour’s time to Huxley & will hear what he says.—6 I have come back from Huxley but he does not know who the Malcontents are. DAR 95: 401–2 1

2

The year and month are established by the allusion to the blackballing of Edwin Ray Lankester at the Linnean Society (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 2 December 1875). The day is established by the reference to a visit to Thomas Henry Huxley, which took place on Sunday 12 December 1875 (see n. 6, below). CD dated the letter Sunday 11 in error. Hooker’s letter has not been found; he evidently wrote to give more detail about the blackballing of Lankester at the 2 December 1875 meeting of the Linnean Society (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 2 December 1875).

482 3

4 5

6

December 1875

CD decided to second a new proposal for Lankester to be elected a fellow of the Linnean Society (see letter to ?, [after 11 December 1875]); Lankester was proposed at the next meeting of the society on 16 December, but the election did not take place until the meeting of 3 February 1876, when Lankester was duly elected (Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1875–6): iii). Francis Darwin, having been elected a fellow on 2 December 1875 (Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1875–6): ii), still had to be formally admitted to the society (see letter from Francis Darwin, [after 2 December 1875] and n. 2). George James Allman was president of the Linnean Society. George John Romanes had been elected a fellow of the Linnean Society on 2 December 1875 (Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1875–6): ii). He had to be formally admitted by the president at a meeting of the society before he was eligible to vote. CD and Emma Darwin visited Thomas Henry Huxley on Sunday 12 December 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)).

From R. F. Cooke   14 December 1875 50A, Albemarle Street, London. W. Decr. 14 1875 My dear Sir As near as I can ascertain, we shall have remaining, (after supplying all our present orders) about 130 Climbing Plants & 100 Origin of Species so I think on yr return home, it would be well for you to let Clowes have any corrections which you want made.1 Yours faithfully | Rob.t Cooke Cha.s Darwin Esq P.S.  while writing this Messrs. Longman & Co2 have sent up for 25  copies of Climbing Plants, so that is reduced almost to 100 DAR 171: 480 1

2

Cooke refers to Climbing plants 2d ed. and Origin 6th ed.; in 1876, John Murray published the eighteenth thousand of Origin 6th ed., the last issue to which CD made corrections, and issued a further 500 copies of Climbing plants 2d ed., which had been published in November 1875 (Freeman 1977). William Clowes was John Murray’s printer. Longman, Green, and Co. were London booksellers and publishers.

From W. E. Darwin   [15? December 1875]1 Basset, | Southampton. Wednesday My dear Father, I was thinking of adding £10 to your £10 & sending it to the Index and take one share in my name.2

December 1875

483

It may be useless as far as propping up the Index, but if a fair number do the same it will keep it going longer. If you think it mere waste of money judging from Abbotts letter I shall not send £10 & will return you your cheque.3 Please send me an Autograph. Tell Leonard I went to look up Airy yesterday and found he was already gone.4 I had a pleasant day at Embley & met Frank‘s friend Norman Moore5 Your affect: Son | W. E. Darwin Cornford Family Papers CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Erasmus— | Malta’ pencil 1

2 3

4

5

The month and year are established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from W. E. Darwin to F. E. Abbot, 20 December 1875; the day was probably the previous Wednesday, which was 15 December 1875. The Index was an American periodical that was associated with the Free Religious Association and was critical of traditional Christianity (Ahlstrom and Mullin 1987, p. 60). Francis Ellingwood Abbot was the editor of the Index. His letter has not been found. There is no record in CD’s account books of any sum being paid to either William or Abbot around this time, but CD evidently agreed to make a donation (see letter from W. E. Darwin to F. E. Abbot, 20 December 1875). Leonard Darwin was serving with the Royal Engineers in Malta (see letter to C. E. Norton, 7 October 1875 and n. 6). George Biddell Airy was the astronomer royal, who had coordinated the British expedition to observe the transit of Venus in 1874 on which Leonard had served (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from W. H. M. Christie, 12 October 1874 and n. 1); it is not clear why William had gone to see him. Francis Darwin and Norman Moore had become friends when they were undergraduates at Cambridge University; Moore had visited Francis at Down in 1873 (Correspondence vol. 21, letter from Francis Darwin, [1–15 March 1873] and n. 4). Embley Park, about five miles north-west of Southampton, was the home of William Shore Nightingale. William had first visited Embley in 1861, shortly after he had become a banker in Southampton (see Correspondence vol. 9, letter to W. E. Darwin, 17 [October 1861]).

To Daniel Oliver   [15 December 1875] Very many thanks for telling me about Cohn, but he sent me a copy of his article.1 C. Darwin ApcS Postmark: DE 15 75 DAR 261.10: 65 (EH 88206048) 1

Oliver’s letter has not been found. Ferdinand Julius Cohn had written an article on the function of the bladders of Aldrovanda and Utricularia (Cohn 1875a). Cohn had sent CD a galley proof of Cohn 1875a in October 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from F. J. Cohn, 4 October 1874). CD’s annotated proof copy of Cohn 1875a (not including illustrations) is in DAR 58.2: 35–43.

484

December 1875

To A. W. Bennett   16 December [1875]1 2 Bryanston S.t | Portman Square. Decr. 16th. My dear Sir. We are interested on so many points in common that I should much like to be permitted to make your personal acquaintance.— But the only time on which I could call would be on Sunday morning about 10 o’clock—& I would leave before eleven. Perhaps this would not be convenient to you but should it be so will you kindly send me a line here Believe me dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin P.S. I am bound to add that my health is so doubtful that I may fail to appear, if you permit me to come—& then you will understand that I am not well. Copy DAR 143: 87 1

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from A. W. Bennett, 17 December 1875.

To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   16 December [1875]1 2 Bryanston St Dec. 16th Dear Dyer I report progress— Saw T.  H.  Farrer & G.  B.  Sowerby both strong & will attend.—2 Had a discussion of nearly an hour with Mr Butler.—3 He did not own to blackballing, but as good as confessed— said all were very sorry for R. Lankester, but felt bound to do so to show disapproval of Council—4 could give no sound reason.— I do not know how far I influenced him anyhow he knows what I think. Saw Mrs Maskelyne & she will speak to her father Mr Dillwyne5 & others & get them to attend. Went to Zoolog. Soc, just as Council was breaking up & had the impudence to harangue the whole party.— Sclater, Salvin, Newton, Mr Hudson & I think others will all do what they can & will attach their names to Lankester’s certificate & attend—6 Sclater will discuss matter at Philosophical Club.—7 They were all very strong against blackballers.— I go on plan, of saying I do not know or care whether Council was right or wrong, but that it was atrocious to blackball Lankester. If my strength lasts out (for I was very tired yesterday,) will see Flower, & Bates & Ramsay & get them to attack others belonging to their set.—8 Will write to Murie & Lowne today9

December 1875

485

Yr— —— | C. Darwin Tell Hooker how I get on.—10 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Thiselton-Dyer, W.T., Letters from Charles Darwin 1873–81: 50–1) 1 2

3 4 5 6

7

8

9 10

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, 2 December 1875. CD was canvassing Thomas Henry Farrer and George Brettingham Sowerby Jr to support the proposal that Edwin Ray Lankester be put forward again for election to the fellowship of the Linnean Society. The proposal was presented at the meeting of the society on the evening of 16 December 1875. Arthur Gardiner Butler. The council of the Linnean Society had proposed to remit Lankester’s membership fees (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 2 December 1875). Thereza Mary Story-Maskelyne and John Dillwyn Llewelyn. Philip Lutley Sclater was secretary, Osbert Salvin was a council member, and Alfred Newton and Robert Hudson were vice-presidents of the Zoological Society of London; they were all fellows of the Linnean Society. The Philosophical Club was established as a social club of the Royal Society of London in 1847, and was dedicated to scientific discussion. Sclater, a member from 1862, had served as treasurer between 1869 and 1872 (Bonney 1919, pp. 56, 62, and 65). William Henry Flower, Henry Walter Bates, and possibly Andrew Crombie Ramsay, although he was not a fellow of the Linnean Society. The only Ramsay who was FLS in 1875 was Edward Pierson Ramsay, but he was curator of the Australian Museum. CD’s letters to James Murie and Benjamin Thompson Lowne have not been found. CD had told Joseph Dalton Hooker of his intention of drumming up support for Lankester’s second attempt to become a fellow of the Linnean Society (see letter to J. D. Hooker, [12 December 1875].

From A. W. Bennett   17 December 1875 6, Park Village East, | Regent’s Park, | N.W. Dec. 17th. 1875. My dear Sir I can hardly tell you what pleasure it gave me to receive your very kind letter, which I did not get till late last evening.1 To make your personal acquaintance has been a dream of my life, which I had scarcely hoped to see fulfilled. I shall be perfectly disengaged all Sunday morning; & it will give me very great pleasure to see you. But if more convenient & agreeable to you, & less likely to be injurious to your health this foggy weather, will you permit me to call upon you instead. Should you come will you give Mrs Bennett2 & myself the additional pleasure of breakfasting with us at 9.30 or any other hour you may name? I shall be particularly glad of this opportunity of meeting, as there are some points in my own observations of the leaves of Drosera & Pinguicula which I much want to submit to you before publishing, & could hardly do so in a letter.3 Pray do not take the trouble to write more than a single line in reply to this & believe me, | my dear Sir | yrs most truly | Alfred W. Bennett C. Darwin Esq.

486

December 1875

When you come please make the driver understand that it is Park Village East & not West you want. Our house is almost close to the “York & Albany”. DAR 160: 144 1 2 3

See letter to A. W. Bennett, 16 December [1875]. Katherine Bennett. Bennett had read a paper on the absorptive glands of carnivorous plants at the Royal Microscopical Society on 1 December 1875; in it he discussed bodies embedded in the leaves of Drosera that he thought might be associated with digestion. He noted that the existence of these bodies had not been recorded by other observers or mentioned by CD in Insectivorous plants (Bennett 1876). In the published version, Bennett added a footnote stating that he had since had the pleasure of showing his preparations to CD who told him that these bodies had not hitherto engaged his attention (ibid., p. 3 n.).

To A. W. Bennett   [17 December 1875]1 2 Bryanston S.t Friday. My dear Sir. Very many thanks for your most kind note. I write a line merely to say that I will not accept your invitation to breakfast as I always breakfast before 8 o’clock!2 If I should fail to be able to come, I now know that I may call on you when I next come to London, but I heartily hope that I may be able to come— Yours sincerely. | C. Darwin Copy DAR 143: 88 1 2

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from A. W. Bennett, 17 December 1875; in 1875 17 December 1875 was a Friday. Bennett had invited CD to breakfast on Sunday 19 December 1875 (see letter from A. W. Bennett, 17 December 1875). CD evidently did visit, since Bennett mentioned showing his Drosera preparations to him in Bennett 1876.

To R. F. Cooke   17 December [1875]1 2, Bryanston St. Dec. 17th My dear Sir I am glad the Italians have at last proved themselves not to be rogues. It is clear they do not intend to bring out the Expression Book soon; I made it clear that 10£ was for wood-cuts alone, and they intend to have fresh Photographs made as they can get them cheaper than the charge from Heliotype Coy.2 No corrections for Voyage of Beagle: it has never been touched since first published by Mr. Murray.3

December 1875

487

I go home early on Monday morning, and will write at once about Climbing Plants and Origin.4 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Copy DAR 143: 292 1 2

3

4

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from R. F. Cooke, 14 December 1875. CD had written to the Italian publisher who wished to publish a translation of Expression as well as Variation 2d ed. (see the letter to R. F. Cooke, 6 October [1875]); CD’s letter has not been found. John Murray charged an additional sum for supplying the heliotype illustrations in Expression (see Correspondence vol. 20, letter from R. F. Cooke, 1 August 1872). The illustrations had been made by the London Heliotype Company. The Italians were considered to be rogues because the publisher Nicola Zanichelli delayed the publication of the Italian translation of Variation, and the subsequent publisher Carlo Vincenzi failed to pay for stereotypes of the illustrations of Variation 2d ed. (letter from R. F. Cooke, 26 May 1875 and nn. 1 and 3). The first edition of Journal of researches was published in 1839 by Henry Colburn; the second edition was published in 1845 by John Murray, who also issued all further reprints in CD’s lifetime. Although not called a third edition, the 1860 printing contained corrections by CD (Journal of researches (1860), p. vii). CD returned to Down from London on Monday 20 December 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Cooke had asked for any corrections CD might want to make to Climbing plants 2d ed. and Origin 6th ed. (see letter from R. F. Cooke, 14 December 1875).

To G. J. Romanes   17 [December 1875]1 2. Bryanston St 17th Dear Romanes I have been thinking that if the skin of birds can be transplanted easily—Spots & black Barbs from breeding so truly & so quickly would be good to try by transplanting bit of skin of blue-feathered pigeon. Pigeons are, also, so easily kept.—2 I have had excellent success in canvassing for Ray Lankester & have excited universal indignation about his case.3 We return home early on Monday morning.4 I hope that your paper went off well last night.5 It is a grand discovery Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin American Philosophical Society (481) 1 2

The month and year are established by the references to Romanes’s paper (see n. 5, below) and to CD’s being in London (see n. 4, below). Romanes had carried out grafting experiments on plants to test CD’s hypothosis of pangenesis (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 24 September [1875] and nn. 5 and 6); CD evidently thought that he should extend his experiments to pigeons, believing that animal experiments would be more convincing (see letter to G. J. Romanes, 18 July 1875). Spots and black barbs are types of fancy pigeon (Variation 2d ed. 1: 151–3 and 163–4). The common rock pigeon (Columba livia) is a slatey-blue colour (ibid. 1: 192); CD

488

3

4 5

December 1875

argued in Variation 2d ed. 1: 382, that there was a latent tendency in all pigeons to become blue. In 1855, CD had built a pigeon house in the garden at Down, where he kept several varieties of fancy pigeon (Secord 1981, pp. 165–6). CD had been drumming up support for Edwin Ray Lankester’s second attempt to be elected a fellow of the Linnean Society after he had been blackballed at the meeting of 2 December 1875 (see letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 16 December [1875]). CD, Emma Darwin, and Elizabeth Darwin were in London from 10 December 1875; they returned to Down on Monday 20 December 1875 (see Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Romanes delivered the Croonian lecture on the locomotor system of medusae at the Royal Society of London on 16 December 1875 (Romanes 1875b). He outlined his discovery in his letter of 20 July 1875.

To Francis Galton   18 December [1875]1 [2 Bryanston Street, London.] Dec. 18th. (Home on Monday) My dear Galton George has been explaining our differences.—2 I have admitted in new Edit. (before seeing your essay) that perhaps the gemmules are largely multiplied in the reproductive organs; but this does not make me doubt that each unit of the whole system also sends forth its gemmules.3 You will no doubt have thought of following objection to your view, & I shd like to hear what your answer is. If 2 plants are crossed, it often or rather generally happens that every part of stems, leaf, & even to the hairs, & flowers of the hybrid are intermediate in character; & this hybrid will produce by buds millions on millions of other buds all exactly reproducing the intermediate character. I cannot doubt that every unit of the hybrid is hybridised & sends forth hybridised gemmules. Here we have nothing to do with the reproductive organs.— There can hardly be a doubt from what we know, that the same thing would occur with all those animals which are capable of budding & some of them (as the compound Ascidians) are sufficiently complex. & highly organised.4 Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin. UCL Library Services, Special Collections (GALTON/1/1/9/5/7/21) 1 2

3

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Francis Galton, 19 December 1875. Galton had sent CD proofs of a paper on heredity (see letter from Francis Galton, 5 November 1875), but George Howard Darwin had to explain the differences between Galton’s views and CD’s hypothesis of pangenesis (see n. 3, below) because CD had failed to understand on which points they disagreed (see letter to Francis Galton, 7 November [1875]). CD’s revised hypothesis of pangenesis was published in Variation 2d ed. 2: 349–99. He postulated that heredity occurred through gemmules (minute granules shed by the different parts of an organism and dispersed throughout its system) that were capable, through either sexual or asexual transmission, of generating new individuals by developing into parts like those from which they were orginally derived. Many gemmules, CD held, were transmitted in a dormant state over several generations before developing in an individual (ibid., p. 374). He referred to the multiplication of gemmules in the reproductive organs in ibid., p. 379. Galton, however, argued that pangenesis accounted only for the transmission of acquired characteristics, and that the inheritance of peculiarities that were ancestral, and that might

December 1875

4

489

not be present in the parents, required the existence of gemmules or ‘germs’ that could not have derived from the organs of the parents. This form of heredity, he theorised, depended on the number and variety of germs (what he called the stirp) present in the sexual elements and in buds being greater than the number of organic units of the individual derived from them, and on the capacity of those germs that did not develop in an individual to retain their vitality and potential for development when they became part of the stirp of the next generation. Galton claimed that his theory explained not only how ancestral characteristics could skip generations but also the differences between offspring of the same parents. See Galton 1875b, pp. 81–3 and p. 86. Compound ascidians (sea squirts) consist of many small individuals forming a colony through asexual reproduction, but they also reproduce sexually. Galton, however, supposed that the more complex an organism, the less likely it would be that all the germs that composed a stirp would congregate in multiple places to allow asexual budding; instead they would be concentrated in the sexual organs (see letter from Francis Galton to G. H. Darwin, 22 December 1875).

To J. J. Weir   18 December [1875]1

(London) Dec. 18th

My dear Sir You will have heard that Ray Lankester who has done such excellent work in embryology has been black-balled at Linn. Soc.2 I hear from one of the black-ballers that this has been done to punish the Council for intending to remit his fees.3 Now this seems to me a most flagitious proceeding. I know not & care not whether the Council intended to act rightly or wrongly. The power has been given them & it is wicked to cast a stigma for life on a rising naturalist by black-balling him to punish the Council.— Those who think the Council have done wrong could have called a special meeting, or blamed it at the Anniversary,4 & taken away the power of ever again remitting fees.— I have consulted many men & all as yet have agreed with me. I have therefore most willingly consented to second (Huxley proposing him) Mr Lankester for a second time (I knew nothing of the first proposal & he is not my personal friend, only an acquaintance) & he will be balloted for on Feb 3d at 8 oclock.5 If you shd. take the same view as I do, I earnestly hope that you will attend & endeavour to influence other members. It seems to me a case (& this is my sole motive) when one man of science ought to aid another, & I shd be very sorry to see so disgraceful a stigma rest on the Linn. Soc.— My dear Sir | Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin I laid case before a high Government Official to see how he wd view it, & he used even stronger language than I have done.—6 Pray forgive this ill-expressed note, as I write in a forced hurry.— British Library (Egerton MS 3009 C f.11) 1 2 3

The year is established by the reference to the blackballing of Edwin Ray Lankester at the Linnean Society (see n. 2, below). Lankester was blackballed at the meeting of the Linnean Society on 2 December 1875 (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 2 December 1875 and n. 5). Arthur Gardiner Butler was probably the source of this information (see letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 16 December [1875] and n. 3.

December 1875

490 4

5 6

The anniversary meeting of the Linnean Society was held on 24 May (Linnaeus’s birthday) whenever possible. At this meeting, the Council and officers of the society were elected (Charter and bye-laws of the Linnean Society of London (1874), p. 17). CD had declared his intention of seconding a proposal that Lankester stand again for election to the Linnean Society in his letter to ?, [after 11 December 1875]; Thomas Henry Huxley was the proposer. The government official may have been Thomas Henry Farrer; CD had discussed Lankester’s blackballing with him on 16 December (see letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 16 December [1875]).

From Francis Galton   19 December 1875

42 Rutland Gate Dec 19/75

My dear Darwin The explanation of what you propose, does not seem to me in any way different on my theory, to what it wd. be on any theory of organic units.1 It would be this:— Let us deal with a single quality, for clearness of explanation, & suppose that in some particular plant or animal & in some particular structure, the hybrid between white & black forms was exactly intermediate, viz gray,—thenceforward for ever. Then a bit of the tinted structure under the microscope would have a form which might be drawn as in a diagram, as follows:— white form

black form

Whereas in the hybrid, it would be either that some cells were white and others black, & nearly the same proportion of each, thus:— (1)

giving on the whole when less highly magnified, a uniform gray tint,—or else this:— (2)

in which each cell had a uniform gray tint. In (1) we see that each cell has been an organic unit (quoad2 colour)  In other words, the structural unit is identical with the organic unit In (2), the structural unit would not be an organic unit but it would be an organic molecule. It would have been due to the development, not of one gemmule but of a group of gemmules,3 in which the black & white species would, on statistical grounds, be equally numerous (as by the hypothesis, they were equipotent.) The larger the number of gemmules in each organic molecule, the more uniform will the tint of grayish be in the different units of structure. It has been an old idea

December 1875

491

of mine, not yet discarded & not yet worked out, that the number of units in each molecule may admit of being discovered by noting the relative number of cases of each grade of deviation from the mean grayness. If there were 2 gemmules only, each of which might be either white or black, then in a large number of cases one quarter would always be quite white, one quarter quite black, & one half would be gray. If there were 3 molecules, we should have 4 grades of colour (1 quite white, 3  light gray, 3  dark gray, 1  quite black) & so on according to the successive lines of “Pascal’s triangle”.4 This way of looking at the matter would perhaps shew (a) whether the number in each given species of molecule was constant & (b), if so, what those numbers were. Ever very faithfully yrs | Francis Galton DAR 105: A92–3 1

2 3 4

CD had challenged Galton’s theory of heredity by asking him to explain how hybrids that were intermediate in character between their parents produced buds that reproduced this intermediate character (see letter to Francis Galton, 18 December [1875] and n. 3). Quoad (Latin): ‘as regards, with respect to’ (OED). CD hypothesised that every unit that made up an organism threw off minute granules or gemmules, which were transmitted from the parents to the offspring (Variation 2: 374). Pascal’s triangle is a triangular pattern of numbers with each being the sum of the two numbers above it, except for the side edges, which are all number one. It is used to calculate the number of possible combinations, and the probability of any combination.

To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   [19 December 1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Sunday (Home tomorrow) Dear Dyer. It was a good job that I saw Bates, for the black-ballers had been with him; after some talk he declared that he would vote for R. Lankester, & persuade as many as he could to follow same course.2 Ramsay3 will do what he can, but I think this is little. Gould4 too ill to attend— Lowne writes that he will attend,5 & do all that he can with others. I wrote yesterday to Jenner Weir.—6 Some People say council too much of a “Kew clique”—7 other says not enough Zoologists on council. I cannot but think it wd be well to avoid in next council the former accusation, however false it may be. F. Galton hears there will be severe struggle on the 3d.—8 I forgot to say that I saw Flower & it required rather long talk, but he ended by saying he wd. certainly come & vote for Lankester.9 Bates says he believes that Murie10 has been the head of the opposition. I had got thus far when Dr. Murie called instead of answering my letter.11 He was most civil & cordial & expressed unbounded regret at opposing anyone supported by me; but I gather that he will oppose Lankester tooth & nail. He declared most

492

December 1875

solemnly that he was not in the least opposed to L. personally & that he acted solely because he did not think it was a case in which the Fees ought to be remitted.12 I find that this is a very general impression, & I fear that the council has made a great mistake. Some of the opponents urge that L. afforded to enter Royal last year.—13 I stuck to my line of argument that whether or not Council was wrong, yet that it was cruel to black-ball L. He & others have argued that they can oppose the Council in no other way. They declare that the Council does not fairly represent the Socy. & that old members are reelected in a circle.— I have no opinion whether there is any truth in this; but if I were on the Council, I would urge that several of the dissentients shd be put on Council. Between 30 & 40 years ago there was just the same feeling in Geolog. Soc. & this was cured by putting the complainers on the Council.—14 Please read all this latter part of my letter to Hooker; & ask him whether he has read Ld. Derby’s speech at Edinburgh about Science, which seems to me very good.—15 I shd.  add that Murie declared most deliberately that Mr Mivart knew nothing whatever about the opposition to Lankester.—16 Well it is a great misfortune, but the case must be decided by the ballot-box. Yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Thiselton-Dyer, W.T., Letters from Charles Darwin 1873–81: 52–5) 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 16 December [1875]. The Sunday following 16 December 1875 was 19 December. CD wanted Henry Walter Bates to support Edwin Ray Lankester’s second attempt to be elected a fellow of the Linnean Society after Lankester had been blackballed at the meeting of 2 December 1875 (see letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 16 December [1875]). Possibly Andrew Crombie Ramsay (see letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 16 December [1875] and n. 8). John Gould. Benjamin Thompson Lowne’s letter has not been found. See letter to J. J. Weir, 18 December [1875]. A reference to botanists associated with the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which would include Thiselton-Dyer himself and Joseph Dalton Hooker. Francis Galton’s comment has not been found. The Linnean Society met on 3 February 1876. Lankester hoped to be elected a fellow at this meeting. For CD’s intention to visit William Henry Flower, see the letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 16 December [1875]. James Murie. CD’s letter to Murie has not been found. The Council of the Linnean Society had proposed to remit Lankester’s membership fees (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 2 December 1875). Lankester had been elected a fellow of the Royal Society of London in June 1875 (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 2 December 1875 and n. 7). CD probably alludes to the refusal by the Council of the Geological Society of London to consider Edward Charlesworth’s application for the post of curator of the society in 1842 (see Correspondence vol. 2, letter to Charles Lyell, [5 and 7 October 1842], letter to W. H. Miller, [16 October – 27 November 1842], letter to W. D. Fox, [9 December 1842], and letter to J. S. Henslow, [22 January 1843]). Following this decision, Charlesworth’s supporters demanded an explanation, and the resulting rift among the fellows led several to threaten resignation (Herries Davies 2007, pp. 73 and 299). CD had served on the Council of the Geological Society from 1837 to 1850. Thiselton-Dyer had been employed as Hooker’s assistant since June 1875 (letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 June 1875 and n. 2). Edward Henry Stanley, the earl of Derby, gave his inaugural address as lord rector

December 1875

16

493

of the University of Edinburgh on 17 December 1875. Lord Derby advocated science as a means of producing accurate minds; he also suggested that its advance would be accelerated if capitalists were to provide endowments for men of science (The Times, 18 December 1875, p. 9). St George Jackson Mivart was one of the secretaries of the Linnean Society; CD had cut off all communication with Mivart in January 1875 (see letter to St G. J. Mivart, 12 January 1875).

From W. E. Darwin to F. E. Abbot   20 December 1875

Bassett | Southampton Dec 20. 1875

My dear Sir, My Father Mr Charles Darwin and myself have read the Index almost from the commencement with great interest and have sympathized deeply with you, in your noble & determined struggle with the difficulties in your way.1 We wish you to be so good as to make use of the enclosed sum in any way you may think best for the advancement of your undertaking.2 Please to consider this as a private letter as I have no authority otherwise from my Father.3 Should you think it best to make it a subscription to the Index stock, please put it in my name alone. Your paper is a weekly pleasure and stimulus to myself and to some of my friends who take it in. with much respect | Believe me | yours faithfully | W. E. Darwin F E Abbot Esq Harvard University Archives (Papers of F.  E. Abbot, 1841–1904. Named Correspondence, 1857–1903. Letter, C. R. Darwin to F. E. Abbot (20 December 1875), in folder Darwin, Charles and W. E. Darwin (son), 1871–1883, box 44. HUG 1101) 1 2

3

Abbot was editor of the Index, an American periodical that supported free religious thought. William had suggested that he and CD send a donation to Abbot (see letter from W. E. Darwin, [15? December 1875]). In January 1876, Abbot expressed his thanks for the sum of £20 (see Correspondence vol. 24, letter from F. E. Abbot to W. E. Darwin, 19 January 1876). Abbot had previously wanted to publish extracts from CD’s letters that showed his support for the Index, even though CD expressed reservations about having his views publicised in this way (see, for example, Correspondence vol. 19, letter to F. E. Abbot, 6 September [1871]).

To W. R. S. Ralston   20 December 1875

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Dec 20 1875

Dear Mr Ralston I enclose Mr Malan’s letter which you need not return. I have written to thank him—1   The Georgian letter is so foolish that I shall not answer it 2 yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS(A) John Wilson (dealer) (5 May 2008)

494 1 2

December 1875

Neither Solomon Caesar Malan’s letter nor CD’s reply have been found. Malan had translated a letter to CD written in Georgian (see letter from W. R. S. Ralston, 3 December 1875 and n. 1).

From G. G. Stokes   20 December 1875 Lensfield Cottage Cambridge 20th Decr 1875 My dear Sir, You may remember that some years ago you asked my opinion as to the cause of the colours in peacocks’ feathers.1 I made some experiments, or rather observations hardly deserving the name of experiments, about it. I felt however that it was a matter hardly to be attacked without a thoroughly good microscope which I did not then possess. I expressed a leaning to the opinion that the colours were reflection-colours connected with intense absorption, and similar accordingly to the reflection-colours seen when some of the aniline colouring matters are poured in solution on glass, and the solvent allowed to evaporate. I felt at the time I think misgivings as to whether so much play of colour as is observed could thus be accounted for—2 As I have helped to lead you wrong if you followed my guidance, it is but just that I should direct you to a right solution. Some little while ago I was with Mr. Sorby, who wished to show me some other experiments, and I found that he has been studying birds’ feathers, as to their colours, and had arrived at the solution of the cause of the play of colours in the feathers of peacocks, humming birds &c. I am not sure whether he has yet published his results   If he has, I have no doubt he will be happy to send you copies of his papers if he has not done so already.3 If not, I dare say he would explain to you in a few words their general nature. Though I feel confident of his permission, I refrain as a matter of principle from communicating to a third person what has been told me by a friend of his unpublished researches. Besides it is due to him not to spoil the pleasure he would feel in communicating to you for the first time his own results. I am dear Sir | Yours sincerely | G. G. Stokes Chs. Darwin Esq F.R.S. CUL Manuscripts Department Add 7656: D71 1 2

3

See Correspondence vol. 16, letter to G. G. Stokes, 18 February [1868]. See Correspondence vol. 16, letter from G. G. Stokes, 27 February 1868. Reflection colours were thought to occur when most of the incident light was absorbed and the structure of the surface allowed a scattering of light in all directions; the molecular mechanism of absorption was, however, considered one of the most ‘subtle and difficult in physics’ (Tyndall 1875, pp. 35–7 and 39). The iridescence of peacock feathers was later shown to be caused by structures in the feathers that interfered with incident light in proportion to the angles of observation and illumination. This structural coloration can be combined with pigment colours. CD had consulted Henry Clifton Sorby about the red pigment in the hairs of the common sundew (see letter to F. J. Cohn, 21 August 1875, n. 6). In two papers detailing the use of a spectrum microscope, Sorby mentioned that he had analysed the colours of feathers (see Sorby 1875a, pp. 202–3, and Sorby

December 1875

495

1875b, p. 270), but he does not appear to have published a paper on the cause of the play of colours in feathers.

From J. P. Thompson   20 December 1875 Berlin | Schönebergen Ufer 28. Dec 20th. 1875 Dear Sir. May I ask the favor of your acceptance of the accompanying address on Lucretius and Paul?1 Without assuming to be either a scientific or a theological treatise, it is put forth in the hope that the comparison of two such Leaders of Thought may have points of interest both for men of Science and men of Religion. Very respectfully Yours | Jos. P. Thompson DAR 178: 111 1

Thompson refers to Lucretius and St Paul; his address ‘Lucretius or Paul, materialism and theism tested by the nature and needs of man’ had been delivered at the American Chapel in Berlin on 25 November 1875 (Thompson 1875). CD’s copy has not been found.

From J. V. Carus   21 December 1875 Leipzig, Decbr. 21. 1875. My dear Sir, I have just finished the “Insectivorous Plants”.1 There were some misprints, the list of which I send you here2 p. 95. l. 4. read 101 instead of 201 .3 1 4 2 oz. " " “of 2 oz.” " 283. l. 1. " 1 gr. to 7 7 5 " 288 l. 16. " 12000 of an inch (·0148mm) " " of 12000 of an inch (·0148mm). 6 " 301. footnote " Kirby and Spence instead of Spencer. 7 " 374. l. 19. for 1,778 read 17,78. 8 " 375. l. 12 from bottom, for “following” read “present.” 9 " 395. l. 6. of the contents: for observation read observations. 10 " 400. l. 6 from bottom for fig. 18. read fig 19. bottom, perhaps it would be better to repeat the words “of an " 446 l. 9. from 11 inch” after “15 36”. I shall begin the Climbing Plants very soon.12 I followed your advice to get some help during the last months already. My eldest daughter, who was with me in England and afterwards alone, translated almost the fourth part of the Insectivorous.13 I looked at her work and read it carefully over, correcting it etc, and then she wrote it out again, so that I am absolutely sure about every word and figure We have great difficulties to get a copy of your Geological Observations, both on South America and on Volcanic Islands. Herr Koch tried to find one and so did

496

December 1875

I for the last twelve months. And yet we must think of bringing them not too late for the edition of the “Opera omnia”.14 To the geological section of these also two papers belong, on the Ice-action in the S. Hemisphere and on the great Earthquake in Chile. In the case that you have a copy of each of them to spare, you would oblige me exceedingly, as the public libraries cannot spare whole Volumes of Transactions as long as I should want them for translation.15 I am happy to say that my health is much better again,16 and I should be exceedingly to hear the same from you Wishing you a merry Christmas and a happy new year I am | My dear Sir | Ever yours sincerely | J. Victor Carus DAR 86: B6–7 CD annotations 1 2.1 p. 95. … 20 .] tick added pencil; tick added red crayon; ‘E.’ added pencil 3.1 " 283. … 2 oz.”] tick added pencil; ‘E.’ added pencil 4.1 " 288 … (.0148mm).] del pencil; ‘O’ added pencil 5.1 " 301. … Spencer.] del pencil; ‘W’ added pencil; tick added red crayon 6.1 " 374. … 17,78.] tick added pencil; ‘E.’ added pencil 7.1 " 375. … “present.”] tick added red crayon; ‘this &’ added after ‘for’ red crayon 8.1 " 395. … observations.] ‘E’ added pencil 9.1 " 400. … 19.] ‘E’ added pencil 10.1 " 446 …“15”.] del pencil 36 12.1 We have … omnia”. 12.4] ‘Geolog. Observ.’s blue crayon 12.4 To the geological] after opening square bracket blue crayon 12.4 To the … Chile. 12.6] ‘Glen Roy’17 blue crayon 13.1 I am … from you 13.2] double scored blue crayon Top of letter: ‘I have asked for Errata to be appended to’18 blue crayon 1 2

3 4

5 6

7

Carus was translating Insectivorous plants into German (Carus trans. 1876a; see letter from J. V. Carus, 28 June 1875). Carus refers to errors in the English edition of Insectivorous plants, which had been published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). His corrections were not incorporated into the text until the second edition of Insectivorous plants was published in 1888, but several of them were listed on an errata slip that was attached to the remaining unsold copies of the third thousand and to all copies of the fourth thousand (see nn. 3–11, below). 1 1 Instead of changing the measurement in inches from 20 to 10 as Carus suggested, the errata slip corrected the equivalent millimetre measurement, giving ‘1.27 mm’ in place of ‘2.54 mm’. In the second thousand of Insectivorous plants, the text had already been corrected to read ‘1 gr. to 2 oz.’ On the errata slip attached to the unsold third and all the fourth thousand copies, this was further corrected to ‘2 gr. to 1 oz.’ This correction had already been made in the second thousand printing of Insectivorous plants. This correction does not appear on the errata slip inserted into the unsold third and all the fourth thousand copies, but it was made in Insectivorous plants 2d ed., p. 243. The reference was to the first volume of the third edition of William Kirby and William Spence’s Introduction to entomology (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme & Brown, 1818). Volume 1 of the third edition (1818), volume 2 of the second edition (1818), and volumes 3 and 4 from the first edition (1826), are in the Darwin Library– CUL. The correction was listed on the errata slip inserted into the unsold third and all the fourth thousand copies of Insectivorous plants.

December 1875 8

9 10 11 12 13 14

15

16 17 18

497

Carus had spotted an error, but his recommended change was not what CD had intended. Instead, the errata slip inserted into the unsold third and all the fourth thousand copies of Insectivorous plants corrected ‘the following’ to ‘this and the following’. This correction appeared on the errata slip inserted into the unsold third and all the fourth thousand copies of Insectivorous plants. This correction appeared on the errata slip inserted into the unsold third and all the fourth thousand copies of Insectivorous plants. This correction was made in Insectivorous plants 2d ed., p. 361. It did not appear on the errata slip inserted into the unsold third and all the fourth thousand copies of Insectivorous plants. CD had sent proof-sheets of Climbing plants 2d ed. to Carus in October (see letter to J. V. Carus, 14 October [1875]); the German translation (Carus trans. 1876b) was published in 1876. Agnes Marie Elisabeth Carus’s help is not acknowledged in Carus trans. 1876a. Eduard Koch, the head of E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, was publishing a collected edition of CD’s works in German. The original publisher, Smith, Elder & Co., decided to bring out new editions of South America and Volcanic islands in a single volume in 1876 (Geological observations 2d ed.); Carus used this to prepare his translations. The German translations of Volcanic islands 2d ed. (Carus trans. 1877a) and South America (Carus trans. 1878b) appeared in volumes eleven and twelve of the collected works. German translations of CD’s papers ‘Distribution of the erratic boulders’ and ‘Volcanic phenomena and the formation of mountain chains’, both of which were published in the Transactions of the Geological Society of London, were included in volume twelve of the collected works (Carus trans. 1878c). Carus had been suffering from liver and bowel problems (see letter from J. V. Carus, 20 November 1875). CD wrote this to remind himself to ask Carus not to translate ‘Parallel roads of Glen Roy’ (see letter to J. V. Carus, 25 December 1875). CD requested that the corrections be made to the forthcoming French edition of Insectivorous plants (see letter to C.-F. Reinwald, 26 December 1875) and appended to unsold copies of the English edition (see letter to J. V. Carus, 25 December 1875).

To J. V. Carus   21 December [1875]1 My dear Sir Be so kind as to make the enclosed correction.— Yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin

Down, Beckenham | Kent Dec 21.

[Enclosure] Climbing Plants2 p. 154. (second line of foot-note) for P. acerifolia, read, P. sicyoides p. 208 (Index) for Passiflora acerifolia read Passiflora sicyoides.— Professor Asa Gray writes to me that he made a mistake about the name of species.3 Kotte Autographs GmbH (dealer) (2012) (letter); Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Slg. Darmstaedter Lc 1859 Darwin, Charles, Bl. 70 (copy of letter and original of enclosure)

498 1 2 3

December 1875

The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. V. Carus, 21 December 1875. CD had sent proof-sheets of Climbing plants to Carus in October 1875 (see letter to J. V. Carus, 14 October [1875]). The German translation was published in 1876 (Carus trans. 1876b). Gray’s letter has not been found. The page numbers refer to Climbing plants 2d ed. Passiflora acerifolia (a synonym of Passiflora adenopoda) and Passiflora sicyoides are species of passion-flower.

From G. H. Darwin to W. D. Whitney   21 December 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington S.E.R. Dec 21. 75 My dear Sir, Both my Father & I were very sorry to have missed seeing you when in England.1 I hope I may be able to visit the U.S again some day & then we may perhaps meet, even if you do not visit England again. Max Müller sent the part of the ‘Chips’ to my Father, which contains his defence(!) against your attacks.2 I confess that I found it so intolerably dull that I could not read it, but I looked thro’ a great part of it. I am a little sorry that you are going to write in answer, as I think that very few will trouble themselves to read it (Max Müller) & those who do so will see that it is the work of a man out of himself with anger. I of course did not perceive the various cases of injustice to your linguistic views to which you refer; these coming ex cathedrâ must be very galling. I confess I felt it a little hard on myself to be dragged into the foreground & chaffed—rather savagely however.3 In my Contemp. article I thought I had made it pretty clear that I wrote as an ignoramus & only intended to represent your views, with such comments as ordinary intelligence without linguistic knowledge wd. allow me.4 It was also unjust both to you & me to coolly assume that you have manoeuvred to ‘get hold of the pen of the Son fondly hoping it would carry the weight of the father’s’—sous entendu that I am rather a fool & you rather a knave.5 One does not see the end of this kind of polemic & if it were I myself, I think I should have been rather inclined to allow time to cool the heats of controversy & bring forth the just view of the case. However it is very hard to put oneself in another’s place, & I daresay I misjudge the difficulty of sitting down under the attacks of one bearing the name of great authority Believe me | Yours faithfully | Geo. H Darwin My Father dictates as follows to you: “There is a sentence in the Chips in wh. M.M expresses great satisfaction at having received a letter from me, and which seems to imply that I had said that I thought that you were wrong in the controversy & he Max Muller right, whereas there was nothing whatever in the letter which could bear any interpretation of this kind”.6 Yale University Library: Manuscripts and Archives (William Dwight Whitney Family Papers (MS 555): Box 23, folder 631 1875 Dec. 18-24)

December 1875 1

2

3

4 5 6

499

Whitney, who had spent the summer in England, attempted to meet CD in May 1875 and again in September (see letter to W. D. Whitney, 1 September 1875 and n. 1). George had visited America between August and October 1871, and met Whitney at least twice (see Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Chauncey Wright, 11 October 1871 and n. 8). Friedrich Max Müller’s defence was in an essay recently published in the fourth volume of Chips from a German workshop (Max Müller 1867–75, 4: 473–549); he had sent a copy to CD in October (see letter from Friedrich Max Müller, 13 October [1875]). Max Müller was responding to Whitney 1875. Max Müller’s essay continued a debate over the origins of language between Max Müller, Whitney, and George Darwin that had started in 1874 (see letter from Friedrich Max Müller, 13 October [1875] and n. 3). A section of the essay, ‘Mr. George Darwin’s article in the “Contemporary Review”’ (Max Müller 1867–75, 4: 482–5), took George to task for supporting Whitney’s views. George had published his article ‘Professor Whitney on the origin of language’ in the Contemporary Review (G. H. Darwin 1874). Max Müller made this statement in Max Müller 1867–75, 4: 535. ‘Sous entendu’ (French): insinuating. See Max Müller 1867–75, 4: 483. Max Müller probably referred to the letter to him of 5 January 1875.

To James Crichton-Browne   22 December 1875 Down, Dec. 22, 1875. My dear Sir Very many thanks for your kindness in having sent me the 5th Vol. of the West Riding Reports, which I will soon read.1 Pray believe me | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin Copy DAR 143: 348 1

CD’s copy of the fifth volume of the West Riding Lunatic Asylum Medical Reports, published in 1875, is in the Darwin Library–CUL.

From Francis Galton to G. H. Darwin   22 December 1875 42 Rutland Gate Dec 22/75 My dear George I have never supposed otherwise than that the gemmules breed abundantly all over the body, though I look upon them merely as local parasites, so to speak, that live, multiply & die in great multitudes in the places where they are lodged, though occasionally some of them may be detached and drifted along with the circulation, and so find their way to the sexual elements,— as was explained in the second part of the paper.1 It is by the abundance of all sorts of them, in every part of the body, that I accounted in my paper for the reproduction of mutilated parts and other specified phenomena, adding “It wd. much transcend my limits if I were to enter into these and kindred questions, but it is not necessary to do so, for it is sufficient to refer to Mr. Darwin’s work, where they are most fully & carefully discussed, and to consider

500

December 1875

while reading it, whether the theory I have proposed, could not as I think it might be substituted with advantage for Pangenesis” (I have not the Contemporary Review by me & cannot give the page of the extracts— My copy is merely a revise, paged from 1 onwards. It is in the 12th. page of the revise.)2 In this passage, I meant to include propagation by buds. You will see in the preceeding page, an allusion to the way in which the scattered alien germs “thrive and multiply”.3 Now for the application of all this: Wherever in a plant developed out of a bud or seedling, (no matter which, for the ‘stirp’4 is similar in both cases) the alien, localised germs happen to be congregated in sufficient number and varieties to form material for a fresh stirp, there will be a tendency to produce a bud. Structural conditions, such as those found at the parts where buds usually shoot, must of course be helpful in forwarding this tendency. The advantage of my theory appears to be this: By Pangenesis, we should expect all animals however highly organised, to throw out buds. By my theory, I argue that where the animals are complex, the variety of germs concerned in the making of them, must be proportionately great, and consequently the probability of a complete set of them being anywhere in existence, in the same immediate neighbourhood, is diminished. Hence, the lower the organization, the more freely does it bud and the higher ones do not bud, which is in accordance with fact. The budding even of the highest animals in the embryonic stage, is intelligible by the joint action of 3 causes special to that period.5 (1) The differentiation is less complete, and germs destined to be separated are then together. (2)The embryo being small, the alien germs in separate structures are nearer, than they become afterwards, (3) The tissues are softer and afford less obstacle to the approach and aggregation of the germs under their mutual affinities. I hope I have answered fully enough, & much regret that I misunderstood the question, as put in your father’s letter,6 and have given you both, unnecessary trouble I am eager to receive criticisms— even adverse ones. Ever Yrs. | Francis Galton. About your father’s plants & the statistics of growth.:—7 In cases where not only the one biggest of each sort, but the two or three biggest were measured, the uncertainty of the relative values of the moduli of variability of the two sorts would be materially diminished. DAR 105: A94–5 1

2 3 4

CD thought that Galton’s theory of heredity (Galton 1875b) differed from his theory of pangenesis by placing more emphasis on the gemmules being concentrated in the sexual elements (see letter to Francis Galton, 18 December [1875]). Galton’s ‘A theory of heredity’ was published in the Contemporary Review (Galton 1875b); the extract quoted appears on p. 91. On pangenesis, see letter from G. J. Romanes, 14 January 1875, n. 2. See Galton 1875b, p. 90. Galton used the term ‘stirp’ to denote the sum-total of gemmules or germs found in a newly fertilised ovum or in a bud (Galton 1875b, p. 81).

December 1875 5

6 7

501

CD had asked Galton how he would account for the fact that compound ascidians reproduced asexually as well as sexually, if hereditary material was concentrated in the sexual organs (see letter to Francis Galton, 18 December [1875] and n. 4). See letter to Francis Galton, 18 December [1875]. George Darwin probably mentioned this in his letter to Galton, which has not been found. CD and Galton had previously discussed plant size in relation to sweet peas (see letter from Francis Galton, 2 June 1875).

From Louis Grenier to John Murray1   22 December 1875

Tenny le 22 Xbe. 1875

Monsieur John Murray Monsieur Veuillez prendre connaissance de la lettre ci-incluse, adressée à M. Darwin, et dans le cas où vous auriez la propriété littéraire de son ouvrage, me répondre au sujet de la demande que je fais. Dans le cas contraire, veuillez lui transmettre ma demande, à laquelle je ne doute pas qu’il ne fasse bon accueil.2 Agréez, Monsieur, mes bien respectueuses salutations | L Grenier Adresse: | Louis Grenier | à Tenay (Ain) | France DAR 171: 474 1 2

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. See the letter from Louis Grenier, 22 December 1875, which Murray forwarded to CD (Correspondence vol. 24, letter from Louis Grenier, 20 May 1876).

From Louis Grenier1   22 December 1875

Tenny le 22 Xbe. 1875

A Monsieur Darwin Monsieur J’ai lu votre ouvrage intitulé “Insectivorous plants” et j’ai été vivement interessé par les nombreuses et profondes observations qu’il contient. J’espère qu’avant peu nous en aurons une bonne traduction française, que tous ceux qui s’occupent de botanique, auront intéret à se procurer.2 En attendant je vous demande la permission de faire un résumé, très sommaire, des premiers chapitres de cet ouvrage. Je destine ce résumé à la Société botanique de Lyon dont je fais partie; il sera d’abord lu en Séance, et probablement qu’on manifestera l’intention de l’insérer dans les Annales de la Societé3 Je dois vous dire que ce résumé ne pourra qu’engager ceux qui le liront à faire plus ample connaissance, avec votre livre. Veuillez me répondre à ce sujet et agréer, Monsieur, mes respectueuses | Salutations | L Grenier Adresse: | Louis Grenier | à Tenay | (Ain) | France DAR 171: 475

502 1 2 3

December 1875

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. The French translation of Insectivorous plants was prepared by Edmond Barbier; it was published in 1877 (Barbier trans. 1877). Grenier’s ‘Analyse de l’ouvrage de M. Ch. Darwin sur les plantes insectivores’ was published in the Annales de la Société botanique de Lyon for the session of 10 February 1876 (Grenier 1876).

From M. C. Stanley   22 December 1875 Knowsley, | Prescot. 22 Decr/75 Dear Mr Darwin Though you tell me not to answer your most kind note I cannot help disobeying you: Your warm & genuine expressions of approval have given Ld Derby more pleasure than any other compliment he has received, & you must forgive me for saying so.—1 We made two short visits to Keston last month, but I was never able to find time to get as far as Down.2 We are more & more pleased with Keston each time we go there. Will you remember me kindly to Mrs Darwin & believe me | Yrs very sincerely | M C Derby DAR 162: 168 1

2

Stanley was married to Edward Henry Stanley, the earl of Derby. CD’s letter has not been found, but it probably related to Lord Derby’s inaugural address as lord rector of the University of Edinburgh, which CD thought very good (see letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, [19 December 1875] and n. 15). The Stanleys had rented a house, Keston Lodge, in Keston near Down; over the summer they had invited Thomas Carlyle to live there (see letter from M. C. Stanley, 14 September 1875 and n. 2).

To G. G. Stokes   22 December 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Dec 22 1875 My dear Sir I am much obliged to you for so kindly writing to me.1 I am curious to hear about the feathers, but I am in no hurry. I will therefore wait & see whether Mr Sorby’s paper appears;2 if not, I will write to him— With many thanks | yours sincerely | Charles Darwin LS Cambridge University Library (Add 7656: D72) 1 2

See letter from G. G. Stokes, 20 December 1875. Stokes had told CD that Henry Clifton Sorby had determined the cause of the play of colours in the feathers of peacocks and humming-birds (see letter from G. G. Stokes, 20 December 1875).

December 1875

503

To F. S. B. François de Chaumont   23 December 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Dec 23. 75 My dear Sir, I am very much obliged to you for so kindly sending me your Lectures on State medicine, parts of which, I feel sure, will interest me much.1 With many thanks | Yours very faithfully | Charles Darwin LS Wellcome Library (RAMC/473/6) Trustees of the Army Medical Services Museum 1

François de Chaumont’s Lectures on state medicine (François de Chaumont 1875) dealt with sanitation. François de Chaumont had previously provided CD with information on habitual gestures for Expression (Correspondence vols. 21 and 22).

To James Sully   23 December 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Dec 23. 75 Dear Sir, I am much obliged to you for so very kindly sending me your work on ‘Sensation & Intuition’.1 I read it some time ago with great interest, & regretted that it had not been published earlier, so that I might have profitted by some of the discussions. Dear Sir, Yours faithfully and obliged, | Charles Darwin LS UCL Library Services, Special Collections (MS ADD 158/1) 1

There is a lightly annotated copy of Sully 1874 in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 794), and another two copies in the Darwin Library–Down.

To A. R. Wallace   23 December 1875 Down, Beckenham, Kent Dec: 23rd. 1875 My dear Wallace You will have heard that R. Lankester has been black-balled at the Linnæan Soc., and I have heard directly from those who b-b’d him that this was done to show their disapproval of the intention of the Council to remit the fees.1 They allow that he has high claims for admission, of which there can be no doubt. Now if the Soc. gives power to the C. to remit fees, it seems to me a most cruel and unjustifiable act to b.b. a man on this account, and thus cast a stigma on him for life. It was open to the dissentients to call a special meeting, or to blame the C. at the anniversary or to take away this power. I express no opinion whether the Council was right in remitting

504

December 1875

the fees, and indeed doubt much whether they were right. But this appears to me to make no difference about the b.b’ing; and this is the judgment of many scientific and non-scientific men whom I have consulted. I have therefore most willingly agreed to second Lankester for a second time.2 I have not acted thus on account of any personal friendship, as I have only seen him on one occasion.3 But I am very anxious to wipe away as far as possible an act which seems to me a disgrace to the Society. If you agree with me, I hope that you will, if possible, attend at 8.p.m Feb 3rd., and give your vote.4 I intend to be there myself. In any case I feel sure that you will forgive me for writing to you on this subject. My dear Wallace | Yours very sincerely | Charles Darwin I know how busy you are so do not trouble yourself to answer, and I will hope for the best. Copy DAR 148: 272 1

2 3 4

Edwin Ray Lankester had been blackballed at a meeting of the Linnean Society on 2 December 1875 (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 2 December 1875 and n. 5). CD, when in London from 10 to 20 December 1875, met those who had voted against Lankester, and canvassed support for a second attempt to have him elected a fellow of the society (see letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, [19 December 1875]). See letter to ?, [after 11 December 1875]. Lankester had visited CD at Down on 18 July 1875 (see Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Lankester was elected a fellow of the Linnean Society at the meeting of 3 February 1876 (Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1875–6): iii).

From Emma Darwin to J. B. Innes   24 December [1875]1 Down Beckenham Dec 24— Dear Mr Innes I have undertaken to answer your kind letter & to give you all the news I can.2 My husband is much pleased that you were interested in his book.3 The experiments are so minutely described that he thinks some skipping is very necessary for most of his books. The Teesdales have been settled for 2 or 3 months & have furnished Down Hall most comfortably & sumptuously. They seem to be very agreeable people with pretty & cultivated daughters.4 (In order to shew how severe our weather has been I may mention that Mr Teesdale went to Orpington for 10 days on a sledge). The great event last week was the opening of a Reading Room, when Mr Nash gave a good supper to whoever chose to come & I was not surprized to hear that he had 90 guests. They have hired George Wood’s old house for the purpose & begin the world with 45 members.5 Of course they will not nearly pay their way; which one would have preferred. We have also a band of Hope under Mrs Nash’s superintendence which is of course prosperous at present, while the children are young & have no temptation; but I have some hopes that the effect may remain with some,

December 1875

505

especially of the girls, after they are grown up.6 Both these undertakings are thorns in Mr Ffinden’s side & he has not been content with holding aloof from them; but has used all his influence to prevent their succeeding.7 Mr Darwin is pretty well & hard at work with his secretary (Frank)  Leonard is stationed at Malta with the engineers, & George who has been an invalid for some years is going to join him there in a week’s time.8 Will you give my kind love to Mrs Innes & tell her I hope we shall see you & her when you come South as I am glad to hear you are intending, & with my kind remembrances to your son & with every good wish to your trio,9 very truly yours | Emma Darwin P.S. As a proof that nobody need despair I will tell you that Mr Horsman has a curacy in Kent, & is rash enough to talk of his “friends the Lubbocks”.10 I have omitted poor Mr Thompson, whose fate is very melancholy. He is said to be slowly affected by the creeping palsy, which is quite a hopeless malady.11 C. desires me to say that both your facts are quite new to him & surprize him much.12 Cleveland Health Sciences Library (Robert M. Stecher collection) 1 2 3 4

5

6 7

8

9 10

The year is established by the reference to George Howard Darwin’s departure for Malta (see n. 8, below). Innes’s letter has not been found. Insectivorous plants. John Marmaduke and Maria Teesdale and their daughters Frances Maria, Julia, and Ellen Augusta lived at Down Hall, a large house in Down village. After John Teesdale and one of his sons (probably the solicitor Marmaduke John Teesdale) had lunch with the Darwins at Down House on 5 March 1876 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)), Emma changed her opinion of the family, and decided not to invite them to dinner because they were ‘not nice enough’ (see letter from Emma Darwin to Leonard Darwin, [6 March 1876] (DAR 239.23: 1.59)). Wallis Nash had moved into The Rookery, Down, in 1873 (Freeman 1978). George Wood lived in Luxted Farm Cottages, but prior to this he lived in Down Street (Census returns of England and Wales 1851 (The National Archives: Public Record Office HO107/1606/247/5); 1871 (RG10/875/34/10); 1881 (RG11/855/83/2)). Presumably the working men’s reading room was established in Wood’s old Down Street residence. The Band of Hope was a temperance organisation. The Down group was run by Louisa A’hmuty Nash. The Darwins had been involved in a dispute with George Sketchley Ffinden, who objected to the use of the Down schoolroom as a winter reading room for working men (see Moore 1985, pp. 471 and 480, and Correspondence vol. 21, letters to Down School Board, [after 29 November 1873] and 19 December 1873). Francis Darwin had become CD’s secretary in 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Emma Darwin to J. B. Innes, 24 June [1874] and n. 5); he and CD were working on Cross and self fertilisation (see letter to Francis Darwin, [September 1875 or later?]). Leonard Darwin had arrived in Malta on 16 September 1875 (see letter to C. E. Norton, 7 October 1875 and n. 6). George Howard Darwin hoped that a visit to Malta would improve his health; he returned home on 28 March 1876 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). Innes and his wife, Eliza Mary Brodie Innes, lived in Scotland; his son, John William Brodie Innes, was a student at St John’s College, Cambridge. Samuel James O’Hara Horsman, curate of Down from 1867 to 1868, was thought to have embezzled funds from Down school as well as pocketing the funds for a new church organ (see Correspondence vol.

506

11 12

December 1875

19, letter to J. B. Innes, 13 January 1871). John Lubbock had letters concerning these matters (ibid., letter to J. B. Innes, 18 January [1871]), but no more is known of his involvement. Mr Thompson has not been further identified. Creeping palsy was characterised by a gradual loss of muscular function resulting in paralysis. Innes’s facts were in a letter that has not been found (see n. 2, above).

To J. V. Carus   25 December 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Dec 25. 75 My dear Sir I congratulate you on having finished “Insectivorous Plants”. Many thanks for the errata, which I will use for the French translation & append to the unsold copies of the English edit.1 Page 95. l. 4—“ 201 th” is right & the mm ought to be 1.272 Page 301 footnote Spence is right3 Page 375 l 12 for “the following” read this and the following4 Herr Koch can easily get my two Geological books from the publishers Messrs Smith & Elder, London.5 I have looked through the spare copies of all my papers, and send all that I have; but I do not think that several of them are worth translating. I have only one copy of the best viz on the Erratic Boulders of S. America; but I can lend you my one copy whenever you want it. I do not send my long paper on the Parallel Roads of Glenroy, as I am sure that I was wrong, though some still uphold my view.6 All my papers on Dimorphic plants will be republished corrected in the Book at which I am now at work.7 My next work will be to bring out a new Edit of my Orchis book.8 I am heartily glad to hear that yr health is better, & long may it remain so— I can give a very fairly good account of my own health— My dear Sir | Yrs very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Slg. Darmstaedter Lc 1859 Darwin, Charles, Bl. 137–138 1

2 3 4 5

See letter from J. V. Carus, 21 December 1875, and letter to C.-F. Reinwald, 26 December 1875). The German edition of Insectivorous plants was Carus trans. 1876a; the French translation was Barbier trans. 1877. Carus’s corrections were not made in the English text until 1888, when Francis Darwin incorporated the corrections into Insectivorous plants 2d ed., but several were noted on an errata slip that was inserted into remaining unsold copies of the third thousand of Insectivorous plants and in all copies of the fourth thousand (see letter from J. V. Carus, 21 December 1875, nn. 3–11). See letter from J. V. Carus, 21 December 1875 and n. 3. See letter from J. V. Carus, 21 December 1875 and n. 6. See letter from J. V. Carus, 21 December 1875 and n. 8. Eduard Koch, the head of E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, was publishing a German collected edition of CD’s works, and wanted to include translations of South America and Volcanic islands (see letter from J. V. Carus, 21 December 1875). Both these works had been published by Smith, Elder, & Company.

December 1875 6

7

8

507

Carus wanted to translate some of CD’s geological papers for the German edition of his collected works (see letter from J. V. Carus, 21 December 1875 and n. 15). He did not include ‘Parallel roads of Glen Roy’. In this paper, CD had suggested that the parallel roads of Glen Roy were terraces produced by changing seawater levels, but he had since accepted that they were shorelines of a diminishing ice-dammed lake. In contrast, Henry Darwin Rogers, Robert Boog Watson, and James Nicol had continued to argue for a marine origin of the roads (see Rogers 1861, Watson 1866, and Nicol 1869). CD intended to include revised versions of ‘Dimorphic condition in Primula’, ‘Three forms of Lythrum salicaria’ and ‘Illegitimate offspring of dimorphic and trimorphic plants’ in Cross and self fertilisation (see letter to J. V. Carus, 7 February 1875 and n. 4), but they eventually appeared as part of Forms of flowers. CD finished the first draft of Cross and self fertilisation and began preparing Orchids 2d ed. in May 1876 (Correspondence vol. 24, Appendix II). He had suggested a new edition of Orchids after being unable to buy a second-hand copy of the first edition (see letter to R. F. Cooke, 23 October [1875]).

From Fritz Müller   25 December 1875 My dear Sir,— In Desterro I met with two young men (M. Charles Wiener, of Paris, and M. Carl Schreiner, from the National Museum of Rio) who, by order of the Brazilian Government, were examining the “Sambaquis” of our province.1 I accompanied them in some of their excursions. These “Sambaquis,” or “Casqueiros,” are hillocks of shells accumulated by the former inhabitants of our coast; they exist in great number, and some of them are now to be found at a distance of several miles from the sea-shore, though originally they were, of course, built near the spot where the shells lived.2 Some are of considerable size; we were told that a Sambaqui on a little island near San Francisco had a height of about 100 metres; but the largest I have seen myself did not exceed 10 or 12 metres. As to the shells of which they are composed, the Sambaquis may be divided into three classes, viz.: (1) Sambaquis, consisting of many different species of bivalve and univalve shells (Venus, Cardium, Lucina, Arca, Ostrea, Purpura, Tritonium, Trochus, &c.), all of which are at present living in the neighbouring sea.3 (2) Sambaquis, consisting almost exclusively of a small bivalve shell, the “Birbigãs” of the Brazilians (Venus flexuosa?), exceedingly common in shallow bays or salt-water lagoas, the bottom of which is of mixed mud and sand.4 (3) Sambaquis, consisting exclusively of a species of Corbula, which I have not yet seen in a living state;5 all the Brazilians also, whom I asked, and who are perfectly acquainted with any edible animal of their marine fauna, are unanimous in affirming that this shell does not live now on our coast. From one of these Corbula-Sambaquis I obtained a specimen of a small Melampus, which I have found living near the mouth of some rivulets, where fresh and salt water are mingling in ever-varying proportions.6 When the lowlands of the Lower Itajahy and some of its tributaries were as yet beneath the level of the sea, they would have formed a large estuary, and here probably the Corbulæ lived. The fragments of human skulls which we found in one of these Corbula-Sambaquis were of truly astonishing thickness, whereas those I have seen

508

December 1875

from other Sambaquis are hardly thicker than our own. Among the tools which are to be found in the Sambaquis, stone-axes are by far the most frequent. But as M. Wiener will probably soon publish a full account of his researches, I will now no longer dwell on this subject.7 Some time ago I sent to Germany for publication a note on the relation between our Imbauba trees (Cecropia) and the ants which inhabit their hollow stem.8 As there may be some delay in publishing, I will give you a short abstract. Mr. Belt has already stated that the ants farm scale-insects in the cells of the Imbauba stem, and he believes that their presence must be beneficial.9 This is no doubt the case; for they protect the young leaves against the leaf-cutting ants (Oecodoma).10 Now there is a wonderful contrivance by which, as in the case of the “bull’s-horn acacia,” the attendance of the ants at the right time and place is secured.11 At the base of each petiole there is a large flat cushion, consisting of most densely-crowded hairs, and within this cushion a large number of small white pear-like or club-shaped bodies (specimens inclosed) are successively developed, which, when ripe, emerge at the surface of the cushion, like asparagus on a bed, and are then greedily gathered by the ants and carried away to the nest.12 The object of the dense hair-cushion appears to be (1) to secure to the young club-shaped bodies the moisture necesary for their development; and (2) to prevent the ants from gathering the unripe bodies. In most cases it is by honey-secreting glands that the protecting ants are attracted; now Mr Belt observed (“Nicaragua,” p.  225) that the honey-glands on the calyx and young leaves of a Passion-flower were less attractive to the ants than were the scale-insects living on the stems; this would most likely be the case with the Imbauba, and it is probable that the use of the little pear-shaped bodies is to form an attraction stronger than that of the scale-insects, and thus to secure the attendance of the protective ants on the young leaves. As far as I could make out, the club-shaped bodies consist mainly of an albuminous substance.13 The ant colonies are founded by fertilised females, which may be found frequently in the cells of young Imbauba plants. Each internode has on the outside, near its upper end, a small pit where the wall of the cell is much thinner than anywhere else, and where the female makes a hole by which she enters. Soon after this the hole is completely shut again by a luxuriant excrescence from its margins, and so it remains until about a dozen workers have developed from the eggs of the female, when the hole is opened anew from within by these workers. It would appear that the female ants, living in cells closed all around, must be protected against any enemy; but notwithstanding a rather large number of them are devoured by the grub of a parasitic wasp belonging to the Chalcididæ;14 Mr. Westwood has observed that the pupæ of the Chalcididæ exhibit a much nearer approach to the obtected pupæ of the Lepidoptera than is made by any other Hymenoptera” (“Introd. to the Modern Classif. of Insects,” Part XI., p.162).15 Now the pupa of the parasite of the Imbauba ant is suspended on the wall of the cell by its posterior extremity just like the chrysalis of a butterfly.

December 1875

509

I hope you will have received a paper on Æglea, a curious Decapod inhabiting the mountain rivulets of our Serra do Mar.16 Lately I obtained a large number of specimens of this Æglea, and among them a female with eggs in an advanced state of development. Thus I was enabled to satisfy myself that, like so many fresh-water and terrestrial animals, the marine allies of which undergo a transformation, our Æglea does not experience any metamorphosis.17 Fritz Müller Itajahy, St. Catharina, Brazil, Dec. 25, 1875 Nature, 17 February 1876, pp. 304–5 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16

Destêrro (now Florianópolis) on Santa Catarina Island was the capital of the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Sambaqui: Brazilian term for shell mounds, derived from the Tupi language. Casqueiro: midden (Portuguese). For more on the history of research into these deposits, see Gaspar et al. 2008. São Francisco do Sul is a town in Santa Catarina at the entrance to the bay of Babitonga. Venus, Cardium, Lucina, Arca, and Ostrea are molluscs of the class Bivalvia (clams or bivalves). Purpura (a synonym of Bolinus), Tritonium (a synonym of Buccinum), and Trochus are molluscs of the class Gastropoda (snails and slugs, formerly known as univalves). Venus flexuosa is a synonym of Anomalocardia flexuosa (the carib pointed venus or berbigão). ‘Berbigãs’ is probably a mistranscription of Müller’s handwriting. Corbula is a genus of small saltwater clams of the family Corbulidae. Melampus is a genus of small air-breathing snails (pulmonate gastropods) of the family Ellobiidae (hollow-shelled snails); Melampus inhabits salt marshes. Wiener’s article ‘Estudos sobre os sambaquis do sul do Brazil’ (Studies on the sambaquis of south Brazil; Wiener 1876) was published in the first volume of Archivos do Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro. Müller’s article ‘Ueber das Haarkissen am Blattstiel der Imbauba (Cecropia), das Gemüsebeet der Imbaubaameise’ (On the hairy cushions on the petiole of embauba (Cecropia), the vegetable bed of the embauba ant; F. Müller 1876b) was dated 31 October 1875, and published in Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft on 31 August 1876. Cecropia peltata is the embauba or trumpet tree. Thomas Belt described ants keeping brown scale-insects (Coccidae) in cells in the hollow trunk of Cecropia in The naturalist in Nicaragua (Belt 1874a, pp. 222–3). Oecodoma is a synonym of Atta, a genus of leaf-cutter ants in the subfamily Myrmicinae. Belt had described the small lipid-rich food bodies (now referred to as Beltian bodies) at the tips of leaflets found on species of bull-horn acacias in Belt 1874a, pp. 218–20. The cushion-like structure at the base of the petiole is now called the trichilium, and the white bodies are now referred to as Müllerian bodies. Albumin is a class of water-soluble proteins found in animal and plant tissues. Chalcididae is a family of wasps that are parasitoids of larvae of other insects. John Obadiah Westwood; see Westwood 1839–40 2: 162. An obtect pupa, which is generally found in Lepidoptera (the family of butterflies and moths), is one in which the wings and legs are fixed to the body and the abdomen is relatively immovable; the pupa is often in an opaque, hard case. Most Hymenoptera (the family of ants, bees, and wasps) have exarate pupae, in which the wings and legs are free and the shape of the insect is visible. Müller had mentioned his discovery of a new species of Aeglea (a synonym of Aegla, a crustacean genus in the order Decapoda) in his letter to CD of 12 September 1875. His paper ‘Aeglea Odebrechtii n. sp.’ (F. Müller 1876a) was dated late May 1875, and published in Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft on 15 February 1876. Serra do Mar: mountain range of the sea (Portuguese); a system of mountain ranges in south-eastern Brazil.

510 17

December 1875

Müller believed that other species of Aeglea were marine, but it is an exclusively freshwater genus of the crustacean infraorder Anomura (see letter from Fritz Müller, 12 September 1875 and n. 8).

From G. J. Romanes   [before 26 December 1875]1 18 Cornwall Terrace. Professor Häckel’s paper on the Medusæ is called ‘Beitrag zur Naturgeschichte der Hydromedusen’ (Leipzig, 1865). Professor Huxley has lent me his copy, but says he wants it returned in a week or two.2 I ought certainly to have the work by me next summer, so I thought that if you happen to have it and can spare it till next autumn, I need not send to Germany for it, remembering what you said when I last saw you. I should also much like to see the other paper of Häckel’s about cutting up the ova of Medusæ.3 I have an idea that you are afraid I am neglecting Pangenesis for Medusæ. If so, I should like to assure you that such is not the case. Last year I gave more time to the former than to the latter inquiry; and although the results proved very disproportionate, this was only due to the fact that the one line of work was more difficult than the other.4 However, I always expected that the first year would require to be spent in breaking up the ground, and I am quite satisfied with the experience which this work has brought me. I confess, however, that but for personal reasons I should have postponed Pangenesis and worked the Medusæ right through in one year. There is a glitter about immediate results which is very alluring. Incomplete E. D. Romanes 1896, p. 46 1 2

3

4

The date is based on the relationship between this letter and the letter to G. J. Romanes, 26 December 1875. Thomas Henry Huxley had lent Romanes a copy of Ernst Haeckel’s work on medusae (Haeckel 1865), the first (and only) volume of which is a monograph on the family Geryonidae (now Geryoniidae); he had recommended the work after Romanes had delivered the Croonian Lecture on the locomotor system of medusae at the Royal Society of London on 16 December (G. J. Romanes 1875b, p. 270). CD had received a copy from Haeckel in 1865 (see Correspondence vol. 13, letter from Ernst Haeckel, 11 November 1865). For the significance of Romanes’s work on medusae, and the relationship between physiology and evolutionary theory, see French 1970. Romanes refers to Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Siphonophoren (On the developmental history of siphonophores; Haeckel 1869), which he probably wanted while writing his article on new species, varieties, and monstrous forms of medusae (G. J. Romanes 1876–7). CD’s annotated copy of Haeckel 1869 is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 355). Romanes might have supposed that CD thought he was neglecting pangenesis experiments from CD’s suggestion that he try skin grafts on pigeons (see letter to G. H. Romanes, 17 [December 1875]). Romanes had first suggested that he attempt to find experimental evidence for CD’s hypothosis of pangenesis in December 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to G. J. Romanes, 16 December 1874). He undertook plant-grafting experiments throughout 1875, but did not publish on the topic. The first of his papers on medusae was submitted to the Royal Society in 1875 (G. J. Romanes 1875b).

December 1875

511

From Henry Edwards   26 December 1875 California Theatre, San Francisco. Dec 26. 1875 Dear Sir— I venture to send you by to-days post a paper on our singular pitcher plant (Darlingtonia californica) which I read a few evenings since before our Academy of Sciences.1 Accompanying it are some well dried specimens of the plant itself, both leaves & flowers, & an admirably colored photograph of a group of Darlingtonia, which I trust may prove of some interest to you. The latter will at any rate give you a good idea of the perfection to which Photography has been brought in San Francisco.2 I must ask you to excuse the few typographical errors in the text, which I had no opportunity to correct until too late. In my entomological studies, I have long sought for the chance to observe the species captured by Darlingtonia, & you will I am sure think that I have been tolerably successful. If you think you could cultivate the plant, I shall be very happy to forward living specimens to you in the spring, though I know that it has been in cultivation in England, & probably Dr Hooker has it growing in abundance.3 It would be interesting to know if in its new home, the habit of entrapping insects is continued, & to the same extent as in its own habitat— I take this opportunity of saying, that if you have no other & better correspondent on this coast, I shall always be happy to place myself at your disposal, & to aid as far as my ability will allow me, any investigations you may wish to make— Believe me, Dear Sir, | Your faithful Servant | Hy. Edwards— Chas. Darwin. Esqr. F.R.S. | &c. &c. DAR 163: 3 1 2 3

A copy of Edwards’s paper (Edwards 1875) is in DAR 86: B26. Edwards had read it at a meeting of the California Academy of Sciences on 6 September 1875. The photograph has not been found. Joseph Dalton Hooker was director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

To K. M. Lyell   26 December [1875]1 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Dec 26. rs My dear M Lyell I used formerly to burn all letters excepting a few, and such as I have kept from Lyell I now send.2 From the year 1862 I preserved all letters, and wish I had done so earlier. I am thus enabled to send all the letters from Lyell from 1862 to 1869 inclusive. Since ’69 I have not received many, & they have not been classed by my son George (who is just going to start abroad) and therefore I cannot send any if I possess them.3 Should I hereafter find any, they shall be sent to you. Although I valued most highly all the letters I received from Lyell, I suspect that they are much

512

December 1875

too special to be of any interest to the public; but I am at present so busy that I have not had time to read over a single one Pray believe me | my dear Mrs Lyell | yrs sincerely | Charles Darwin P.S The letters are so heavy that I have been forced to put them in 2 parcels.— LS(A) Lord Lyell (private collection) 1 2 3

The year is established the reference to George Howard Darwin’s travelling abroad (see n. 3, below). Following Charles Lyell’s death on 22 February 1875, Katherine Murray Lyell was gathering the letters he had written in order to prepare a biography; this was published in 1881 (K. M. Lyell ed. 1881). CD kept notes and letters pertinent to the topics he was working on in portfolios; it is unclear how George organised them once CD no longer needed them for research purposes. George travelled to Malta at the start of January 1876 (see letter from Emma Darwin to J. B. Innes, 24 December [1875]). Leonard Darwin had been stationed there from September 1875 (see letter to C. E. Norton, 7 October 1875 and n. 6).

From D. F. Nevill   26 [December 1875?]1

45, Charles Street 26th

My dear Mr Darwin I am more grieved than I can say at having missed you but I do hope when you come next time you will give me due warning2 I would willingly run down to you for an hour if you are ever willing to receive me but perhaps you are too busy— However I do hope we may meet somehow DAR 172: 32 1

2

The month and year are conjectured from the less formal salutation that indicates that Nevill and CD had met, and by an archivist’s mark ‘1875’ on the front of the letter. Nevill met CD on 4 May 1875 (Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242)). CD had been in London from 10 to 20 December 1875 (see ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). In July, CD had told Nevill that he had no plans to be in London until late autumn (see letter to D. F. Nevill, 15 July [1875]).

To C.-F. Reinwald   26 December 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Dec 26. 75 Dear Sir Pray allow me to apologise for so soon troubling you again— I enclose a list of errata in my “Insectivorous Plants” detected by Prof: Victor Carus in the course of his translation.1 Will you be so good as to forward the errata to the translator who is engaged in the French translation of “Insectivorous Plants”2 Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin LS American Philosophical Society (483)

December 1875 1 2

513

Julius Victor Carus, who was translating Insectivorous plants into German (Carus trans. 1876a), had sent his list of errata in his letter of 21 December 1875. Edmond Barbier translated Insectivorous plants into French (Barbier trans. 1877).

To G. J. Romanes   26 December 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R. Dec 26. 75 Dear Romanes I will send the books off by railway on Monday or Tuesday. You may keep that on Medusæ until I ask for it which will probably be never. That on Siphonophora I should like to have back at some future time.1 So far from thinking that you have neglected Pangenesis I have been astonished and pleased that your splendid work on the jelly fishes did not make you throw every other subject to the dogs.2 Even if your experiments turn out a failure, I believe that there will be some compensation in the skill you will have acquired. Yrs very sincerely | Ch Darwin P.S. I have been having more correspondence with Galton about Pangenesis & my confusion is more confounded.  with respect to the points in which he differs from me.—3 LS(A) American Philosophical Society (482) 1

2 3

Romanes had asked whether he could borrow CD’s copies of Ernst Haeckel’s Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte der Hydromedusen (Haeckel 1865) and Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Siphonophoren (Haeckel 1869a); see letter from G. J. Romanes, [before 26 December 1875]. CD’s copy of Haeckel 1869a is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. See letter from G. J. Romanes, [before 26 December 1875] and n. 4. See letter to Francis Galton, 18 December [1875], and letter from Francis Galton to G. H. Darwin, 22 December 1875.

From Nevil Story-Maskelyne   26 December 1875 Basset Down House, | Swindon. Decr 26. 1875. Dear Mr. Darwin I do not know whether you are personally acquainted with Mr. Judd. I hope that at least some of his works and, in particular, that his admirable paper in the Geol. Soc. Transactions on the Volcanoes of the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, are not unknown to you.1 I have so high an opinion of him, as well of his personal character, as of the fine zeal and vigorous ability that impels his work, that I think he will honour the Royal Society as much as he will be honoured by being elected a fellow.

514

December 1875

So I have taken in hand the setting forth his merits and the inviting a few distinguished men of Science to give lustre to his name by signing the certificate which will be suspended this year at the Royal Society.2 I venture to invite you to take your proper place by heading the list with your signature; if you know enough of Mr. Judd to feel justified in endorsing his certificate.3 My Wife has made your acquaintance (and she is much better worth knowing than I am); and I feel justified in writing to you as if I also knew you after the kind manner in which you received her.4 She desires me to remember her very kindly to you and joins me in taking advantage of the short days to wish you and yours many new years of valuable life and health for the enjoyment of them. And I am with great respect | faithfully your’s | Nevil Story Maskelyne. P.S. Would you kindly return the Certificate to me here, I hope my direction is not too vague on the envelope of this letter. DAR 177: 262 CD annotation Top of letter: ‘Bassett’ pencil 1

2

3 4

CD greatly admired John Wesley Judd’s paper on the ancient volcanoes of the Scottish Highlands and Inner Hebrides (Judd 1874); it was published in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to Charles Lyell, 23 September 1874). Certificates of nomination for fellowship of the Royal Society of London had to be suspended in the society’s meeting room prior to election; Judd was first recommended for fellowship of the society at a meeting of the society on 2 March 1876, and elected a fellow on 7 June 1877 (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 24 (1875–6): 345, and 26 (1877): 210). CD recommended Judd from general as opposed to personal knowledge (The Royal Society archive GB 117, EC/1877/09). Thereza Mary Story-Maskelyne had sent CD observations on a canary and siskin that attacked primrose and cowslip flowers; he used this information in a letter he sent to Nature on birds destroying primrose flowers (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to Nature, 7 and 11 May [1874] and n. 6). CD had seen her in London when canvassing for support for Edwin Ray Lankester’s second attempt to become a fellow of the Linnean Society (see letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 16 December [1875] and n. 5). ‘Mr …’ rather than ‘Sir’ in the salutation usually indicated that the writer and the addressee had met.

To Henry Edwards   [after 26 December 1875]1 Down, Beckenham, Kent. [Edwards had sent … a] ‘wonderful specimen of Darlingtonia’ [for which Darwin thanks him.] ‘I will not forget your obliging offer of giving me information with respect to California about which I may be curious.’2 LS incomplete3 Parke-Bernet (dealers) (24 September 1963)

December 1875 1 2 3

515

The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from Henry Edwards, 26 December 1875. See letter from Henry Edwards, 26 December 1875. The original letter is complete and is described in the sale catalogue as being one and a half pages long.

From Asa Gray   28 December 1875 Botanic Garden, | Cambridge, Mass. Dec. 28, 1875 My Dear Darwin Did I ever write you my thanks for the copy of the volume on Climbing Plants, which you, in your wonted kindness, sent me some time ago?1 I am uncertain—but it must have been a mere line, if anything. I have only now had time to look at it. I have announced it here at close of a short review of Insectivorous Plants, in Amer. Jour. Sci. for Jany.2 And I have written so long a notice of both books, but mainly the Insectivorous, for the Nation that it will be divided. I think we shall have a part of it this week.3 I see a little matter in which I can help you out. On p. 198, you say of Maurandia that, with little more ado, it might grasp a support by its flower-peduncles. Well, I think it does that sometimes. I am so confident it does so in M. antirrhiniflora (which, by the way I have, from the structure of the corolla referred back to Antirrhinum) that I turned to my herbarium for specimens to show it.4 But I find none that are unequivocal. But there are two Californian species which have lost it wholly in the petioles (these being short or none) and have tactile peduncles instead. One is Maurandia stricta Hook. & Arn. = my Antirrhinum strictum.5 This is upright, with long filiform peduncles disposed to coil. Apparently they have little opportunity. The other—from the interior, is my Antirrhinum (Maurandella) Cooperi,—a very slender, branching, straggling thing, with very long filiform peduncles, which coil freely when they reach anything, making 2 or 3 turns around the support, at least 2 turns are common in the dried specimens.6 Of course I can help you to none with abortive flowers. As to transitions from branches to tendrils, I was interested in 3  or 4  Californian species of Antirrhinum that show that, A.  coulterianum & A.  vagans are the two best.7 They are not in cultivation; but seeds have been received of the former this year, & we may grow them next year. Evidently they are not of a sort to develope into revolving tendrils,—but are more like the hooking branches of some tropical shrubs,—and some are peduncles. I am very well, & my wife8 tolerably so. We both send very best wishes to you and yours for the New Year. Ever Yours sincerely | Asa Gray DAR 165: 189

516

December 1875

CD annotations 1.1 Did … week. 2.4] crossed blue crayon Top of letter: ‘(Climbing Plants)’ blue crayon 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

Gray’s name is on CD’s presentation list for both Insectivorous plants and Climbing plants 2d ed. (see Appendix IV). Gray’s short review of Insectivorous plants and brief notice of Climbing plants 2d ed. appeared in the American Journal of Science and Arts, January 1876, pp. 69–74. Gray’s review of Insectivorous plants and Climbing plants 2d ed. for the Nation (A. Gray 1876) appeared in the issues for 6 and 13 January 1876. CD’s copy is in DAR 139.18: 11–12. Maurandia is a synonym of Maurandya; M. antirrhiniflora (snapdragon vine) differs from most other species in the genus in having flowers with a closed tubular corolla similar to flowers of Antirrhinum (snapdragon). CD had noted that the peduncles or flower-stalks of Maurandia semperflorens (a synonym of Maurandya scandens, creeping snapdragon) revolved in small circles and bent when gently rubbed (Climbing plants 2d ed., p. 198). Antirrhinum strictum is now considered to be an unresolved name; Maurandia stricta is a synonym of Neogaerrhinum strictum (Kellogg’s snapdragon). Antirrhinum cooperi is a synonym of Neogaerrhinum filipes (yellow twining snapdragon). The tendril-like peduncle can be several centimetres long. Antirrhinum coulterianum (a synonym of Sairocarpus coulterianus, Coulter’s snapdragon) and Antirrhinum vagans both have prehensile branchlets at the top of the stem. Jane Loring Gray.

To A. R. Wallace   28 December 1875 Down, | Beckenham, Kent. Dec. 28. 75 My dear Wallace I am very glad that you will attend, as it seems to me an occasion when every man of Science should help another. You will be able to return at night, as Lankester will be the first man ballotted for.1 I hope you are getting nearly to the end of your work Yrs very sincerely | Ch. Darwin LS C. C. Kohler (dealer)(no date) 1

CD had asked Wallace to attend a meeting of the Linnean Society on 3 February 1876 in order to support Edwin Ray Lankester’s second attempt to be elected a fellow of the society (see letter to A. R. Wallace, 23 December 1875). Wallace’s letter has not been found.

From B. J. Sulivan   29 December 1875 Bournemouth Decr. 29. 75 My dear Darwin Many happy returns of the season to you and yours. I was very glad to hear a pretty good report of your health from your son who was here a short time since.1 We have been very busy since our summer trip, in moving from our old house, which

December 1875

517

I sold, to one more suitable for old people, being of two stories only instead of four. I built it six years since and let it till we wanted it for ourselves.2 I have not heard of our old shipmates lately except Hammond—who had been very ill for a few days owing to a drain being foul but not found out in time.3 I heard from King about a month since— he and his wife very well.4 Poor Mr. Langton bears up very well under his heavy trial— his comfort seems to be taking care of the dear little children, Mrs. L having gone to Cannes.5 My youngest brother, late Captn. of London. has just returned, having been dismissed his ship, because their Lordships think he did not show “consideration” enough for a chaplain who had been insulting him for a year because he would not allow the morning service to Ritualistic or vestments with crosses to be worn, though he allowed a second service later in the day with all these kind of things the parson chose to carry on.6 As all the insults were proved at a Court of Inquiry—and written falsehoods—as well as taking liberties with black girls also against this precious parson they were obliged to dismiss him—and to please their Ritualistic friends I suppose dismissed Captain also—without any offence or misconduct of any kind ever being alleged against him. A thing unheard of before. Then to make it worse they superseed the Captain immediately, but only nominally dismiss the chaplain as he is still serving on the ship.7 My brother has applied for a Court Martial & will insist on it— My wife8 joins me in kind regards to Mrs Darwin. Believe me | very sincerely yours | B. J. Sulivan DAR 177: 302 1 2

3 4 5

6

7

8

George Howard Darwin was in Bournemouth in late November 1875 (letter from H. E. Litchfield to Leonard Darwin, 21 November [1875] (DAR 258: 1648)). Sulivan had retired to Bournemouth in 1865 (see Correspondence vol. 13, letter from B. J. Sulivan, 8 May [1865] and n. 17). He named his first house Tregew, after his birthplace, and appears to have transferred the name to his new residence, which was probably built in the garden of the first (Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office (RG10/1176/60/6); 1881 (RG11/1194/136/45)). Robert Nicholas Hamond was midshipman on the Beagle from 1832 to 1833 (O’Byrne 1849). Philip Gidley King was midshipman on the Beagle between 1831 and 1836; his wife was Elizabeth King (Aust. dict. biog.). Charles Langton’s son Edmund had died on 27 November 1875 after a long illness; he was probably taking care of his grandchildren while his daughter-in-law, Emily Caroline Langton, was away. Edmund Langton was Emma Darwin’s nephew. George Lydiard Sulivan had been appointed captain of HMS London in 1874, with instructions to patrol the waters around Zanzibar to prevent slave-trading (Lloyd 1968, p. 270). The chaplain on board the London was Edward Lewton Penny. Their Lordships: the lords commissioners of the Admiralty. In September 1875, Sulivan’s cousin, Thomas Baker Martin Mason Sulivan, took over as captain of the London, and George Lydiard Sulivan was appointed to HMS Triumph (The Times, 2 October 1875, p. 8). From October 1875 to February 1876 there was no chaplain listed for the London in the Navy list; on 21 January 1876, Robert O’Donelan Ross-Lewin was appointed (London Gazette, 25 January 1876, p. 301; Navy list, March 1876). Sophia Sulivan.

518

December 1875

From J. H. Gilbert   31 December 1875 Harpenden S.t Albans Decr 31, 1875 Dear Sir, I am truly sorry to have allowed your two kind letters to remain so long unacknowledged. The first came (with the Tables returned), when I was with a yachting party north of Scotland, & the second when I was much occupied after my return home.1 I have since waited to say something of our further observations about Fairyrings.2 Late in the Autumn Mr. Lawes found on igniting some soil apparently covered with mycelium that it remained white after ignition.3 Following this up in the Laboratory we found that much at any rate of the white matter was incombustible; and qualitative chemical examination of the residue showed it to contain much carbonate of lime, and only traces of phosphoric acid, whilst the examination of the ash of some fungi (a. nudus) showed much phosphoric acid, and much potass, but scarcely traces of lime, thus confirming previous analyses of the ash of various fungi.4 It would thus appear that the white matter coating the soil at that date was exhausted mycelium? This is obviously an interesting point, and calls for further experiment at other periods of the year. With regard to the fungi not reappearing where they have grown before in the case of fairy rings, may it not be a question how far this may be due to the exhaustion of the materials for growth by the fungi themselves or how far by the luxuriant growth of the grasses which succeed them—adding perhaps the force of competition to exhaustion? On this point I may mention that a friend assures me that in the case of a “ring” yielding edible fungi which are always gathered (and so do not manure the grasses)5 the crop reappears on the same and not on an annually extending ring. I may add that this autumn large specimens of Agaricus arvensis appeared in more or less complete rings on one of our highly manured plots where individual specimens had previously been observed.6 Otherwise the prominent development of rings is, as stated in the “Note,” on the plots exhausted of potass and of nitrogen in such condition as to be available to the other plants. There is obviously much left to learn before we know all about this curious subject; & I am extremely glad to hear that you are making observations upon it. Pray accept my best thanks, better late than never, for your kind offer to send me a copy of your book on “Insectivorous plants”.7 I need hardly say I shall be proud to receive one from you. I was much interested to hear some notices of your observations on the subject given by Professor Dyer at meetings of the Scientific Committee of the Hort. Soc.;8 and I remember the question occurred to me at the time, whether the plants appropriated the animal matter directly, or only its products of decomposition. I am not aware of your evidence and arguments on this point; but the interesting facts you were good enough to communicate in your last letter, as to the remarkable rapidity with which phosphate & carbonate of ammonia are absorbed and affect the contents of the cells, are at any rate consistent with the

December 1875

519

supposition that it is the products of decomposition rather than the animal matters as such that serve as food to the plants? I was much gratified, as also was my brother, the Editor of the Memoir, to hear that you had been interested in the Memorials of our dear Mother.9 With the best wishes of the season, | I am, Dear Sir | Your’s sincerely | J. H. Gilbert Charles Darwin Esqre., &c. &c. &c. Copy Rothamsted Research (GIL13) 1

2

3 4 5

6 7 8

9

Gilbert had sent CD tables giving the full results of experiments carried out at the agricultural station at Rothamsted on the effects of different manures on permanent meadow land (see letter from J. H. Gilbert, 24 July 1875 and n. 4). CD returned the tables with his letter to J. H. Gilbert, 11 August 1875; his second letter has not been found. Gilbert had presented a paper on 3 June 1875 on fairy-rings (fungi that grow in circles) at the Linnean Society (‘Note on the occurrence of “fairy-rings”’; J. H. Gilbert 1875). For CD’s interest in fairy-rings, see the letter from James Paget, 7 July 1875, the letter from M. J. Berkeley, 13 July 1875, and the letter to J. S. Burdon-Sanderson, 16 July 1875. Gilbert collaborated with John Bennet Lawes at the agricultural research station at Rothamsted. Mycelium is the vegetative part of a fungus, and is a mass of branching filaments. See J. H. Gilbert 1875, p. 20. ‘a. nudus’: Agaricus nudus, a synonym of Lepista nuda, the wood blewit or blue stalk mushroom. Gilbert suggested that decaying fungi provided a rich nitrogenous manure to the adjacent vegetation, and thus gave rise to patches of dark green luxuriant grass far superior to the surrounding grass ( J. H. Gilbert 1875, p. 22). Agaricus arvensis, the horse mushroom, sometimes forms fairy-rings and likes rich soils. Insectivorous plants had been published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). The Scientific Committee was one of the committees of the Royal Horticultural Society of London; the others were the Floral and the Fruit committees. William Turner Thiselton-Dyer had communicated CD’s work on Pinguicula (butterwort) to the Scientific Committee of the society on 1 July 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 28 [ June 1874] and n. 4). See letter to J. H. Gilbert, 11 August 1875 and n. 3. Josiah Gilbert had edited Autobiography and other memorials of Mrs. Gilbert (A. Gilbert 1874). The Gilbert brothers’ mother, Ann Gilbert, was a children’s writer and poet.

APPENDIX I Translations of letters From F. J. Cohn1   9 January 1875

Schweidnitzer Stadtgraben Nro. 26. | Breslau 9 January 1875

Highly honoured Sir It is not without embarrassment that I receive your so very kind letter of the first day of the year;2 if according to the old belief the blessing of the wise brings luck, then the kind wishes that you bestowed upon me must herald a happy year for me. I return your good wishes with all my heart; may the year that has just begun, and many more beyond that, grant you the opportunity to discover new facts, new thoughts for humanity, and to enjoy with undiminished vigour the fruits of your intellectual endeavours, as well as the veneration of your contemporaries. These days I have been very busy with the preparations for the golden jubilee of my teacher and friend Prof. Goeppert, who, like no other naturalist in our circle, has won the affection of his fellow citizens through his truly humane conduct as an academic teacher.3 A great number of celebratory gifts, scientific and other, have been prepared for this occasion by friends both local and abroad, and I myself will send you my publication in his honour, on “die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Gattung Volvox”, within the next few days. It is an account of the most remarkable organisation and reproduction of this microscopic “cell state”, and it sheds considerable light on the lowest orders of life.4 May I also take this opportunity to direct your attention to the fact that in an exceedingly primitive living being, that is scarcely more organised than Bathybius,5 the building instinct, the capacity to build a shelter for itself from foreign matter, is well developed. I mean the genus Difflugia, a common freshwater species-rich group of the family of Rhizopoda. Their plasma body is not naked like that of Amoeba, nor does it form a corneous or calcareous casing by secretion, like Arcella6 and the Foraminifera;7 rather, like the larvae of Phryganeidae,8 Volvox constructs a casing for itself by gluing together grains of sand, the cell walls of diatoms, and other corpuscles in the water. Such an activity on the lowest level of organisation is mysterious. Though it has long been printed, my paper on Aldrovanda and Utricularia is still awaiting distribution, because it will appear in a volume whose concluding essay (on bacteria) I have not yet been able to finish.9 In the meantime, I am sending you a copy of the table. You are welcome to use it for your publication, and it is a pleasure to put it at your disposal for any use you may find for it.10

522

Translations

During a visit to the botanic gardens of Berlin last autumn, I saw extraordinarily luxuriant specimens of Darlingtonia and Dionaea, cultivated under glass bells on Sphagnum.11 The gardener assured me that no insects had got to the plants, and yet they developed more vigorously than I have ever seen before. How can this be explained? I have received a request to write an “Essay” on your forthcoming book on Drosera from the editors of Deutsche Rundschau, which is intended to become something like the Revue des deux mondes, and which also published my article “Botanische Probleme” (of which I sent you a copy some time ago), and I am most happy to do this.12 If you would be so very kind as to help me get hold of your book early, this would enable me to soon delight the large readership of the German magazine with a report on your latest researches. In the hope of your continuing goodwill which I feel so highly honoured by and which gives me such pleasure, I remain in veneration | Dr. Ferdinand Cohn. DAR 161: 199 1 2 3 4

5

6

7 8 9

10

11

12

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see pp. 19–21. See letter to F. J. Cohn, 1 January 1875. The celebrations in question were held on 11 January 1875 in Breslau, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of Heinrich Robert Goeppert’s doctorate (Cohn 1875b, p. 93 n.). There is a copy of Cohn 1875b (The developmental history of the genus Volvox) in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Volvox is a genus of green algae. Cohn proposed that cytoplasmic bridges in embryonic cells served to channel materials from the somatic cells to the developing embryos. Bathybius was a substance found on the seabed that Thomas Henry Huxley originally thought was a primordial organism; he named it Bathybius haeckelii (T. H. Huxley 1868b; L. Huxley ed. 1900, 2: 295–6; Nature, 19 August 1875, p. 316). See also Rice 1983. Difflugia, Arcella, and Amoeba were genera in the class Rhizopoda; they are currently classified as genera in the subphylum Lobosa (amoebas) in the kingdom Protozoa. The shell of Arcella is produced by the organism itself, while the shell of Difflugia is made of mineral particles collected by the organism from the environment. Foraminifera are unicellular marine protozoans; they are typically found near the bottom of the sea. See Lipps et al. 2011. Phryganeidae is the family of giant casemaker caddisflies. The larvae construct cases of plant pieces fastened together with silk. Cohn’s paper on the carnivorous plant Aldrovanda (the waterwheel plant) and Utricularia (bladderworts; Cohn 1875a) appeared in the third part of the first volume of Beiträge der Biologie der Pflanzen, a journal on plant biology edited by Cohn himself. The final two papers were the last two parts of ‘Untersuchungen über Bacterien’ (Cohn and Eidam 1872–5). CD’s proof copy of Cohn 1875a is in DR 58.2: 35–43. Cohn probably sent table 1 from Cohn 1875a: it contained drawings of Aldrovanda and Utricularia. In Insectivorous plants, p. 323, CD reproduced figure 5, a woodcut of a whorl of leaves of Aldrovanda. See also letter to F. J. Cohn, 1 January 1875. Darlingtonia californica, the California pitcher-plant or cobra lily, and Dionaea muscipula, the Venus fly trap, are both carnivorous plants. Darlingtonia and Dionaea are monospecific genera. Sphagnum is a genus of mosses noted for their ability to store several times their dry weight in water. Cohn’s essay on Insectivorous plants, which included a lengthy treatment of Drosera (sundew), appeared in 1876 (Cohn 1876); there is a lightly annotated copy in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. No copy of his ‘Botanische Probleme’ (Botanical problems; Cohn 1874) has been found in the Darwin Archive–CUL.

Translations

523

From G. G. Bianconi1   1 February 1875 Sir! A very just observation I was sent concerning the mechanical reason for the articulated type has led me to an addition which I have made to the Italian translation of my book.2 This addition being in the end no more than an expansion of the same argument to which your famous works have given rise, I saw that without failing in my duty I could not do without paying tribute to you; and I conceived the hope that you might thus welcome the approach I am honoured to be making today. I had hoped to receive your learned observations, as announced in your honoured letter 31. Oct. 1873;3 they would, to be sure, have supplied me with the means to correct and clarify certain parts of my work. However, they could still be precious for me, since I would try to use them in a second French edition on which I am currently working.4 I like to hope that under this new circumstance you would not find the argument that I must follow too bad, for it is, I believe, entirely and uniquely scientific. As I say on pag. 3 = Voi cercate la verità in buona fede: e anch’io la cerco sinceramente. Sopra questo terreno potremo intenderci5 = This disposition to understand one another is assured without a doubt, for besides the pursuit of truth, I have on my part, as an additional guide, the high and sincere esteem I profess for you, and the respect with which I am | Sir! | your very humble servt | J. Jos. Bianconi. Bologna 1. Febr. 1875 DAR 160:2. 181 1 2

3 4 5

For a transcription of this letter in its original French, see pp. 47–8. La teoria Darwiniana e la creazione detta indipendente. Lettera al signor Carlo Darwin (The Darwinian theory and the independent creation. Letter to Mr Charles Darwin; Bianconi 1875) is a translation of the original French version of Bianconi’s work (Bianconi 1874). CD’s annotated copy of Bianconi 1874 is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 58–9).  His copy of Bianconi  1875  is in the Darwin Library–Down. Bianconi added a new section to the Italian edition, ‘Gli animali articolati e la dottrina teleologica’ (articulated animals and the doctrine of teleology; Bianconi 1875, pp. 363–434). CD’s letter has not been found, but see Correspondence vol 21, letter from G. G. Bianconi, 28 November 1873. The second edition of Bianconi’s work was published in Italian (Bianconi 1879). You seek the truth in good faith: and I too seek it sincerely. On this ground we can understand one another. (Italian.)

From Anton Bachmaier1   4 February 1875

Anthropologische Gesellschaft in München Honoured Sir! Regarding the cases of reproduction of amputated supernumary fingers and toes mentioned in your work “das Variiren der Thiere und Pflanzen im Zustande der

524

Translations

Domestication, Chap XII Vererbung.”, a discussion on this fascinating topic in our society has established that none of the German top surgeons alive today have observed such occurrences of reproduction.2 In communicating this to you, most honoured Sir, I am asking you to kindly let me know whether there are any still living witnesses of the cases mentioned. The Anthropological Society of Munich would consider it a particular honour to support the veracity of the statements made in your work, even in wider circles.— On the other hand, Professor Dr. Rüdinger has shown us the reproduction of a left forefoot on a salamander; in so far as a reproduced foreleg can be observed on a live animal, every single segment has been reproduced completely as in the original development of the animal from the egg.3 The muscles, the tendons, the joints appear to have formed again in great perfection, for the reproduced extremity is just as functional as the original, except that its size does somewhat lag behind. Our Society will be greatly obliged for your reply, most honoured Sir. With excellent respects | Your wholly devoted servant A. Bachmaier | Secretary of the anthropologische Gesellschaft. Munich, Herrnstrasse 21. | 4. February 1875. DAR 160: 10 1 2

3

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see pp. 49–50 In Variation 2: 14–15, CD described cases of the regrowth of a supernumerary digit in very young children. Bachmaier may refer to either the first or the second German edition of Variation (Carus trans. 1868, Carus trans. 1873). Nicolaus Rüdinger gave a talk, ‘Wiederersatz verlorener Extremitäten bei niederen Wirbelthieren’ (Regeneration of lost limbs in lower vertebrates), at the January 1875 meeting of the Munich Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory (see Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Urgeschichte 1 (1876): 100). The journal of the society began publication in 1876 and only a brief summary of the proceedings of meetings from its beginning in 1870 up to 1875 were included in the first volume (Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Urgeschichte 1 (1876): 97–101). No printed version of Rüdinger’s talk has been found, but CD was evidently sent one that he later passed on to Lawson Tait (Correspondence vol. 24, letter to Lawson Tait, 28 March 1876).

From G. G. Bianconi1   22 February 1875 Sir! I must thank you for your kind letter of the 8th of the month and for honouring the book I sent you with such a welcome.2 From your works I already knew well how convinced you are of the principle of evolution, and accordingly I was not surprised by the trust in it that your letter confirmed. Still, doubtless you are aware that all the evidence listed in my book convinced me of the truth of independent creation. Thus we have both sincerely sought the truth, and only future studies will decide on which of the two sides it lies. I hope nevertheless that this disagreement will not affect the good relations which, to my honour, have developed between us.

Translations

525

I regret to hear that your health is weakened, no doubt owing to the extreme exertions you sustained. I hope and wish for you to recover entirely: for if science has owed you much in the past, it will anticipate all the more from you in the future. Continue to think well of me, and believe me with sentiments of esteem and regard Your most devoted servant | G Giuseppe Bianconi Bologna 22 Feby. 1875 DAR 160: 182 1 2

For a transcription of this letter in its original Italian, see p. 73. CD’s letter has not been found, but see the letter from G. G. Bianconi,1 February 1875 and n. 2. Bianconi had sent his book La teoria Darwiniana e la creazione detta indipendente (The Darwinian theory and the independent creation; Bianconi 1874).

From Oswald Heer1   1 March 1875 My most honoured Sir! Your friendly lines of last year, for which I send my best though belated thanks, encourage me to send you the third volume of my Flora fossilis arctica, and to preface it with a few lines.2 I have added the book to a parcel addressed to our mutual friend, Dr. Hooker,3 and I hope that it will reach you in the near future. The same contains an account of the Cretaceous flora of the Arctic zone, some of which was collected by Prof. Nordenskiöld4 in Greenland between 70 and 71o N. lat., and some in Spitzbergen up to 78o N. Fortunately, an older Cretaceous flora, which probably falls into the Urgonian, and also a younger Cretaceous flora of the Cenomanian, have both been discovered. The former consists almost exclusively of Cryptogamia (chiefly ferns), cycads and conifers, and is subtropical in character.5 Of angiospermous Dicotyledoneae only a single species could be detected, a Populus that belongs to a group of poplars represented in the Upper Cretaceous and the Tertiary by a number of species, whose closest modern representative is Pop. euphratica.6 This is the oldest known dicotyledonous plant yet (naturally with the exception of gymnosperms, which are very different from the true Dicotyledoneae).7 In Europe, the Dicotyledoneae of the Lower Cretaceous are also missing; however, they appear widely distributed in the Upper Cretaceous, and in fact already appear in the Cenomanian, both in Europe and in America, and in the same way they appear at this time in north Greenland too, and not just in a few isolated sorts, but in a whole series of species belonging to families that are far apart in the system, such as poplars, Ficus, Myrica, Diospyros,— Araliaceae, Magnoliaceae, Myrtaceae, Leguminosae and more besides.8 Not only the leaves, but also the fruit of a number of these families are preserved, as of Ficus, Myrica, Panax,9 Magnolia.— Admittedly it is possible that some of these kinds originated in the Lower Cretaceous and may yet be discovered there. However, if we allow that the Dicotyledoneae begin with the Lower

526

Translations

Cretaceous, we must still concede that this section of the vegetable kingdom, which forms the bulk of present-day vegetation, appears relatively late and that it underwent a substantial transformation within a brief (geologically speaking) period of time. The interval from the Devonian to the Cretaceous is immensely long, and, as far as we know until now, the vegetable kingdom then consisted only of cryptogams, conifers & cycads and a few monocots.10 In the Upper Cretaceous, however, the flora suddenly underwent a great transformation, and wherever up to now fossilised plants of this period have been found: in Moravia, Bohemia, Saxony, in the Harz Mountains, near Quedlinburg, in Westphalia, near Aachen, in the South of France, in Russia, in Greenland, in Nebraska and in tropical Africa (from where I have recently received Diospyros fruit of the Upper Cretaceous, from Dr. Schweinfurth11), there appear for the first time the (angiosperm.) Dicotyledoneae, and within a relatively short period they fundamentally change the face of the vegetable kingdom. In the Eocene these forms develop yet further. It took an immensely long time for the first Dicotyledoneae to arise, and as soon as they appeared, they developed at great speed. Another important phenomenon seems to me to be linked to this. Apart from the small mammals of the Jurassic period, which probably fed on insects, omnivorous and herbivorous mammals only appear in the Eocene. We can probably say that in all earlier periods, from the Carboniferous to the middle Cretaceous, plants would not have provided sustenance for mammals. No mammal lives on ferns; Equisetaceae and Lycopodiaceae, as well as Cycadaceae & Coniferae,12 supply only very meagre nourishment, which present-day mammals turn to only in an emergency and for instance during a famine. The bulk of the nourishment they get from plants is supplied by the Dicotyledoneae and Gramineae.13 Now, it is true that there were already a few Gramineae together with Dicotyledoneae in the Cretaceous, and hence the living conditions for mammals were already given at this stage, but these plants had to have spread to a certain extent to be able to provide the foundation for their existence. Since Paridigitata & Imparidigitata14 already occur in the Lower Eocene, a few kinds may already have developed in the Upper Cretaceous, but mammals in the Eocene show us the same picture as plants in the Upper Cretaceous since remarkably rapid development also occurs in them at this time. As in the Upper Cretaceous period, so also during the Eocene in Europe, the plant world was made up largely of trees and shrubs with tough leathery leaves. Still missing were the grasses that form the meadowlands and the soft-leaved scrub. Mammals then must have lived mainly on roots and fruits of Ficus, Quercus,15 Diospyrus, etc., the trees we know from this period. They were omnivores, which is also known by the dental structure of Eocene mammals. Only from the Lower Miocene onwards do we encounter a greater wealth of Gramineae and numerous trees and shrubs with soft, falling leaves (such as Acer, Ulmus, Carpinus, Corylus, Alnus, Fraxinus Robinia etc.).16 From this period on, the earth was covered by meadowlands and it was forested with trees and shrubs, whose leaves served the mammals for their nourishment. Now, it is in this very period that mammals undergo a great change, in that

Translations

527

ruminants become the dominant forest animals, and omnivores recede more. Kowalevsky, in his interesting monograph on Anthracotherium, has quite rightly drawn attention to this occurence, only he has put too much emphasis on the Gramineae, attributing to them alone such a significance.17 Ruminants hardly live on Gramineae alone, on the contrary, we see that some closely related kinds differ greatly in this respect (such as sheep and goat), and many of them live more on leaves of trees and bushes than on grass. Lyell’s death has deprived me of a great joy in my life.18 I sent him the book by mail, but it failed to reach him while he was still conscious. I have lost a dear, excellent friend in him, one I will always think of with the most heartfelt gratitude and love! I still have a great, perhaps immodest favour to ask. It would be such a joy for me to possess your photograph and I should like to ask you for it. With my best regards to you | I remain | with the greatest respect | Your most devoted | Oswald Heer. Zurich | 1 March 1875. While I have no trouble understanding English, I can’t write in English, so I took the liberty of sending you a letter in German. DAR 166: 130 1 2

3 4 5

6

7 8

9 10

For a transcription of this letter in in its original German, and a contemporary translation, see pp. 88–93 Heer sent the third volume of his seven-volume work on fossil flora of the Arctic regions (Heer 1868– 83). CD’s copies of volumes 3–6 are in the Darwin Library–CUL. His copy of the first part of the second volume is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Joseph Dalton Hooker. Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld. Urgonian refers to a series of massive limestones of the Lower Cretaceous system as developed at Orgon in the Durance valley, France; Cenomanian refers to a subdivision of the Upper Cretaceous period, corresponding to the Lower Chalk and Upper Greensand of British geologists (OED). Cryptogamia was a Linnaean order that included all plants with concealed reproductive organs. Although the name is no longer a valid taxon, the descriptive term cryptogam is still used to refer to plants that reproduce by spores. Dicotyledoneae is a former class of flowering seed-plants or angiosperms characterised by the presence of two embryonic seed-leaves or cotyledons; it is now subsumed within the class Magnoliopsida. Populus euphratica, the Euphrates poplar, belongs to the family Salicaceae. Gymnosperms (infradivision Gymnospermae), or non-flowering seed-plants, may have anywhere from two to twenty-four embryonic leaves or cotyledons, and the number may vary within some species. Ficus is the genus of figs; Myrica is the genus of bayberry; Diospyros is the genus of persimmons. Araliaceae is the family of ginseng and ivy; Magnoliaceae is the family of magnolias; Leguminosae (the alternative name Fabaceae is now often used) is the family of peas and legumes. Panax is the genus of ginseng. The time interval separating the end of the Devonian period from the beginning of the Cretaceous period had not been determined. Charles Lyell had attempted to quantify the length of geological periods in the tenth edition of his Principles of geology (C. Lyell 1867–8, 1: 300–1), but had removed the estimates from later editions (see Burchfield 1998 for more on estimates of geological time during this

528

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18

Translations

period). Monocotyledoneae is a former class of flowering seed-plants or angiosperms characterised by the presence of one embryonic seed-leaf or cotyledon; it is now subsumed within the class Magnoliopsida. The present superorder Lilianae includes all the monocots. Georg August Schweinfurth. Equisetaceae is the family of horsetails; Lycopodiaceae is the family of club mosses; Cycadaceae is the family of cycads; Coniferae was formerly the class of conifers (now Pinopsida). Gramineae (the alternative name Poaceae is now often used) is the family of grasses. Paridigitata and Imparidigitata were former subdivisions of herbivores roughly equivalent to the modern orders Artiodactyla and Perissodactyla (even-toed and odd-toed ungulates). Quercus is the genus of oaks. Acer is the genus of maples; Ulmus: elms; Carpinus: hornbeams; Corylus: hazels; Alnus: alders; Fraxinus: ashes; Robinia: locust trees. In his monograph on Anthracotherium (a genus of ungulates that became extinct by the late Miocene period), Vladimir Onufrievich Kovalevsky had discussed changes in dentition in ungulates from the Miocene to the present day, arguing that the principal cause for the changes was the shift to a graminivorous diet (Kovalevsky 1873–4, pp. 272–3). He concluded that most ungulates that could not shift from an omnivorous to a graminivorous diet had gradually died out (ibid., p. 274). Charles Lyell died on 22 February 1875 (ODNB).

From Moritz Traube1   2 March 1875

Breslau | Junkernstr. 7 2. March 1875

Highly honoured Sir! Permit me to submit to you the two enclosed treatises of mine.2 I have succeeded in explaining, principally through physico-chemical experiments, some life processes that up to now have been considered as specifically organic, and apparently inaccessible to physical enquiry: the formation of the cell membrane, its growth through the intraposition of molecules, (intussusception) and various cellular growth phenomena, and in showing that under certain circumstances even inorganic matter takes the form of cells that, with reference to form and growth, exhibit similar phenomena to living cells themselves—obviously without their other vital properties.3 These experiments, published as early as 1866, have at last recently been recognized to my great satisfaction by one of our foremost botanical physiologists Prof. Julius Sachs in his Lehrbuch der Botanik (1st edition 1873 pp. 580–88),4 but at the same time some objections were discovered that I refuted in my second paper (presented at last year’s meeting of naturalists at Breslau).5 As for the rest, these experiments have been little noticed even in Germany; & in England have probably remained quite unknown and since every scientific discovery is not considered to exist as long as it has not met with sufficient recognition, it would give me great satisfaction if you, highly honoured Sir, who are such an important authority in questions respecting organic life, should find these experiments worthy of your attention, and were to be convinced that they are indeed of a kind to assist in the clarification of some important organic problems. In a particular respect my experiments are related to your theory of development. Your successful endeavour to free the complexity of organic nature from the miracle of many separate creations and to trace it back to natural causes is clearly closely related to that school of natural science that endeavours to demonstrate that processes

Translations

529

considered to be specific to life are simply physico-chemical processes. Every success in the latter direction is a new support for development theory, in as much as it proves that the first appearance of life properties in the progressive development of the organic world are are only founded on a special application of already existing inorganic forces. In this sense one could conclude from my investigations that the organisms which first appeared with cells surrounded by a membrane did not receive this ability to form cells as a new power, but rather borrowed it from inorganic nature. I remain | with greatest respect | devotedly | M. Traube DAR 178: 176 1 2

3

4

5

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, and a contemporary translation, see pp. 93–5. Traube enclosed his papers ‘Experimente zur Theorie der Zellenbildung und Endosmose’ (Experiments on the theory of cell formation and endosmosis; Traube  1867), and ‘Experimente zur physikalischen Erklärung der Bildung der Zellhaut, ihres Wachsthums durch Introsusception und des Aufwärtswachsens der Pflanzen’ (Experiments on the physical explanation of the formation of the cell membrane, its growth through introsusception and the upward growth of plants; Traube 1874). CD’s copies are in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. In his earlier paper (Traube 1867), Traube had described several experiments in which he was able to create an artificial precipitation membrane using colloidal and even crystalloidal solutions with osmotic properties similar to those of plant cell membranes. Traube argued that artificial membranes exhibited differential permeability (endosmosis) similar to that in plants, and grew upwards in a similar way that could also be accounted for by simple physical processes. He explained that as water passed through the membrane, it was pushed by osmotic pressure to the top of the cell because of its lower specific gravity than the rest of the interior solution. The membrane at the upper end would become thinner (i.e. the interstitial spaces between the membrane molecules would become enlarged) as the pressure between interior and exterior solutions equalised at this part of the membrane. In this state molecules of the interior solution would pass through, allowing the two solutions to interact and the precipitation reaction to resume. New membrane was then formed by intussusception. The process worked best when the difference between the interstitial spaces of the membrane and the size of the membrane molecules was greatest (ibid., pp. 131–3). Traube refers to pages from the third, not the first, edition of Lehrbuch der Botanik (Textbook of botany; Sachs 1873, pp. 580–4), which is the first edition in which Traube’s research is discussed. CD’s annotated copy of Sachs 1873 is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 727–8). CD’s copy of the French translation of Sachs 1873 (Sachs 1874a) contains annotations referring to Traube (see Marginalia 1: 728–30). After repeating Traube’s experiments using a concentrated solution of copper chloride in a weak solution of potassium ferrocyanide, Sachs argued that the artificial membranes did not, in fact, grow by intussusception but rather by eruption (Sachs 1873, pp. 583–4). In his lecture to the meeting of German naturalists and physicians, Traube countered that the strength of the cell membrane was such that a simple change in the specific gravity of part of the interior solution could not cause a rupture at the top of the cell, noting that according to the laws of hydrostatics, pressure would be equal on all parts of the membrane (Traube 1874, p. 199).

From Anton Bachmaier1   21 March 1875

Anthropologische Gesellschaft | in | München. Most honoured Sir! Many thanks indeed for your very interesting reply of 11 March, in which you kindly listed the authorities to the cases in question, cases of the reproduction of

530

Translations

amputated supernumary human fingers and toes.2 This will stimulate research into the matter immensely, and I will not fail to notify you if similar cases are found in Germany. I take the liberty of enclosing a little paper “on language”.3 I would be interested to hear what observations there are on phonetic communication in the animal kingdom. There is no doubt that animals can communicate “pain, fear, love through sounds. What observations are there on this? Especially on the animal species closest to man? I would be very obliged to you for references. What hunter does not recognize the whistle by which the chamois communicates a warning of approaching danger? Who wouldn’t recognise the cheerful and the wailing bark of the dog? Etc.   All are examples of sound being used for communication.— Our great thinker Herder assumed as early as last century that man originated in an animal body, he was a prophet of that for which you later stepped forward with proof.—4 It is striking that the dog’s noble sentiment of loyalty is perceived as almost shameful when applied to humans.— With your research, you have elevated the animal kingdom without debasing mankind.— With my greatest veneration | Your wholly devoted servant | Anton Bachmaier | Secretary of the Anthropologische Gesellschaft. Munich | 21/III 75. DAR 160: 11 1 2

3

4

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see pp. 115–16 CD’s letter has not been found, but was a reply to the letter from Anton Bachmaier, 4 February 1875. CD’s letter was read at the March 1875 meeting of the Munich Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory (see Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Urgeschichte 1 (1876): 101). Bachmaier evidently sent a copy of a lecture delivered at the February 1874 meeting of the Munich Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory, ‘Einiges über Sprache’ (A few things on language; see Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Urgeschichte 1 (1876): 99). CD’s copy has not been found and no extant printed version has been identified. The journal of the society began publication in 1876 and only a brief summary of the proceedings of meetings from its beginning in 1870 up to 1875 were included in the first volume (Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Urgeschichte 1 (1876): 97–101). Johann Gotfried Herder, in his essay on the origin of language (Abhandlung über den Ursprung der Sprache; Herder 1772, p. 6), argued that humans had common origins with animals.

From Oswald Heer1   23 March 1875

Zurich 23 March 1875.

My most honoured Sir! Please accept my warmest thanks for your kind letter of 8th March, which gave me a great deal of pleasure.2 It is a great encouragement to me that you take such warm interest in my work on Arctic flora and I only wish that my new contributions

Translations

531

on the fossil flora of Spitzbergen, the tables for which are currently being lithographed, may be suitable to sustain your interest.3 They deal with the Carboniferous and Jurassic flora proper of Spitzbergen, and thus fill a large gap in the history of the development of the vegetable kingdom in the most northerly regions.4 No doubt it would be desirable in the highest degree to have comparable collections from the southern hemisphere. The prospects for this, however, are not favourable. Still, at least one keen wish of mine was granted, which was to get hold of fossil plants from the tropics. I have just now dispatched to you a small treatise on Tertiary plants in Sumatra.5 Since then I received a second, richer consignment from there, which adds around 20 new species to the earlier one, so that we are already getting some important pointers regarding the appearance of Indian flora in the Tertiary period.6 They show us that the Tertiary flora of Sumatra is very similar to that living there now, and hence that its relationship to the latter is quite different from that of the Tertiary flora of Switzerland to that of the present day, or even that of the Tertiary Arctic flora to the plant life now common in the nordic zone. Thus we might be right in inferring that the climate of Sumatra in the Tertiary period was overall not different from the climate now, that the climate in the tropics has stayed the same, and that the great climatic changes have affected solely the moderate and cold zones. This change, however, appears to have begun only in the Upper Cretaceous, and during the immensely long interval from the Carboniferous period to the Upper Cretaceous a similar climate seems to have prevailed all over the globe, as the plants and animals of the Lower Carboniferous period, the Carboniferous period, the Triassic, the Jurassic, and the Lower Cretaceous of Greenland and Spitzbergen show. Hence we can certainly say that a tropical climate was the normal climate on earth and that it drew back to the area between the tropics only relatively late. That the retreat happened gradually is shown by the flora of the Upper Cretaceous and the Miocene of the Arctic zone, as we can infer that the average annual temperature of the Miocene of Spitzbergen at 78o N. was between 8–9oC. The same retreat reached its maximum in the glacial period, during which the tropical zone was very likely narrower than it is now. But even then temperatures in the equatorial zone must have been high, so that we might surely assume that Sumatra possessed a tropical climate from the first days of organic life to the present, and that the transformations there in the plant and animal kingdoms were not the result of a change of climate. The development of the organic world in the tropics will have been different in many ways from that of the moderate and cold zones, where such immensely great transformations in the external conditions of life have taken place since the Upper Cretaceous period. Here the plants and animals were forced to adapt to the new conditions, while this factor is absent in the tropics. Recently, Mr Belt has skilfully defended a hypothesis already frequently propounded earlier, namely that changes of climate were the result of a change of the position of the earth’s axis relative to the sun.7 In former times, the sun allegedly always stood right above the equator, and accordingly the current moderate zone

532

Translations

had a subtropical, and the Arctic zone a warm climate. Then the earth tilted and as a result temperatures dropped in all zones beyond the tropics. This hypothesis would of course explain the facts discussed above, if Mr. Belt’s assertion about the change in the position of the earth’s axis were correct. This, however, does not seem to be the case to me. If the sun always stood above the equator, winters in the moderate and cold zones would doubtlessly be warmer, but summers, on the other hand, would be cooler; and so the seasons would be levelled out, but the average annual temperatures would hardly change, which is why I cannot see at all how the riddle would be solved this way. With great interest have I read the paper of our mutual friend, Dr. Hooker, on your investigations of insectivorous plants, and it is with great anticipation that I am looking forward to your work, for which I shall be greatly indebted to you.8 With the kindest regards | I remain | with the greatest respect | Your devoted | Oswald Heer. Many thanks for your photograph, I was delighted to receive it. DAR 166: 131 1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see pp. 117–19. See letter to Oswald Heer, 8 March [1875]. Heer had sent CD the third volume of his collected work on fossil flora (Heer 1868–83; see letter to Oswald Heer, 8 March [1875] and n. 2). Heer’s work, ‘Beiträge zur fossilen Flora Spitsbergens’ (Contributions on the fossil flora of Spitsbergen; Heer 1875), was first published in August 1875 in Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar. Heer evidently did not send the monograph when it first appeared, since CD’s copy of the work, in the Darwin Library–CUL, forms the first part of volume 4 of Heer’s collected work on fossil flora (Heer 1868–83), which was published in 1877. CD’s copy of ‘Ueber fossile Pflanzen von Sumatra’ (On fossil plants of Sumatra; Heer 1874) is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Heer noted that he had been sent the specimens by Rogier Diederik Marius Verbeek, the superintendent of the Geological Survey of Sumatra (ibid., p. 3). Verbeek published an account of the geology of Sumatra in the Geological Magazine in October 1875, and briefly discussed the fossil plants he collected (Verbeek 1875, p. 481). In 1883, Heer published a description of the collections sent by Verbeek in 1874 and 1875 (Heer 1883). In ‘An examination of the theories that have been proposed to account for the climate of the glacial period’, Thomas Belt argued that a great increase in the obliquity of the ecliptic of the earth’s orbit would produce colder temperatures while a great decrease would produce warmer temperatures (Belt 1874b, pp. 461–3). Joseph Dalton Hooker had discussed CD’s research on insectivorous plants in his address to the Department of Botany and Zoology at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Hooker 1874a). The address was also published in Nature (Hooker 1874b).

From Federico Delpino1   8 April 1875

Pontassieve | per | Vallombrosa 8 April 1875

Most distinguished man! I have the honour of sending you the last part of my observations on Dichogamy.2 You will see that your name appears on almost every page, the name that has

Translations

533

left such a mark on this kind of research. In the conclusions, on p. 336, I declare my full support for the transformist theory advocated by the foremost naturalist of the century. I discovered a singular example of dimorphism in an anemophilous species of the walnut.3 I do not know whether you will approve my ideas on the true functional significance of this order of phenomena, and whether you will approve of my proposed nomenclature. In this volume, I tried to provide as complete as possible an outline of the adaptations of plants to living pollinators (zoidiophilous plants).4 The argument is extremely interesting, but I am not sure whether I have achieved my goals. I hope that others will pick up my work and complete it. There are unpublished observations I made here and there. Among the most unique floral apparatus that I have studied are ultimately those of Lilium Martagon and of Lilium croceum, with the most beautiful adaptations to the sphinx-moths.5 Regarding the absence of nectar in the nectaries of the genus Orchis my observations coincide with those of Sprengel.6 I have learnt that Wächter, since the concluding years of the last century, has keenly observed and interpreted the process of pollination in Mieottia Nidus avis.7 Among the flowers that are apparatuses of entrapment, I have reported the apparatus of involuntary bathing, which has been pointed out by Crüger in Coryanthes.8 Cephalanthera ensifolia behaves very differently from C. grandiflora (p. 149) over here9 Finally, I have listed the characteristics of 47 different floral types. It took a lot of work and not a little faith to carry out this labour, and I am not sure whether I have managed to sway expert opinion with it. In any case I do hope so, and I also hope that others later on will improve on my work. It has been quite some time since I had news about your precious health. I hope you are very well, and that you may be able to enjoy for many years yet the tokens of veneration and respect that all naturalists owe you. Full of admiration and affection towards you I remain | your most faithful disciple | Federico Delpino DAR 162: 152 1 2

3 4 5 6 7

For a transcription of this letter in its original Italian, see pp. 131–2. A heavily annotated copy of both parts of Ulteriori osservazioni sulla dicogamia nel regno vegetale (Further observations on dichogamy in the vegetable kingdom; Delpino 1868–75) is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 191–2). An appendix on dimorphism in the walnut species Juglans regia is in Delpino  1868–75, 2: 337–42. Anemophilous: wind-pollinated (Chambers). Zoidiophilous: pollinated by the agency of animals (Jackson 1900). Lilium martagon is the Turk’s cap lily, and Lilium croceum (now Lilium bulbiferum) is the tiger lily. Delpino may be referring to the phototropic style of the flowers; for details, see Brantjes and Bos 1980. Christian Konrad Sprengel described orchids as ‘Scheinsaftsblumen’ or false-nectar flowers, because their nectaries contained no fluid (Sprengel 1793, p. 403). See Delpino 1868–75, p. 150 n. Johann Karl Augustin Wächter discussed the role of insects in the fertilisation of Ophrys nidus (probably Neottia nidus-avis, bird’s-nest orchid) in Wächter 1801, pp. 211–13. See Delpino 1868–75, p. 150 n.

534 8

9

Translations

Hermann Crüger had noted how the pollen-mass of Coryanthes was secured onto the back of the bee (Euglossa) as it tried to force its way out through a passage after falling into a ‘bucket’ of nectar; when the bee next fell into the bucket of the same or another flower, the pollen was deposited on the stigma as it tried to leave (Crüger 1864, p. 130). For previous correspondence with Delpino on this subject, see Correspondence vol. 17, letters from Federico Delpino, 9 October 1869 and 1 November 1869. Coryanthes is the genus of bucket orchids. See Delpino 1868–75, p. 149 n. Cephalanthera ensifolia (sword-leaved helleborine) is a synonym of C. longifolia; the plant is pollinated by solitary bees. Cephalanthera grandiflora (white helleborine; now C. damasonium) is self-pollinating.

From Federico Delpino1   18 April 1875 18 April 1875 Most distinguished man I thank you for the courteous words in your esteemed letter of the 13th of the month,2 and no less do I thank you for the promise of letting me have your work on insectivorous plants, a work that surely deserves its place next to all your other writings, which have contributed so much to the expansion of the field of science. I shall prepare a summary of this latest publication of yours for the Annuario scientifico italiano for 1876.3 The topic interests me very much because I myself spent a little time on it a few years ago. I published a brief account “sulle piante a bicchieri” in the Nuovo Giornale botanico italiano.4 This note provoked the sarcasm of Prof. Mantegazza, who ridiculed the idea of carnivorous plants. It strikes me though that the said professor doesn’t have much of a point to make. I know that all he has published are unfounded and superficial attacks on the principle of sexual selection, a principle so brilliantly advocated by your honour, of whose veracity I am absolutely persuaded.5 Indeed, the evidence of my studies on dichogamy indirectly support the said principle.6 With the best wishes for your health I remain with the most heartfelt gratitude | Your faithful disciple | Federico Delpino DAR 162: 153 1 2 3 4 5 6

For a transcription of this letter in its original Italian, see pp. 150–1. The letter from CD has not been found, but see the letter from Federico Delpino, 8 April 1875. Delpino’s review of Insectivorous plants appeared in Annuario Scientifico ed Industriale 12 (1876): 432–7. Delpino’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). Delpino 1871; see letter to J. D. Hooker, 14 April [1875] and n. 5. Delpino concluded that the function of the pitchers was nutritive (Delpino 1871, p. 175). Sulle piante a bicchieri: on pitcher-plants. Paolo Mantegazza had criticised CD’s theory of sexual selection in Descent, especially the role of female choice (see Mantegazza 1871 and Correspondence vol. 19, letter to Paolo Mantegazza, 22 September 1871). In Descent 1: 260, in the context of sexual selection, CD drew an analogy between the male parts of the flower maturing before the female in dichogamous plants and the early arrival of male birds in their breeding grounds. Delpino published widely on dichogamy, including his Ulteriori osservazioni sulla dichogamia nel regno vegetale (Further observations on dichogamy in the vegetable kingdom; Delpino 1868–75).

Translations

535

From William Marshall1   2 June 1875 Weimar 2 June 1875. Most honoured Sir! Please accept my sincere thanks for your friendly letter and the kind gift.2 The feather is uncommonly interesting and I see in it a direct confirmation of my hypothesis. It is obviously an atavism, it has a true (not apparent one like the Cassowary feather) aftershaft and the main shaft for its part is, and this really is analogous to Cassowary feathers, branched, that is, instead of only one radius developing, here three are to be found.3 It is also very interesting to see that domestication can cause creatures to revert in a relatively short time. It would be important for me to know if it is a feather from the back. I would think so.—4 Soon I will have the pleasure of sending you a larger treatise on siliceous sponges (Hexactinellida).5 For the theory of selection they afford little support, to be sure, but I have far higher hopes in this direction for a work with which I am still busy, though, on the skin of caterpillars, particularly the poison apparatus;6 the number and stepby-step regression to rudimentary organs (e.g. in all caterpillars that live hidden in wood, under stones, etc) is downright astounding. As soon as I have, with your permission, used the feather as the subject of a work, I will return the same in as pristine a state as possible.7 With true respect | Your devoted | William Marshall DAR 171: 48 1 2 3

4

5 6 7

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see pp. 213–14. See letter to William Marshall, 29 May 1875. CD had sent Marshall an ostrich feather that he had received from Thomas François Burgers. Marshall had sent CD a copy of the journal Zoologische Garten with his article on the juvenile plumage of ostriches and the relation of the feathers of the Ratitae to those of the Carinatae (Marshall 1875a; letter to William Marshall, 29 May 1875). Ratitae and Carinatae were major divisions of birds characterised respectively by the absence or presence of a carina or keel bone on their sternum. The carina makes flight possible by anchoring the wing muscles (see T. H. Huxley 1867). Marshall had hypothesised that the contour (body) feathers of cassowaries and emus could be understood not as having a shaft and aftershaft (or afterfeather) of nearly equal size, but rather as having two feathers sprouting from the same shaft, while the ostrich feather had a single shaft with only one feather (ibid., p. 126). Cassowaries (genus Casuarius) are ratites native to New Guinea and northern Australia; emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae) are Australian ratites. Marshall evidently considered the aftershaft to be a primitive feature, which, he believed, domesticated ostriches possessed in contrast to wild ones, which lacked it. In flying birds, an aftershaft is more common on contour (body) feathers than on flight feathers, and such feathers typically provide insulation. CD’s copy of Marshall’s study of the Hexactinellida (glass sponges; Marshall 1875b) is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. No publication by Marshall on this topic has been identified. Marshall did not publish on the feather; CD evidently told him to keep it.

536 From Otto Zacharias1   3 June 1875

Translations Görlitz (Silesia) 3rd. June 75.

Highly venerated Sir! For some time now I have been in correspondence with prof. Häckel ( Jena) in regard to the founding of a biological periodical which, in honour of your famous name, is to be called “Darwinia”.2 I have set myself the difficult task in this projected monthly periodical of discussing biological, morphological, and transformationist subjects so that every highly educated person can gain new insight into the important problems of zoological science. We have in Germany no such periodical. Our natural science journals & weekly publications (like Gäa, die Natur, the Naturforscher etc)3 are not sufficiently instilled with the value & importance of your theory. I wish to make good this deficiency with a special organ for Darwinism. At present I am trying to enlist renowned collaborators from every field, & I have had a bit of luck with finding some. Prof. Häckel will promote the undertaking to the best of his powers & will occasionally even contribute articles.4 German scholars will stand up as one man against a Darwinist monthly, either because they believe that it will profane & water down the theory—or because they fear that the flood of transformationist teachings could break through all the barriers of culture & morals. I have no fears in either direction and shall carry out my intentions despite everything. The plan for the periodical is, briefly, the following: every month one biological question will be thoroughly discussed in the leading article. Then reviews of books of evolutionary theoretical content will follow—not boring discussions, however, but critical articles (essays) for proper instruction. Furthermore, Dr. Dohrn of Naples will probably send a monthly report on work carried out in his aquarium.5 I have also considered inviting the Darwinist professors of all German universities to send me extracts from their lectures, etc. etc. I take the liberty of sketching out for you the arrangement of the projected periodical with a view to asking you, highly honoured Sir, for a brief critical appraisal of the project, since it must be my heartfelt desire to shape the periodical in such a way that the editing & all the rest of its arrangement will be endorsed & approved by you. Furthermore permit me to ask whether you yourself would consider writing a few introductory words for the first issue—of course on condition that the printed manuscript would be provided for your inspection. Only if you approve of the supplied essays & reviews—would I dare hope that my request be granted. You may find my request to you, highly honoured Sir, fairly audacious, but you will know that in Germany, everything new is considered with distrust, and that an enterprise can be successful here only if in the very hour of its birth it makes a forceful and vigorous appearance. Based on these deliberations I have written this letter to you, so that the very first issue will carry the names Darwin, Häckel, Müller, Jäger, Weismann6 etc. I do not know whether you will forgive my nonchalance—but I hope

Translations

537

that you will not judge me too harshly. When eagerly pursuing an idea, one tends to act in a somewhat reckless manner, & many things would not materialise if one let oneself be overly intimidated by recurring doubts. I regard the transformationist monthly in question as fulfilling a genuine requirement of the times—provided that I will succeed, in the long run, in carrying on on the trail inaugurated by Prof. Häckel, that is, of the popular and yet profound presentation of complex biological problems. Prof. Häckel is entirely in accord with me regarding the need for such a magazine as projected. You, highly venerated Sir, would equip me for the pursuit of my goals with twice the courage if you were so good as to send me, at your leisure, a few lines expressing very briefly your opinion of the magazine to be founded. Regretfully I cannot write in English—I read and comprehend it well enough. An essay of mine, to establish my credentials, is following under wrapper. It is on a book by Prof. Wigand of Marburg and seeks to correct the errors of that gentleman. Wigand has published a work of 600 pages against your theory.7 With the most respectful | devotion | Dr. Otto Zacharias DAR 184: 1 1 2

3 4

5 6 7

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, and a contemporary translation, see pp. 216–19. Zacharias proposed founding the popular journal in his letter to Ernst Haeckel of 19 May 1875 (see Nötlich et al. 2006, pp. 199–200). He had first contacted Haeckel to write a piece on him for the Leipzig Illustrierte Zeitung in 1874 (letter from Otto Zacharias to Ernst Haeckel, 15 April 1874; ibid., pp. 187–8). For more on Zacharias’s role as populariser of science, see Daum 1998, pp. 400–3. Gaea was founded in 1865, Die Natur in 1852, and Der Naturforscher in 1868. For more on these and other popular science journals in Germany, see Daum 1998, pp. 337–70. In a letter to Haeckel of 11 June 1875, Zacharias wrote that Oskar Schmidt was willing to contribute two or three articles a year. Gustav Jäger, while fully supporting the venture, wanted the proposed journal to publish opposing views as well. Both Fritz and Hermann Müller had agreed to be contributors, and other supporters included Friedrich von Hellwald, Anton Dohrn, Moritz Wagner, Georg Seidlitz, and Oskar and Richard Hertwig. (See Nötlich et al. 2006, pp. 201–3.) Dohrn’s aquarium was part of the Naples Zoological Station; it had opened to the public two months after the research laboratories, at the end of 1873 (Heuss 1991, p. 156). August Weismann. There is an annotated copy of Zacharias’s review, ‘Zur Kritik des Darwinismus’ (Zacharias 1874) in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Albert Wigand, who was professor of botany at Marburg, had sent CD the first volume of his work on Darwinism (Wigand 1874–7) in March 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Albert Wigand, 11 March 1874). CD’s copy of the complete work is in the Darwin Library–Down.

From Ernst Haeckel1   6 June 1875

Jena 6 June 1875

Most honoured dear friend! Accept the enclosed book, by my colleague and friend here, Fritz Schultze, entitled “Kant und Darwin”, which I don’t doubt will interest you very much. You will see

538

Translations

from it that over a century ago, our greatest German philosopher already advocated ideas that must be regarded not just as the first clear conception of the theory of descent, but also of your theory of selection.2 I recommend you in particular p. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 38, 46, 47, 48–50, 55–58 61 (—1775!!), 65, 76, 84 etc. It is yet another laurel in the wreath of your fame, to have a predecessor in the greatest thinker of Germany!— I hope that this will convert many German philosophers to “Darwinism”!— In March and April I was in Corsica and Sardinia (I stayed especially long in Ajaccio) where I collected useful new material for my Gastraea-theory.3 I am now also busy with the 6th edition of Schöpfungsgesch. and with the 3rd of the “Anthropogenie”.4 You will receive English translations of both sometime this summer.5 I hope you are well. With the familiar veneration & with the most cordial greetings, your loyally devoted | Ernst Haeckel. DAR 166: 64 1 2

3

4

5

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see pp. 222–3. In his book on Immanuel Kant and CD (Schultze 1875, pp. 58–79), Schultze reproduced Kant’s essay on race, ‘Von den verschiedenen Racen der Menschen’ (On the different races of man; Kant 1777). Kant had defined races as deviations within a single line of descent preserved invariably over many generations. He discussed the idea that a noble stock of human beings could be created by breeding, but noted that nature would work to hinder such a scheme (ibid., p. 61). For more on Kant’s ideas about race, including a translation of his original essay on race of 1775 and the expanded version of 1777, see Mikkelsen ed. 2013. Haeckel first developed his ‘gastraea theory’ in his monograph on calcareous sponges (Haeckel 1872, 1: 344–5; see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from Ernst Haeckel, 8 October 1873 and n. 7). He proposed that two primary cell types or germ layers were differentiated in the early embryonic development of all multicellular organisms and that the ancestral mode of germ-layer formation was by invagination to produce a functional gut. This stage in development was called gastrulation. He further hypothesised, drawing on his biogenetic law (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny), that there had existed an actual ‘gastraea’, by analogy with the developmental stage. Ajaccio is on Corsica. The sixth edition of Haeckel’s Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (Natural history of creation; Haeckel 1875a) did appear in 1875, but the third edition of Anthropogenie oder Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen (Anthropogeny or the developmental history of man; Haeckel 1877) was published in 1877. CD’s copy of Haeckel 1875a has not been found; his copy of Haeckel 1877 is in the Darwin Library–Down. Haeckel’s History of creation (Haeckel 1876a; translation of Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte) was published in 1876. Evolution of man (Haeckel 1879a; translation of Anthropogenie) appeared in 1879.

From Fritz Schultze1   12 June 1875 Jena, 12. June 1875. Highly honoured Sir! The works of the greatest German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, are an inexhaustible source of great fertile ideas, whether moral or religous or aesthetic or scientific. When philosophers like Fichte, Schelling, Hegel,2 are discredited, if not forgotten in Germany, Kant stands alone like a monumental mountain range; every

Translations

539

diligent German student is duty bound to explore its valleys and to climb its peaks. On the other hand, it is the “Darwinist theory” which is winning over our minds more and more. Is it then not splendid and wonderful that there exists a bridge between Kant’s philosophy and Darwinism, not one that must be artificially constructed, but one that Kant himself has built! If the early Church fathers viewed Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato as “Christians before Christ”; if Luther3 and the reformers were looking for “reformers before the reformation”, and found them amongst medieval scholars; if they used these predecessors to legitimate the truth of their theories—in the same manner can we now view Kant as a “Darwinist before Darwin” and as an “authority for the truth of the theory”, and as such we can put him to effective use. My hope is that Kant, whose standing with all parties in Germany is exceedingly high, will convert to Darwinism also those who have remained unconvinced, or that he will at least weaken their resistance and render them innocuous. May you regard the enclosed book4 as a small token of the great esteem in which I hold you and with which I remain | Your most devoted | Dr. Fritz Schultze. DAR 177: 67 1 2 3 4

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see p. 226. Johann Gotlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Martin Luther. Ernst Haeckel had already sent a copy of Schultze’s book, Kant und Darwin (Schultze 1875), to CD with his letter of 6 June 1875. One copy of the book is in the Darwin Library–CUL.

From Julius Sachs1   4 July 1875

Würzburg 4 July 1875

Highly honoured Sir! The appearance of a new work by you is always a happy event for me, but I was looking forward to your Insectivorous plants with particular anticipation, and all the greater was the happy surprise that your sending of this remarkable book provided. I thank you no less for your so flattering letter.2 I have the honour of sending you with this the first four issues published to date of the “Arbeiten des botanischen Instituts in Würzburg”;3 that they contain relatively little by me is primarily due to the fact that over the past years it has been repeatedly necessary to work on new editions of my Lehrbuch, to which was also added work on a “Geschichte der Botanik”, which has just gone to press and which I shall have the honour of sending you in September.4 I have made a particular point, in this historical account, of demonstrating that the theory of descent founded by you has also laid the foundations for a new era of botany, that only with your theory were clarity, principles and persistence introduced into our investigations.5

540

Translations

For 24 hours I have been in possession of your work, which I shall study all the more fully since in what I have read so far numerous starting points are presented for investigations that I am now planning to carry out, without the interruptions of before, on the significance of protoplasm for the irritability of plants, for their heliotropic, geotropic and other inflexions. As concerns the dissolving and digesting power of the glands of Drosera, I believe that it can be compared to the effect of the vegetable embryo on the endosperm during germination. The embryo of palms, grasses, Euphorbiaceae etc.  obviously secretes a fluid that dissolves the substance of the endosperm into its components so they may be absorbed.6 I have communicated this in greater detail in my Keimungsgeschichte der Dattel (botanische Zeitung 1862 p 241 ff); unfortunately I have run out of copies of this work.7 Previously, I had also shown that roots are capable of dissolving marble and other minerals.8 Indeed, I believe that the roots of parasites have a dissolving effect on the substance of their host, and likewise that mycelia and the roots of Neottia & similar plants secrete a fluid that detaches organic substances from the materials that surround them so that they can be absorbed.9 Hence it looks as though the secretions of the glands of Drosera are only a special case of a process that is common in the vegetable kingdom, but that here they constitute the Clearest case of it; and it seems to me that precisely this generalization of your so admirable results increases the value of the latter.10 I would very much appreciate discovering whether you agree with this generalization. Please accept the expression of my sincerest veneration and admiration. Your most devoted | D. J. Sachs. DAR 177: 4 1 2 3

4

5

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see pp. 249–51. CD’s letter to Sachs has not been found. Sachs’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). CD’s copies of the four issues of Arbeiten des botanischen Instituts in Würzburg have not been found; these four issues form the first volume of the journal. Hugo de Vries had sent CD two articles from the third issue (Vries 1873a and 1873b; see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to Hugo de Vries, 19 February 1874); CD’s annotated copies of these articles are in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Sachs contributed four articles to the first volume of Arbeiten des botanischen Instituts in Würzburg between 1872 and 1874. The fourth edition of Lehrbuch der Botanik (Text-book of botany; Sachs 1868) was published in late 1874 (Sachs 1874b; see Thiselton-Dyer 1875, p. 295). CD’s annotated copies of the second and third German editions (Sachs 1870 and 1873), as well as an annotated French translation of the third edition (Sachs  1874a) are in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 727–30).  An English translation was published in April 1875 (Sachs 1875a; Publishers’ circular, 16 April 1875, p. 282). In Insectivorous plants CD referred frequently to the French translation, Sachs 1874a. CD’s copy of Geschichte der Botanik (History of botany; Sachs 1875b) is in the Darwin Library–CUL. In his history of botany (Sachs 1875b, pp. 12–13), Sachs argued that there had been an ever-growing discrepancy between scientific research and the theoretical views of systematists within botany. He pointed out that a true concept of relationship was impossible to define in a system that posited the dogma of constancy of species. However, he believed that when CD’s theory of evolution appeared, researchers could develop a truly natural system based on real genealogical relationships rather than a priori classificatory grounds.

Translations 6 7

8

9

10

541

Euphorbiaceae is the family of spurges. In Insectivorous plants, p. 362, CD had referred to Sachs 1874a on the power of the embryo to dissolve the ‘albuminous substances out of the endosperm’. In his paper, ‘Zur Keimungsgeschichte der Dattel’ (On the problem of germination of the date; Sachs 1862, p. 243), Sachs described the specialised absorptive organ of the embryo, which dissolved and absorbed the contents of the endosperm. In his article ‘Auflösung des Marmors durch Mais-Wurzeln’ (Dissolution of marble by maize roots; Sachs 1860), Sachs described an experiment in which he exposed marble tiles to the roots of maize plants for three months, after which he found corrosion marks on the marble. He reported similar results in later experiments with roots of maize, wheat, pumpkin, nasturtium, and kidney-beans (Sachs 1864). Sachs argued that the absorption of nutrients in the endosperm by the embryo pointed the way to understanding the absorption of nutrients by saprophytes, which possessed no chlorophyll (Sachs 1875a, p. 643). Neottia is a genus of terrestrial orchids that includes species which lack chlorophyll and depend on fungi for nutrition. Mycelia, the vegetative parts of fungi, are made up of masses of thread-like branching filaments. Most of CD’s experimental work described in Insectivorous plants was performed on Drosera rotundifolia (common or round-leaved sundew).

From Arnold Dodel1   6 July 1875

Zurich 6 July 1875.

Mr. Charles Darwin in Down, Beckenham, Kent, | England. Most honoured Sir! Your delightful work “Insectivorous Plants”, which you so kindly sent me, reached me as intended last Saturday, 3 July, at the very moment when I was about to set out on a botanical excursion with my pupils to Katzensee, which lies 112 hours from here.2 While quickly leafing through your brilliant work, which to me as a botanist must be of very special interest, I found the lovely chapter on Drosera rotundifolia, a plant which occurs round the Katzensee in thousands. Thus your book had to go along on the excursion, and it did us excellent service. We found the plants at the most favourable stage & had the opportunity to observe hundreds of trapped insects, alive, dead & in the process of dissolving, on the leaves of Drosera. My pupils were no less surprised & delighted than I myself & this induced me to take a few dozen live plants home with me to repeat the observations. On Sunday (4/VII) I experimented with small flies, bits of egg white, meat etc., also made drawings & now have the pleasure of demonstrating, in my botanical-microscopical laboratory at the university here, the results of your investigations on the living plant to dozens of eager students.3 I am not exaggerating when I tell you that your latest brilliant work has already awakened a keen interest at the university here. Professors & students are busily taking notes on the experiments I conduct; next Thursday, a second excursion with the same purpose will lead us again to the Katzensee. In short, we, the friends & apostles of your fertile theory, all of us offer you our thanks. The veneration that your name receives here may give you some comfort (should you need any—) in the face of spiteful derision. Your latest valuable work on “Insectivorous plants” again strengthens my conviction that all organs, however insignificant they may appear to us, hairs, trichomes etc.,

542

Translations

benefit the species concerned. I believe—& I have said so often in my “Schöpfungsgeschichte”, against my highly venerated teacher: Prof. C. Nägeli in Munich—that there are no so-called morphological species.4 Whenever we are still unable to identify the use of an inconspicuous “morphological” difference between various forms, this by no means means that we must doubt your principle of “natural selection”. What we are unable to discover will be discovered by a later generation. Other botanists of high repute in the field share this view, such as e.g. A. Kerner in Insbruck whose excellent work on asyngamy etc. I announced in my “Schöpf-Gesch.”5 In short, we believe that there is nothing in the notion of so-called “morphological species” that have supposedly not come into existence through natural selection, in other words: that the principle of natural selection has acted in the differentiation of all species. Thus we, the spokesmen & apostles of your theory on the continent, believe that the principle of natural selection through the struggle for survival will be confirmed for all cases of species-formation. We will not retreat: together with the numerous biological works of recent times, we may confidently continue to teach: Darwin is right. I am just concluding a nice investigation of the lower limits of plant sexuality in manuscript (with 8 tables). Without knowledge of your theory I would hardly have been able to obtain my results. As soon as my work on “Ulothrix zonata” and its sexual & asexual reproduction” has left the press, I will send you a copy.6 My heartfelt thanks for your exquisite book! May you remain young for a long, long time yet! Giving expression to my deepest sentiments with feeble words, I remain | with the profoundest respect: | Dr. Arnold Dodel, | lecturer in botany | at the University of Zurich. DAR 162: 195 1 2 3 4

5

6

For a transcription of the letter in its original German, see pp. 252–4. Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Dodel’s name is on CD’s presentation list for the book (Appendix IV). Katzensee is a lake on the border of Zurich. For CD’s experiments with Drosera rotundifolia (common or round-leaved sundew) using egg white and other substances, see Insectivorous plants, pp. 92–128. In his book, Die neuere Schöpfungsgeschichte nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Naturwissenschaften (New history of creation according to the present state of natural science; Dodel 1875, pp. 92–8), Dodel had discussed the history of the concept of species. He noted that Carl von Nägeli, while accepting the formation of new varieties through natural selection, still recognised the existence of basic kinds from which varieties derived through adaptation to local conditions. Nägeli had outlined his theory in an essay on the origin and the concept of natural historical species (Nägeli 1865); for more on his notion of morphological characteristics not subject to natural selection, and CD’s response, see Correspondence vol. 16, letters to J. D. Hooker, 25 December [1868] and 29 December 1868; see also Origin 5th ed., pp. 151–7). Anton Kerner von Marilaun had presented his work on asyngamy (the prevention of intercrossing in plants due to different flowering periods) in early 1874, but its publication was delayed, so Dodel relied on a letter from Kerner von Marilaun in his discussion of Kerner’s findings (Kerner von Marilaun 1874; see Dodel 1875, pp. 276–7). Dodel’s study, Die Kraushaar-Alge, Ulothrix zonata. Ihre geschlechtliche und ungeschlechtliche Fortpflanzung (Frizzy hair alga, Ulothrix zonata. Its sexual and asexual reproduction; Dodel 1876) appeared in Jahrbücher für

Translations

543

wissenschaftliche Botanik. CD’s offprint of the paper is in the Darwin Library–CUL. Ulothrix zonata is a species of algae that can reproduce both sexually and asexually, depending on variations in light and temperature.

From Rudolph Riemann1   9 July 1875 Most highly honoured Sir! Regarding your work: “On the origin of species”, permit me to communicate the following on chapter IX:2 As a professional sheep-breeder, I have undertaken the hybridization of Serinus hortulanus (serin) and Dryospiza canaria (canary), chiefly for the purpose of clarifying the laws of heredity.3 As a result I have encountered the laws of “Prosper Lucas” as reported by you.4 Exceptions to this occur only in the case of extreme individual potency, which in my experience is especially characteristic of strong animals. Avoiding as much as possible all in-breeding, which as a breeder I must deplore, I have now crossed in the past year: I: II: III IV.

Male:

31 32

Dryospiza

1 32

Serinus

Female:

15 16

dto

1 16

dto

Male:

15 16

Dryospiza

1 16

Serinus

Female:

7 8

dto

1 8

dto

Male

31 32

Dryospiza

1 32

Serinus

Female

31 32

dto

1 32

dto

Male

7 8

dto

1 8

dto

Female

31 32

dto

1 32

dto

From all these matches offspring were produced and raised to adulthood. I herewith provide for your inspection hybrid “parents” from both sides in I

with

61 64

II

"

29 32

III

"

31 32

IV

"

59 64

Dryospiza

3 64

Serinus

dto

3 32

dto

dto dto

1 32 5 64

dto dto.

In order to get the same result in all circumstances as that already achieved, to form a new species, I carried on at the same time with hybridisation by “mating” 1 different breeds, and I can provide the image of 63 64 Dryospiza w. 64 Serinus, whose 1 father is a hybrid (32 Serinus) & whose mother is Dryospiza.

544

Translations

I am happy to communicate further details at your request, and I authorise you to use this communication any way you like. The facts themselves I am ready to swear to at any time. With the greatest respects | your most devoted | Rud. Riemann | Breslau, Centralbahnhof 31. Currently at my | estate: | Zell am See, | duchy of Salzburg. | 9. VII. 75. DAR 176: 157 1 2 3

4

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, and a contemporary translation, see pp. 259– 62. Chapter 9 of Origin 6th ed. was on hybridism. Riemann bred sheep on his estate at Sagschütz near Breslau (now Wrocław in Poland; for more on his theories of sheep breeding, see Riemann 1875). Serinus hortulanus is a synonym of Serinus serinus (the serin). Dryospiza canaria is a synonym of Serinus canaria (the wild canary). Crosses between canaries and finches are briefly mentioned in Origin 6th ed., p. 240. Prosper Lucas is cited in Origin 6th ed., p. 261, on the ‘laws of resemblance’, namely, that offspring tend to resemble both parents even when the parents are of different varieties or species; and that cases in which the offspring more closely resemble one parent are rare in hybrids. CD’s extensively annotated copy of Lucas’s work on heredity (Lucas 1847–50) is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 513–23).

From Alphonse de Candolle1   15 July 1875

Geneva 15 July 1875

My dear Sir You had the goodness to send me your interesting volume on Insectivorous Plants.2 I am studying it with pleasure—after my son3 who appropriated it first and who is replicating some of your experiments at his house. When I described the Sarraceniae for vol. XVII of the Prodromus, it often happened that I emptied quantities of small insects out of the urns and I used to be astonished to find their hard parts very well preserved while the rest had disappeared.4 Evidently the liquid substances, azotic or otherwise, had been absorbed, but the plant was probably doing just as well without them—that would be a fact to confirm through cultivation or in the countryside. I don’t doubt but that your discoveries will lead observers to others of the same kind, as in the case of insect fertilisation. The short article on buds of the same species coming from two localities, one further north than the other, was sent to you just as it is—that is to say, rather too abridged, because the Academy limits publications in the Comptes rendus to 6 pages.5 I ought to return to it next year with new experiments and explanations for other methods that lead to the same conclusions. With my best wishes for the continuation of your research, my dear Sir, please believe me yours very truly. | Alph. deCandolle DAR 161: 18

Translations 1 2 3 4

5

545

For a transcription of this letter in its original French, see p. 272. Candolle’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). Casimir de Candolle. Sarraceniaceae, a family of pitcher-plants, is described in Candolle and Candolle 1824–73, 17: 1–6. In Insectivorous plants, p. 97, CD briefly mentioned experiments made by Joseph Dalton Hooker on the digestive powers of the tropical pitcher-plant, Nepenthes (family Nepenthaceae). Candolle’s article appeared in Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences (Alpnonse de Candolle 1875). It described the effects of temperature and light in hastening or retarding the development of leafbuds and flower-buds in several species of trees. A copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.

From the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften1   20 July 1875 Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften N o. 793. With reference to the letter of 5 July this year2 Nr. 695 The signatory executive takes pleasure in sending your honour the enclosed diploma on your ratification as foreign honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences.3 The academy entertains the hope, by connecting itself more closely to your honour through this act which gives it great pleasure, that your honour will help to further its goals through your successful research and thereby assist in the enhancement of your influence on the development of science. Vienna, on 20. July 1875. The Executive of the Imperial Academy of Sciences: | Rokitansky4 | Siegel. To the foreign honorary member | P. T.5 Mr Charles Darwin | Esquire | at | Down, | Beckenham, England. LS(A) DAR 97: C8r 1 2 3 4 5

For a transcription of the letter in its original German, see pp. 285–6. The letter of 5 July 1875 has not been found. CD had been made a foreign corresponding member in 1871 (see Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 16 July 1871). For the diploma, see Appendix III. Karl Freiherr von Rokitansky was president of the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften (Imperial Academy of Science), Vienna (OBL); Heinrich Siegel was general secretary (BLKO). P. T.: pleno titulo (full title).

From Ludwik Masłowski to [ John Murray?]1   25 July 1875 REDAKCJA | Biblioteki Umięjętności | przyrodniczych | ulica Batorego Nr. 92. | Kraków 28 July 1875 Sir, I am taking the liberty of writing to you again, and beg your pardon for taking so much time from your work. But here is what is forcing me to address myself to you this time. I have received the engravings perfectly well packaged, for which many thanks.

546

Translations

But I have received some extra ones and some too few.2 Those that I lack are: 1) Fig. 32  Megalophrys montana (page 27, volume II) 2) Fig. 39  Tetras cupido (page 57, volume II) 3) Fig. 47  Paradisea rubra (page 75, volume II) 4) Fig. 50  Rupicola crocea (page 88, volume II) 5) Fig. 51  Polyplectron chinquis (page 90, volume II)3 At the same time, along with the other engravings, I have received seven more which do not exist in Mr. Darwin’s book. I have had them printed and am sending you the drawings. In consequence I beg you to tell me, Sir, what these seven figures signify? For I do not know what the drawings 1, 3, 6 and 7 represent. Then I am not certain have I properly understood the figures 2, 4, 5, for they are not the same as in Mr. Darwin’s book.4 If you have made a mistake in sending me them, write to me, and I shall return them to you; but at the same time have the goodness to send me the 5 figures I lack. Perhaps you have brought out a new edition of Mr. Darwin’s book, in which these figures appeared; if so, have the goodness to send me it (a copy of the book) and tell me the price, so that I may send you the money. I have the edition of 1871 (Eighth thousand)5 I divine the significance of the figure of No 6 somewhat. For Mr. Darwin writes in his book (page 147, vol. II) “I regret that I have not given an additional drawing, besides fig. 58, which stands about half-way in the series between one of the simple spots and a perfect ocellus” Have the goodness to to tell me whether this figure (No 6) truly “stands about half-way between a simple spot and a perfect ocellus” For if it is so, I could have it published in the book; if not—I shall return it to you. As for drawings 1, 3, and 7, I can in no way divine their significance. You would render me a great service, if you told me what they signify. I must also ask you to reply to me as soon as possible and to write on the envelope “Austria”, since otherwise the letter goes to Russia and from the former place it reaches me sooner. Believe me, Sir, yours truly | Your obedient servant | Louis Masłowski Cracow   Batory-street 92. DAR 171: 90 1 2

3

For a transcription of this letter in its original French, see pp. 297–8. CD had changed some of the illustrations for Descent 2d. ed.; one was removed, four were replaced, and three were new (see Correspondence vol. 22, letter to John Murray, 4 April 1874 and n. 5, and letter to R. F. Cooke, 8 April 1874 and n. 2). Of the figures in Masłowski’s list, number 1 was removed from Descent 2d. ed., and numbers 2–5 were replaced by figures drawn from life by Thomas W.  Wood (see Descent 2d ed. 2: 27). These were: fig. 39, p. 372 (Tetrao cupido, greater prairie chicken, male), fig. 47, p. 386 (Paradisea papuana, the lesser bird-of-paradise), fig. 50, p. 395 (Rupicola crocea, cock-of-the-rock, male), and fig. 51, p. 397 (Polyplectron chinquis, now P. bicalcaratum, the grey peacock-pheasant, male).

Translations 4

5

547

The three new illustrations for Descent 2d ed. were fig. 3, p. 17, the foetus of an orang-utan; fig. 52, p. 413, a male Argus pheasant displaying before the female; and fig. 60, p. 438, the wing feather of the Argus pheasant, showing the ocelli in an intermediate condition. Masłowski had requested permission to translate Descent into Polish in 1873 (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from Ludwik Masłowski, 14 May 1873). A second edition of Descent waspublished in 1874. A translation of the first seven chapters was published (Masłowski trans. 1874–5). The remainder of the book was published in two parts under the title Dobór płciowy (Sexual selection; Masłowski trans. 1875). See Schümann 2008, p. 250 n. 8.

From Giovanni Canestrini1   29 July 1875 GABINETTO DI ZOOLOGIA | ed Anatomia Comparata | della R. Universita’ di Padova 29 July 1875 Dear Sir, Unscrupulous behaviour by the publisher Zanichelli has so far prevented the publication of the translation of your work on the variation of animals and plants under domestication.2 Now however the Unione tipografico-editrice Torinese will publish the translation. In accordance with your wishes we will await the second edition, which will appear in November, so that every addition and modification of the second edition can be inserted. The translation of the first edition has been ready for years.3 In the meantime we would like to publish the translation of your work: The expression of the emotions in man and animals, to be completed by me and my student, and I request that you, most respected sir, grant me the Italian translation rights.4 The above named Unione tipografica has come to an agreement with Mr Murray over the stereotypes and tables;5 I will undertake no further negotiation in such matters. The second edition of the translation of your work: Origin of species etc., with additions from the 6th edition of the original, is now in the press and four fascicles have already appeared.6 Your theory is making great strides in Italy, and with it a scientific outlook in all branches of natural science. With best regards | yours | Prof. G Canestrini DAR 161: 36 1 2

3 4

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see pp. 303–4. Canestrini had asked CD for permission to translate Variation into Italian in 1868 (see Correspondence vol. 16, letter from Giovanni Canestrini, 14 May 1868). On problems with the publisher Nicola Zanichelli in 1870, see Correspondence vol. 18, letter from Giovanni Canestrini, 21 April 1870). An Italian translation based on Variation 2d ed. was published in 1876 by Unione Typografico-Editrice in Turin (Canestrini trans. 1876). The student was Francesco Bassani. An Italian translation of Expression was published by Unione Typographico-Editrice (Canestrini and Bassani trans. 1878). There had been some earlier confusion about the rights to translate Expression into Italian (see Correspondence vol. 21, letter from C. I. F. Major, 6 February 1873 and n. 2).

548 5 6

Translations

CD and his publisher, John Murray, had negotiated charges with foreign translators for the photographic plates of Expression (see Correspondence vol. 20, letter from R. F. Cooke, 1 August 1872). The second Italian edition of Origin was Canestrini trans. 1875.

From Édouard van Beneden1   18 August 1875 Liège 18 August 1875. My dear and renowned colleague, Upon receiving your letter I straightaway made enquiries concerning Mr Legrain, who was unknown to me. You will find a discussion of the work of that gentleman in the Bulletin of the Royal Academy of Medicine of Belgium (1867, IIIrd series, Vol. I No 1).— It has been demonstrated by Dr Crocq, who for his part merits every confidence, that it was materially impossible for Mr Legrain to have carried out the experiments he announces.—2 All this is an unworthy hoax authored by a man whose morality is characterised in the same publication by Dr Crocq.— This Mr Legrain, besides, has never enjoyed any consideration; he is a braggart and a humbug, who managed to deceive certain irresponsible physicians for a while, but there has been no question of that since his famous lark concerning supposed experiments on consanguineous marriages.— I remain, my dear and illustrious colleague, yours very truly. | Edouard Van Beneden. DAR 160: 134 1 2

For a transcription of this letter in its original French, see p. 324. CD’s letter to Beneden has not been found. In a paper presented to the Académie royale de médecine de Belgique (Legrain 1866), Jean Baptiste Legrain claimed to have interbred several generations of closely related rabbits without ill effects. The veracity of his account was challenged by Jean Crocq (Bulletin de l’Académie royale de médecine de Belgique 3d ser. 1 (1867): 26–49). Without referring to Beneden by name, CD used his information in the second edition of Variation in a note added to a discussion of the effects of inbreeding in rabbits (Variation 2d ed. 2: 100 n. 20). CD also recalled the episode in his autobiography (‘Recollections’, p. 425). See also letter to G. H. Darwin, [19 August 1875].

From Otto Zacharias1   19 August 1875

Goerlitz 19. Aug. 75.

Highly honoured Sir! I have received your new, delightful work on insectivorous plants, and if I am only today sending my best thanks for it, that is because I believed I would be able to give you more specific news about the projected biological journal after more time had passed.2 Unfortunately I have not yet found a sufficient number of collaborators & so must wait until this has happened before I can go ahead with the publication of the first

Translations

549

issue. So far, 12 gentlemen have agreed to collaborate—but 24 at least are required in order to tackle this matter with any success.3 However, I plan to have got the required staff together by the beginning of the new year. For your encouraging words I thank you most cordially.4 From time to time the transformist doctrine is still very much attacked over here, and just recently a substantial work by a young professor at Strasburg came out, on the developmental history of Bombinator igneus, which has campaigned against your interpretation of evolution. The author of the book is Dr. Goette.5 Professor Haeckel, too, must still put up with tough opposition and with being told that he is presenting the public with fantasies rather than actual circumstances. His Anthropogenie has caused quite a great stir and Prof. Michelis at Bonn has a written a satirical refutation of it, entitled: Haeckelogonie.6 Under such circumstances it is difficult to establish a journal of one’s own on behalf of Darwinism. Allow me a last question, highly honoured Sir! A while ago, in a gathering of scholars the conversation turned to your earliest essays & works, and somebody claimed that you had once written an “Essay on Marriage between blood relatives”. If so, I should like to have it sent me from England to translate it, for it must be extremely interesting to hear your views on this point.7 Perhaps you will let me know some time whether this essay is published and by which publisher in London. Thanking you again for sending me insectivorous plants, I remain | most respectfully | Otto Zacharias. DAR 184: 2 1 2

3

4

5

6

7

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see pp. 326–7. Zacharias’s name appears on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). For details of his plans to found a biological journal in CD’s honour, see the letter from Otto Zacharias, 3 June 1875. For the potential contributors, see the letter from Otto Zacharias, 3 June 1875 and n. 4. Although the periodical never appeared under the proposed title of Darwinia, many of the same contributors were involved in the launch of Kosmos, which first appeared in April 1877 and had essentially the same aims (Daum 1998, pp. 361–2; Nöthlich et al. 2006, pp. 177, 181–2). The original of the letter to Otto Zacharias, [11 June 1875], has not been found. Zacharias described it as a six-page letter in which CD gave the journal his full sympathy, his best wishes, and his support (‘seine volle Sympathie, seine besten Wünsche u. seine Unterstützung’; letter from Otto Zacharias to Ernst Haeckel, 19 June 1875, in Nöthlich et al. 2006, p. 203). In his book on the development of the toad Bombinator igneus, Alexander Wilhelm Goette accepted descent with modification but rejected natural selection as a mechanism (Goette 1874–5, pp. 890–7). For more on the reception of Darwinism in Germany, see Glick ed. 1988, pp. 81–116, and on Goette’s views, see especially ibid., pp. 101–4. Bombinator igneus is a synonym of Bombina bombina, the European fire-bellied toad. Friedrich Michelis subtitled his work (Michelis 1875) an ‘academic protest’ against Ernst Haeckel’s Anthropogenie (Haeckel 1875a). Zacharias wrote a number of reviews of Michelis 1875 (Nöthlich et al. 2006, p. 207 nn. 123 and 124). The paper ‘Marriages between first cousins in England and their effects’ was by CD’s son George Howard Darwin (G. H. Darwin 1875a); Zacharias arranged to have a translation into German made and provided an introduction (G. H. Darwin 1876).

550

Translations

From William Marshall1   21 August 1875 Weimar 21 Aug. 1875 Highly honoured Sir! Firstly, please accept my sincerest thanks for the letter you kindly sent me.2 Of great interest would be the divided feathers of young specimens, that is, in order to establish whether every shaft carries its own cluster of plumules, which to me seems likely anyway. I do not believe in a close relationship between the ostrich and reptiles, as Gegenbaur and Huxley emphasize. To me Ratitae are degenerate Carinatae, possibly fowls, possibly waders.3 Their young are complete, true birds. Their inability to fly and the resulting anatomical peculiarities have led to this assumption that they are closely related to reptiles. In my opinion the reptiles, though now extinct, that are closest to the birds, were in fact brilliant fliers. Steganopodes are, together with the Urinatores, of all birds closest to reptiles, I think.4 Have you ever seen a foetus or a very young specimen of Plotus or Aptenodytes?5 Their reptilian character is very pronounced. And, while this does not prove anything, if one compares the habit, the physiognomy even, of a pelican or ostrich to that of a reptile, one will be struck by the similarity of the one and the dissimilarity of the other. Should you, highly honoured Sir, be interested in a set of microscopical slides of Hexactinellida, I will send you one.6 Would it be possible to purchase armadillo embryos and foetuses in England? I should like to study the development of their armour. Assuring you of my greatest respect, I remain Yours truly devoted | Dr. W. Marshall DAR 171: 49 1 2 3

4

5

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see pp. 330–1. CD’s letter has not been found, but was probably a reply to the letter from William Marshall, 2 June 1875. CD’s notes for his reply are annotations to that letter. Carl Gegenbaur had noted osteological similarities between Compsognathus longipes (a turkey-sized dinosaur) and birds in his paper, ‘Vergleichend-anatomische Bemerkungen über das Fussskelet der Vögel’ (Comparative anatomical remarks on the bones of the foot in birds; Gegenbaur 1863, pp. 467–9), but did not refer specifically to ratite birds (those, such as the ostrich, without a keeled sternum). In his Grundzüge der vergleichenden Anatomie (Gegenbaur 1870, p. 587), he argued that the plumage of ratites was closest to the ancestral form of feathers. Thomas Henry Huxley had argued that ratites were most closely related to reptiles (T. H. Huxley 1868a, p. 69). Marshall had opposed Gegenbaur’s view of ratite feathers in his paper on the juvenile plumage of ostriches and the relation of the feathers of the Ratitae to those of the Carinatae (Marshall 1875a, pp. 125–6). For more on the division of birds into Ratitae and Carinatae, see the letter from William Marshall, 2 June 1875 and n. 3. Steganopodes is a former division of birds, based on the characteristic feature of four-toed webbed feet; it is roughly similar to the current order Pelicaniformes. Urinatores is a former division of birds that included grebes and divers or loons, which are now placed in separate orders. Plotus is a synonym of Anhinga, the genus of snakebirds. Aptenodytes is the genus of emperor and king penguins.

Translations 6

551

Marshall had promised in his letter of 2 June 1875 to send CD a copy of his work on Hexactinellida (glass sponges; Marshall 1875b). CD’s copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.

From Federico Delpino1   11 September 1875

Vallombrosa 11. Sept 1875

Venerated and most distinguished master! I must offer you my profound thanks for the exquisite kindness that you chose to show towards me by sending me the interesting book by Belt, “The naturalist in Nicaragua”, and the classical book by your honour on insectivorous plants.2 This beautiful book deserves its place next to all the numerous other publications with which your honour successfully conducted back to the path towards truth the field of natural history, which had been misguided by so many scholastic prejudices. I have for a long time been convinced of the true nature and function of the insect-killing organs of the plants in question, but even so, I read your book to my great profit and instruction. I also had occasion to admire the talent at experimentation of your honour that has been manifested in this work. Recently I sent your honour a short essay of mine on “rapporti tra gl’insetti e i nettarii che nelle piante non servono alla dicogamia”.3 Now, it has been a great pleasure for me to see how Belt, through observations that are quite independent of mine and that have been carried out in a locality so distant from Italy, should have arrived at very analogous conclusions. Thus I also had the satisfaction of seeing my conjecture regarding the fertilisation of the Marcgraviae through the Trochilidae confirmed by Belt.4 This interesting part of Botany, the study of the adaptations of the external life of plants, that is, of the relations between plants and external agents, has now taken off magnificently, through the vigorous impulse your honour has given it with the marvellous work on the fertilisation of Orchids.5 It urgently requires a patient and precise mind to gather all the observations, experiments and research undertaken regarding it, and to produce a complete treatise, which would be of interest in the highest degree. This part of Botany which boasts your honour and C. C. Sprengel as its founding fathers, I gave the name biology. Perhaps this name is not appropriate, but I was unable to find a better one. I believe, however, unless I am mistaken, that some author in England has accepted the expression “biology” with precisely the same meaning, “science of the external relations, or of external life”.6 I am so very delighted by the progress that the Darwinian doctrine is making day by day among educated circles in Germany, but it pains me that the same can’t be said for Italy.7 There are too many adverse interests, and I, in my tiny province, have had and will continue to have quite a few obstacles to overcome. But to compromise principles won’t do. I remain your honour’s | Most faithful disciple | F. Delpino DAR 162: 154

552 1 2 3

4 5 6

7

Translations

For a transcription of this letter in its original Italian, see pp. 355–7. Delpino refers to Thomas Belt and Belt 1874a. Delpino’s name appears on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (Appendix IV). No article with this exact title (Relations between insects and nectaries that do not serve dichogamy in plants) has been found. A summary of Delpino’s article ‘Rapporti tra insetti e tra nettarii estranunziali in alcuni piante’ (Illegitimate relations between insects and nectaries in some plants appeared in Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali in 1875 (Delpino 1875). There is an annotated copy in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL; CD wrote ‘9 Sept 1875’ on the back. See Belt 1874a, pp. 128–30. Delpino’s conjectures on the fertilisation of the Marcgraviaceae were published in Delpino 1869. Orchids. The term biology had been in use in English since at least 1799, but was still controversial in some quarters (Correspondence vol. 11, letter from Asa Gray to J. D. Hooker, 6 July 1863 and n. 9; OED). Herbert Spencer in his Principles of biology had defined life as the continuous adjustment of internal relations to external relations (Spencer 1864–7, 1: 80). Sprengel was one of the earliest to study the interrelatedness of flowers and insects, and CD studied the morphology of orchids as it related to the insects that aided in their fertilisation. On the reception of Darwinism in Germany and Italy, see Corsi and Weindling 1985 and Brömer 2008.

From Fritz Müller1   12 September 1875

Itajahy, S. Catharina, Brazil, 12. September 1875.

Honoured Sir! About  2  weeks ago I received your admirable book on insectivorous plants, which I read with exceptional enjoyment and interest, for the subject was entirely new to me.2 How exceptional and marvellous are these insect-eating and digesting plants! Let me thank you most cordially for your unchanging kindness. I regret that there are no species of Drosera or Utricularia here at Itajahy. On the island of S. Catharina there are a yellow and a blue Utricularia and also a type of Drosera.3 In an earlier letter I told you that one of our Meliponae lives as a parasite in the nests of another species.4 Actually I had caught in the nests of two different kinds of Melipona a few females that were smaller than the other females and quite differently coloured; also, they had somewhat longer antennae, which is characteristic for parasitic bees. These females hardly differed from one another, but they were very different in appearance from the bees they lived with. Thus I was led to the erroneous conclusion that they were parasites. Now when my brother compared these supposed parasites of the one type with the queen of the same nest, he found that they were the same as them, except of course for the greatly swollen abdomen of the queen.5 Even before I heard this news, I had come to the same conclusion, that is, that the supposed parasites are actually young females of the species with which they live. I know of such females in 4  species of Melipona; those of 3  of them can barely be distinguished from each other without detailed examination, and those of the 4th kind differ solely in that they are considerably smaller, while

Translations

553

in contrast the males and the infertile females (workers) of the various kinds exhibit great differences in colour, hair, etc. In each species the male and infertile female resemble each other greatly, while differing strongly from the fertile female. It is a very curious fact that both kinds of female (fertile and infertile) differ so much that the infertile female is identical with the male, and the fertile female resembles that of a different species far more than it resembles the infertile female and the male of its own species. Fertile females have evidently diverged far less from the common ancestral form than males and infertile females, and this may be related to the fact that the fertile female probably leaves the nest but once, to be fertilized, and spends the entire remainder of her life in darkness, where colours are of little significance for her ....6 A. Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 318 1

2 3

4

5

6

For a transcription of the first part of this letter in the German of its printed source, and for the rest of the letter (in English), see pp. 357–8. According to Alfred Möller, all Fritz Müller’s letters to CD were written in English (see Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 72 n.); most of them have not been found. Many of the letters were later sent by Francis Darwin to Möller, who translated them into German for his Fritz Müller: Werke, Briefe und Leben (Möller ed. 1915–21). Möller also found drafts of some Müller letters among Fritz Müller’s papers and included these in their original English form (ibid., 2: 72 n.). Where the original English versions are missing, the published versions, usually appearing in German translation, have been used. One sheet of this letter was forwarded to Joseph Dalton Hooker and is now in the archive of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; it has been transcribed from the original. Müller’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). Utricularia praelonga, which has yellow flowers, and U. reniformis, which has blue-violet flowers, are found in Santa Catarina, Brazil (see Taylor 1989 for details of their distribution). Drosera communis is a common species in Santa Catarina, but other species have been found there as well. Utricularia is the genus of bladderworts; Drosera is the genus of sundews. Müller did find a parasitic species, but of the genus Trigona (T. limâo, now Lestrimelitta limao ). See Correspondence vol. 22, letters from Fritz Müller, [c. January 1874] and 20 April [1874]. Melipona, Trigona, and Lestrimelitta are genera of stingless bees. In late 1872, Müller had sent several specimens of bees to his brother, Hermann Müller, who forwarded them to Frederick Smith for identification (letter from Fritz Müller to Hermann Müller, 15 December 1872, Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 208–10). In January 1873, Fritz sent Hermann around forty bee specimens, including nine species that he described as belonging to the genera Melipona and Trigona (letter from Fritz Müller to Hermann Müller, 29 January 1873, Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 214–18). For more on Fritz Müller’s work on stingless honey bees, see Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 208ff., and West 2003, pp. 178–82. Müller had planned to publish his observations on stingless bees, but only published a short work (F. Müller 1875; see letter from Fritz Müller, 20 April [1874] and n. 20). The text of a lecture he gave to a local cultural society on the comparative anatomy of stingless bees and details of cell construction in different species is reproduced in Möller ed. 1915–21, 2: 257–92.

From Oswald Heer1   28 September 1875 My most honoured friend! Forgive me for taking so long in sending my warmest thanks for the beautiful book on insectivorous plants which you were so kind as to send me.2 I was very

554

Translations

busy when it reached me & had saved reading it for my holidays, which I intended to spend in the country. Your results have interested me greatly & the admirable circumspection & tenacity with which you carried out your observations made an overwhelming impression on me. How striking it is that the same cells secrete decomposing substances & that others absorb nitrogenous material for their nutrition, that without nerve fibre such complex moves are carried out, how marvellous, that a minimal amount of certain substances can already activate such movements & transformations in the cells,—this & so much more has been shown by your research. Moreover, you will open up many new lines of investigation. All the many plants that are covered with sticky glandular hairs will have to be examined in their relation with insects, & also the absorption of nutritive substances through the root fibres will need re-examining, since the secretions of the root cells very probably have a greater significance than has been hitherto assumed. So this new work of yours will therefore yet again bring light & life in the most diverse ways. During the past months I was busy investigating the Jurassic flora of East Siberia & the Amur country, for which purpose the Academy of St. Petersburg supplied me with materials.3 The flora consists of numerous ferns, Cycadeae & conifers, with Taxineae being prominent among the latter.4 The genus Ginkgo (Salisburia) appears in 6  species, which could be represented not only in many excellently preserved leaves, but partly also in male catkins & in the fruit, in addition, there is a closely related extinct genus that is preserved in leaves, flowers & fruit.5 It looks as if Ginkgo had reached the peak of its development in the Jurassic period. From then on it can be traced through the Wealden, the Urgonian, the Cenomanian & the Miocene to the present. Ginkgo adiantoides, which appears in the Miocene of Greenland & central Italy & which recently has been sent to me from the island of Sakhalin, is scarcely any more different from G. biloba L.6 On the other hand the Rhaetian formation contains a number of plant forms that would be described as Jeanpaulia & Baiera, which are closely related to Ginkgo, & among the Carboniferous plants Nœggerathia & Cordaites are obviously closely related to this genus.7 With the warmest greetings | Your most respectfully devoted | Oswald Heer Zurich 28 Septemb. 1875. DAR 166: 132 1 2 3 4

5

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see pp. 375–6. Heer’s name appears on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (Appendix IV). The book was published on 2 July 1875 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Heer published his observations in Heer 1876. Academy of St Petersburg: the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St Petersburg. Cycads are now in the family Cycadaceae. In his classification, Heer divided the Coniferae into two sections, Taxineae and Taxoidieae, and placed the genus Ginkgo in Taxineae. Ginkgo is now placed within its own class Ginkgoopsida, while the present class Pinopsida (conifers) includes the family Taxaceae (yews). Salisburia was an alternative genus name for Ginkgo (Smith 1797), but is now considered to be illegitimate. The extinct genus that Heer identified as closest to Ginkgo was Baiera (Heer 1876, p. 11).

Translations 6 7

555

Heer listed Ginkgo adiantoides of Sakhalin Island, off the east coast of Siberia, in Heer 1878, pp. 21–2. Jeanpaulia is a synonym of Baiera.These genera were seen to represent the phylogeny of Ginkgo, from the earliest Cordaites and Trichopitys to Noeggerathia, then Baiera and finally Ginkgo.

From Edouard Bergson1   10 October 1875 Warsaw, 10 October 1875. Sir, For the second time I am taking the liberty of importuning you. The benevolence you showed me, by doing me the honour of responding to my first letter, encourages me to appeal to your extreme obligingness again.2  This time I am concerned with a question on which I beseech you to give your decisive opinion. Four years ago a singular idea came to me: while reflecting on the marvels of nature, while considering its regularity and seeing (thanks to your research) that everything in it is regulated and demonstrates continual development and perfection to us, I said to myself that since there is an incontestable link between the higher and the lower animals (consisting of incessant perfection), there is perhaps such a one between the animal and plant worlds. In a word, I believed that there had been a propitious moment in which a plant cell of some kind had transformed itself into the cell of an animal creature. As I already have 21 years of experience, and a little more, this idea seems very strange to me; however, even if it is absurd, it contains some circumstances which are not opposed to the possibility that it is correct. In going into it thoroughly, I found that all the proofs designated as determining the difference between animals and plants, though supposedly evident, are in part insufficient and in part ill-founded. For a long time, movement ad libitum3 was considered to be proper to animals alone; but it has been found that there are germs of aquatic plants which produce no flowers and which, while yet in the state of vesicles, move at will before losing their cilia and growing roots. It has been proven that there is nitrogen both in the animal organism and in the organism of plants. Link assumed that the stomach was the sole mark serving as a distinction between the two worlds discussed above.4 But since some creatures are deprived of that organ, this point of view falls of itself. Schleiden wanted to command respect for his opinion by attempting to persuade us that the most important parts of the animal are internal, while those of plants are however—external: which is evidently false.5 Seeing all these opinions as insufficient, Siebold thought that the definitive difference lay in the construction of the primitive parts. So he proved that the membrane of the plant cell differs from that of the animal in that the former only changes in

556

Translations

form during growth, while the latter possesses, besides that special property, also the property of elasticity; but Hermann Schacht has demonstrated the falsehood of that affirmation.6 Thus there is no difference between the primitive parts of the animal and those of the plant, except that the vital force changes their forms and is, perhaps, parallel to the force that distinguishes minerals from plants. My occupations have not allowed me to find more proof justifying my idea and my research is thus rather theoretical and superficial; that is why I am daring to ask you, Sir, herewith, to be so good as to tell me: if there is a salient difference between the primitive form of the animal and that of the plant? Supposing that none should exist, is my opinion absurd? You are without doubt the only man who can say something decisive in this regard. It is certain that nature, so outlandish in her mysteries for us profane men, is well regulated and simple to the eyes of genius. The history of universal progress gives us infallible proof of her simplicity and regularity. Happy the geniuses to whom humanity owes the explanation of things which seem marvellous to it! You, Sir, are one of these elect! You have ordered these masses of disparate animals, showing that they are relatives and assigning the respective roles they have played in the history of creation. So I appeal to your indulgence, Sir, in asking you to be so good as to respond to the questions laid down above. You will take me without doubt to be a fanatic or an ignoramus; the extremes meet: if my idea is not correct, it is the opposite; but forgive me for it: it is one of the dreams of youth; put what you would consider an impossibility down to a dreaming mind or the research of an adolescent. Before making up my mind to write to you, Sir, I hesitated between the fear of importuning you and the pleasure of having your opinion. The first often overwhelmed me, leaving me in a state of doubt, but the nightmare of my idea constantly pursues me; so please, Sir, be so good as to forgive my persistence in this regard and believe me, with thanks in advance, yours truly. Edouard Bergson. P.S. Please send me your benevolent reply, Sir, by way of the General Consulate of France at Warsaw (Poland). DAR 160: 173 1 2 3 4 5

6

For a transcription of this letter in the original French, see pp. 389–91. Neither Bergson’s first letter nor CD’s reply has been found. Ad libitum: at one’s discretion; at will (Latin). Heinrich Friedrich Link’s remark on the animal stomach has not been identified. Matthias Jacob Schleiden had proposed that cells were the basic structural elements of all plants in Beiträge zur Phytogenesis (Contributions to phytogenesis; Schleiden 1838). His remarks regarding differences between animals and plants have not been identified. Karl Theodor Ernst von Siebold had discussed differences in plant and animal cells, noting that the principal difference was the rigid cell wall present in plants but not in animals (Siebold 1848, pp. 8–9). Hermann Schacht discussed the morphology and physiology of plant cells in Die Pflanzenzelle,

Translations

557

der innere Bau und das Leben der Gewächse (The plant cell, the inner structure and life of plants; Schacht 1852).

From Giovanni Canestrini1   22 October 1875 Padua 22/10 75 Dear Sir, Unione tipografico-editrice of Turin has informed me that a part of the second edition of Variation under Domestication has already appeared;2 would you be so kind, dear sir, as to send me the already published part directly to Padua, and to do the same with the following sheets as they appear. This way we will be in a position to have the Italian translation of the second edition follow the English one in good time. After the publication of the above named translation I hope to also publish Expression of Emotions at the same time, since the work is almost completed, and the above named Union intends to come to an understanding with Mr Murray regarding the clichés and photographs.3 The translation of Origin of Species is almost completely printed off, only two sections are wanting, the final chapter for one, my notes and an afterword in which Italian literature on your theory is collected for another. The notes themselves include mostly extracts from works of Italian researchers that have a connection to your ideas.4 With best regards | yours | Prof. G. Canestrini. DAR 161: 37 1 2

3

4

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see p. 410. Although Variation 2d ed. had an 1875 imprint, it was published only in the second half of February 1876 (Publishers’ circular, 1 March 1876, p. 168); the Italian translation appeared in 1876 (Canestrini trans. 1876). Proof-sheets of all of the first volume were probably not yet available (see letter to Gustavus Fritsche, 27 October 1875). Unione Tipografico-Editrice of Turin was publishing a number of CD’s works in Italian; Canestrini was the translator. An Italian translation of Expression was published by Unione Typografico-Editrice (Canestrini and Bassani trans. 1878); CD’s publisher, John Murray, was supplying copies of the heliotype prints of the photographs and clichés (stereotypes) of the engraved illustrations to the Italian publisher (see letter from R. F. Cooke, 12 October 1875 and n. 1). Canestrini’s translation of Origin 6th ed. was published in 1875 (Canestrini trans. 1875).

From Ernst Haeckel1   7 November 1875

Jena 7 Nov. 75

Most honoured, dear friend! Yesterday I received, through your kindness, the new edition of your beautiful work on “Climbing Plants”. I send most heartfelt thanks for it along with my gratitude for

558

Translations

“Insectivorous Plants”, which, with their most interesting phenomena of adaptation, have excited the most lively interest here, not just among naturalists, but also in German philosophical circles.2 I hope, from your vigorous and untiring activity, I can conclude that your health is satisfactory, and I wish with all my heart that you may continue with undiminished productivity and give us many more valuable works yet! I myself have been busy all this past summer with ontogenetic observation and the phylogenetic interpretation of the first five stages in the development of the animal body, and I believe I can finally trace these back in all cases now to one and the same original type of development. This theory I have tried to set out in great detail in the enclosed work on “die Gastrula und die Eifurchung” as a conclusion and supplement to the “Gastraea-Theorie”.3 The germination of Gastrophysema (on table VIII) represents the pure, original process of development as is also found in Amphioxus, Ascidia etc.4 All other types of Gastrula-formation can be traced back to this former one. I also observed this same original type in a new coral from the Red Sea, a description and illustration of which I will send you next month, and which I have named, in your honour, Monoxenia Darwinii.5 This little coral (a solitary Alcyonaria) is of interest also because it represents one of the most primitive and ancient forms. It is closely related to the Hartea described by Perceval Wright, but is even more basic in its structure. It contains no skeleton, no spicula.6 Since among all living corals this form is probably closest to the ancestral form (at least of the Octactinia), I felt I could give her no other name than that of the great naturalist to whom we owe the first and the best insights into the formation of coral reefs.7 The “Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte” has now appeared in English translation, and I trust that Mr.  King has sent you the copy that was intended for you. I had asked Mr. E. Ray-Lankester to take care of it.8 The English translation of “Anthropogenie” (which will come out in New York) I hope to be able to send you before the end of the year.9 To what extent Darwinism is now acknowledged in Germany you may gather from the fact that a Dr. Zacharias is planning to bring out a special magazine with the name “Darwinia” and that even theologians seriously accept your theory of selection!10 With the best wishes for your precious health, I remain, my most esteemed friend, Yours | truly devoted | Ernst Haeckel DAR 166: 65 1 2

3

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see pp. 437–41. Climbing plants 2d ed. was published in the first half of November 1875 (Publishers’ circular, 16 November 1875, p. 932). Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July 1875 (see ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Haeckel’s name is on CD’s presentation list for both books (see Appendix IV). Haeckel sent an offprint of ‘Die Gastrula und die Eifurchung der Thiere’ (The gastrula and egg-cleavage of animals; Haeckel 1875b); CD’s lightly annotated copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Haeckel had first outlined his gastraea theory in his monograph on calcareous

Translations

4

5

6

7 8

9

10

559

sponges (see Haeckel 1872a, 1: 344–5; see also Correspondence vol. 22, letter from Ernst Haeckel, 20 December 1874 and n. 10). In his new work, Haeckel identified four principal cleavage types in embryogenesis and related these to modifications in the original form of the egg (Haeckel 1875b, pp. 78–111). See Haeckel 1875b, p. 167. Gastrophysema (a synonym of Halyphysema) is a genus in the phylum Foraminifera (unicellular amoeboid protists). Amphioxus (the lancelet; now Branchiostoma lanceolatum), formerly considered to be a primitive fish, is now placed in the subphylum Cephalochordata (lancelets). Ascidia is a genus of sea squirt in the subphylum Urochordata (tunicates). Haeckel’s description of Monoxenia darwinii was published in Arabische Korallen (Arabian corals; Haeckel 1876c, pp. 6–8), a profusely illustrated book based on popular lectures with additional scientific explanation. Haeckel sent CD a copy in early 1876 (Correspondence vol 24, letter from Ernst Haeckel, 31 January – 1 February 1876); it is now in the Darwin Library–Down. Alcyonaria is a former name of the subclass Octocorallia (soft corals, sea pens). The genus Hartea was described by Edward Perceval Wright as a solitary form, unlike most Alcyonaria, which are typically aggregated forms; he described the basal portion of its body as thickly studded with small star-shaped spicula (Wright 1865, pp. 214, 216–17). Octactinia is a former name of Octocorallia (see n. 6, above). Haeckel alludes to CD’s work Coral reefs, the second edition of which was published in June 1874 (Publishers’ circular, 1 July 1874, p. 420). Haeckel’s History of creation (Haeckel 1876a), a translation of the sixth edition of Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (Haeckel 1875a), was published in 1876. Henry Samuel King was the publisher of History of creation. CD’s annotated copy is in the Darwin Library–CUL (see Marginalia 1: 357). The English translation of Haeckel 1877 (the third edition of his Anthropogenie, first published in 1874) was published in 1879 by C. Kegan Paul & Co. in England and by D. Appleton & Co. in the US (Haeckel 1879a and 1879b). CD’s lightly annotated copy of The evolution of man (Haeckel 1879a) is in the Darwin Library–Down (see Marginalia 1: 355). The publishing business of H. S. King was sold to Charles Kegan Paul in October 1877 (Publishers’ circular, 16 October 1877, p. 764; see n. 8, above). Otto Zacharias had written to CD about his plans for a journal to be called Darwinia (letter from Otto Zacharias, 3 June 1875).

From Hugo de Vries1   7 November 1875 Würzburg. 7 Nov 75. Most honoured Sir! Many thanks for having been so very kind as to send me the second edition of your work on Climbing Plants.2 I thank you still more however for acknowledging so kindly my two essays on the subject, which I had never expected to receive so great an honour as you bestowed on them.3 Only a few days ago, upon my return to Würzburg from a prolonged journey, I found your precious gift awaiting me here, and now I derive great pleasure from studying in thoroughly. For the extensive instruction which I find here, as ever in your works, I offer you my sincerest thanks. Allow me to take this opportunity to express to you in particular my admiration for your latest work, on Insectivorous Plants.4 This summer I had the opportunity to witness almost all the chief experiments with various plants, partly at Hofrat Sachs’, partly by repeating them myself, and I was thus able not only to convince myself of the correctness of your observations and conclusions, but also to learn to appreciate and to admire them in greater depth.5 You have doubts about the hypothesis that the curvature of tendrils is caused by the difference of the rate at which both sides grow lengthwise. There, I must admit, you

560

Translations

have put your finger on the weak spot in my argument. My experiments demonstrate directly only that these curvatures are commonly accompanied by a change in the longitudinal growth, and I admit that I made a purely theoretical assumption, not proven for the special case, when I offered this difference in growth, at the beginning of my work, as the cause of the curvature movement. Your opinion, that the bending is caused by something else, and that it brings about the difference in the rate of growth, to me seems equally justified, and the evidence you adduced very much supports your argument.6 In my view, however, your doubts must concern all so-called curvature movements to the same extent, and I would rather not give my opinion on the matter before it has been investigated from a general point of view. Again warm thanks for your kindness towards me, & I remain | With the greatest respect | Your obdt. servant | Hugo de Vries. DAR 180: 19 1 2 3

4 5

6

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, and a contemporary translation, see pp. 441–3. Vries’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Climbing plants 2d ed. (see Appendix IV). CD’s annotated offprints of Vries’s two articles on climbing plants, ‘Längenwachsthum der Oberund Unterseite sich krümmender Ranken’ (Longitudinal growth of upper and lower sides of twining tendrils; Vries 1873a) and ‘ Zur Mechanik der Bewegungen von Schlingpflanzen’ (On the mechanics of movement in climbing plants; Vries 1873b) are in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. CD mentioned Vries’s two essays as worthy of careful study in the preface to Climbing plants 2d ed., p. v, and cited them frequently throughout the book. Vries’s name is on CD’s presentation list for Insectivorous plants (see Appendix IV). Julius Sachs, in whose laboratory Vries worked from 1871, had been so interested in Insectivorous plants that he acquired most of the species mentioned by CD and repeated several of the experiments in lectures and demonstrations (letter from Julius Sachs to Hugo von Thiel, 1 August 1875; quoted in Pas 1970, p. 180). Hofrath: literally ‘court counsellor’, but also an honorary title given to senior civil servants, including, in the nineteenth century, academics (for a contemporary explanation of the usage, see, for example, United States Literary Gazette, 1 May 1826, p. 102). See Climbing plants 2d ed., pp. 132–3,179–82. CD described an experiment he performed on a twining tendril of Echinocystis lobata (wild cucumber) that showed that the convex side of the tendril did not increase in length as the tendril coiled around a stick, and concluded that the curvature resulted from contraction of the cells on the concave side (ibid., pp. 180–1).

From Hugo de Vries1   17 November 1875

Würzburg 17 Nov 75.

Highly honoured Sir Please accept my best thanks for your last letter.2 I don’t know whether next summer I will again have the opportunity to further my investigation of climbing plants—but should this be the case I will consider my first task to be to observe for myself the facts you emphasised in your work. Hopefully Echinocystis lobata as well as Passiflora gracilis will be available to me by then, but I believe that other, very sensitive tendrils will display the same phenomena. Probably the relations of

Translations

561

longitudinal growth to twisting must, for all curvatures, be interpreted differently from how I had previously done.3 With my best compliments | most respectfully | Your obdt.  servant | Hugo de Vries. DAR 180: 20 1 2 3

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, see pp. 455–6. See letter to Hugo de Vries, 10 November 1875. CD had used Echinocystis lobata (wild cucumber) and Passiflora gracilis (crinkled passionflower) in his research on the twining of tendrils; see Climbing plants 2d ed., pp. 128–34, 153–6. Vries continued to study the causes of tendril curvature in 1879, after having worked out the mechanics of cell growth in plants (letter from Hugo de Vries, 7 August 1879, Calendar no. 12186).

From Quintino Sella1    28 November 1875

Protocol. N.o 448 | Reply to document N .o | Of Fellow of the Academy | N .o of enclosures 1

Reale Accademia de’Lincei | Rome 28 November 1875. | Subject | Nomination as

To the most distinguished Sir Mr Charles Robert Darwin | London Esteemed Sir. His majesty the King of Italy by His decree of 4 February 1875 has deigned to confirm the Accademia dè Lincei.2 From the minutes of the sessions of the Academy of 24 and 25 January 1875, which I have the honour of passing on to you, you will glean the reasons, and the nature of this confirmation. You will also find the new Statutes of the Academy.3 In addition to dividing the Academy in two Sections, one for Physical, Mathematical and Natural Sciences, the other for Moral Sciences, History and Philology, each of the two Sections were allotted 10 Foreign Members (art. 2 of the Statutes) who enjoy all the rights that are due to the National Members. They participate in the assemblies and in the elections (art.s 18, 21). When they are in Italy, they also participate in the election of Members (Art. 12). The Section of Physical, Mathematical and Natural Sciences has already elected eight of its Foreign Members. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to announce to your most distinguished highness that you have been nominated one of the X foreign members of the Section of Physical, Mathematical and Natural Sciences, and that your nomination has been approved by H.M. the King of Italy, in His Decree of 2 July 1875. It is my duty to send you the Decree of His Majesty, and in due course I will have the honour of sending you the Academic Diploma.4 I rejoice with the Academy to have acquired in you a Colleague, and a Collaborator who has rendered science such eminent service, and I hope that you, too, will appreciate the demonstration of esteem which Italy, united in its Eternal Capital,

562

Translations

wants to make towards you by admitting you to the most ancient of existing Scientific Academies as Her Active Foreign member. All your Colleagues would consider it an honour if you sent to the Academy papers or original communications. They will be speedily published in the Academic Volume in the language in which they have been written, and the author will receive a hundred offprints of the paper or communication. May you, distinguished Colleague, accept my fraternal greetings. The President | Q Sella P.S.  Your honour will soon receive the first and second volume of the second Series of the Atti dell’Accademia. Of the first Series there are not sufficient copies for distribution among the Members. I have however the honour of sending you a copy of the first Volume of the said Series, which may interest you since it contains historical information about the Academy.5 [Enclosure] VITTORIO EMANUELE II BY THE GRACE OF GOD AND THE WILL OF THE NATION KING OF ITALY We have seen the Statute of the Accademia de’ Lincei of Rome that was approved by Our Decree of 14 February 1875; We have seen the letter of the President of the said Academy of 16 June 1875; At the suggestion of our Minister the Secretary of State for public instruction: We have decreed and we decree: The nominations, made by the above-mentioned Academy, of the gentlemen: Charles Robert Darwin (London) | as Foreign Members of the class of physical, mathematical and natural sciences of the Accademia de’ Lincei of Rome are approved. Our aforesaid Minister has been charged with the execution of this Decree, which will be registered at the State Audit Court. Granted at Sant’Anna on 2 July 1875 Signed Vittorio Emanuele | signed Ruggiero Bonghi6 Registered at the State Audit Court | on 16 July 1875 | Reg. 432D. at the Court 152 | signed Ayres.7 Certified as similar to the existing Original | in the Archive of the Academy | Rome | The President | per. | P. Volpicelli Secr.8 For the copy from the original Decree | Vo. The Director Head of Division 2ei signed DAR 229: 43, DAR 230: 44 1 2 3 4

For a transcription of this letter in its original Italian, see pp. 466–7. The king of Italy was Victor Emmanuel II. The minutes and statutes of the Accademia have not been found. For the diploma, see Appendix III.

Translations 5 6 7 8

563

Issues of the Atti dell’Accademia de’ Lincei from 1875–80 are in the collection of unbound journals in the Darwin Library–CUL. Ruggiero Bonghi was the minister of education from 1874 to 1876 (DBI). Vittorio Ayres Paolo Volpicèlli was a secretary of the Accademia de’ Lincei (Enciclopedia Italiana).

From Louis Grenier to John Murray1   22 December 1875

Tenny 22 Decber. 1875

Mr. John Murray Sir Please be apprised of the enclosed letter, addressed to Mr. Darwin, and in the event that you should have the literary ownership of his work, reply to me concerning the request I am making. In the opposite case, please pass my request, which I do not doubt he will receive favourably, on to him.2 Yours sincerely | L Grenier Address: | Louis Grenier | Tenay (Ain) | France DAR 171: 474 1 2

For a transcription of this letter in its original French, see p. 501. See the letter from Louis Grenier, 22 December 1875, which Murray forwarded to CD (Correspondence vol. 24, letter from Louis Grenier, 20 May 1876).

From Louis Grenier1   22 December 1875

Tenny 22 Decber. 1875

To Mr. Darwin Sir I have read your work entitled “Insectivorous plants” and I have been keenly interested by the numerous and profound observations it contains. I hope that we shall soon have a good French translation, which all those who occupy themselves with botany will be interested to procure for themselves.2 In the meantime I ask your permission to make a very brief summary of the first chapters of the work. This summary is destined for the Lyons Botanical Society to which I belong; it will first be read in Session, and probably an intention to insert it into the Society’s Annals will be expressed.3 I must tell you that this summary can only encourage those who read it to become better acquainted with your book. Please reply to me regarding this matter and accept, dear Sir, my respectful | Greetings | L Grenier Address: | Louis Grenier | Tenay | (Ain) | France DAR 171: 475

564 1 2 3

Translations

For a transcription of this letter in its original French, see pp. 501–2. The French translation of Insectivorous plants was prepared by Edmond Barbier; it was published in 1877 (Barbier trans. 1877). Grenier’s ‘Analyse de l’ouvrage de M. Ch. Darwin sur les plantes insectivores’ was published in the Annales de la Société botanique de Lyon for the session of 10 February 1876 (Grenier 1876).

APPENDIX II Chronology 1875 This appendix contains a transcription of Darwin’s ‘Journal’ for the year 1875. Darwin commenced his ‘Journal’ in August 1838 and continued to maintain it until December 1881. In this small notebook, measuring 3 inches by 4 12 inches, Darwin recorded the periods he was away from home, the progress and publication of his work, and important events in his family life. The version published by Sir Gavin de Beer as ‘Darwin’s Journal’ (de Beer ed. 1959) was edited before the original ‘Journal’ had been found and relied upon a transcription made by an unknown copyist. The original, now in the Darwin Archive in Cambridge University Library (DAR 158), reveals that the copyist did not clearly distinguish between the various types of entries it contains and that the transcription made was incomplete. From 1845 onward, Darwin recorded all that pertained to his work (including his illnesses, since these accounted for time lost from work) on the left-hand pages of the ‘Journal’, while the periods he was away from home, and family events, were noted on the right-hand pages. In order to how clearly Darwin’s deliberate separation of the types of entries he made in his ‘Journal’, the transcription has the left- and righthand pages labelled. All alterations, interlineations, additions, and the use of a different ink or pencil have been noted. In addition, the editors have inserted additional information relevant to Darwin’s correspondence throughout this transcription of the ‘Journal’ for 1875. These interpolations are enclosed in square brackets to distinguish them from Darwin’s own entries, the source of the information being given in the footnotes.

[Left] 1875 March 29th. finished M.S of Insectivorous & recorrecting Climbing Plants.1 Began correcting Jan 3d Began writing, with some observations on April 1st on Insectivorous Plants.2 May 23d finished slips of Insectivorous Plants July 2d Insectivorous Plants published 2700 sold immediately3 — 6 Correcting 2d Edit of Var. under Dom4

566

Chronology

Oct 3d Finished about Var under Dom; but shall have nearly month of more work with proofs &c Therefore I may say I began “On advantages of Crossing” on Sept 1st.—5 [Right] 1875 [1 February. John and Ellen Frances Lubbock visited.]6 [16 February. Gustavus Frische visited?]7 [6 March. Francis Maitland Balfour visited.]8 March 31st to Eras9 & Litchfields10 [4 April. Visited Thomas Henry Huxley.]11 [6 April. To Richard Buckley and Henrietta Emma Litchfield.]12 Home April 12th.— [17–18 April. R. B. and H. E. Litchfield, T. H. and Henrietta Anne Huxley, George John Romanes, and Lawson Tait visited.]13 [4 May. Dorothy Fanny Nevill had lunch with CD.]14 [8 May. George Young and Alfred Tylor visited.]15 June 3d to July 6 Abinger Hall16 July 2d Insectivorous Plants Published 300017 copies printed. [18 July. Edwin Ray Lankester and William Turner Thiselton-Dyer visited.]18 [31 July. Joseph Dalton Hooker visited.]19 Aug. 28th to Sept 11th. Southampton, William20 [11 September. Annie Dowie called.]21 [13 September. Henry Eeles Dresser and Nikolai Alekseevich Severtsov visited.]22 [23 September. Francis Galton visited.]23 [10 October. J. D. Hooker and James Joseph Sylvester called.]24 [16–17 October. T. H. and H. A. Huxley and John Tyndall visited.]25 [24 October. John Ferguson McLennan had lunch with CD.]26 [3 November. CD gave evidence to the Royal Commission on vivisection.]27 Nov. 4th & 5. Erasmus. for Vivisection Commission28 Dec. 10th to 20th Bryanston St. —29 [12 December. Visited T. H. and H. A. Huxley.]30 [19 December. Visited Alfred William Bennett.]31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Insectivorous plants and Climbing plants 2d ed. ‘writing … observations’ is interlined. CD began writing Insectivorous plants on 1 April 1874 (see Correspondence vol. 22, Appendix II). ‘sold’ is added above the line. See letter from R. F. Cooke, 3 July 1875. CD refers to Variation 2d ed. CD refers to Cross and self fertilisation. Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242). See letter to Gustavus Fritsche, 13 February 1875.

Chronology 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32

567

Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242). CD’s brother, Erasmus Alvey Darwin, lived at 6 Queen Anne Street, London. CD’s daughter Henrietta Emma and her husband, Richard Buckley Litchfield, lived at 2 Bryanston Street, London. See letter from T. H. Huxley, [4 April 1875]. Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242). Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242). Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242). See letter from E. B. Tylor, 4 May 1875, and letter to J. B. Innes, 10 May [1875]. Abinger Hall in Surrey was the home of Thomas Henry and Katherine Euphemia Farrer. ‘3000’ is written above ‘2250’, which is deleted. CD wrote to Alfred William Bennett that 2250 copies had been sold (letter to A. W. Bennett, 17 July [1875]). Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242). See letter from J. D. Hooker, [29 July 1875]. CD’s eldest son, William Erasmus Darwin, lived at Bassett, Southampton. Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242). See letter to H. E. Dresser, [10 September 1875], and letter to G. H. Darwin, 13 September [1875]. See letter to G. J. Romanes, 24 September [1875]. Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242). Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242). See letter to G. H. Darwin, [25 October 1875]. Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection. CD’s brother, E. A. Darwin, lived at 6 Queen Anne Street, London. It appears that CD went to London on 3 November and returned home on 4 November (see letters to G. J. Romanes, [4 November 1875] and 4 November 1875). 2 Bryanston Street, London, was the home of R. B. and H. E. Litchfield. Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242). See letter to A. W. Bennett, [17 December 1875] and n. 2.

APPENDIX III Diplomas presented to Charles Darwin In 1875, Darwin received the following diplomas. Although not letters in the conventional sense, diplomas represent significant communication between Darwin and scientific organisations, and the citations in such diplomas often provide valuable indications of those aspects of Darwin’s work that were considered worthy of honour. In view of this, they have been included here. From Leiden University 8 February 1875 RECTOR ET SENATUS ACADEMIAE LUGDUNO-BATAVAE Lectoribus Salutem! Honorum omnium, tum in re civili, tum in re literaria, hoc imprimis consilium esse, ut qui suis meritis alios antecedant, novam ab illis honoribus commendationem consequantur, acceptaque laude ad praeclara quaeque incitentur, communis omnium existimatio est. Neque tamen eorum honorum praestantiam et dignitatem in ea re unica aut praecipua spectari, recte semper iudicarunt maiores. Inchoantes praemiis incitare praeclarum est et iucundum, sed praeclarius etiam et iucundius honoribus illos ornare, qui sine tali incitamento ad eximiam eruditionis laudem pervenerunt, quoniam inde in ipsos, quibus haec praemiorum decernendorum provincia mandata est, aliquantum redundat ornamenti. Haec autem facultas viros eruditione et doctrina insignes iusto honore decorandi uti Nobis Rectori et Senatui Academiae Lugdano-Batavae semper grata et accepta fuit, ita nunc maxime est cum eo iure uti possimus, ut in virum egregium Carolum Darwin in Medicina lauream doctoralem honoris causa conferamus. Neque hoc eo animo agimus, ut viri Doctissimi laudibus aliquid inde accedat incrementi, sed ut nostrae erga eum benevolentiae exsistat documentum. Quapropter Nos, pro potestate Nobis concessa, eumdem Carolum Darwin Medicinae Doctorem solenni ritu creavimus et renunciavimus, concessis ei iuribus omnibus et immunitatibus, quae legitime creato Medicinae Doctori vel lege vel consuetudine tribui solent. Cuius rei ut firma sit et testata fides, Diploma hoc publicum, manu Actuarii nostri1 subscriptum ac maiori Academiae sigillo confirmatum, ei dari curavimus.

Diplomas

569

LUGDUNI BATAVORUM AD DIEM VIII FEBRUARII MDCCCLXXV. A Heynsius Acad. Rector | A. E. J. Modderman | J. A. Boogaard | T. Zaaijer M Polano | D Doijer2 | G D L Huet | Siegmund Rosenstein [Translation] THE RECTOR AND SENATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN To the readers [of this document], greetings! The general opinion of everyone is that the main purpose of all honours, both in public life and in the field of letters, is that those men who are outstanding by their deserts may acquire fresh esteem from those honours and, by receiving praise, they may be spurred on to further splendid achievements. However, our ancestors have always rightly considered that the excellence and dignity of these honours are not judged uniquely or especially on this score. To encourage beginners with prizes is splendid and delightful, but it is even more splendid and delightful to distinguish with honours those men who, without such encouragement, have achieved outstanding praise for their learning, because from this some portion of the distinction overflows on the very men who have been entrusted with the task of awarding prizes. This power of decorating with the proper honour men outstanding for their scholarship and learning has always been pleasing and welcome to Us, the Rector and Senate of the University of Leiden, and now it is particularly so since we are able to use this right to confer on this outstanding gentleman, Charles Darwin, the honorary degree of Doctor of Medicine. And we do not do this with the intention that the praises of the very Learned man should thereby in any way be augmented, but so that there should exist a document of our good will towards him. Wherefore We, through the power invested in Us, have in the customary fashion appointed and proclaimed this same Charles Darwin Doctor of Medicine, granting to him all the rights and privileges which are usually rendered, whether by statute or custom, to one lawfully appointed Doctor of Medicine. So that the authority of this matter may be valid and certified, we have seen to it that this public Diploma be given to him, endorsed by the hand of our Registrar and confirmed by the greater seal of the University. LEIDEN 8 FEBRUARY 1875. A Heynsius Rector of the University | A. E. J. Modderman | J. A. Boogaard T. Zaaijer | M Polano | D Doijer1 | G D L Huet | Siegmund Rosenstein DAR 229: 40 1

Dirk Doyer.

Diplomas

570

From the Society of Naturalists at the Imperial University of Kazan 1875

29 March

ОБЩЕСТВО ЕСТЕСТВОИСПЫТАТЕЛЕЙ ПРИ ИМПЕРАТОРСКОМЪ КАЗАНСКОМЪ УНИВЕРСИТЕТѢ ВЪ ЗАСѢДАНІИ, 22 МАЯ 1871 ГОДА, ИЗБРАЛО ВЪ ПОЧЕТНЫЕ ЧЛЕНЫ ЧАРЛЬЗА ДАРВИНА

No. 71.

Президент Общества    Н. Мельников Секретарь    Н Маліев “17” Марта 1875 года.1

[Translation] Society of Naturalists at Imperial University of Kazan at the meeting, 22 May 1871, elected to honorary membership Charles Darwin. President of the Society    N. Mel’nikov Secretary    N. Maliev “17” March, 1875 N o. 71. DAR 229: 41 1

17 March in the Julian calendar is 29 March in the Gregorian calendar.

From the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften 20 July 1875 Die | Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften | hat in ihrer | Gesammtsitzung am 28. Mai 1875 | Herrn | CHARLES DARWIN | zum ausländischen Ehrenmitgliede | der mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Classe gewählt | und | Seine Kaiserliche und Königliche Apostolische Majestät | haben diese Wahl mit Allerhöchster Entschliessung vom 20. Juni 1875 | Allergnädigst zu genehmigen geruht. Wien am 20. Juli 1875. Carl Frh. v. Rokitansky | Präsident. Siegel. | Generalsecretär.

Diplomas

571

[Translation] From the Imperial Academy of Sciences 20 July 1875 The | Imperial Academy of Sciences | has at its | general meeting on 28 May 1875 elected | Mr | CHARLES DARWIN | an honorary foreign member of the mathematical–natural science section and His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty has graciously deigned to approve this election with an imperial resolution of 20 June 1875. Vienna July 1875. Carl Frh. v. Rokitansky | President. Siegel. | General secretary. DAR 229: 42

From the Società dei Naturalisti in Modena 20 December 1875 Società dei Naturalisti | in Modena | Fondata nel 1865 La Società dei Naturalisti di Modena nella sua Seduta del 19. Dicembre 1875 ha eletto il Signor Carlo Darwin a suo Socio Onorario e gliene rilascia il diploma. Modena il 20. Dicembre 1875. IL PRESIDENTE | Carlo Boni Il Vice Presidente | prof. A. Carruccio Il Segretario | Paolo Riccardi [Translation] Society of Naturalists | in Modena | Founded 1865 The Society of Naturalists of Modena in its session of 19 December 1875 has elected Mr Charles Darwin an Honorary Fellow and issues him this diploma. Modena, 20 December 1875. PRESIDENT | Carlo Boni Vice president | Prof. A. Carruccio Secretary | Paolo Riccardi DAR 229: 45

APPENDIX IV Presentation lists for Insectivorous plants and Climbing plants 2d ed. Darwin began writing Insectivorous plants in April 1874 (CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)); it was a subject that he had worked on, on and off, since 1859. He sent the manuscript to John Murray, together with the corrections to Climbing plants, which was originally planned to be included in Insectivorous plants, at the end of March or beginning of April 1875. Climbing plants was then detached from the planned book and sent back to Darwin. Darwin spent the second half of April and most of May working on the proof-sheets of Insectivorous plants, with the help of his son Francis (letter to J. V. Carus, 19 April [1875]; letter to Francis Darwin, 30 April [1875]; CD’s ‘Journal’ (Appendix II)). Insectivorous plants was published on 2 July. The first print run was of 1250 copies, but 1700 were sold, so a second printing of 1000 copies was prepared (letter from R. F. Cooke, 3 July 1875). By the time the second printing was ready, all copies were already sold, and another 750 copies were printed (letter from R. F. Cooke, 16 July 1875). The first edition of Climbing plants was published in 1865 (see Correspondence vol. 13). Darwin sent the paper to the Linnean Society in January 1865 (ibid., letter to J. D. Hooker, 7 January [1865]). An abstract was read before the society on 2 February. The full paper was published as a double issue of the Journal of the Linnean Society in June, and a commercial offprint was made by Longmans and Williams & Norgate, as well as a separate set of author’s offprints. No presentation list has been found for the first edition. The second edition was the first to appear in hard covers (Freeman 1977). Darwin had originally planned to publish the second edition of Climbing plants as part of Insectivorous plants (letter to J. V. Carus, 7 February 1875). His ‘Journal’ (Appendix II) indicates that he worked on corrections to Climbing plants from January to March 1875. In April, however, Murray decided that the two books together were too big, and undertook to publish them as a separate volumes (letter from John Murray, 9 April [1875]; letter to J. V. Carus, 19 April [1875]). Work on Climbing plants was no doubt delayed by the proof-sheets of Insectivorous plants. Climbing plants is next heard of in August, when Robert Francis Cooke, Murray’s partner, announced the decision to print 1500 copies of it, and Darwin began work on the proof-sheets (letter from R. F. Cooke, 12 August 1875, letter to J. V. Carus, 19 August 1875). Murray held back publication until his annual trade sale in November (letter from R. F. Cooke, 3 September 1875), but Darwin was able to send clean proof-sheets to the translators in October (letter to J. V. Carus, 14 October [1875]). Cooke sent a bound

Presentation lists

573

copy on 22 October (letter from R. F. Cooke, 22 October 1875). Presentation and press copies were sent out at the end of October, and copies issued to booksellers on 10 November (letter from R. F. Cooke, 25 October 1875). By 14 December stocks were running low, and Cooke asked Darwin for corrections for a new printing (letter from R. F. Cooke, 14 December 1875); 500 copies were printed in February or March 1876 (Correspondence vol. 24, letter from R. F. Cooke, 23 February 1876). The presentation list below is the list for Insectivorous plants, with recipients of Climbing plants 2d ed. marked by red ticks in the original manuscript, and by black ticks in the transcription. (Private Copy)1 (Red Marks Climbing Plants)2 (33) ✓ Fritz Müller. Rio Itajahy St Catharina, Brazil3 (34) ✓ Prof. Asa Gray, Cambridge Mass. U.S.4 (3) Dr. Canby Wilmington Del:— U.S.5 (4) Mrs Treat Vineland New Jersey U.S.6 (5) Dr. Herman Müller Lippstadtt. Prussia (6) ✓ Prof. Sachs Wurtzburg Germany7 ✓(& Hugo De Vries8 (7) ✓ Prof. Hildebrand. Freiburg do9 (8) ✓ Prof. Delpino Pontassiere Vallombroso Florence10 (9) Prof. Schiff. Florence11 (10) J. Scott Bot. Garden Calcutta India (11) Dr. King, Superintendent. do. do. do. do do12 (12)✓ Prof. Cohn Bresleau Germany13 (13) Prof. E. Strasburger Jena, Saxe Weimar (14)✓ Prof. Häckel do. do.14 (15) Dr Dodel, the University Zurich15 (16) Prof. Oswald Heer do (17) M. Aglave 17 Rue de L’Ecole-de Medicin16 18)✓ M. Reinwald 15 Rue de St Peres Paris17 (Sheets) Insectivorous Plants18 (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)

Prof. Weismann Freiburg19 Prof. A. Kerner Innsbruch Austria Prof Donders Utrecht Holland20 Prof. C. Vogt Geneva. Swit— The Count Saporta, Academy of Sciences Paris21 Prof. G. Jaeger Stuttgart Prof. Nägeli Munich22

Presentation lists

574 (27) (28) (29) (30) (31)

La Societe Botanique de France, Paris23 M. A. De. Candolle Geneva Swiss. Prof. Hofmeister Heidelberg24 Prof. Dohrn Zoolog. Station, Naples25 Dr. O. Zacharias Görlitz Silesia26 Copies distributed by Murray (Private27

R. D. Fitzgerald. Prof. Weinland28 (1) B. Sanderson (2) Klein29 (3) Dr. Moore30 (4) J. Ralfs (5) Dr Moore Ireland31 (6) W. Marshall (7) J. Price. (8) Fox.32 (9) William33 (10) Eras.34 (11) Canestrini35 (12) Farrer36 (13) Lady D. Nevill. (14) Oliver37 (15) Hooker38 (16) Dyer39 (17) Fayer40 (18) L. Brunton (19) Frankland41 (20) Wallace42 (21) Lubbock43 (22) Bennett44 (23) Huxley45 (24) Masters46 (25) Etty47 (26) Royal Soc.48 (27) Linn. Socy49 28 & 29. George 2 copies50 (30) Frank51 (31) Horace52 (32) Bessy53 (33) self (34) Herbert Spencer (35) Paget.—54 (36) Wilkinson55 (37) Johnston56 (38) Payne.57 (39) Leonard58 Climbing Plants59 (see red mark ✓ on list of Insectivorous Plants) 8 for foreigners 4 for children at home 9, sent for self. 2d for Reinwald 3d for V. Carus (25 copies ordered) & 1 for Mr Nash.60 DAR 210.11: 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Blue crayon, after ‘Insectivorous Plants’, ink, deleted in pencil. Red crayon right margin. In the text, the ticks are in red. ‘(33)’ above ‘(1)’, deleted; ‘Rio’ altered from ‘R.’ ‘(34)’ above ‘(2)’, deleted. William Marriott Canby. Mary Treat. Julius Sachs. ‘(& Hugo de Vries)’ added in pencil. Friedrich Hildebrand. Federico Delpino Moritz Schiff. George King. Ferdinand Julius Cohn. Ernst Haeckel. Arnold Dodel.

Presentation lists 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

575

Before ‘(Sheets) | (Sheets)’, deleted. Emile Alglave was the co-founder and director of the journals Revue des cours scientifiques and Revue des cours littéraires. Above ‘(19) Victor Carus Leipzig’, deleted. ‘Peres Paris’ above ‘Pierres’, deleted. Charles-Ferdinand Reinwald published French translations of eleven of CD’s books. ‘Insectivorous Plants’ blue crayon right margin. August Weismann. Frans Cornelis Donders. Gaston de Saporta. Carl Nägeli. ‘La’ over ‘The’; ‘de France,’ interlined. Wilhelm Hofmeister. Anton Dohrn. Above ‘(31) M. Duval-Jouve. Societe Bot. de France, [‘Par’ del] Paris | (32) self at Abinger’, deleted. Over illegible word in pencil. Added pencil. David Friedrich Weinland. Edward Emmanuel Klein. Samuel William Moore. David Moore. ‘Ireland’ added. William Darwin Fox. William Erasmus Darwin. Interlined. Erasmus Alvey Darwin. Giovanni Canestrini. Thomas Henry Farrer. Daniel Oliver. Joseph Dalton Hooker. William Turner Thiselton-Dyer. Joseph Fayrer. Edward Frankland. Alfred Russel Wallace. John Lubbock. Alfred William Bennett. Thomas Henry Huxley. Maxwell Tylden Masters. Henrietta Emma Litchfield. The Royal Society of London. The Linnean Society. George Howard Darwin. ‘& 29’ interlined. Francis Darwin. Horace Darwin. Elizabeth Darwin James Paget. Henry Marlow Wilkinson. Edwin John Johnston. George Payne. Leonard Darwin. ‘Climbing Plants’ underlined in red pencil. Wallis Nash.

APPENDIX V Reviews of Insectivorous plants Insectivorous plants was published by John Murray on 2 July 1875 (Freeman 1977). This list identifies reviews of and responses to Insectivorous plants mentioned in Darwin’s correspondence in 1875 and 1876, as well as items contained in Darwin’s ‘Scrapbook of reviews’ (DAR 226.2), his pamphlet collection (DAR Pam), and elsewhere in the Darwin Archive–CUL. It is not a comprehensive list, but identifies all reviews that were known to Darwin. The list is arranged chronologically according to month of publication. In the case of unsigned reviews, the author’s name, if known, is given in brackets, with the source of the attribution supplied in a note. July 1875 [Maxwell Tylden Masters.]1 Gardeners’ Chronicle, 10 July 1875, pp. 44–5. DAR 139.18: 24. Anon. Insect eating plants. Standard, 12 July 1875, p. 2. DAR 139.18: 16. Alfred William Bennett. Darwin on carnivorous plants. Nature, 15 July 1875, pp. 206– 209, and 22 July 1875, pp. 228–231. DAR 139.18: 5–6. Anon. Daily Review, 16 July 1875, p. 5. DAR 139.18: 1–2.2 Anon. Athenæum, 17 July 1876, pp. 88–9. DAR139.18: 25.3 Anon. Bazaar, Exchange & Mart, 21 July 1875, p. 51. DAR 139.18: 23. [William Bernhard Tegetmeier?]4 Field, 24 July 1875, p. 92. DAR 139.18: 27. Ellen Frances Lubbock. Academy, 24 July 1875, pp. 93–4. DAR 139.18: 9. Anon. Tablet, 24 July 1875, p. 106. DAR 139.18: 13. Anon. New York Times, 29 July 1875, p. 1. DAR 139.18: 8.5 Anon. Scotsman, 30 July 1875, p. 2. DAR 139.18: 15. Anon. Gardener’s Magazine, 31 July 1875, p. 379. DAR 139.18: 26. August 1875 Anon. Daily Evening Telegraph, Philadelphia, 3 August 1875, p. 7. DAR 139.18: 17.6 Anon. Nonconformist, 4 August 1875, p. 790. DAR 139.18: 28. [Ernst von Hesse-Wartegg.] Insektenfressende Pflanzen. Fremden-Blatt, 10 August 1875, pp. 11–12, and 11 August 1875, pp. 11–12. DAR 139.18: 3–4.7 [Lawson Tait.] Spectator, 14 August 1875, pp. 1036–7. DAR 226.2: 167.8 Anon. New York Daily Tribune, 20 August 1875, p. 6. DAR 139.18: 21.

Reviews of Insectivorous plants

577

September 1875 [Ernst von Hesse-Wartegg.] Insectenfressende Pflanzen. Der Pionier. Illustrierte Zeitschrift zur Unterhaltung und Belehrung für Jedermann 14: 374–6, 382–4. DAR Pam R271.9 Anon. Independent, New York, 9 September 1875, p. 10. DAR 139.18: 10.10 Anon. Evening Post, New York, 13 September 1875, p. 1. DAR 139.18: 7.11 Anon. Australasian, Melbourne, 18 September 1875, p. 360. DAR 139.18: 19.12 October 1875 Anon. Popular Science Review, October 1875, pp. 403–6. DAR Pam R264. December 1875 Anon. Morning Post, 23 December 1875, p. 3. DAR 139.18: 18.13 Anon. A gossip about new books. Hardwicke’s Science Gossip 12 (1876): 49–52. DAR 139.18: 20.14 Federico Delpino. Annuario Scientifico ed Industriale 12 (1876): 432–7.15 January 1876 [Asa Gray.]16 American Journal of Science and Arts, January 1876, pp. 69–74. DAR Pam R263. Alex. Forsyth. Florist and Pomologist, January 1876, pp. 14–16. DAR Pam R262.17 [Asa Gray.] Nation, 6 January 1876, pp. 12–14, and 13 January 1876, pp. 30–32. DAR 139.18: 11–12.18 February 1876 Jules Emile Planchon. Les plantes carnivores. Revue des deux mondes, 1 February 1876, pp. 631–59.19 Anon. Rooted animals of prey. Maryborough & Dunolly Advertiser, Australia, 11 February 1876, p. 2. DAR 139.18: 22.20 May 1876 Ferdinand Julius Cohn. Insectenfressende Pflanzen. Deutsche Rundschau 2 (1876): 441–56. DAR Pam R267.21 Anon. Les plantes carnivores. Revue scientifique de la France et de l’étranger, 27 May 1876, pp. 505–13. DAR Pam R268.22 May 1877 A. Vernier. Les plantes insectivores. Temps, 22 May 1877, pp. 1–2. DAR 139.18: 14.23 1 2 3

See letter to M. T. Masters, 10 July [1875]. DAR 139.18: 1 is the proofs of the review; DAR 139.18: 2 is a cutting from the newspaper. Only p. 88 is in the archive.

578 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Reviews of Insectivorous plants

CD thought the review was by Tegetmeier; see his letter to Tegetmeier of 8 August [1875]. CD wrote ‘New York Times Jul 29 1875’ at the top of the cutting. See letter from D. Appleton & Co., 16 August 1875. The cutting was sent with the letter from W. M. Canby, 1 October 1875. Hesse-Wartegg identified himself as the reviewer in his letter of 16 August 1875. CD scored several passages in the margin of his copy. CD wrote ‘Lawson Tait’ at the top of the cutting; see also letter to Lawson Tait, 15 August [1875]. CD wrote ‘Hesse-Wartegg’ at the top of the review. It probably came out in September 1875, as Hesse-Wartegg wrote that it would appear in about a month in his letter of 16 August 1875. CD acknowledged receipt of this review in his letter to Thomas Meehan, 3 October 1875. The cutting is marked at the top: ‘The Evening Post, New York Sept 18. 1875’. The review is signed ‘D. Appleton & Co, N. Y., publishers’. CD marked the top of this cutting, ‘Australasian Sep 18/75’. ‘Morning Post’ is marked at the bottom. The first two pages are in the Darwin Archive–CUL; the section about Insectivorous plants is on p. 49. See letter from Federico Delpino, 18 April 1875. Gray identified himself as the author in his letter of 28 December 1875; CD’s copy is marked ‘Asa Gray’ at the top. CD wrote ‘Rubbish’ on his copy. CD wrote at the top of the first part, ‘Prof Asa Gray’; Gray stated that he had written a long review of Insectivorous plants and Climbing plants for Nation in his letter of 28 December 1875. This is an essay review that also includes Hooker 1874a and Cohn 1875a. The cutting is marked at the bottom: ‘Maryborough & Dunolly Advertiser Australia Feb. 11. 1876’. See Correspondence vol. 24, letter from F. J. Cohn, 28 March 1876; CD scored the margins of his copy. See Correspondence vol. 24, second letter to ?, 13 June 1876. This is a review of the French translation (Barbier trans. 1877).

APPENDIX VI Darwin and vivisection Darwin played an important role in the controversy over vivisection that broke out in late 1874. Public debate was sparked when the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals brought charges against a French physiologist who had performed vivisection on dogs at the British Medical Association congress in Norwich. The prosecution was unsuccessful, but it gave rise to a series of campaigns to increase public awareness about experiments on live animals in Britain. In December 1874, Darwin was asked to sign a memorial by the writer and social reformer Frances Power Cobbe. It called upon the RSPCA to investigate the nature and scope of vivisections performed in physiology laboratories and teaching hospitals, and to draft legislation that would protect animals from suffering. Darwin was sympathetic to the cause, but found some of Cobbe’s rhetoric inflammatory, and he strongly objected to her criticism of the eminent physiologist Rudolf Virchow. He explained his position to his daughter Henrietta: ‘I certainly could not sign the paper sent me by Miss Cobbe, with its monstrous (as it seems to me) attack on Virchow for experimenting on the Trichinae’ (letter to H. E. Litchfield, 4 January [1875]). Darwin also worried that any bill passed by a House of Commons largely ignorant of science might halt the progress of physiology. He reiterated these concerns in a letter to Thomas Henry Huxley ten days later, urging him to work with other physiologists to present their own petition (letter to T. H. Huxley, 14 January 1875). In the event, Darwin became closely involved with the drafting of alternative legislation. Over the course of several months, he wrote dozens of letters to leading experimenters, physicians, surgeons, and public officials, and drew on his own family circle for assistance in preparing a bill for Parliament. Darwin almost never involved himself in public controversy and so the extent of his activity in the vivisection affair is surprising. His own research on animals relied primarily on comparative anatomy, including dissection, and natural-historical observation. But he had drawn extensively on the work of physiologists in his study of emotional expression, and in his most recent research on insectivorous plants. Indeed, some of Darwin’s plant experiments, such as applying toxic substances to the common sundew, Drosera rotundifolia, were analogous to those performed on living animals. Such work had drawn him into close contact with England’s leading physiologists, John Scott Burdon Sanderson, Thomas Lauder Brunton, Michael Foster, and Edward Emanuel Klein, all of whom made extensive use of vivisection. This group had also jointly authored The handbook for the physiological laboratory (Klein et al.

580

Darwin and vivisection

1873), which became a focus of criticism in the debates because it described a wide range of vivisection procedures for use in teaching, and because it failed to mention anaesthetics. Darwin’s indebtedness and allegiance to physiologists was matched, however, by his deep affection for animals and antipathy to cruelty. Darwin’s fondness for animals, especially dogs, is evident in his letters. Referring to his beloved terrier Polly, he wrote, ‘I most heartily subscribe to what you say about the qualities of Dogs, I have one whom I love with all my heart’ (Correspondence vol. 19, letter to ?, 19 May [1871]). As a magistrate in Down, he had acted to prevent harm to work animals by local farmers and their staff (see Correspondence vol. 14, letter to a local landowner, [1866?]). A regular subscriber to the RSPCA, he had campaigned with his wife Emma against the use of steel traps on game preserves. The couple jointly authored an appeal that was circulated to landowners with the premise that ‘an English gentleman would not himself give a moment’s unnecessary pain to any living creature, and would instinctively exert himself to put an end to any suffering before his eyes’ (see Correspondence vol. 11, Appendix IX). Darwin was clearly disturbed by the prospect of animals suffering for science. In a letter to E. Ray Lankester, he wrote: ‘You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night’ (Correspondence vol. 19, letter to E. R. Lankester, 22 March [1871]). In the same year, Darwin had published Descent of man, which argued for intellectual and emotional continuity between humans and animals, and suggested that some animals possessed social sympathies akin to conscience. Darwin even described an animal enduring a painful experiment as an example of its tender and sympathetic nature: ‘everyone has heard of the dog suffering under vivisection, who licked the hand of the operator; this man, unless he had a heart of stone, must have felt remorse to the last hour of his life’ (Descent 1: 40). Vivisection was a sensitive subject within Darwin’s family. In his 14 January letter to Huxley, Darwin mentioned the effect that Cobbe’s campaign and other critical writings on vivisection were having on ‘sensible & independant people (eg my brother & the Litchfields)’. Cobbe was an acquaintance of the Darwins, and part of a network of reformers and philanthropists that included Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, and his cousin Hensleigh Wedgwood. After Darwin refused to sign Cobbe’s memorial, Emma wrote to her privately, trying to explain her husband’s position, and voicing her own sympathies for the cause: ‘I do trust and believe that some good will be done, and that you will be rewarded for all the painful horrors you have had to read and consider. You have got such capital signatures that I do not know whether you would care for insignificant ones (men of course) or I might get one or two’ (letter from Emma Darwin to F. P. Cobbe, 14 January [1875]). In the course of the public debate, Emma wrote a letter to a London newspaper renewing her appeal for humane animal traps, and drawing a parallel between the pain suffered by animals on hunting preserves and in laboratories: ‘If it is held that it is degrading to our

Darwin and vivisection

581

physiologists to make, and to our medical students to witness, operations upon living animals under anaesthetics, what ought it to be to the gamekeeper who, night after night, prepares and sets instruments of torture’ (Emma Darwin (1904) 2: 201). Darwin’s many contacts placed him in a strong position to act as an intermediary between different professional groups and interests. In drafting the bill on vivisection, he consulted with Huxley and Burdon Sanderson, with legal experts Godfrey Lushington and William Shaen, with leading medical men, such as James Paget, and with the influential politician Edward Henry Stanley, the earl of Derby. The resulting document went through many stages. Burdon Sanderson first drew up a memorandum in February that was to serve as the basis for a petition, and gave it to Huxley (letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 12 February 1875). Darwin was in London from 31 March to 12 April, and during this period the draft went through several revisions. Darwin discussed the matter with Huxley, who produced a new sketch for a petition (letter from T. H. Huxley, [4 April 1875]). This was evidently passed back to Burdon Sanderson, who drafted a memorial, sending it to Darwin on 7 April (letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 7 April [1875]), and circulating it to others in order to gather signatures. More alterations were made (letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 10 April 1875), and another version was prepared with the legal assistance of Lushington and Darwin’s son-in-law Richard Buckley Litchfield. On 11 April, Darwin learned that a bill based on Cobbe’s memorial had already been prepared for the House of Lords (see letter to J. S. Burdon Sanderson, [11 April 1875]). He was still unsure whether his own proposal should take the form of a bill or a petition that could be presented by a delegation of leading men to a government minister. Before he returned to Down, however, it was decided to draft a formal bill. Litchfield drew up a sketch that was approved by Huxley, Burdon Sanderson, and John Simon, a London pathologist and public health officer. Support was then sought from some ‘half dozen eminent scientific men’. Darwin sent a copy to Joseph Dalton Hooker requesting his approval as president of the Royal Society of London (letter to J. D. Hooker, 14 April [1875]). The next day he wrote to Stanley (Lord Derby), outlining the main points of the bill and asking for his counsel: ‘we wd do whatever else you think best’ (letter to E. H. Stanley, 15 April 1875). After further consultations, a second draft of the bill was prepared, and printed on 24 April. Burdon Sanderson and Huxley suggested approaching Lyon Playfair, an eminent chemist and MP for Edinburgh and St Andrews Universities, to present the bill in Parliament. The final bill was submitted by Playfair on 12 May. The Darwin Archive–CUL contains documents that show the progress of the vivisection bill from the original handwritten petition, to the first and revised drafts of the proposed legislation, to the final bill as presented in the House of Commons. Some of the documents contain marginal notes and revisions in Litchfield’s hand. The changes made to the original proposal were substantial, and reflect extensive discussions and negotiations between different parties, some of which are evident in Darwin’s correspondence in April and May. The initial petition (DAR 139.17: 19) asserted the crucial role of vivisection for physiological and medical knowledge. It

582

Darwin and vivisection

objected to the needless infliction of pain on animals, and invited legislation to prevent such cruelty, appending a report on vivisection prepared by a committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1871 that outlined principles for regulating animal experiments. A handwritten copy of this report is in DAR 139.17: 18, and is reproduced below. The petition contained a lengthy paragraph on the treatment of animals in human society, the pain and death they suffered as a result of their use for human food, for clothing, as beasts of burden, and as sport; this discussion did not appear in later documents. A first sketch of the bill (DAR 139.17: 22) was printed for circulation in the second week of April, but is undated. It stipulated that vivisection might be performed only with a licence granted by the home secretary, and a certificate signed by the heads of various scientific and medical institutions. Licences could be issued for up to five years and were renewable. According to the proposed bill, vivisection for teaching purposes might be performed only using anaesthetics; whereas vivisection with the aim of new discovery might be performed without anaesthetics when necessary, provided that all possible measures were taken to minimise suffering. The penalty for unlawful vivisection was a fine of at most £50, with imprisonment for up to one month for any subsequent offence. The revised sketch and final bill are in DAR 139.17: 22–3. They are not reproduced here as the main changes were in the order of the clauses. In the revised sketch, dated 24 April 1875, the penalty for unlawful vivisection was increased to a fine of £50 or imprisonment for up to three months for each offence. This version also contained notes in Litchfield’s hand for an alternative title and preamble, which had been suggested by John Lubbock: A Bill entitled An Act for the restriction of the making of experiments on animals for scientific purposes Alternative Preamble – Whereas the useless infliction of pain on animals should as far as possible be prevented, and it is therefore expedient to prohibit the making of painful experiments on animals for scientific purposes except by duly qualified persons and under such restrictions and conditions as are hereafter specified:— (DAR 139.17: 22, p. 2) The final bill presented in Parliament contained one additional change: the reference to the use of vivisection for teaching purposes was removed. This was reflected in the title and opening clauses, in which the reference to ‘scientific purposes’ was replaced with the more specific, ‘scientific discovery’: A Bill to Prevent abuse and cruelty in Experiments on Animals made for the purposes of scientific discovery Whereas it is expedient to prevent cruelty and abuse in the experiments made on living animals for the purposes of promoting discoveries in the sciences of medicine, surgery, anatomy, and physiology … Any person, for the purpose of new scientific discovery, but for no

Darwin and vivisection

583

other purpose, shall be permitted to make an experiment on a live animal … (Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, Appendix III, p. 338) Huxley and Burdon Sanderson both expressed their dismay at this alteration (letter from T. H. Huxley, 19 May 1875, letter from J. S. Burdon Sanderson, 23 May [1875]). Huxley complained that he would now be banned from using frogs to demonstrate fundamental physiological processes. Darwin wrote to Playfair about the changes, but Playfair insisted that Burdon Sanderson had approved of the final version, and that only minor corrections had been made (letter to Lyon Playfair, 26 May 1875, and letter from Lyon Playfair, 27 May 1875). In his testimony before the Royal Commission (see below), Darwin described the bill as having been ‘accidently altered’. The Playfair bill was not the only one before Parliament. On 5 May, Lord Hartismere ( John Major Henniker-Major) had submitted a legislative proposal on vivisection to the House of Lords. This measure had been initiated by Cobbe and was based on her original memorial to the RSPCA. The main difference between this bill and the physiologists’ bill was the provision for inspection: vivisection was to be confined to premises that were registered with the home secretary, and open to inspectors appointed under the Anatomy Act. Licences were to cost £10 and the period of licensing was much shorter (six months); however, the penalties were less severe (a £20 fine and no imprisonment). In contrast to the Playfair bill, the Henniker bill permitted vivisection for teaching, and defined vivisection as experimentation on a living vertebrate animal (Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, Appendix III, pp. 337–8). In the event, neither of the bills was passed. Debate was forestalled when the home secretary, Richard Cross, announced on 24 May that a Royal Commission would be appointed to investigate and report on the matter (Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser., vol. 224 (1875), col. 794). A Royal Commission was a standard governmental procedure, introduced in the early Victorian period as a means of gathering evidence and testimony on a complex issue prior to legislation. The commission was composed of persons of different interests and expertise. It included Huxley, a professor of surgery, John Erichsen, and several critics of vivisection, including the chair, Edward Cardwell, a vice-president of the RSPCA. The commission met between 5 June and 15 December 1875, examining fifty-three witnesses, whose testimony was presented in full in the final report. Darwin was asked to appear before the commission on 3 November. He worried that his health would fail or that he would be too nervous. His testimony, the briefest of any witness, is transcribed below. His last remark, that inflicting pain unnecessarily on an animal deserved ‘detestation and abhorrence’ was quoted in the committee’s final summary (Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, p. x), and appeared repeatedly in the press. By this time, vivisection had become a substantial public controversy, and radical groups had formed promoting the total abolition of the practice. Legislation was passed in August 1876 allowing vivisection for original research and teaching under certain conditions, but the bill left many parties unsatisfied and controversy

584

Darwin and vivisection

continued. Physiologists and a portion of the medical profession mounted a more organised defence. Darwin followed the debate with interest, but did not play such an active role again. Documents included: 1 Draft petition 2 Report of BAAS committee on vivisection 3 First sketch of bill 4 Darwin’s testimony at the Royal Commission 1 Draft petition The Petition of Humbly Sheweth That your petitioners are persons engaged in the study of the Biological Sciences [‘& their application to medicine’ del]. That the art of preventing & curing disease is based upon a knowledge of the nature & causes of disease: and that the increase of such knowledge is the only means by which that art can be brought to perfection. That the knowledge of the nature & causes of disease is inseparably connected with, and dependent upon just conceptions of the physical & chemical processes which go on in [‘living animals’ del] the *living body [above del ‘animals’]; and that such conceptions can be obtained only by the aid of observations and experiments upon living animals. That such experiments as involve the cutting of living animals, commonly called vivisection, in the majority of cases may be, and usually are, performed on animals which have been rendered insensible to pain by anæsthetics or otherwise. That the existence of the present organization of human society is to a large extent based upon the principle that it is [‘right &’ del] lawful to inflict pain upon animals for the benefit of mankind. On this principle [‘it is held to be right to kill’ del] *the killing of [interl] animals for food and their employment [above del ‘; to employ them’] in the painful labours of beasts of burden & draught *are held to be justifiable, while [interl above del ‘to expose them to lingering torture in traps or otherwise’] for the sake of destroying those which injure men’s persons or property; or *with a view to [added] obtaining those, [‘such as fur animals,’ del] which yield mere luxuries, [‘are daily a’ del] [‘That it may safely be affirmed that all the pain which ever has been inflicted upon living animals, for the sake of obtaining a better knowledge of healthy & diseased processes, is not to’ del] large numbers of wild animals are daily & hourly exposed to lingering tortures *in traps or otherwise [interl]. With reference to these practices it may be safely affirmed that all the pain that ever has been inflicted upon living animals for the purposes of investigation is not to be compared in amount to those [above del ‘that’] which result from the operations of the fur traders [‘for a season.’ del] during a single season

Darwin and vivisection

585

That your petitioners entertain the strongest objections to the wanton or needless infliction of pain upon any sentient creature, & that they would gladly see cruelty under all forms repressed & discouraged, not merely by public opinion, but by legislative enactment; and that they agree with the principles laid down in the Report by a Committee of the British Association *for the Advancement of Science [interl] at its meeting in the year 1870, appended hereto. But they venture to express that hope that in any measures which your Honourable House may think fit to take towards this end, nothing may be done to interfere with investigations undertaken by competent & responsible persons, not with the object of increasing wealth or subserving luxury, but in the well-based expectation that they may obtain such knowledge as will tend, *to benefit mankind or by elucidating [above del ‘by elucidating’] the nature of disease, *to diminish human & animal suffering [interl above del ‘to diminish the sufferings of mankind’]. And your petitioners, will every pray. DAR 139.17: 19

2 BAAS committee on vivisection report Report British Assoc. Edinburgh 1871 p. 144 I No experiment which can be performed under the influence of an anæsthetic ought to be done without it. II No painful experiment is justifiable for the mere purpose of illustrating a law or fact already demonstrated; in other words, experimentation without the employment of anæsthetics is not a fitting exhibition for teaching purposes. III Whenever, for the investigation of new truth, it is necessary to make a painful experiment, every effort should be made to ensure success, in order that the suffering inflicted may not be wasted. For this reason, no painful experiment ought to be performed by an unskilled person with insufficient instruments & assistants, or in places not suitable to the purpose, that is to say, any where except in physiological & pathological laboratories, under proper regulations. IV In the scientific preparation for veterinary practice, operations ought not to be performed upon living animals for the mere purposes of obtaining greater operative dexterity. DAR 139.17: 18

3 First sketch of bill Strictly Confidential Mem: This print is only a first sketch. It is being now recast with a new & more simple form – but the substance of the proposed measure may be equally well seen in this draft. R.B.L. | 2

586

Darwin and vivisection EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS. Sketch of Bill, No. 1 Arrangement of sections.

Preamble. Section 1. —Authority to make experiments may be granted by Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Home Department. “ 2. —Mode of application for license. “ 3. —Who shall give certificate. “ 4. —Duration of license. “ 5. —Professors not to make painful experiments for demonstration or illustration. “ 6. —Licensed persons to use anæsthetics in all painful experiments when possible. “ 7. —Licensed persons to make painful experiments only for research. “ 8. —Animals to be killed after painful experiments. “ 9. —Unlicensed persons making painful experiments to be liable for penalties of Cruelty to Animals Act. “ 10. —Penalty on licensed persons experimenting otherwise than according to Act. “ 11. —Renewal of license. “ 12. —Licensed persons experimenting to be not liable under Cruelty to Animals Act. “ 13. —Title of Act. Schedule: — Form of Application. Form of Certificate. Form of License. EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS Preamble. Whereas it is for the public advantage that the sciences of medicine, surgery, anatomy, and physiology should be studied and prosecuted in the most effectual manner, and it is therefore expedient that duly qualified and responsible persons engaged in the prosecution of such sciences should, with a view to advancing and increasing the knowledge thereof, be permitted to perform, under certain restrictions, experiments upon living animals, notwithstanding that such experiments may cause pain to such animals, but it is also expedient to reduce to the smallest possible amount, consistently with the attainment of the above object, the suffering caused to animals by such experiments. Be it enacted as follows:— Authority to make exper1.—It shall be lawful for Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State iments may be granted. for the Home Department to grant to any person, who shall make such an application and produce such a certificate as hereinafter provided, a licence empowering him to make, under the conditions prescribed in this act, experiments on living animals.

Darwin and vivisection Mode of application.

Who shall sign certificate.

Duration of licence.

Professors not to make painful experiments for illustration.

Licences to use anæsthetics in all painful experiments when possible.

587

2.—Any person desiring to obtain such license shall make application for the same in the form shown in the Schedule to this Act, and shall duly sign the undertaking included in such application, and shall also produce a certificate in the form shown in the same Schedule. And provided always that, in case of an application by any person being a Professor or Lecturer of or in Physiology, Medicine, Anatomy, or Surgery, in any University in Great Britain, or in any college incorporated by Royal Charter, such a certificate shall not be required, but such application shall be countersigned by the Registrar, President, Principal, or Secretary of the University or College in which the person applying is a Professor or Lecturer. 3.—The Certificate referred to in the foregoing Section shall be signed by two at least of the following persons, that is to say: The President of the Royal Society, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, the President of the College of Physicians, and also by a Professor of Physiology, Medicine, or Anatomy in some University in Great Britain. 4.—No licence granted under this act shall remain in force for a longer time than five years from the date thereof, provided only that a licence granted to any such professor or lecturer as is mentioned in the 2nd section may be granted and remain in force for and during such time as he may continue to hold his professorship or lectureship, and to fulfil the duties thereof. 5.—It shall not be lawful for any professor, lecturer, or teacher of medicine, surgery, anatomy, physiology, or any other subject, whether holding a licence under this Act or not, in the course of any lecture or lesson given by him, or an any other time, to subject an animal to an experiment of a nature to cause pain for the purpose of demonstration or illustration, unless such animal shall first have been made insensible by the administration of an anæsthetic or otherwise, and shall continue to be insensible during the whole of such experiment. 6.—It shall not be lawful for any person holding a licence under this act to subject any animal to any experiment of a nature to cause pain, unless such animal shall first have been made insensible by the administration of an anæsthetic or otherwise, and shall remain insensible during the whole continuance of the experiment, unless the nature of the experiment be such that insensibility cannot be produced without necessarily frustrating the object of the experiment.

588 Licencees to make painful experiments only for research.

Animals to be killed after painful experiments.

Unlicensed persons making painful experiments to be liable to penalties of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Penalty on licencees experimenting otherwise than according to this Act.

Renewal of licence.

Darwin and vivisection 7.—It shall not be lawful for any person holding a licence under this Act to subject any animal to a painful experiment for the purpose of illustrating any established fact, or the purpose of acquiring skill in operating, but such experiments shall be made by him only for the purpose of discovering and investigating the causes of facts which have not before been explained, and with a view to advancing the knowledge of Physiology, Medicine, Anatomy, or Surgery, or some one of such sciences. 8.—Every animal subjected to an experiment, the nature whereof shall be such as to seriously injure the animal, or as to cause it to suffer after the conclusion of the experiment, shall be killed immediately on the conclusion of the experiment; and any person who shall perform an experiment of such nature as aforesaid, and who shall not cause the animal subjected thereto to be killed immediately on the conclusion thereof, shall be liable to the penalty specified in the 10th section. 9.—Any person not holding a licence under this Act who shall make an experiment on any animal in such manner as to cause to such animal pain or suffering, shall be deemed to have committed the offence of cruelly torturing and abusing such animal, and shall be liable to the same penalties as he would have incurred under the powers of the Act 12 & 13 Victoria, chapter 92, had he cruelly tortured and abused a domestic animal, and the procedure for prosecuting any person offending against the provisions of this Act shall be that which is provided by the said Act, of the 12th & 13th Victoria. 10.—Any person holding a licence under this Act who shall make any experiment upon a living animal otherwise than in acordance with the provisions of this Act, shall be subject to a penalty not exceeding £50 for the first offence, and for any subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month; and the procedure for the prosecution of any person so offending shall be the same as is provided by the Act 12 & 13 Vic., cap. 92, for the prosecution of offences under that Act. 11.—It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State, upon receiving from any person holding a licence under this Act, an application for the renewal thereof, to grant such renewal, if he should see fit, with or without further enquiry as to the propriety of granting such renewal; and such renewal may be for a period of five years, and may be effected by an endorsement under the hand and seal of the said Secretary of State, declaring that the licence is renewed for a period of five years from the date of the making of the endorsement; and any further renewal of the same licence to the holder thereof may thereafter be granted in like manner.

Darwin and vivisection Licencees experimenting to be not liable under Cruelty to Animals Act.

Title of Act.

589

12.—No person holding a licence under this Act shall be liable to any prosecution in respect of any experiment made by him upon a living animal, unless, in making such experiment, he shall have infringed the provisions of this Act. 13.—This Act may be cited for all purposes as “The Experiments on Animals Act, 1875.” SCHEDULE. Form of Application.

I, M.N.,

of

(Description and occupation, with particulars of any scientific academical or other like qualification.)

Do hereby declare that I am engaged in the study of the science of physiology, and especially in the making of researches, with the view of advancing physiological knowledge, and that I desire to obtain a licence, under the provisions of “The Experiments on Animals Act, 1875,” empowering me to make experiments on living animals; and I hereby undertake that in making any experiments under such licence, if granted, I will conform to the conditions and restrictions contained in sections numbered 8, 9, 10, 11, of the said act. (Signed) M.N. Dated 187. (These sections to be printed on the back of the application.)

FORM OF CERTIFICATE. We, A.B., President of the Royal Society, C.D., and E.F., hereby certify, for the information of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the provisions of the Experiments on Animals Act, 1875, that the above-named M.N. is enaged in prosecuting such researches as are described in the above application, and that he is, in our opinion, a person qualified to carry on such investigations, and to have granted to him the licence for which he applies. (Signed) Names. Descriptions

A.B. C.D. E.F. Dated this

day

, 187 FORM OF LICENCE.

I, Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Home Department, having received from M.N., residing at (Description and Occupation.)

590

Darwin and vivisection

an application, under the provisions of the Experiments on Animals Act, 1875, accompanied by Certificate, such as is required by the same Act, of which Certificate and Application copies are appended hereto, do hereby, in exercise of the authority given to me by the said Act, license the said M.N. to make experiments on living animals, in the manner and subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth in the said Act, during the period of 5 years from the date hereof.

(Or, in the case of a Professor or Lecturer, under Section such Professor or Lecturer aforesaid.”)

Dated this

, “for so long as he may retain the duties of his office as

day of , 187 .

DAR 139.17: 21

4 CD’s testimony at the Royal Commission on vivisection Wednesday, 3rd November 1875. Mr. Charles Darwin called in and examined. 4661. (Chairman.) We are very sensible of your kindness in coming at some sacrifice to yourself to express your opinions to the Commission. We attribute it to the great interest which we know you take in the subject referred to us, both on the score of science and also on the score of humanity? — Yes, I have felt a great interest in it. 4662. I think you took part in preparing the resolutions of the British Association at their meeting in Edinburgh in 1871? — No; I had nothing to do with that. I was very glad to see them, and approved of them; but I had nothing to do with the framing of those resolutions; I did not attend the meeting. 4663. But you signed a petition which embodied them? — When they were sent to me I may have done so. I do not remember it; but if my signature is attached I must have given it; I had forgotten it. 4664. But you cordially approved of them? — I cordially approved of them. I had occasion to read them over lately at the time when this subject was beginning to be agitated. I read them over with care and highly approved of them then. 4665. I think you took some part in the preparation of a Bill which was ultimately laid before the House of Commons by Dr. Lyon Playfair? — In the steps preparatory to that Bill, but the Bill itself did not exactly express the conclusions at which after consultation with several physiologists we arrived; I apprehend that it was accidently altered. 4666. But in the main you were an approving party? — In the main. 4667. You have never, I think, yourself, either directly or indirectly been connected with the practice of trying experiments upon living animals? —Never. 4668. Will you have the kindness to state to us the views which you desire to lay before the Commission in connexion with it? — The first thing that I would say is, that I am fully convinced that physiology can progress only by the aid of experiments on living animals. I cannot think of any one step which has been made in physiology without that aid. No doubt many surmises with regard to the circulation of the blood could be formed from the position of the valves in the veins, and so forth, but certainty such as is required for the progress of any science can be arrived at in the case of physiology only by means of experiments on living animals.

Darwin and vivisection

591

4669. Then I need hardly ask you what your opinion is as to the notion of prohibiting them altogether? — In my opinion it would be a very great evil, because many reasons, mostly general, but some special, may be assigned for a full conviction that hereafter physiology cannot fail to confer the highest benefits on mankind. Many grounds, I think, can be assigned for this conviction. 4670. Is it your opinion that most of the experiments can be performed while the animal is entirely insensible to pain? — That is my belief; but I ought to state that I have no claim to rank as a physiologist. I have, during many years, read largely on the subject, both general treatises and special papers, and in that respect I have gained some general knowledge, but as I have said, I have no claim to be called a physiologist, and I have had nothing to do in teaching physiology; but from all I can learn, the exceptions are extremely few in which an animal could not be experimented on in a state of entire insensibility. 4671. Then to hesitate to perform experiments, though painful in their nature, when the animal was rendered insensible, would not be, in your opinion, a judicious course to recommend to the Queen and Parliament? — Certainly not. It is unintelligible to me how anybody could object to such experiments. I can understand a Hindoo, who would object to an animal being slaughtered for food, disapproving of such experiments, but it is absolutely unintelligible to me on what ground the objection is made in this country. 4672. Now with regard to trying a painful experiment without anaesthetics, when the same experiment could be made with anæsthetics, or, in short, inflicting any pain that was not absolutely necessary upon any animal, what would be your view on that subject? — It deserves detestation and abhorrence. The witness withdrew. Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, Minutes of evidence, pp. 233–4

MANUSCRIPT ALTERATIONS AND COMMENTS

The alteration notes and comments are keyed to the letter texts by paragraph and line numbers. The precise section of the letter text to which the note applies precedes the square bracket. The changes recorded are those made to the manuscript by CD; changes of hand in letters written partly by CD and partly by amanuenses are also recorded. Readers should consult the Note on editorial policy in the front matter for details of editorial practice and intent. The following terms are used in the notes as here defined:

del deleted illeg illegible interl interlined, i.e., inserted between existing text lines omitted omitted by the editors to clarify the transcription over written over, i.e., superimposed

To F. J. Cohn   1 January 1875 1.5 in … work,] interl in CD’s hand To Linnean Society   1 January [1875] 1.1 my … Journal 1.2] interl 1.2 I wish … as 1.3] interl after del ‘so as to’; ‘the paper’ above del illeg 1.3 a second] after del ‘form Part II,’ 1.3 new work] above del ‘volume’ 1.3 If] above del ‘In case’ 1.4 request] above del ‘permiss’ 1.5 illustrating the paper] interl after del ‘which’ 3.1 To … Soc.] in left margin To H. E. Litchfield   4 January [1875] 1.1 new word] above del ‘word’ 1.2 -section] after interl and del ‘th’ 1.3 will] interl 1.6 It … animals— 1.7] interl 1.10 may be] interl above del ‘are’ 1.11 men] above del ‘those’ 1.12 in … Houses,] interl 1.14 unknown] interl 1.14 are] above del illeg 1.17 such a point.] above del ‘this.’ 1.17 (as is likely)] parentheses over commas

1.19 could been] altered from ‘could be’ 1.19 of humanitarian] above del ‘in public’ 2.5 assuredly] interl 2.7 cease.] point over comma 2.7 It will then] above del ‘&’ 3.1 for 2] above del ‘for 2’ 3.4 practioners] above del ‘practioners’ 4.1 without … myself. 4.2] above del ‘which had not been well considered by physiologists, &’ 6.2 use] above del ‘used’ To Friedrich Max Müller   5 January 1875 1.4 to whom] interl To J. D. Hooker   6 January [1875] 2.1 general] interl To Daniel Oliver   6 January [1875] 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.2 of … structure 1.3] interl To J. D. Hooker   8 January [1875] 1.5 (like Huxley) that] interl 3.2 heartily] interl 3.2 German] interl 3.3 Utricularia] altered from ‘Utriculariæ’

Manuscript alterations and comments To Ernst Haeckel   11 January [1875] 1.1 that] interl in CD’s hand

1.2 latter] interl 1.3 read] after del ‘consider’

To St G. J. Mivart   12 January 1875 1.2 in . . . number 1.3] before del ‘of the Review,’; transposed from after ‘accusation,’ 1.3 even] interl above del ‘even’ 1.4 deliberate] after del ‘gross, & it cannot be doubted’ 2.1 Therefore I] ‘I’interl 2.1 Therefore . . . communication with] interl above del ‘Your conduct has been disgraceful, & I reject your acquaintance.’ 2.1 for the future] interl 3.1 Sir] after interl and del ‘you for the future’

To B. G. Wilder   26 January [1875] 1.5 Harvard] interl in CD’s hand after del ‘the’ 3.1 To … Wilder.] in CD’s hand

To T. H. Huxley   14 January 1875 0.1 Beckenham | Kent] added in CD’s hand 1.4 presented to] ‘to’ interl in CD’s hand 1.6 Other . . . circulation,] added in CD’s hand below del ‘From these [interl in CD’s hand] facts, quoted in these papers (although insufficient)’ 1.6 & from] after ‘& from’ added and del in CD’s hand 1.10 A pamphlet 1.11] ‘A’ altered in CD’s hand from ‘a’ after del ‘On the other hand’ 1.11 also] interl in CD’s hand 1.11 the evidence is] ‘the’, ‘is’ interl in CD’s hand 1.12 uselessly] interl in CD’s hand 1.23 an excellent] ‘an’ altered in CD’s hand from ‘a’ before del ‘very’ 1.23 to the House 1.24] interl in CD’s hand 1.24 this Report] ‘this’ altered from ‘the’ in CD’s hand after del ‘the recommendations of ’ 1.24 as far as possible] interl in CD’s hand 1.24 Regulations] in CD’s hand above del ‘The law would hardly do much in this particular case; but if ’ 1.26 could hardly] after del ‘they’; ‘hardly’ in CD’s hand above del ‘not’ 1.28 on . . . good.] interl in CD’s hand 1.28 As] altered in CD’s hand from ‘as’; after del ‘& I have done so’ 1.29 see] after del ‘could easily’ 1.29 you could easily] interl in CD’s hand 1.30 This . . . intelligible. 1.31] added in CD’s hand To W. B. Dawkins   16 January [1875] 1.3 at] interl To J. D. Hooker   17 January [1875] 6.1 part] interl To Alpheus Hyatt   21 January [1875] 1.1 printed] added

To T. H. Huxley   27 January [1875] 2.2 carefully] interl in CD’s hand 4.1 I hope … style—] added in CD’s hand To J. S. Burdon Sanderson   10 February 1875 1.2 the] interl in CD’s hand To G. H. Darwin   10 [February 1875] 1.4 a] interl 2.1 I am … rejoiced me 2.7] enclosed in square brackets pencil 2.7 this morning] interl 2.8 news] before del ‘this morning,’ To J. D. Hooker   10 February [1875] 1.3 sort of] interl 1.4 have] interl 1.4 been] altered from ‘be’ 1.12 ready to] ‘to’ after del ‘for’ 2.1 abstract of an] interl To Gustaf Retzius   12 February 1875 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ To John Murray   16 February [1875] 1.5 considerable] interl 2.3 on sale] interl To ?   [after 17 February 1875] 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ To J. D. Hooker   23 February 1875 1.3 & … Science] interl in CD’s hand 1.9 sometime] interl in CD’s hand To J. D. Hooker   25 February [1875] 1.6 how] interl 1.9 the] interl 1.10 undergone] after del ‘suffered’ 1.12 of the two] interl 1.12 can] above del ‘will’ To J. D. Hooker   30 March [1875] 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’

593

594

Manuscript alterations and comments

1.4 authors] after del ‘the’  1.10 for] interl To G. H. Darwin   2 [April 1875] 1.4 in the] ‘the’ interl 1.4 in a trance … tied,] interl 1.7 only] interl 1.7 of a spirit] interl 1.9 opening of] interl 1.13 with … girl] interl; ‘girl’ after del ‘room’ 1.15 Hensleigh] altered from ‘H.’ 1.15 away this morning] interl 1.16 thought that] ‘that’ interl 1.18 even] interl 1.20 of the … seal;] interl 1.20 give you] ‘you’ interl 2.1 the risk] ‘the’ interl 5.1 Heaven ... this—] added pencil To G. J. Romanes   7 April [1875] 0.1 2 … St.] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent.’ 2.2 on … 17th 2.3] interl 2.4 by … train] interl 2.4 able to send,] interl To John Murray   10 April [1875] 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ To J. S. Burdon Sanderson   [11 April 1875] 0.1 2. Bryanston St] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.1 Shaen] above del illeg 4.2 to Home office)] interl 4.2 paper &] ‘&’ after del closing parenthesis 4.7 & Lushington] interl 4.9 in a body] ‘in’ after del illeg 4.13 9] after del ‘or’ 6.4 gladly] after del illeg 6.5 had] after del ‘wa’ To E. H. Stanley   15 April 1875 1.1 , you] after del ‘when you read my letter’ 1.1 excuse] added before del ‘excuse’ 1.1 the liberty] after added and del ‘forgive me for troubling you with a rather long letter’ 1.1 with a letter. 1.2] added 1.1 long] after del ‘rather’ 2.1 I feel] after interl and del ‘in the following circumstances’ 2.1 , a deep] after del ‘like so many other persons’ 2.1 preventing cruelty to] interl above del ‘the suffering of ’ 2.1 & on] over em-dash

2.1 am] after del ‘I’ 2.2 convinced] after del ‘str’ 2.2 & is certain 2.3] del and stetted 2.3 great] after del ‘great [2 words illeg]’ 2.3 on mankind] ‘on’ altered from ‘of ’ 2.3 , but] comma over point 2.3 but that it] above del ‘Physiology’ 2.4 spent ten days] above del ‘been’ 2.4 consulting … subject. 2.5] interl after del ‘for 10 days and spent nearly my whole time in seeing the most eminent men’; before del ‘who have studied physiology namely [interl above del ‘in name’] Sir J. Paget, Prof. Huxley & Burdon Sanderson, *Michael Forster, others some by correspondence [interl] and they also have consulted others. We have had drawn up a sketch [after del ‘draft’] of a 2.4 several] after del ‘with’ 2.5 physiologists] above del ‘men’ 3.1 We first] after del ‘In some respects I was [illeg] little 〈 13 line destroyed〉 never have [interl] tried any [after interl and del ‘and never shall try’] experiment on a [above del ‘the’] living 〈 13 line destroyed〉 [illeg]; & on the other hand if one 〈 14 line destroyed〉 strong [interl] interest in [above del ‘of ’] science. 3.1 This … by] after del ‘Houses. * of Parliament [interl]’; transposed from after ‘interest of science’; ‘This petition’ added 3.1 the Presidents] after del ‘which has been signed by all the most [below del ‘several’] e〈   〉’ 3.2 & of Physicians] ‘& of ’ added 3.2 Physiology … Edinburgh. 3.2] transposed from after ‘myself.;’ 3.2 Physiology in] interl after del ‘the Professors of ’; above del ‘Physiology’ 3.3 Edinburgh.] before del ‘& others.’ 3.3 by Prof] interl 3.3 Sir J Paget] interl 3.3 & myself. 3.4] interl 3.4 occasional] above del ‘occasional’; above del ‘a certain number of ’ 3.4 live] above del ‘living’ 3.4 on live animals,] interl 3.4 & praying 3.5] after interl & del illeg 3.5 have … regard] del & stetted before added & del ‘care for the’ 3.5 science] after del ‘for’ 3.5 in … of] interl before del ‘; & this’ 4.1 several] above del ‘some’ 4.1 advisable] above del ‘better’ 4.2 to answer] after del ‘to a’ 4.3 science,] after del ‘the’

Manuscript alterations and comments 4.3 namely] above del ‘of physiology’ 4.3 by enacting that] above del ‘. It enacts that no’ 4.3 experiments] after del ‘painful’ 4.3 not] interl 4.3 animals 4.4] altered from ‘animal’ after del ‘any’ 4.4 without … anaesthetic] transposed from after ‘teaching,’ 4.4 such] interl above del ‘the’ 4.5 shall] altered from ‘shd’ 4.6 regulations] after del ‘proposed’ 4.6 to men] above del ‘for those’ 4.7 same] interl 4.7 for … hear that 4.8] interl 4.8 they] after del ‘&’ 4.8 met with] above del ‘have met’ 4.8 of the Cruelty] ‘of ’ after del ‘as I hear’ 5.1 are] after del ‘in this affair’ 5.1 very] above del illeg 5.2 , unless you see some objection, 5.3] interl 5.3 that] after interl and del ‘, if our request is a proper one’ 5.3 should] below del ‘wd’ 5.3 the proper] ‘the’ above del ‘any’ 5.4 I] after del ‘is’ 5.5 is at … departments] below del ‘concerned with all subject of the’ 5.5 at] interl 5.5 all the] interl 6.1 informed] above del ‘assured’ 6.1 than] interl 6.1 who … humanity; 6.2] interl and transposed from after ‘bills’ 6.2 that] added 6.3 physiology] after del ‘the interests of ’ 6.3 could soon] interl after del ‘would’ 6.4 sketch] above del ‘draft’ 6.4 a small] above del ‘wait on a’ 6.4 member of the cabinet 6.5] before del ‘proper’, above del ‘member of the cabinet’ 6.5 or] after del ‘who’ 6.5 we wd.] interl 6.5 or … counsel. 6.6] added 7.1 letter] after del ‘may’ 7.1 be] after del ‘receive’ 7.1 [illeg] for the sake of 7.2] interl above del ‘in the interest of ’ 7.2 & I] after del ‘about wh’ 7.2 remain] after del ‘beg leave to’ Top of letter: ‘£4.2’ 10’ pencil del pencil To J. S. Burdon Sanderson   15 and 19 April [1875] 1.1 at … House 1.2] interl

595

1.2 some of us 1.3] above del ‘we’ 1.3 had] after del ‘dr’ 4.3 use] after del illeg 7.4 drafted] after del ‘bi’ 7.5 over] interl 7.7 so … it.] interl 7.8 soon] after del illeg To J. V. Carus   19 April [1875] 1.3 have] above del ‘had’ 3.2 (or … with)] interl 3.3 won] after del ‘won’ 3.3 lost] above del ‘won’ 4.1 2] interl 4.2 in … autumn] interl 4.3 &] over ‘of ’ 4.5 two dozen] ‘dozen’ interl To J. S. Burdon Sanderson   24 [April 1875] 1.2 Playfair] above del ‘he’ 1.3 He … petition.—] inserted 1.5 more] interl 1.6 have] after del ‘sh’ To R. B. Litchfield   [24 April 1875] 2.1 wishes] above del ‘wishes’ 3.3 M.P] interl To R. B. Litchfield   24 April [1875] 2.1 for physiology] interl 2.2 by it] interl 2.5 is] above del ‘being’ 2.5 by animals] interl 3.2 &] over semi-colon 3.3 that] interl To W. R. S. Ralston   24 April [1875] 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.2 bulky] interl 1.3 enclosed] interl To Edward Cardwell   [before 29 April 1875] 1.1 time] after interl del ‘little’ 1.1 ago] above del ‘since’ 1.1 from others] above del ‘to the same effect’; ‘effect’ below del ‘quarter’ 1.2 Lordship] interl 1.2 thought] added before del ‘thought’, below del ‘think’ 1.2 with … on 1.3] interl 1.3 A … bill] above del ‘I have’ 1.3 concert] after del ‘taken some [above del ‘advice’] pains in’

596

Manuscript alterations and comments

1.4 a sketch] after del ‘a b’ 1.6 of physiology] after del illeg 1.6 , a … mankind 1.7] interl above del ‘which we all believe’ 1.6 be of] after del ‘confer great benefit’ 3.1 obedient] below del ‘Yours [illeg]’ To Lyon Playfair   [before 29 April 1875] 1.1 has … of] interl after del ‘which’ 1.2 which … will 1.3] above del ‘think’; after added & del ‘who had drawn up’ 1.3 needless] above del ‘useless’ 1.3 will] above del ‘would’ 2.1 faithfully 2.2] after interl and del ‘very’ To John Murray   29 April [1875] 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.5 friends &] interl To Francis Darwin   30 April [1875] 1.4 opposite … “error”] interl 1.6 correct] above del ‘alter’ To J. J. Weir   1 May 1875 1.4 soon] interl To John Lubbock   3 May [1875] 0.1 (Railway … S.E.R.)] parentheses added ink 1.1 note] interl

To Lyon Playfair   15 May [1875] 0.1 (Railway … S.E.R.)] parentheses added To F. F. Hallett   [19 or 20 May 1875] 1.1 consider &] interl 1.3 at] added 1.3 together … statements] interl, transposed from interl after ‘following sentence’; ‘other’ after del illeg 2.1 & … Ear 3.1] pencil 4.1 suppose] after del illeg 4.2 the] after del ‘any’ 4.2 formerly] after del ‘at’ 5.1 Maj Hallett] added in margin pencil To R. F. Cooke   23 May [1875] 0.1 May 23 Murray] in margin 1.1 (though … bought 1.2] interl 1.4 generously] interl 1.6 them, say] after del ‘stereoty’ interl above del ‘them at say’ 1.7 as] after del ‘judge what to do’ 1.8 decide] added below interl del ‘& judge whether to p’ 1.8 Supposing] del then stetted 1.8 Plates to] ‘to’ above del ‘co’ 1.8 50£] after del ‘cost’ 1.8 you] interl after del ‘we’ above del ‘then we’ 1.10 I ought] after del ‘have forgotten till now that’ 1.11 to extend] after del ‘for’

To John Murray   5 May 1875 2.1 not] interl

To Lyon Playfair   26 May 1875 1.11 have] interl in CD’s hand

To J. B. Innes   10 May [1875] 1.4 were] after del ‘are’ 2.1 me much,] interl 2.11 been] interl

To Lyon Playfair   28 May [1875] 2.3 on] interl 3.2 though … evidences 3.3] interl

To T. F. Burgers   [after 13 May 1875] 1.2 for … anyone] interl 1.2 in] interl 1.3 I] below del interl ‘as I am not able to converse long with anyone’ 1.3 that] interl after del ‘that should you think the journey not too long wd’ 1.3 wd be] interl 1.3 come here] above del ‘leave Ch X’; ‘here’ after del ‘wd be’ 1.4 10o.35′] interl 1.4 stopping … St] interl 1.4 Down] after del ‘the’ 1.6 due 12 2.] above ‘at — —’ and after del ‘2 [illeg]’

To Lawson Tait   4 June [1875] 0.1 Surrey] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.1 little] interl 1.2 ,] after del ‘is transmitted’ 1.4 lobe] above del ‘side’ 2.3 the mouse] ‘the’ interl 3.1 for a change] interl 3.2 book.—] above del ‘book.—’ To Lawson Tait   11 June [1875] 0.1 Surrey] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 6.3 various … of] interl 7.1 (& … species) 7.2] interl

Manuscript alterations and comments To Lawson Tait   13 June [1875] 0.1 Surrey] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.1 in] above del ‘of ’ To Fritz Schultze   14 June [1875] 1.5 discussion] over illeg To J. V. Carus   17 June [1875]  0.2 June] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | (Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.)’ 1.2 or sooner.] interl To J. D. Hooker   19 June [1875]  0.1 (Gomshall … Rail)] square brackets in MS; before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.5 both] interl

597

3.4 of junction] interl 3.4 slice] interl 3.5 of … kind] interl To M. T. Masters   10 July [1875] 1.1 as] over ‘is’ 2.1 burn] after del ‘burn’ 2.1 it] interl 2.2 (i.e.] parenthesis over comma To G. J. Romanes   12 July [1875] 1.2 give a] ‘a’ over ‘an’ 1.2 short] interl 1.3 did … send] interl above del ‘sent’ 3.1 The Edit.] above del ‘My book’ 3.3 bud-variation] after del ‘sport’ 4.1 nerves of] interl

To R. F. Cooke   24 June [1875] 0.1 Surrey] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 0.3 My] below del ‘My’ 1.3 abroad] after del illeg 2.1 foreign] interl 7.1 early] interl

To Friedrich Hildebrand   17 July 1875 4.1 P.S. … my book—] added in CD’s hand

To C. V. Riley   25 June [1875] 0.1 Surrey] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 2.1 , three weeks ago,] interl

To the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften    [after 20 July 1875] 1.1 enclosing] after del ‘& of ’ 1.1 my] over ‘the’ 1.2 Imp.] after del ‘your’; ‘your’ above del ‘the’ 1.2 &c.] interl 1.2 hope] after del ‘beg leave’ 1.3 take … of] interl 1.3 expressing] altered from ‘express’ 1.3 to the] ‘on my part’ added and del below 1.3 Academy] after del ‘Soci’ 1.3 most] interl 2.1 With great respect] below del ‘which has been a some’ 2.1 remain] after del ‘I beg leave to’ 2.1 obliged … servt] above del ‘obed’

To Mr Russell   26 June [1875] 0.1 (Railway … S.E.R.)] parentheses added To R. F. Cooke   27 June [1875] 5.1 additional 5.2] interl To R. F. Cooke   29 June [1875] 0.1 Surrey] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.3 a little] ‘a’ after del illeg 2.2 wide] interl To R. F. Cooke   4 July [1875] 1.4 own that] ‘that’ interl 2.1 believe that] ‘that’ interl 2.2 to his agent 2.3] ‘to’ over ‘—’ 3.1 of price] ‘of ’ after del ‘th’ To J. J. Weir   8 July [1875] 0.1 (Railway … S.E.R.)] parentheses added 3.1 As] after del ‘If ’ 3.2 cut] after del ‘cut’

To Lawson Tait   20 July [1875] 1.1 morning] interl 1.4 have been] ‘have’ interl; ‘been’ altered from ‘be’ 1.5 prove] after del ‘shew’

To Annie Dowie   1 August [1875] 1.4 here & there 1.5] interl 3.1 or fuller] interl 3.4 grow] above del ‘grw’ 3.8 to anyone] interl 3.9 has] interl 4.1 excellent] interl 5.2 the palm being] interl 6.1 me that] interl

598

Manuscript alterations and comments

6.1 to you,] interl 6.1 indirectly] interl To W. B. Tegetmeier   8 August [1875] 1.2 (of which … Edit.)] interl 1.3 you] after del illeg 1.5 horse] after del ‘race’ 1.6 ever] interl 1.6 than Eclipse.] interl To Lawson Tait   15 August [1875] 3.1 of old Books] interl To G. H. Darwin   [19 August 1875] 1.1 have] interl 1.3 where … here.] interl To Osbert Salvin   22 August [1875] 3.2 island] altered from ‘islands’ 3.3 young] after del ‘&’ To F. J. Cohn   24 August 1875 2.1 assumed] ‘d’ added in CD’s hand 2.7 or sifted] interl in CD’s hand 2.7 of it by] ‘o’ and ‘by’ mended in CD’s hand 2.8 why] mended in CD’s hand To R. F. Cooke   29 August [1875] 0.1 Southampton] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.2 or third] interl 1.2 might not] ‘not’ interl 1.3 better on] ‘on’ after del ‘when’ 2.4 this] over illeg To Francis Darwin   [31 August 1875 or later] 1.1 old] interl 1.2 only] interl 1.2 & … corrections] interl 1.3 carefully] interl 1.4 about altered passages] interl 1.5 first] after del ‘ori’ 3.1 sheets] after interl & del ‘clear’ 4.2 in pencil] interl above del ‘so’ To Francis Darwin   [September 1875 or later?] 1.1 i.e.] interl 1.4 i.e. … been 1.5] interl; ‘i.e.’ interl; ‘it’ interl 1.7 synonymous with] above del ‘the same as’ 1.7 when] above del ‘when’ 1.8 which … believe] interl 1.8 two] after del ‘w’ 1.9 confounded] altered from ‘cofoded’ 3.1 Ph. multiflorus,] interl

To R. F. Cooke   1 September [1875] 0.1 Southampton] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.2 with] interl 3.1 this] interl 3.2 new] interl To Joseph Fayrer   1 September 1875 0.1 Southampton] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ To Samuel Newington   1 September [1875] 4.1 (ticketed … names) 4.2] interl in CD’s hand To F. J. Cohn   2 September 1875 1.5 when irritated] interl in CD’s hand 1.15 on … Chlorophyll 1.16] interl in CD’s hand To George Rolleston   2 September [1875] 0.1 Southampton] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 2.2 on this subject] interl To H. E. Dresser   [10 September 1875] 0.1 Southampton] above del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent.’ 1.1 home] interl 1.3 (i.e. Monday)] interl 1.5 leaves] altered from ‘leves’ 1.6 about] interl To Lawson Tait   10 September [1875] 0.1 Southampton] above del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ To G. H. Darwin   13 September [1875] 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station Orpington. S.E.R.’ 2.8 all] interl 2.10 in each generation,] interl 2.10 the later] below del ‘later’ To ?   23 September [1875–6?] 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ To G. J. Romanes   24 September [1875] 0.1 Kent.] above del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.5 When] ‘W’ over illeg 1.6 Three … required.— 1.7] added 2.2 of Library] interl 2.2 or out] ‘or’ over ‘a’ 2.2 that of] added

Manuscript alterations and comments To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   3 October [1875] 1.2 nearly] interl 1.2 new] above del ‘knew’ 1.2 receive] above del ‘reeive’ 4.2 2] after del illeg 5.1 seedling] after del ‘pla’ 5.3 of Monochætum] interl 5.5 raise] above del ‘raised’ 5.7 to] interl To G. H. Darwin   13 October [1875] 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.2 very] added To J. D. Hooker   13 October [1875] 1.4 soon] interl 1.5 that is] interl To J. V. Carus   14 October [1875] 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.1 little] interl 1.6 from] after del ‘from’ 3.2 many] above del ‘many are’ To J. D. Hooker   15 October [1875] 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.3 fellow.] point over comma 1.3 Yet] ‘Y’ over ‘y’ 3.3 shall] interl To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   16 October [1875] 1.2 plants] after del ‘flow’ 2.1 the] interl 2.5 especially of Saxifrages] interl To John Tyndall   20 October [1875] 1.1 dated Oct. 16th.] interl To J. D. Hooker   21 October [1875] 1.4 umbel of] interl 2.2 (or … be) interl 2.6 & repeatedly] interl 2.6 slight] interl 3.3 find it] ‘it’ interl To R. F. Cooke   23 October [1875] 6.1 objection 6.2] interl 9.1 weeks] above del ‘days’ 9.3 This] over del ‘There’ 9.3 reprinted … revised] interl above del ‘a new’ 10.1 (with the] ‘the’ interl

599

To G. H. Darwin   [25 October 1875] 3.1 again] interl To John Tyndall   25 October [1875] 0.1 Railway] after del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent.’ To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   26 October [1875] 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.3 also] interl 1.5 Henderson.] point after del comma 2.1 Please] after del ‘if you have no scruple in getting one.’ To Edward Cardwell   29 October 1875 0.1 Oct … Cardwell 0.2] added pencil 1.1 with respect to] above del ‘on the subject of ’ 1.2 in … both] above del ‘both on the grounds’ 1.3 if] above del ‘though at the expense of some suffering from ill-health. But I doubt whether’ 1.3 evidence] after del ‘any’ 1.3 But] after comma altered to point, above del ‘as’ 1.4 directly or indirectly] transposed from before ‘been concerned’ 1.4 experiments] after added and del illeg 1.5 the [important] science] interl blue crayon 1.6 can progress] after interl ink and del blue crayon ‘which seems to me one of the most difficult & highest *of all the [interl] sciences’; final ‘s’ of ‘sciences’ added 1.6 only] after del ‘only’ 1.6 the aid of] interl pencil 1.6 secondly] after del ‘&’ 1.6 all] after del ‘from [del pencil] the analogy [below added and del ‘a widespread’] of most [above del ‘all’] other sciences’ 1.7 judging] interl after interl del ‘if analogy’ 1.7 judging … analogy] interl 1.7 sooner or later] transposed from before ‘to confer’ 1.7 great] after del illeg 1.8 performed] above del ‘tried’ 1.8 in a state] after del illeg 1.9 experiments] after del ‘such’ 1.9 on animals] after del ‘whether’ 1.9 this] altered from ‘the’ 1.9 , whether] after del ‘of insensibility’ 1.10 physiologists,] comma pencil 2.1 to try] after del ‘even’ 2.1 on an animal] after del ‘causing suffering’ 2.2 is necessary,] after del ‘promises a [greater] result’ 2.2 seems to me] above del ‘seems is’

600

Manuscript alterations and comments

2.2 a great] pencil above del pencil ‘an abhorrent’ 2.2 crime] below del ‘a detestable crime’ 3.2 which] above del ‘when’ 3.2 though] after del ‘should I be although’ 3.3 possible] before del illeg 3.3 be] after del ‘not’ 3.3 incapable of] above del ‘able to’ 3.3 at] added 3.3 specific] below del ‘appoint’ 4.1 have the honour] above del ‘beg leave’ To Smith, Elder & Co   30 October 1875 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ To T. H. Huxley   1 November [1875] 2.5 hour on Wednesday] interl above del illeg 2.5 must] after del ‘can’ 3.1 present] interl To Francis Galton   4 November [1875] 2.2 form] after del ‘judge’ 2.2 any] above del ‘my own’ 3.2 many] interl To G. J. Romanes   [4 November 1875] 1.7 pure] interl 3.3 did add] above del ‘di have added’ 3.4 hear] above del ‘hea’ To Francis Galton   7 November [1875] 1.6 “residue”] interl 2.2 as … it,] interl 5.2 are] above del ‘are’ 5.4 the proper] ‘the’ interl To the secretary of the Royal Commission on vivisection   8 November 1875 1.1 When … H. M.] above del 1.1 commissioners] after del pencil ‘your’; altered from ‘commission’ 1.1 I was asked 1.2] interl pencil 1.2 in] above del ‘with drawing’ 1.3 & … me] above del pencil ‘I have thought’; ‘it … me’ pencil 1.3 H. M.] below del pencil ‘the’, which is below del ‘Her Majesty’s’ pencil del ink 1.4 draft.—] after del ‘Bill’ 1.5 to protect] after del ‘at the same time’ 1.6 physiology] after del interl ‘students of the science of ’ 1.6 injurious] above del ‘too much’ 1.6 interference.—] before del ‘Sir | I beg leave to remain’

2.2 on … copy] pencil after ink del pencil ‘indicated’, pencil del ink ‘I have’, pencil del ink ‘M.S. ad’ 2.2 in M.S] after del ‘by me’ 2.3 is is] second ‘is’ after del ‘now illegal’ 2.4 made] above del ‘rendered’ To Ernst Haeckel   13 November 1875 2.7 but] interl in CD’s hand To Herbert Spencer   13 November 1875 1.5 committee] after del ‘body’ 1.7 have been] ‘have’ interl 2.3 how] interl 2.4 there are,] interl after del comma 3.1 to see] interl 3.1 an] interl To R. F. Cooke   17 November 1875 2.4 both … Continent] interl in CD’s hand 2.6 & finally] interl in CD’s hand To John Murray   20 November 1875 0.1 Kent.] before del ‘Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.5 off,] point changed to comma 1.5 or … time.—] added 2.3 So … &] added 2.4 these] over ‘This’ 2.4 escape] after del ‘av’ To J. V. Carus   22 November [1875] 5.3 equivalent] altered in CD’s hand from ‘exivalent’ 10.1 My … France. 12.2] in CD’s hand 12.1 to translate] ‘to’ interl To John Murray   23 November 1875 1.5 The … puff.— 1.6] added in CD’s hand To J. D. Hooker   1 December [1875] 2.3 owns] over illeg 2.4 ferments] after del ‘su’ 2.8 vegetable] interl To Quintino Sella   4 December 1875 4.1 With … Lincei 5.1] in CD’s hand To J. D. Hooker   10 December [1875] 0.1 Sqr] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ To T. H. Huxley   10 December [1875] 0.1 Squ] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 2.1 o clock] interl

Manuscript alterations and comments To ?   [after 11 December 1875] 1.1 that I have] ‘that’ after del ‘which I am’ 1.2 excuse] pencil above del pencil ‘forgive’ 1.2 deeply] pencil above del pencil ‘greatly’ 1.2 I heard] after del ‘When I came to London on Friday’ 1.4 personal] interl 1.5 embryology &c 1.6] ‘&c’ altered from ‘&’ 1.6 & have] ‘&’ after del ‘on [theoretic]. subjects.’ 1.6 seen] after del illeg 1.6 by] after del ‘in’ 1.7 as far as] interl 1.7 are] after del ‘ought’ 1.7 ought to] ‘to’ after del pencil ‘not’ 1.8 elected] pencil above del pencil ‘blackballed’ 1.8 agree most willingly] above del ‘feel pleasure & pride’ 1.8 to second] ‘to’ above del ‘in’; ‘second’ altered from ‘seconding’ 1.9 immediately] interl pencil 2.1 I] after del ‘I am aware that he is unpopular, but this does not seem to me to justify his exclusion, though [del ‘sufficient’] it wd do so in the case of an ordinary club. I do not believe anything else can be said against him, for by chance I was in communication about 6 months ago with a man who thought himself aggrieved by him, *& who had ample means of knowledge [interl] & yet admitted freely that he knew nothing whatever [interl] against him except his manners.— A second [‘Cambs’ interl del pencil] man, who dislikes him cordially *has just [interl] admitted *to me through my son [interl] the same fact & [over illeg] was just enough to express great indignation at his being blackballed.’ 2.1 on good authority] interl before del illeg 2.1 reason] above del ‘grounds’ 2.1 blackballed is] ‘is’ interl 3.1 & care] after del pencil ‘on any good grounds’ 3.1 from … justifiable 3.3] interl 3.3 But] above del pencil ‘&’ and after pencil del ink ‘for’ 3.4 & severely blamed] interl 3.4 (& which … [illeg] 3.5] interl 3.4 I think better 3.5] below del pencil ‘better’, below pencil del ink ‘been fairer to’ 3.6 put] after del ‘reflect over what can be said in council of R. L, &’ 3.6 in [imagination]] interl 3.6 the position] ‘the’ above del ‘his’ 3.6 of R. L] interl 3.6 Suppose] after del ‘&’; ‘S’ over ‘s’

601

3.7 done … & had] interl; ‘had’ pencil 3.8 fees] after del ‘adm’ 3.8 but] above del ‘&’ 3.8 person] added 3.8 this] after interl & del ‘whether [pencil] perhaps [del pencil] justly perhaps or [above 2d ‘perhaps’] unjustly that’ 3.8 was] over ‘an’ 3.9 a very] above del ‘an’ 3.9 on their part] interl pencil; ‘their’ ink over pencil ‘the’; before pencil del ink ‘of the Co’ 3.9 have] interl 3.9 thought] after del ‘think’ 3.10 as an … man] interl 3.11 thus cast] interl after pencil del ink ‘had’; ‘cast’ after interl pencil del ink ‘been’ 3.11 on] after del ‘thrown’ 3.11 said] after del ‘remembered’ 3.12 no] over illeg 3.12 the last] added pencil 3.13 so] pencil above del pencil ‘very’ above del ‘so’ 3.13 on this head,] added 3.13 that I wd … further 3.14] above del ‘that I *again beg you [del] venture to ask you &’; ‘further’ over pencil illeg 3.14 (though] parenthesis over comma 3.14 elected] after del ‘re’ 3.15 blackballing is] pencil above ‘acts are’ 3.15 half] interl 3.15 — I] after del ‘for [interl] which I *feel much [above del ‘most’] respect much [del] *on account of the good work it has done [pencil]’ 3.15 have … let 3.17] pencil above del pencil ‘let’ 3.18 in any case] after del ‘whether you will [illeg] the claim when’ 3.19 for troubling you.] circled and transposed from after ‘Lankester’ 3.19 am] pencil above ‘have’ 3.19 [myself]… [being] 3.20] interl pencil after interl & del pencil illeg 3.20 agreed] after added & del ‘willingly’ 3.20 to] after del ‘& it wd give me the’ and ‘& my anxious desire to [illeg]’ and before del illeg 3.20 candidature] after del ‘proposal’ To J. D. Hooker   [12 December 1875] 0.1 St] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   16 December [1875] 6.1 my] interl 6.2 belonging … set.] interl

602

Manuscript alterations and comments

To G. J. Romanes   17 [December 1875] 0.1 Bryanston St] before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.2 truly &] ‘&’ over ‘cd’ To Francis Galton   18 December [1875] 0.3 Monday) before del ‘Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.’ 1.7 of the hybrid] interl 1.7 this] after del ‘yet’ 1.9 the] interl 1.13 (as … Ascidians)] interl To J. J. Weir   18 December [1875] 1.10 (Huxley proposing him)] interl 4.1 a] interl

To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   [19 December 1875] 3.1 Some] added 3.2 the] interl 7.4 solemnly] after del ‘sl’ 7.8 or not] interl 7.11 are reelected] above del ‘com’ To W. R. S. Ralston   20 December 1875 1.2 Georgian] interl in CD’s hand To K. M. Lyell   26 December [1875] 1.2 From] in CD’s hand above del ‘In’ 3.1 P.S … parcels.—] in CD’s hand To G. J. Romanes   26 December 1875 3.1 Ch … me.— 4.3] in CD’s hand

BIOGRAPHICAL REGISTER This list includes all correspondents and all persons mentioned in the letters and notes that the editors have been able to identify. Dates of letters to and from correspondents are given in chronological order. Letters to correspondents are listed in roman type; letters from correspondents in italic type; third-party letters are listed with the name of the recipient or sender given in parentheses. Abbot, Francis Ellingwood (1836–1903). American clergyman and philosopher. BA, Harvard, 1859; PhD, 1881. Studied at Harvard Divinity School, 1859–60; at Meadville (Unitarian) Theological School, 1860–3. Minister of the first Unitarian Society of Dover, New Hampshire, 1864–8; of the Unitarian Society of Toledo, Ohio, 1869–73. Helped found the Free Religious Association in 1867. Editor of the Index from 1870. President, National Liberal League, 1876–8. Helped found the National Liberal League of America after breaking with the NLL in 1878. Wrote on scientific theism. (ANB.) 20 December 1875 (from W. E. Darwin) Acland, Henry Wentworth (1815–1900). Physician. Lee’s Reader in anatomy at Christ Church, Oxford, 1845–58. Regius professor of medicine, University of Oxford, 1857–94. Medical adviser to the prince of Wales, 1859. FRS 1847. Created baronet, 1890. (ODNB; Physicians.) Agassiz, Jean Louis Rodolphe (Louis) (1807–73). Swiss-born zoologist and geologist. Professor of natural history, Neuchâtel, 1832–46. Emigrated to the United States in 1846. Professor of zoology and geology, Harvard University, 1847–73. Established the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard in 1859. Foreign member, Royal Society of London, 1838. (ANB; DAB; DSB; Record of the Royal Society of London.) Airy, George Biddell (1801–92). Astronomer. Plumian Professor of astronomy and director of the Cambridge Observatory, 1828–35. Astronomer royal, 1835– 81. Knighted, 1872. FRS 1836. (DSB; ODNB.) Albert Edward, prince of Wales. See Edward VII. Alglave, Emile (1842–1928). French economist and editor. Studied palaeography and law at the École des chartes, Paris, and received a doctorate in law, 1868. Professor, faculty of law, Douai, 1870; taught political economy, Lille, 1873; professor, scientific finance, faculty of law, Paris, 1878. Co-founder and director of the journals Revue des cours scientifiques and Revue des cours littéraires, 1864–80. Worked mainly in the area of tax reform. (DBF.)

604

Biographical register

Allen, Joel Asaph (1838–1921). American zoologist. Studied with Louis Agassiz and accompanied him to Brazil in 1865. Led an expedition to study birds in eastern Florida, 1868–9. Curator of birds and mammals, Harvard Museum of Comparative Anatomy, 1867–85. Helped found the Nuttall Ornithological Club in 1876 and the American Ornithologists’ Union in 1883. Curator of ornithology and mammology, American Museum of Natural History, 1885–1907; of mammals, 1907–21; of invertebrates, 1887–90; of fish and reptiles, 1887–1901. (ANB.) Allen, Thomas (1813–92). Barrister. BA, Oxford (Balliol), 1835; entered Lincoln’s Inn, 1838; moved to the Inner Temple and was called to the bar, 1841. A second cousin of Emma Darwin. (Alum. Oxon.; England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 20 November 2014); Healey 2001 (Allen family tree); Basil H. J. Hughes, Pembrokeshire gazetteer, www.cenquest.co.uk/basil.htm, s.v. Carew (accessed 20 November 2014); Menat-the-bar.) 14 April 1875, 29 April 1875 Allman, George James (1812–98). Botanist and zoologist. Professor of botany, Dublin University, 1844; regius professor of natural history, Edinburgh University, 1855–70. President of the Linnean Society of London, 1874–83. FRS 1854. (ODNB.) Anderson, John (1812–81). American merchant and philanthropist. Tobacco merchant in New York; gave the island of Penikese, Massachusetts, to Louis Agassiz to found the Anderson School of Natural History, 1873. (Hall ed. 1895–6; Marcou 1896, 2: 201–7.) Annandale, Thomas (1838–1907). Surgeon. MD, Edinburgh, 1860. House surgeon to James Syme at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary from 1860; private assistant, 1861–70. Assistant surgeon at the Royal Infirmary from 1865; acting surgeon and lecturer on clinical surgery from 1871. Regius professor of clinical surgery, University of Edinburgh, 1877. FRCS 1888. (ODNB.) Anon. [February 1875 or earlier?], [16 February 1875], [after 17 February 1875], 31 [May 1875], [before 17 July 1875], 23 September [1875–6?], [after 11 December 1875] D.  Appleton & Co. New York publishing house. Founded by Daniel Appleton (1785–1849) in 1831. His son William Henry Appleton (1814–99) was taken into partnership in 1838. American publishers of works by CD and Herbert Spencer. (ANB.) 1 February 1875, 16 August 1875, 11 October 1875, 23 November 1875 Aristotle (384–322 bce). Greek philosopher. Author of many works, including Historia animalium (History of animals). (Oxford classical dictionary.) Ashdown, Robert (1838–1909). Gardener. Resided, with his family, in Down, Kent. (BMD (Birth index, Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/875/34/2).) Ashley-Cooper, Anthony, 7th earl of Shaftesbury (1801–85). Philanthropist and politician. Tory MP, 1826–46. Opposed parliamentary reform in 1831, and

Biographical register

605

campaigned for shorter hours of work, especially for children, resulting in the Factory Act of 1833. An ardent Evangelical and moralist. Promoted education and emigration. Succeeded to the earldom in 1851. Active in the House of Lords. (ODNB.) Ayrton, Acton Smee (1816–86). Politician. Solicitor in India; returned to England in 1851 and was called to the bar at the Middle Temple, 1853. Liberal MP for Tower Hamlets, 1857–74. First commissioner of works, 1869–73. Judge-advocate-general, 1873–4. (ODNB.) Bachmaier, Anton (b. 1820). Austrian writer. Author of a pasigraphic dictionary, which assigned numerical values to words in different languages in order to create a universal lexicon. Secretary of the Anthropological Society of Munich. (IBN; letter from Anton Bachmaier, 4 February 1875; NUC.) 4 February 1875, 21 March 1875 Backhouse, Edward (1808–79). Quaker minister and historical writer. Fond of travel, painting, and natural history; devoted himself to philanthropic and religious causes. Minister in the Society of Friends from 1854. (ODNB.) Bagehot, Walter (1826–77). Political commentator, economist, literary critic, and journalist. Editor, Economist, 1861–77. (ODNB.) Baker, Nathaniel (1844–1907). Barrister. Called to the bar, 1867. Secretary of the Royal Commission on Vivisection, 1876. (England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858-1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 6 January 2015); Men-at-the-bar; Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection, p. xxi.) Balbiani, Édouard-Gérard (1823–99). French biologist. Licencié in natural science, Paris, 1845; MD 1854. Director of histological research, Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, 1867. Professor of embryogeny, Collège de France, 1874. Co-founder, Archives d’anatomie microscopique, 1897. (DBF; DSB.) Balfour, Alice Blanche (1850–1936). Entomologist and scientific illustrator. Began collecting Lepidoptera at an early age and gained practical experience from a neighbour. Made many illustrations for the publications of her brother Francis Maitland Balfour. From 1876, took charge of the household of her brother Arthur James Balfour. Later raised specimens for Edward Bagnall Poulton’s genetics experiments at Oxford. (Opitz 2004.) Balfour, Arthur James, 1st earl of Balfour (1848–1930). Politician and philosopher. Brother of Francis Maitland Balfour. At Trinity College, Cambridge, 1866–9. Conservative MP for Hertford, 1874–85, Manchester East, 1885–1906. Prime minister, 1902–5. FRS 1888. (ODNB.) Balfour, Eleanor Mildred (1845–1936). College head. Sister of Arthur James and Francis Maitland Balfour. Studied mathematics at home. Married Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900) in 1876; they both campaigned for women’s higher education and were interested in psychical research. Collaborated with John William Strutt (Lord Rayleigh) in his work on measurement of electricity. Vice-principal of Newnham College, Cambridge, 1880–91; principal, 1891– 1910. (ODNB.)

606

Biographical register

Balfour, Francis Maitland (1851–82). Biologist. Brother of Arthur James Balfour. Specialised in comparative embryology. Studied natural sciences at the University of Cambridge, 1870–3; from 1874, fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge, where he directed a morphological laboratory. Appointed lecturer on animal morphology, University of Cambridge, 1876; professor, 1882. (Alum. Cantab.; ODNB.) [20 March – 14 April 1875] Balfour, Gerald William, 2d earl of Balfour (1853–1945). Politician, classicist, and psychical researcher. Brother of Francis Maitland Balfour and Arthur James Balfour. Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and lecturer in classics, 1878. Conservative MP for Leeds, 1885–1906; chief secretary for Ireland, 1895; president, Board of Trade, 1900. Author of works on psychical phenomena; president of the Society for Psychical Research, 1906. Succeeded Arthur Balfour as earl in 1930. (ODNB.) Baranowska, Maria von. See Dohrn, Maria. Barber, Mary Elizabeth (1818–99). British-born naturalist, artist, and writer in South Africa. Sister of James Henry Bowker. Emigrated to South Africa with her family in 1820. Married Frederick William Barber, a chemist, in 1845. Studied birds, moths, reptiles, and plants, and corresponded with leading scientists, providing them with specimens and drawings. Published a number of scientific papers. (DSAB; ODNB.) Barbier, Edmond (d. 1883). French translator. Translated works by CD (Journal of researches, Origin 6th ed., Variation 2d ed., Descent 2d ed.), John Lubbock, and Edward Burnett Tylor. (Tort 1996.) Barkly, Henry (1815–98). Colonial administrator. Served as governor of British Guiana, 1849–53; Jamaica, 1853–6; Victoria, 1856–63; Mauritius, 1863–70; and Cape Colony, 1870–77. Sent plants to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Investigated the ferns of Jamaica and Mauritius and its dependencies. Knighted, 1853. FRS 1864. (Gunn and Codd 1981, ODNB; Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 75 (1905): 23–5.) Barron, Archibald Farquharson (1835–1903). Gardener. Superintendent of the Royal Horticultural Society gardens at South Kensington and Chiswick. (R.  Desmond  1994; England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 18 December 2014).) Bartlett, Abraham Dee (1812–97). Taxidermist and zoo superintendent. Taxidermist, circa 1834–52. Superintendent of the natural history department, Crystal Palace, 1852–9; of the Zoological Society’s gardens, Regent’s Park, 1859–97. (Modern English biography; ODNB.) Bassani, Francesco (1853–1916). Italian geologist and palaeontologist. Graduated at Padua, 1875; studied at Paris and Monaco. Professor of natural history at Padua, 1880. With Giovanni Canestrini, translated Expression into Italian (1878). Professor of geology, University of Naples, 1887–1916. (DBI.) Bastian, Henry Charlton (1837–1915). Physician and specialist in clinical neurology. Assistant physician and lecturer on pathology, St Mary’s Hospital, London,

Biographical register

607

circa 1863–6. Professor of pathological anatomy, University College, London, 1867; physician, University College Hospital, 1878. Best known for his work on spontaneous generation. FRS 1868. (DSB.) Bates, Henry Walter (1825–92). Entomologist. Undertook a joint expedition to the Amazon with Alfred Russel Wallace, 1848–9; continued to explore the area, after Wallace returned to England, until 1859. Provided the first comprehensive scientific explanation of the phenomenon subsequently known as Batesian mimicry. Published an account of his travels, The naturalist on the River Amazons, in 1863. Assistant secretary, Royal Geographical Society of London, 1864–92. President, Entomological Society of London, 1868, 1869, and 1878. FRS 1881. (DSB; ODNB.) Baynes, Thomas Spencer (1823–87). Editor and philosopher. Studied logic and metaphysics at Edinburgh University, 1845–9. Taught logic at the Philosophical Institution in Edinburgh. Editor of the Edinburgh Guardian, 1850. Professor of logic, metaphysics, and English literature at the University of St Andrews, 1864–87. General editor of the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1875–89). (ODNB.) 8 July 1875 Beaton, Donald (1802–63). Scottish gardener. An expert on bedding schemes and hybridisation. Trained in the gardens at Beaufort Castle, Inverness-shire. Gardener to William Gordon-Cumming at his estate in Altyre, at the Dickson & Turnbull nursery in Perth, and at the Caledonian Horticultural Society in Edinburgh. Head gardener and estate manager to William Gordon of Haffield House, Herefordshire, 1829–37; gardener to Thomas Harris of Kingsbury, Kilburn, London, then head gardener to William Fowle Middleton of Shrubland Park, Suffolk, from 1840. A regular contributor to the Gardener’s Magazine and the Cottage Gardener. (Cottage Gardener, 28  November  1854, pp.  153–8; R.  Desmond 1994; Hadfield et al. 1980.) Bechstein, Johann Matthäus (1757–1822). German forestry scientist, ornithologist, and pedagogue. Taught natural history at the Salzmann educational establishment, Schnepfenthal near Gotha, 1785–94. Founded and ran a forestry academy near Waltershausen, 1795–9. Director of the academy for forestry and gamekeeping, Dreißigacker near Meiningen. Authority on caged birds, their diseases and reproduction. (ADB; DBE; Heß 1885; NDB.) Bell, William (c. 1833–1916). Scottish-born gardener. Gardener, Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. Head gardener, Saharanpur Botanic Garden, India, 1862. Returned to Edinburgh in 1869. (R. Desmond 1994.) Belt, Thomas (1832–78). Geologist, naturalist, and mining engineer. Member of Tyneside Naturalists’ Field Club. Joined the Australian gold rush in 1852, and studied geology. Returned to England in 1862 and established himself as a consultant mining engineer; worked in Nova Scotia, Wales, Nicaragua (1868–72), Siberia and southern Russia, and the United States. Fellow of the Geological Society of London. (Lightman ed. 2004, ODNB.) 24 February 1875, 31 March [1875], 3 April 1875, 17 October 1875

608

Biographical register

Beneden, Édouard Joseph Louis Marie van (Édouard) (1846–1910). Belgian embryologist and cytologist. Professor extraordinarius of zoology and comparative anatomy, University of Liège, 1871; professor, 1874. Co-founder of the journal Archives de biologie, in which most of his work was published. Known for his work on mammalian embryo formation, and his discovery of meiosis. (BNB; DSB; EB.) 18 August 1875 Bennett, Alfred William (1833–1902). Botanist, bookseller, and publisher. Proprietor and editor of the Friend, the monthly journal of the Society of Friends. Lecturer in botany, Bedford College, London, 1868; Westminster Hospital, London, 1869–73. Author of several papers on pollination, 1871–3, and other botanical works. Biological subeditor for Nature, 1871–3; botanical reviewer and writer for the Academy. Vice-president of the Microscopical Society, 1892, 1899, and 1900; editor of the society’s journal, 1897–1902. Vice-president of the Linnean Society of London, 1891–2. (Correspondence vol. 21, letter from A. W. Bennett, 16 March 1873; R. Desmond 1994; Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society 1879– 1902; List of the Linnean Society of London 1891–2; Medical directory 1869–73; ODNB.) 12 March 1875, 17 July [1875], 16 December [1875], 17 December 1875, [17 December 1875] Bennett, Katharine (1834–92). Daughter of William Richardson of Sunderland. Born in Bishop Wearmouth, Durham. Married Alfred William Bennett in 1858. (Annual Monitor 15 (1892): 22; England & Wales, Quaker birth, marriage, and death registers, 1578–1837 (Ancestry.com, accessed 6 November 2014); ODNB s.v. Bennett, Alfred William.) Bentham, George (1800–84). Botanist. Moved his botanical library and collections to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in 1854, and was provided with facilities there for his research from 1861. President of the Linnean Society of London, 1861–74. Published Genera plantarum (1862–83) with Joseph Dalton Hooker. FRS 1862. (DSB; ODNB.) 18 January [1875] Bergson, Edouard ( fl. 1870s). 10 October 1875, 13 October 1875 Berkeley, Miles Joseph (1803–89). Clergyman and botanist. Perpetual curate of Apethorpe and Wood Newton, Northamptonshire, 1833–68. Vicar of Sibbertoft, Northamptonshire, from 1868. Editor of the Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society, 1866–77. An expert on British fungi; described fungi from CD’s Beagle voyage. Royal Society of London Royal Medallist, 1863. FRS 1879. (DSB; ODNB.) 13 July 1875 Bernard, Claude (1813–78). French physiologist. Professor of general physiology, Faculté des sciences, Paris, 1854; Muséum d’histoire naturelle, 1868. Professor of medicine, Collège de France, 1855. Made significant discoveries in digestion, neurology, and other aspects of animal physiology. Contributed to the philosophy of experimental methodology. (DSB.)

Biographical register

609

Bianconi, Giovanni Giuseppe (1809–78). Italian zoologist and geologist. Professor of natural history and director of the museum of natural history, University of Bologna, 1842–64. Commissioner of the Agrarian-Industrial exhibition, Bologna, 1852. Curator of the Municipality of Bologna, 1855–7. Author of anti-Darwinian works, including Les singes et l’homme, considérations naturelles sur leurs pretendues affinités (Monkeys and humans, considerations on their supposed natural affinities; 1865), and La théorie darwinienne et la création indépendante (Darwinian theory and independent creation; 1874). (Francois Gasnault, La cattedra, l’altare, la nazione: carriere universitarie nell’ateneo di Bologna (Bologna: Clueb, 2001).) 1 February 1875, 22 February 1875 Bird, Isabella Lucy (1831–1904). Traveller and writer. Attempted to cure her spinal complaint by living an open-air life. Travelled to North America in 1854 and 1857; New Zealand, Australia, and the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) in 1872; China and Japan in 1876; India in 1889; Iran and Kurdistan in 1890; and Korea in 1894. Married John Bishop (d. 1886) in 1881. Published accounts of her travels. (ODNB.) Blackie, John Stuart (1809–95). Scottish scholar of classical Greek and Scottish Gaelic. Professor of Greek, University of Edinburgh, from 1852. (ODNB.) Blyth, Edward (1810–73). Zoologist. Druggist in Tooting, London, circa 1832–7. Wrote and edited zoological works under the pseudonym Zoophilus. Curator of the museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, India, 1841–62. Provided CD with information on the plants and animals of India in correspondence between 1855 and 1858 and later. Returned to Britain in 1863, and continued to write on zoology and on the origin of species. (Correspondence vols. 5–7; DSB; ODNB.) Bonaparte, Louis Lucien (1813–91). French statesman and philologist. Nephew of Napoleon I, emperor of France. Born and educated in England; went to France after the 1848 revolution. Deputy for the Seine in the Legislative Assembly, 1849. Returned to England after 1870 and concentrated on philology. His principal interest was in dialects and minority languages and he was best known as a scholar of Basque. (EB.) Bonghi, Ruggiero (1826–95). Italian lawyer, politician, and journalist. (DBI.) Boni, Carlo (1830–93). Italian collector and museum curator. Qualified as a lawyer in 1851. Collected scientific specimens. Founder member of the Società dei Naturalisti in Modena, 1865; president 1870–80. Curator of the palaeological collections, Museo Civico di Modena, from 1869; director from at least 1874. (Atti della Società dei Naturalisti e Matematici di Modena, 1870–80; Barbieri and Taddei 2006.) Boogaard, Johannes Adrianus (1823–77). Dutch anatomist. MD, Leiden University, 1847; doctorate in surgery, 1850; prosector in pathological anatomy, 1851; worked with the anatomical collections from 1863; professor from 1870. (Dutch medical biography.) Bornet, Jean-Baptiste-Édouard (Édouard) (1828–1911). French botanist. Collaborated with Gustave Adolphe Thuret at Thuret’s garden in Antibes. Worked especially on algae and lichens. (DBF.)

610

Biographical register

Boswell-Syme, John Thomas Irvine (1822–88). Scottish botanist. Curator of the Botanical Society, Edinburgh, 1850. (R. Desmond 1994; Modern English biography.) Boudin, Jean-Christian-Marc-François-Joseph (Jean-Christian-Marc) (1806–67). French physician and anthropologist. Served as chief medical officer with the French army in the Alps and Italy. Pioneered the publication of army medical statistics. Published widely on the health of various human groups, and on cross-breeding. (DBF.) Braithwaite, Robert (1824–1917). Physician and bryologist. MD, St Andrews, 1865. General practitioner at Clapham until his retirement in 1899. Fellow of the Linnean Society of London, 1863; vice-president, 1889–91. Member of the Quekett Microscopical Club, 1865; president, 1872–3. Wrote a monograph on the Sphagnaceae of Europe and North America (1880) and British moss-flora (1880–1905). His herbarium was deposited at the British Museum. ( Journal of Botany, British and Foreign 56 (1918): 23–5; Naturalist (1917): 361–3.) Brehm, Alfred Edmund (1829–84). German zoologist and traveller. Travelled in Egypt and the Sudan, Spain, Norway and Lapland, Siberia, and Turkestan. Studied natural history in Jena and Vienna, 1853–6. Director of the zoological gardens, Hamburg, 1862–7. Founded the aquarium in Berlin, 1867. Published books and articles on zoology. (ADB; BHGW.) Bridges, John Henry (1832–1906). Medical administrator and author. BA, Oxford (Wadham College), 1854; fellow of Oriel College, 1855. Trained at St George’s Hospital, London. Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, 1867. Metropolitan medical inspector to the Local Government Board for Bradford, 1870–92. Wrote numerous essays on religion, politics, and history. A leading member of the British positivist movement, promoting the system of the French philosopher Auguste Comte. (ODNB.) Briouze or Braose, Matilda (d. 1210). Daughter of Bernard de St Valéry, lord of Beckley, Oxfordshire. Married William (III) de Briouze (or Braose), landholder in the Welsh and Irish marches. Her indiscreet remarks about King John’s murder of his nephew Arthur contributed to her family’s downfall; she and her eldest son were imprisoned and starved to death. (ODNB s.v. Briouze [Braose], William (III) de.) Broca, Pierre Paul (Paul) (1824–80). French surgeon and anthropologist. MD, Paris, 1849. Assistant professor of the medical faculty in Paris and surgeon of the Central Bureau, 1853. Pioneer in the field of anthropology. Elected professor of pathology at Paris, 1867; of clinical surgery, 1868. Vice-president, French Academy of Medicine. (DBF; DSB.) Brodie, Benjamin Collins, 2d baronet (1817–80). Chemist. Awarded a doctorate at Giessen, Germany, for his analysis of beeswax, 1850. Professor of chemistry, Oxford, 1855–72. Devised an alternative approach to chemistry from that based on atomic theory, and developed a calculus of chemical operations. Succeeded to the baronetcy in 1862. FRS 1849. (Alum. Oxon.; DSB; ODNB.)

Biographical register

611

Bronn, Heinrich Georg (1800–62). German palaeontologist. Professor of natural science at Heidelberg University, 1833. Translated and superintended the first German editions of Origin (1860) and Orchids (1862). (DSB; NDB.) Brotero, Félix de Avellar (1744–1828). Portuguese botanist. Professor of botany and agriculture, Coimbra, 1791; director of the botanic gardens and royal museum, 1800. Director, botanic gardens, Ajuda, 1811. First botanist to describe native Portuguese plants. (Grande encyclopédie.) Brown-Séquard, Charles Édouard (1817–94). French physiologist. Practised medicine in France and the United States before accepting a professorship at Virginia Medical College, Richmond, in 1854. Returned to Paris in 1855; moved to England in 1858. Physician, National Hospital for the Paralysed and Epileptics, 1860–3. Professor of physiology and pathology, Harvard Medical School, 1864–7. Professor of medicine, Collège de France, 1878–94. Conducted pioneering research in neurology and endocrinology. FRS 1860. (DBF; DSB; Record of the Royal Society of London.) Brown, Thomas Crowther (1792–1883). Wine merchant. Of Cirencester, Gloucestershire. Interested in geology. Anonymously published Suggestions for a Church of unity (1862) and A layman’s faith, doctrines, and liturgy (1866). (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11/2554/103/15); DAPL; England & Wales, Quaker births, marriage, and death registers, 1578–1837 (Ancestry.com, accessed 6 November 2014); letter from T. C. Brown, 12 May 1875.) 12 May 1875 Browne, Thomas (1605–82). Physician and author. Trained as a physician at Montpellier, Padua, and Leiden. Practised medicine in Norwich from 1637. Author of a number of treatises on natural history, and of antiquarian, philosophical, and religious works. (ODNB.) Brownen, George (1842–1928). Pharmacist. Fellow of the Chemical Society from 1873. Worked at Savory & Moore’s Laboratory in Bond Street, London, in 1875. Co-author of The tea we drink: a demand for safeguards in the interest of the public and producer (1901). (BMD (Birth index); Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/697/114/5); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 4 November 2013); Journal of the Chemical Society 72 (1897); letter from George Brownen, 30 January 1875.) 30 January 1875 Bruce Lowe, Charles (1845–94). Australian racehorse trader. Trained as an accountant, and then became a stud stock agent in Sydney. Originator of the Bruce Lowe ‘Numbers’ or ‘Figure System’ for tabulating the female lines of racehorses; his tables were published posthumously (Bruce Lowe 1895). (Binney [2005], pp. 455–79.) Brunton, Thomas Lauder, 1st baronet (1844–1916). Physician and pharmacologist. MB, Edinburgh, 1866; MD 1868. Studied pharmacology in Vienna

612

Biographical register

and Berlin, and physiological chemistry in Amsterdam and Leipzig, 1868–70. Lecturer in materia medica and pharmacology, Middlesex Hospital, 1870; St Bartholomew’s, 1871. Casualty physician, St Bartholomew’s, 1871–5; assistant physician, 1875–97; physician, 1897–1904. Studied the physiology of digestion and experimented on insectivorous plants for Darwin. Created baronet, 1908. FRS 1874. (Complete dictionary of scientific biography; Correspondence vol. 21, letter from T. L. Brunton, 2 December 1873; ODNB.) Brücke, Ernst Wilhelm von (1819–92). German physiologist. Doctorate, Berlin, 1842. Assistant to Johannes Müller, 1843; habilitated, 1844. Professor of physiology, Königsberg, 1848; Vienna, 1849. (DBE.) Buckle, Henry Thomas (1821–62). Historian. Heir to a London shipowner. Travelled widely and published a number of volumes on the history of English and European civilisation. (ODNB.) Buckley, Arabella Burton (1840–1929). Popular scientific author, specialising in natural history. Secretary to Charles Lyell, 1864–75. Wrote in particular for young readers, and encouraged an active pursuit of natural history. A supporter of Darwinism; she emphasised the importance of mutualism and dependence as forces of evolution. (ODNB.) 23 February 1875 Burdon Sanderson, Ghetal (1832/3–1909). Daughter of Ridley Haim Herschell (ODNB) and Helen Skirving Herschell, née Mowbray, and sister of Farrer Herschell (ODNB). Married John Scott Burdon Sanderson in 1853. (ODNB s.v. Herschell, Ridley Haim, and Sanderson, John Scott Burdon.) Burdon Sanderson, John Scott (1828–1905). Pathologist and physiologist. MD, Edinburgh, 1851. Studied physiology under Claude Bernard in Paris. Medical registrar, St Mary’s Hospital, Paddington, 1853; medical officer of health for Paddington from 1856. Medical inspector to the Privy Council from 1860 to 1865 or 1866. Worked on the causes and transmission of infectious disease. Professor of practical physiology and histology, University College, London, 1870; Jodrell Professor of human physiology, 1874. Professor-superintendent of the Brown Institute, University of London, 1872–8. Waynefleet Professor of physiology, Oxford, 1882; regius professor of medicine, 1895–1904. Created baronet, 1899. FRS 1867. (ODNB.) 10 February 1875, 12 February [1875], 7 April [1875], 10 April 1875, [11 April 1875], [12 April 1875], 12 April [1875], 14 April [1875], 15 and 19 April [1875], 23 April [1875], 24 [April 1875], 28 April [1875], 30 April [1875], 1 May [1875], 6 May [1875], [8 May 1875], 23 May [1875], 16 July 1875 Burgers, Thomas François (1834–81). Transvaal head of state. President, Transvaal Republic, 1872–7. Travelled to Europe to raise money for a railway in the Transvaal, 1875–6. (DSAB.) 13 May 1875, [after 13 May 1875] Burgess, Thomas (1810/11–82). Police officer. Served as a marine on the Beagle voyage with CD, after which he purchased his discharge and joined the Cheshire

Biographical register

613

Constabulary. Retired by 1875. Married Hannah Fletcher in 1838. (‘Beagle’ diary; BMD (Marriage index, Death index); Census returns of England and Wales  1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/3671/34/16); letter from Thomas Burgess, 13 April 1875.) 26 March 1875, 13 April 1875, 21 April [1875] Burrows, George, 1st baronet (1801–87). Physician. MD, Cambridge, 1831. Lecturer, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, from 1832; physician, 1841–63. Physician-extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1870; physician-in-ordinary, 1873. President, Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society, 1869. Fellow, Royal College of Physicians, 1832; president, 1871–5. Created baronet, 1874. FRS 1846. (ODNB.) Busk, George (1807–86). Russian-born naval surgeon and naturalist. Served on the hospital ship at Greenwich, 1832–55. Retired from medical practice in 1855. Member of several scientific societies. President of the Microscopical Society, 1848–9; of the Anthropological Institute, 1873–4. Zoological secretary of the Linnean Society of London, 1857–68. Hunterian Professor of comparative anatomy, Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1856–9; council member, 1863; member of board of examiners, 1868; president, 1871. Specialised in palaeontology and in the study of Bryozoa. FRS 1850. (DNB; DSB; Plarr 1930.) Butler, Arthur Gardiner (1844–1925). Entomologist. Assistant, zoological department, British Museum, 1863; assistant keeper, 1879–1901. Worked mostly on Lepidoptera. (Entomologist 58 (1925): 175–6; Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 138 (1925–6): 75–6.) 23 August 1875, 24 August 1875 Callandar, Robert John (1832–1902). Civil servant. Assistant secretary at the Office of Works. (BMD (Birth index; Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/100/56/1); Post Office London directory 1872.) Cameron, John (1817–78). Army officer. Second lieutenant in the Royal Engineers, 1834; colonel, 1868. Director of the Ordnance Survey, 1875–8. FRS 1868. (Cameron genealogies, in Cameron Australia (www.clan-cameron.org.au, accessed 28 November 2013); Modern English biography; Record of the Royal Society of London.) Canby, William Marriott (1831–1904). American botanist, businessman, and philanthropist. Lived in Wilmington, Delaware. Published several articles on insectivorous plants. Amassed a substantial herbarium, which was sold to the College of Pharmacy, City of New York. (Harshberger 1899.) 1 October 1875 Candolle, Alphonse de (1806–93). Swiss botanist, lawyer, and politician. Active in the administration of the city of Geneva until 1860. Responsible for the introduction of postage stamps to Switzerland. Professor of botany and director of the botanic gardens, Geneva, from 1835. Concentrated on his own research after 1850. Foreign member, Royal Society of London, 1869. (DSB; Record of the Royal Society of London.) 15 July 1875

614

Biographical register

Candolle, Anne Casimir Pyramus (Casimir) de (1836–1918). Swiss botanist. Son of Alphonse de Candolle; assistant and colleague of his father. Published monographs of several families of plants. Foreign member, Linnean Society of London, 1893. (Dictionnaire historique & biographique de la Suisse; Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1918–19): 51–2.) Canestrini, Giovanni (1835–1900). Italian zoologist. Studied philosophy and natural sciences at Vienna, receiving his degree in 1861. Professor of natural history, Modena, 1862–9. Professor of zoology and comparative anatomy and physiology, Padua, 1869–1900. Translated the first Italian edition of Origin (1864) in association with Leonardo Salimbeni, and of Variation (second edition, 1875). Worked mainly in ichthyology and later on human origins. (DBI; Pancaldi 1991.) 29 July 1875, 22 October 1875 Cardwell, Edward, 1st Viscount Cardwell (1813–86). Politician. Liberal MP for Oxford City, 1853–74. Secretary of state for war, 1868–74; carried out wide-ranging army reforms, including, in 1871, the abolition of the purchase of commissions. Created Viscount Cardwell of Ellerbeck, 1874. Chairman of the Royal Commission on the practice of subjecting live animals to experiments for scientific purposes, 1875. (ODNB.) [before 29 April 1875], 29 April 1875, 28 October 1875, 29 October 1875 Carlyle, Thomas (1795–1881). Essayist and historian. (ODNB.) Carpenter, Alfred John (1825–92). Physician and advocate of sewage farming. Trained at St Thomas’s Hospital, London, before entering medical practice in Croydon in 1852. MD, London, 1859. Member of the Croydon Board of Health, 1859–79, and founder and manager of one of the earliest municipal sewage farms, in Beddington. Lectured on public health at St Thomas’s, 1875–84. (ODNB.) Carpenter, William Benjamin (1813–85). Naturalist. Fullerian Professor of physiology at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 1844–8; physiology lecturer, London Hospital, 1845–56; professor of forensic medicine, University College, London, 1849–59. Registrar of the University of London, 1856–79. President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1872. Founding member of the Marine Biological Association. FRS 1844. (DNB; DSB; Modern English biography; Royal Institution of Great Britain, www.rigb.org.) Carruccio, Antonio (1839–1923). Italian zoologist. Professor of zoology and comparative anatomy, University of Modena, 1871–83. Fellow of the Società dei Naturalisti in Modena, 1872; vice-president, 1875. Taught at the University of Rome from 1883. Founded the Società Romana per gli Studi Zoologici (later the Società Zoologica Italiana) in 1892. (Barbieri and Taddei 2006; DAR 229: 45 (see Appendix III).) Cartmell, James (1810–81). Theologian and university official. BA, Cambridge, 1833; fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge, 1833; tutor, 1839–49; master, 1849– 81. Chaplain to Queen Victoria, 1851–81. An important figure in University reform. (Modern English biography; Alum. Cantab.)

Biographical register

615

Carus, Agnes Marie Elisabeth (1856–1922). Daughter of Julius Victor Carus. (IGI (accessed 27 August 2013).) Carus, Anna Sophie Gertrud (1858–1933). Daughter of Julius Victor Carus. (IGI (accessed 27 August 2013).) Carus, Julius Victor (1823–1903). German comparative anatomist. Conservator of the Museum of Comparative Anatomy, Oxford University, 1849–51. Professor extraordinarius of comparative anatomy and director of the zoological museum, University of Leipzig, 1853. Translated the third German edition of Origin (1867) and, subsequently, twelve other works by CD. (DSB; NDB.) 5 February 1875, 7 February 1875, 17 April 1875, 19 April [1875], 17 June [1875], 28 June 1875, 1 July [1875], 19 August 1875, 14 October [1875], 20 November 1875, 22 November [1875], 21 December 1875, 21 December [1875], 25 December 1875 Carus, Sophie Catherine (1827–84). Daughter of Friedrich Christian Hasse (1773–1848) of Leipzig. Married Julius Victor Carus in 1853. (NDB s.v. Carus, Julius Viktor.) Cayley, Arthur (1821–95). Mathematician and conveyancer. Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1842–52. Studied law at Lincoln’s Inn; called to the bar, 1849. Practised law until 1863. Honorary fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1872; fellow, 1875. Sadlerian Professor of pure mathematics at Cambridge, 1863–95. FRS 1852. (Alum. Cantab.; DSB; ODNB.) Chambers, Alice (1850–1940). Daughter of Robert and Anne Kirkwood Chambers. Married Laurie Bunten in 1876. (1851 Scotland Census, Edinburgh St Stephen, 10/20/73; England, select marriages, 1538–1973 (Ancestry.com, accessed 5 February 2015); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 22 January 2014).) Chambers, Robert (1802–71). Publisher, writer, and geologist. Partner, with his brother William Chambers (ODNB), in the Edinburgh publishing company W. & R. Chambers. Joint editor of Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal from 1832. Anonymous author of Vestiges of the natural history of creation (1844). (DSB; ODNB.) Charlesworth, Edward (1813–93). Naturalist and palaeontologist. Honorary curator, Ipswich Museum, 1835–7; Museum of the Zoological Society of London, 1837–40. Curator of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society Museum, 1844–58. (Modern English biography; Sarjeant 1980–96.) Chiantore, G. ( fl. 1870s). Italian publisher. Worked for the publishing house Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese. (Letter from G. Chiantore to John Murray, 18 May 1875.) 18 May 1875 (to John Murray), 16 June 1875 Childs, George William (1829–94). American publisher and philanthropist. Joined the publishing firm of R. E. Peterson in Philadelphia in 1850; the company became Childs and Peterson in 1854. Childs bought out Peterson in 1860, and left the book trade in 1863. Bought the newspaper the Public Ledger in 1864; was an enlightened and benevolent employer. Met many famous people and

616

Biographical register

amassed a valuable library. Donated to civic projects in Philadelphia and elsewhere. (ANB.) Christison, Robert (1797–1882). Scottish physician. Professor of medical jurisprudence, Edinburgh University, 1822–32; of clinical medicine, 1832–55; of materia medica and therapeutics, 1832–77. President of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 1839 and 1848. President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1868–73. President of the British Medical Association, 1875. Physician-in-ordinary to the queen in Scotland, 1848. Created baronet, 1871. (DNB.) Clark, Andrew, 1st baronet (1826–93). Scottish physician. MD, Aberdeen, 1854. Physician to the London Hospital, 1866–86. Physician to William Ewart Gladstone from 1868, and to many prominent people, including Thomas Henry Huxley. One of the physicians who attended CD in his final illness. Created baronet, 1883. FRS 1885. (ODNB; The Times, 21 April 1882, p. 5.) Clark, Joseph Warner (1856–85). Chemist and physicist. Studied chemistry and physics at Heidelberg under Robert Wilhelm Eberhard Bunsen and Georg Hermann Quincke. Demonstrator in chemistry and physics, Royal Indian Engineering College; demonstrator in physics for Oliver Lodge, University College, Liverpool. (BMD (Birth index); Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11/1322/7/7); Germany, select deaths and burials, 1582–1958 (Ancestry.com, accessed 10 March 2013); Lodge 1931.) 9 February 1875, 25 June 1875, 16 September 1875 Clarke, Alexander Ross (1828–1914). Geodesist. Graduated from the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Royal Engineers, 1847. Posted to the Ordnance Survey in Southampton, 1850; chief mathematical and scientific adviser, and head of the trigonometrical and levelling departments, from 1856. Retired in 1881. In 1860, began a comparison of different national standards of length. FRS 1862. (Nature, 19 February 1914, pp. 692–3; ODNB.) Clarke, Richard Trevor (1813–97). Army officer and horticulturist. Major in the Northampton and Rutland Infantry Militia, 1862. Bred nearly thirty new varieties of begonias and many new strains of cotton. Awarded a gold medal by the Cotton Supply Association of Manchester. Member of the Royal Horticultural Society; served on the council and scientific committee for many years; awarded the society’s Veitchian medal, 1894. (Army list; R. Desmond 1994; Gardeners’ Chronicle, 17 April 1897, p. 263.) Clarke, William Branwhite (1798–1878). Clergyman and geologist. Attended Adam Sedgwick’s lectures on geology while an undergraduate at Jesus College, Cambridge. Emigrated in 1839 to Australia, where he carried out extensive geological surveys. Discovered gold in New South Wales in 1841. Incumbent of St Thomas’s, North Sydney, New South Wales, 1846–71. FRS 1876. (DSB; ODNB.) Claus, Carl Friedrich (1835–99). German zoologist. Studied medicine, mathematics, and zoology at Marburg and Giessen, 1854–7. Professor of zoology, Marburg, 1863; Göttingen, 1870. Professor of zoology and head of the institute

Biographical register

617

of zoological and comparative anatomy at Vienna, 1873. Founder and first director of the zoological research station at Trieste, 1873. Did important research on environmental influences on variability, especially in the Crustacea. A staunch supporter of CD in his writing and lecturing. His zoology textbook was a standard work in the last three decades of the nineteenth century. (DBE; NDB; OBL.) Clowes, Edward Arnott (1851–1901). Printer. Son of George Clowes (1814–86). Joined the family printing business, William Clowes and Sons, run by his father and uncle, William Clowes (1807–83). Remained with the parent firm when his brother William Charles Knight Clowes, and cousin, William Archibald Clowes, founded the junior printing business, Clowes and Clowes, in 1873; became joint managing director with them when the two firms merged in 1880 to form William Clowes and Sons Ltd. (Clowes [1953].) 27 August 1875 Clowes, William (1807–83). Printer. Together with his brothers Winchester (1808– 62) and George (1814–86), took over the London printing firm established by his father, William Clowes (1779–1847). (ODNB.) William Clowes & Sons. Printers. William Clowes (1807–83), eldest son of William Clowes (1779–1847), joined his father’s printing business in 1823; the name of the firm was changed to William Clowes & Sons in 1839. Printed the official catalogue of the Great Exhibition of 1851. Introduced improvements in music printing. Printers to John Murray. (ODNB.) 11 July 1875 (from G. H. Darwin), 15 July 1875, 17 July 1875 (from G. H. Darwin), 19 July 1875 Coan, Titus Munson (1836–1921). American physician. Born at Hilo, Hawaii, son of Fidelia and Titus Coan, missionaries. Graduated from Williams College, 1859. Studied medicine in New York City and worked in hospitals in New York during the American Civil War. Acting assistant surgeon in the US Navy from 1863. In practice in New York City. (Emens comp. 1920, p. 57; Hafner ed. 1993.) 24 April 1875 Coates, George ( fl. 1820s). Cattle breeder. Breeder of shorthorn cattle near Pontefract, Yorkshire, and compiler of the first herd book; the series continued as Coates’s herd book. (L. F. Allen 1874.) Cobbe, Frances Power (1822–1904). Writer and philanthropist. Wrote extensively on religious and ethical subjects. Leading campaigner for women’s rights and against animal vivisection. (ODNB.) [14 January 1875], 14 January [1875] (from Emma Darwin) Codrington, Thomas (1829–1918). Civil engineer and geologist. Educated at the College for Civil Engineers, Putney. Fellow of the Geological Society of London, 1859. General superintendent for county roads in South Wales, 1874–82; engineering inspector under the local government board, 1882–95. Published on geological topics. Authority on the planning and upkeep of roads, publishing The maintenance of macadamised roads (1879) and Roman roads in Britain (1903). (Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 75 (1919): lxiii–iv.)

618

Biographical register

Cohn, Ferdinand Julius (1828–98). German botanist and bacteriologist. Professor extraordinarius, University of Breslau, 1859; professor, 1872. Founded the first institute for plant physiology, at Breslau, in 1866. In 1870, founded the journal Beiträge zur Biologie der Pflanzen, in which the earliest articles on bacteriology appeared. Worked on unicellular algae, and attempted to devise a system of classification for lower plants based on Darwinian transmutation theory. Foreign member, Royal Society of London, 1897. (DSB; NDB.) 1 January 1875, 9 January 1875, [30 June 1875], 21 August 1875, 24 August 1875, 28 August 1875, 2 September 1875 Cohn, Gustav (1840–1919). German economist. DPhil., Leipzig, 1866; habilitated, Heidelberg, 1869. Professor, Riga, 1871; Göttingen, 1884. (NDB.) Colam, John (1827–1910). Animal welfare campaigner and editor. Secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 1860–1905; editor, Animal World, 1869–1905; Band of Mercy, 1880–1905. One of the founders of the Battersea Dogs’ Home and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Personally stopped a bull-fight from taking place in London in 1870  and was later awarded a gold medal by the Paris SPCA and a gold watch by the RSPCA for his courage. Received the first Queen’s medal given for conspicuous service to the RSPCA. Strong anti-vivisection supporter. (The Times, 14 February 1867, p. 10, 30 May 1910, p. 12; Animal World 36 (1905): 113, 121; RSPCA personal communication.) Colburn, Henry (1784/5–1855). Publisher. Proprietor of the English and Foreign Circulating Library in London, where he began his publishing operation, 1806–24. Co-founded the New Monthly Magazine and Universal Register; founded the Literary Gazette and other periodicals. Ran publishing operations in New Burlington Street, 1824–32. Set up premises at Great Marlborough Street in 1836. (ODNB.) Coleridge, John Duke, 1st Baron Coleridge (1820–94). Judge. Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, 1843–6. Called to the bar, 1846; recorder of Portsmouth, 1855–66. Liberal MP for Exeter, 1865–73. Solicitor-general, 1868–71; attorneygeneral, 1871–3; chief justice of the common pleas, 1873–80; lord chief justice of England, 1880–94. Anti-vivisectionist. Knighted, 1868. Created baron, 1873. (ODNB.) Collier, William Frederick (1824–1902). Wine merchant. Member of Plymouth Borough Council, 1848–54. Deputy chairman, Plymouth Chamber of Commerce. Involved with several charitable associations, and an original member of the Dartmoor Hunt. (Western Morning News, 14 February 1902.) Colling, Robert (1749–1820). Stockbreeder. Sold to his brother, Charles Colling, the bull from which the improved stock of shorthorns was bred. Farmed at Barmpton, Durham. (ODNB.) Comes, Orazio (1848–1917). Italian botanist. Studied natural sciences at Naples, graduating with a thesis on pollination and heterogamy. Assistant to the professor of botany in the school of agriculture at Portici; professor, 1880. Later

Biographical register

619

worked on plant pathology and physiology, and on mycological taxonomy, and discovered the fungal aetiology of many plant diseases. (DBI.) Comte, Isidore Auguste Marie François Xavier (Auguste) (1798–1857). French philosopher. Private secretary to Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon, 1817–23. Founded the Association polytechnique, a group devoted to the education of the working classes, in 1830; the Société positiviste, devoted to the promulgation of the ‘Cult of Humanity’, in 1848. Adopted the term ‘positivism’ for his philosophy. (DSB.) Cooke, Robert Francis (1816–91). Publisher. Cousin of John Murray and partner in his publishing company, which published many of Darwin’s books. (Correspondence vol. 13, letter from John Murray, 1 April 1865, Modern English biography.) 19 March 1875, 21 April 1875, 23 May [1875], 24 May 1875, 26 May 1875, 29 May 1875, 24 June [1875], 26 June 1875, 27 June [1875], 28 June 1875, 29 June [1875], 3 July 1875, 4 July [1875], 16 July 1875, 29 July 1875, 31 July 1875, 3 August 1875, 6 August 1875, 9 August 1875, 10 August 1875, 12 August 1875, 27 August 1875, 29 August [1875], 30 August 1875, 1 September [1875], 3 September 1875, 5 October 1875, 6 October 1875, 8 October 1875, 12 October 1875, 22 October 1875, 23 October [1875], 25 October 1875, 9 November [1875], 16 November 1875, 17 November 1875, 14 December 1875, 17 December [1875] Cookson, Blanche Althea Elizabeth (1846/7–1928). Daughter of Eardley Chauncy Holt. Married Montague Hughes Cookson (later Crackanthorpe) in 1869. (BMD (Death index); ODNB s.v. Crackanthorpe [formerly Cookson], Montague Hughes.) 30 January 1875 Cookson, Montague Hughes (1832–1913). Barrister. BA, Oxford (St John’s College), 1854. Called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn, 1859; QC, 1875. Assumed the name Crackanthorpe by royal licence, 1888. Advocated limiting family size. (ODNB.) Cooper, James Davis (1823–1904). Wood-engraver. Established his own wood-engraving business in London, 1849. In 1857, patented a process for engraving by which the area to be printed black was cut out and the recesses filled to make an electrotype; this never came into general use. (ODNB.) Cope, Edward Drinker (1840–97). American biologist and palaeontologist. Worked on the reptile collection at the Smithsonian Institution, 1859. Studied the collections of Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology and the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, in the 1860s. Taught zoology at Haverford College, Pennsylvania, 1864–7. Made several palaeontological expeditions to the western states from the early 1870s. Professor of geology and later zoology, University of Pennsylvania, from 1889. (ANB.) Crichton-Browne, James (1840–1938). Scottish physician, psychiatrist, and author. Graduated from the College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, in 1862. Medical director, West Riding Asylum, Wakefield, 1866–75. Lord chancellor’s visitor in lunacy, 1875–1922. Pioneering researcher into the causes and management of

620

Biographical register

mental illness. Editor, West Riding Lunatic Asylum Medical Reports, 1871–5. One of the founders of Brain, 1878; co-editor, 1878–85. Author of a number of popular works on mental health and social policy. Knighted, 1886. FRS 1883. (DNB.) 22 December 1875 Crocq, Jean (1824–98). Medical doctor and academic. MD, Brussels, 1848. Worked in pauper asylums in Brussels from 1849. Published on geriatric disorders, hygiene, and control of infection. Co-founder of the Presse médicale belge in 1849 and of the Société anatomo-pathologique in 1857. Professor, University of Brussels, 1859. Member, Académie de médecine, 1862; president, 1883. President, Fédération médicale de Belgique, 1865–75. Held a number of positions in local government and civic organisations in Brussels. (BNB vol. 30.) Croll, James (1821–90). Scottish geologist. Keeper, Andersonian Museum, Glasgow, 1859. In the 1860s, began publishing papers on physical geology. Secretary to the Geological Survey of Scotland, 1867; retired after suffering a mild stroke in 1880. Until his death, wrote papers and books on cosmology, on oceanic circulation patterns, and on climate change and the causes of the glacial epoch. FRS 1876. (ODNB.) Cross, Richard Assheton, Viscount Cross of Broughton in Furness (1823–1914). Conservative politician and statesman. Home secretary, 1874–80 and 1885–6. Created Viscount Cross of Broughton in Furness, 1886. (ODNB.) May 1875 Crüger, Hermann (1818–64). German pharmacist and botanist. Apothecary in Trinidad in the West Indies from 1841; government botanist and director of the botanic garden, Trinidad, from 1857. Collected plants in Jamaica, Trinidad, and Venezuela. (R. Desmond 1994; S[chlechtenda]l 1864.) Culley, George (bap. 1735 d. 1813). Agriculturalist. Pupil of Robert Bakewell in the 1760s. With his brothers, worked on improving agricultural techniques on their farm at Fenton from 1767. Developed the Border Leicester sheep breed. Co-authored reports to the Board of Agriculture for Northumberland and Cumberland. (ODNB.) Cupples, Anne Jane (1839–98). Scottish author. Second daughter of Archibald Douglas. Married George Cupples in 1858. Wrote children’s books. Lived in New Zealand from 1891. (Modern English biography.) Cupples, George (1822–91). Scottish writer and dog breeder. Served as an apprentice on an eighteen-month voyage to India and back on the Patriot King, circa 1838; had his indentures cancelled on his return. Studied arts and theology at Edinburgh University for eight years. Published a number of novels and other books, and wrote many articles and stories for journals. Bred Scottish deer-hounds. (Correspondence vol. 16, letter from George Cupples, 1 May 1868, Cupples 1894, Modern English biography.) 25 February 1875, 1 March 1875 Cuvier, Jean Léopold Nicolas Frédéric (Georges) (1769–1832). French systematist, comparative anatomist, palaeontologist, and administrator. Professor

Biographical register

621

of natural history, Collège de France, 1800–32; professor of comparative anatomy, Muséum d’histoire naturelle, 1802–32. Permanent secretary to the Académie des sciences from 1803. Foreign member, Royal Society of London, 1806. (DBF; DSB.) Dareste, Gabriel-Madeleine-Camille (Camille) (1822–99). French zoologist. A specialist in experimental embryology. Doctor of medicine, 1847. Doctor of science, 1851. Taught natural history at various provincial institutions. Professor of zoology, University of Lille, 1864–72. Professor of ichthyology and herpetology, Muséum d’histoire naturelle, Paris, 1872. Director of the laboratory of teratology, later attached to the École des hautes-études, 1875. Awarded the grand prize in physiology by the Académie des sciences for Recherches sur la production artificielle de monstruosités (1877). (DBF; Dictionnaire universel des contemporains.) Darwin, Amy Richenda (Amy) (1850–76). Daughter of Mary Anne and Lawrence Ruck. Married Francis Darwin, as his first wife, in 1874. Died shortly after the birth of their son, Bernard Richard Meirion Darwin. ( J. Browne 2002; Freeman 1978; ODNB s.v. Darwin, Francis.) Darwin, Caroline Sarah (1800–88). CD’s sister. Married Josiah Wedgwood III in 1837. (Darwin pedigree.) Darwin, Elizabeth (Bessy/Lizzy) (1847–1926). CD’s daughter. (Darwin pedigree; Freeman 1978.) Darwin, Emma (1808–96). Youngest daughter of Josiah Wedgwood II.  Married CD, her cousin, in 1839. (Emma Darwin (1904) and (1915).) 14 January [1875], 9 May 1875 (to W. D. Whitney), 1 September [1875?] (from E. A. Darwin), 7 October [1875] (to John Tyndall), 24 December [1875] (to J. B. Innes) Darwin, Erasmus Alvey (1804–81). CD’s brother. Attended Shrewsbury School, 1815–22. Matriculated at Christ’s College, Cambridge, 1822; Edinburgh University, 1825–6. Qualified in medicine but never practised. Lived in London from 1829. (Alum. Cantab.; Freeman 1978.) 1 September [1875?] (to Emma Darwin), [c. 22 November 1875] Darwin, Francis (1848–1925). CD’s son. Botanist. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1870. Qualified as a physician but did not practise. CD’s secretary from 1874. Collaborated with CD on several botanical projects. Lecturer in botany, Cambridge University, 1884; reader, 1888–1904. Published Life and letters of Charles Darwin and More letters. President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1908. Knighted, 1913. FRS 1882. (DSB; ODNB.) [1875?], [c. February 1875], 30 April [1875], 1 and 2 May [1875], [4 May 1875], [after 3 June 1875], 22 July [1875] (to Lawson Tait), [31 August 1875 or later], [1 September 1875 or later], [September 1875 or later?], [1 September 1875 or later], [after 2 December 1875], [before 8 December 1875] Darwin, George Howard (1845–1912). CD’s son. Mathematician. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1868; fellow, 1868–78. Studied law in London, 1869–72; called to the bar, 1872, but did not practise. Plumian Professor of astronomy and experimental philosophy, Cambridge University, 1883–1912. President of

622

Biographical register

the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1905. Knighted, 1905. FRS 1879. (DSB; Men-at-the-bar; ODNB.) 8 February 1875 (to J. T. Knowles), 10 [February 1875], 2 [April 1875], 11 July 1875 (to William Clowes & Sons), 17 July 1875 (to William Clowes & Sons), [19 August 1875], 20 August 1875, 13 September [1875], 12 October 1875, 13 October [1875], [25 October 1875], [26 October 1875], 21 December 1875 (to W. D. Whitney), 22 December 1875 (from Francis Galton) Darwin, Horace (1851–1928). CD’s son. Civil engineer. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1874. Apprenticed to an engineering firm in Kent; returned to Cambridge in 1877  to design and make scientific instruments. Founder and director of the Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company. Mayor of Cambridge, 1896–7. Knighted, 1918. FRS 1903. (Alum. Cantab.; ODNB.) Darwin, Leonard (1850–1943). CD’s son. Military engineer. Attended the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich. Commissioned in the Royal Engineers, 1871; major, 1889; retired, 1890. Served on several scientific expeditions, including those for the observation of the transit of Venus in 1874 and 1882. Instructor in chemistry and photography, School of Military Engineering, Chatham, 1877–82. Intelligence service, War Office, 1885–90. Liberal Unionist MP, Lichfield division of Staffordshire, 1892–5. President, Royal Geographical Society of London, 1908–11; Eugenics Education Society, 1911–28. Chairman, Bedford College, London University, 1913–20. (ODNB; WWW.) Darwin, Robert Waring (1766–1848). CD’s father. Physician. Had a large practice in Shrewsbury and resided at The Mount. Son of Erasmus Darwin (ODNB) and his first wife, Mary Howard. Married Susannah, daughter of Josiah Wedgwood I (ODNB), in 1796. FRS 1788. (Freeman 1978.) Darwin, Susan Elizabeth (1803–66). CD’s sister. Lived at The Mount, Shrewsbury, the family home, until her death. (Darwin pedigree; Freeman 1978.) Darwin, William Erasmus (1839–1914). CD’s eldest son. Banker. BA, Cambridge (Christ’s College), 1862. Partner in the Southampton and Hampshire Bank, Southampton, 1861. Chairman of the Southampton Water Company. Amateur photographer. (Alum. Cantab.; F. Darwin 1914.) [2 April 1875], [4 April 1875], [5 April 1875], 16 October 1875, [15? December 1875], 20 December 1875 (to F. E. Abbot) Daubeny, Charles Giles Bridle (1795–1867). Chemist and botanist. Professor of chemistry, Oxford University, 1822–55; professor of botany, 1834–67; and of rural economy, from 1840. An active supporter of the British Association for the Advancement of Science; vice-president, 1847, president, 1856. FRS 1822. (Alum. Oxon.; ODNB; Record of the Royal Society of London.) Davenport, Salusbury Pryce (1778–1845). Naval officer. On active service, 1790– 1808. Lieutenant, 1797; commander, 1802; captain, 1804; rear-admiral, 1837. Changed his surname from Humphreys, 1838. Justice of the Peace for Buckingham, Chester, and Lancaster in retirement. Knighted, 1834. (Tracy 2006, s.v. Humphreys.)

Biographical register

623

Dawkins, William Boyd (1837–1929). Geologist and palaeontologist. Member of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, 1861–9. Curator of natural history, Manchester Museum, 1869. Professor of geology, Owens College, Manchester, 1874–1908. Specialised in fossil mammals. FRS 1867. (ODNB.) 15 January 1875, 16 January [1875], 14 March 1875, [before 30 October 1875] (from John Storer), 1 December 1875 Delpino, Federico (1833–1905). Italian botanist. Travelled extensively for botanical purposes as a youth and in 1873. Civil servant, ministry of finances, Turin, 1852–6; assistant in the botanic garden and museum, Florence, 1867; lecturer, Vallombrosa school of forestry, 1871; professor of botany and director of the botanic garden, Genoa, 1875–84; professor, University of Bologna, 1884; professor of botany and head of the botanic garden, Naples, 1894. (DBI; Mayerhöfer 1959–70; Penzig 1905.) 8 April 1875, 18 April 1875, 11 September 1875 Dew-Smith, Albert George (1848–1903). Zoologist and instrument maker. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1873. Added Smith to his name on succeeding to property in 1870, but was known to his friends as ‘Dew’. A student and benefactor of Michael Foster; co-authored several papers with Foster on the heartbeat. Carried out research at the Naples Zoological station in 1874. Established the Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company in partnership with Horace Darwin in 1878. A noted amateur photographer. (Alum. Cantab.; Geison  1978, pp.  107, 176, 222–38.) 17 January 1875, 19 January [1875] Diderot, Denis (1713–84). French philosopher. (DBF.) Disraeli, Benjamin, earl of Beaconsfield (1804–81). Statesman and author. Prime minister, 1868, 1874–6. Created earl of Beaconsfield, 1876. (ODNB.) Dixon, Edmund Saul (Delamer, Eugene Sebastian) (1809–93). Clergyman and poultry-fancier. Rector of Intwood with Keswick, Norfolk, 1842–93. Author of books on the history and management of poultry. Also published under the pseudonym Eugene Sebastian Delamer. (Modern English biography.) Dodel, Arnold (1843–1908). Swiss botanist. Privat-dozent in botany at the university of Zürich, 1870–80; professor extraordinarius, 1880–3; professor, 1883–1903. Founded the Zürich Institut für Allgemeine Botanik, which followed Nägeli’s microscopical and anatomical approach. Darwinist and socialist. Married Carolina Port in 1875. With Carolina, edited the Atlas der Botanik (1878–83). They divorced in 1890. Married Louisa Müller in 1891; they divorced in 1906. (Erziehungsrate des Kantons Zürich ed. 1938; HBLS; Universität Zürich Matrikeledition, www. matrikel.uzh.ch/active/static/16552.htm (accessed 2 May 2013).) 6 July 1875 Dohrn, Felix Anton (Anton) (1840–1909). German zoologist. Studied medicine and zoology at various German universities. PhD, Breslau, 1865. Studied with Ernst Haeckel and became Haeckel’s first assistant at Jena, where he habilitated in 1868. Founded the Zoological Station at Naples, built between 1872 and 1874.

624

Biographical register

The station was the first marine laboratory, and served as a model for other similar institutions throughout the world. (DBE; DSB; Heuss 1991.) 7 February 1875, [after 7 February 1875], 24 May 1875, 31 May 1875, 29 July 1875 Dohrn, Maria (1856–1918). Polish-born scientific assistant and translator. Née von Baranowska. Married Anton Dohrn in 1874. Assistant, secretary, and interpreter to Anton at the zoological station in Naples. Translated Polish literature into German. (Heuss 1991, Kawecki 1978.) Donders, Frans Cornelis (Franciscus Cornelius) (1818–89). Dutch physiologist and ophthalmologist. MD, Leiden, 1840. Professor of anatomy at Utrecht military school; professor of physiology at the University of Utrecht, 1862. President of the science section of the Royal Amsterdam Academy of Sciences, 1865–83. Founder and director of a physiology laboratory at the University of Utrecht, 1866–88. Founder and director of the Netherlands Hospital for Eye Patients, 1858–83. FRS 1866. (NNBW; Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 49 (1890–1): vii–xxiv; Tort 1996.) Douglas, John Christie (d. 1887). Telegraph engineer. Employed by the East India Government Telegraph Department. Employed as third grade inspector, Indian Telegraph Department, 1864. Associate member, Society of Telegraph Engineers, 1873; member, 1877. (England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858-1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 9 December 2014); India Office Records, IOR/L/F/8/2/193; UK, electrical engineer membership forms, 1871–1901 (Ancestry.com, accessed 9 December 2014).) 14 February 1875 Dowie, Annie (1835–1903). Daughter of Robert and Anne Kirkwood Chambers. Married James Muir Dowie. (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11/3572/67/26); IGI (accessed 11 September 2009).) 27 July 1875, [after 27 July 1875], 1 August [1875], 4 August [1875], 10 August [1875], 16 August [1875] Dowie, James Muir (1835/6–89). Corn merchant. Resided in Liverpool. Moved to West Kirby, the Wirral, in 1869, and then to Kinross-shire, Scotland. Married Annie Chambers, daughter of Robert and Anne Kirkwood Chambers. Founding member of the Royal Liverpool Golf Club. Member of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. (Census returns of England and Wales 1861 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG9/2702/88/18); ‘List of members of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. 1876’. Appendix to Report of the 45th meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1875); ODNB s.v. Dowie, Ménie Muriel; Scotland: Statutory Deaths 461/00 0001 (Scotlandspeople. gov.uk, accessed 3 December 2014); Steel et al. eds. 1975, s.v. Liverpool GC, Royal.) Down Friendly Society. Founded with CD’s help, probably in 1852. CD acted as the society’s treasurer for 30 years. The annual general meeting was held at Down House. (Freeman 1978.) Doyer, Derk (1827–96). Dutch physician. MD, State Military Medical School,

Biographical register

625

Utrecht; qualified in obstetrics, Leiden University, 1851. Taught and practised medicine, Java, 1851–60. Studied ophthalmology with F. C. Donders, Utrecht, 1860–2. Professor extraordinarius of ophthalmology, Leiden University, 1869; professor, 1877–97. (Dutch medical biography.) Draper, John William (1811–82). English-born American chemist. Professor of chemistry and natural philosophy, Hampstead-Sidney College, Virginia, 1836–8. Became professor of chemistry, University of the City of New York (New York University), in 1838 and president of its Medical School in 1850. (DAB.) 15 February 1875 Dresser, Henry Eeles (1838–1915). Ornithologist. Entered his father’s business as a Baltic timber merchant and travelled in northern Europe, 1854–62. Entered the metal trade in London in 1870. Collected bird eggs and skins. Member of the British Ornithologists’ Union from 1865; secretary, 1882–8. Published letters and papers in Ibis, and History of the birds of Europe (1871–96), in collaboration initially with R. B. Sharpe. (Ibis 10th ser. 4 (1916): 340–2.) [10 September 1875] Duck, George Francis (1794/5–1875). Carpenter, grocer, and landlord of the George public house in Down. (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1861 (The National Archives; Public Record Office, RG9/462: 73); Freeman 1978; Post Office directory of the six home counties 1862.) Duncan, Andrew (the younger) (1773–1832). Physician and expert in forensic science. Son of Andrew Duncan (1744–1828) and his wife, Mary Knox. MD, Edinburgh, 1794. Studied in London and Europe. Published the Edinburgh new dispensatory (1803); it went through many editions. Chief editor of the Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal. Professor of materia medica, Edinburgh University, 1821–32. (ODNB.) Duncan, Peter Martin (1824–91). Physician, zoologist, and geologist. Physician, Essex and Colchester Hospital, 1848–59; consultant physician, county asylum and Oldham Club. Practised at Blackheath from 1860. Professor of geology, King’s College, London, 1870. Secretary of the Geological Society of London, 1864–70; president, 1876–8. Specialist on living and fossil corals and Mesozoic echinoids. FRS 1868. (Medical directory 1849–76; ODNB.) Dyke, William Hart, 7th baronet (1837–1931). Politician. MA, Oxford (Christchurch), 1864. Conservative MP for West Kent, 1865–8; Mid Kent, 1868–85; Dartford, 1885–1906. Whip, 1868–74; chief whip, 1874–80; patronage secretary to the treasury, 1874–80; member of the Privy Council, 1880; chief secretary for Ireland, 1885–6; vice-president of the committee of council on education, 1887–92. Succeeded as seventh baronet in 1875. (ODNB.) Edward VII (1841–1910). Eldest son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British dominions beyond the seas, and emperor of India, from 1901. As Albert Edward, prince of Wales, married Princess Alexandra of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg on 10  March  1863. FRS 1863. (ODNB.)

626

Biographical register

Edwards, Henry (1827–91). Actor, entomologist, and botanist. Lived in Australia, 1853–66, and in San Francisco, Boston, and New York; worked as an actor and theatre manager and studied natural history in his spare time. Member of the California Academy of Sciences, 1867; vice-president, 1875–7. After his death, his entomological collection was bought by his friends and donated to the American Museum of Natural History. (Historical Records of Australian Science 11 (1996): 407–18.) 26 December 1875, [after 26 December 1875] Elliot, Margaret (1827–1901). Daughter of Gilbert Elliot, dean of Bristol. Collaborated on workhouse projects with Frances Power Cobbe. (Census returns of England and Wales 1851 (The National Archives: Public Record Office HO107/1951/286); DNB s.v. Cobbe, Frances Power; England, select births and christenings, 1538–1975 (Ancestry.com, accessed 28 November 2014).) Elliot, Thomas Frederick (1808–80). Civil servant. Junior clerk in the Colonial Office, 1825; senior clerk, 1833; secretary to the Earl of Gosford’s commission of inquiry into Canadian affairs in Québec, 1835–7; agent-general for emigration, 1837; under-secretary of state, 1847; retired, 1868. Vice-president of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 1876. Friend of John Stuart Mill and Thomas Carlyle. Knighted, 1869. (ODNB.) Emery, Woodward (1842–1918). American lawyer. Studied law at Harvard; LLB 1866. Practised in Boston, Mass. (Harvard College, class of 1864, secretary’s report, no. 2, July, 1864 – July 1867 (printed for the use of the class), p. 16; New Hampshire, death and disinterment records, 1754–1947 (Ancestry.com, accessed 11 March 2014).) 17 September 1875 Erichsen, John Eric, baronet (1818–96). Danish-born surgeon. Studied medicine at University College, London. Member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1839. Joint lecturer on anatomy and physiology, Westminster Hospital, 1844–6; joint lecturer on anatomy, 1846–8. Assistant surgeon, University College Hospital, 1848–50; surgeon, 1850–75; consulting surgeon from 1875. Professor of surgery, University College, 1850–66; Holme Professor of clinical surgery from 1866. Surgeon-extraordinary to the queen, 1877. Author of the widely read textbook, Science and art of surgery (1853). Created baronet, 1895. FRS 1876. (ODNB.) Ernest Augustus, duke of Cumberland and king of Hanover (1771–1851). Fifth son of George III. Chancellor of Trinity College, Dublin, 1805. Field marshal in the British army, 1813. (ODNB.) Evans, Henry James (1834–1921). School teacher and clergyman. BA, Cambridge (Pembroke), 1858. Ordained priest, 1862. Assistant master, Charterhouse, 1866–1900; housemaster, 1872–97; honorary chaplain, 1900–6. (Alum. Cantab.; Charterhouse register, 1872–1900, p. 283.) Evans, John (1823–1908). Paper manufacturer, archaeologist, geologist, and numismatist. In 1859, his study of chipped flints helped to establish the antiquity of humans in western Europe. Published an important paper on the fossil

Biographical register

627

bird, Archaeopteryx, in 1865. Developed a theory of evolution with regard to coins, 1849–50, and later applied natural selection to numismatics. Active member of many archaeological, scientific, and industrial societies. Vice-president of the Royal Society of London from 1876; treasurer, 1878–98. Honorary secretary of the Geological Society of London, 1866–74; president, 1874–6. Knighted, 1892. FRS 1864. (DNB.) Eyre, Edward John (1815–1901). Colonial administrator. Emigrated to Australia in 1833. Lieutenant-governor of New Zealand’s South Island, 1846–53. Governor of St Vincent, 1854–9. Temporary lieutenant-governor of Jamaica, 1862; governor, 1864–66. Suspended, 1866, then recalled for his role in the suppression of the uprising known as the Morant Bay rebellion. Faced criminal and civil charges but was never convicted and eventually received a government pension. (ODNB.) Eys, Willem Jan van (1825–1914). Dutch philologist. Worked on Basque grammar, and published a comparative grammar of Basque dialects in 1879. (Revue internationale des études Basques (RIEV) 8 (1914–17): 386–8.) Falconer, Charles (1804–79). Brother of Hugh Falconer. (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/157/8/10); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 11 November 2014; s.v. Falconer, Hugh, d. 1865).) Falconer, Hugh (1808–65). Palaeontologist and botanist. Superintendent of the botanic garden, Saharanpur, India, 1832–42. Superintended the arrangement of Indian fossils for the British Museum in 1844. Superintendent of the Calcutta botanic garden and professor of botany, Calcutta Medical College, 1848–55. Retired owing to ill health and returned to Britain in 1855; pursued palaeontological research while travelling in southern Europe. Vice-president of the Royal Society of London and foreign secretary of the Geological Society of London, 1865. FRS 1845. (DSB; ODNB.) Faraday, Michael (1791–1867). Natural philosopher. Apprentice to a bookbinder, 1805. Appointed chemical assistant at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 1813; director of the laboratory, 1825; Fullerian Professor of chemistry, 1833. Noted for his popular lectures and for his extensive researches in electrochemistry, magnetism, and electricity. FRS 1824. (DSB; ODNB.) Farrer, Emma Cecilia (Ida) (1854–1946). Only daughter of Thomas Henry Farrer and Frances Farrer (née Erskine); distantly related to Charles and Emma Darwin. When her father remarried, became step-daughter of Katherine Euphemia (Effie) Wedgwood. Married Horace Darwin in 1880, and with him built, in 1884, and resided at The Orchard, Cambridge. Active in Cambridgeshire charities related to mental health. (Cattermole and Wolfe 1987; Wedgwood and Wedgwood 1980.) Farrer, Katherine Euphemia (Effie) (1839–1931). Daughter of Hensleigh and Frances Emma Elizabeth Wedgwood. Married Thomas Henry Farrer in 1873. (Burke’s peerage 1980; Freeman 1978.)

628

Biographical register

Farrer, Noel Maitland (1867–1929). Civil servant. Son of Thomas Henry Farrer and his first wife, Frances. Educated at Eton; BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1889. Private secretary to the permanent secretary of the Board of Trade; secretary to the Chamber of Shipping. (Alum. Cantab.) Farrer, Thomas Henry, 1st Baron Farrer (1819–99). Civil servant. BA, Oxford (Balliol College), 1840. Called to the bar, 1844; ceased to practise in 1848. Secretary of the marine department, Board of Trade, 1850, rising to sole permanent secretary of the Board of Trade, 1867–86. In  1854, married Frances Erskine, whose mother, Maitland, was the half-sister of Frances Emma Elizabeth Wedgwood; in 1873, married Katherine Euphemia Wedgwood, daughter of Frances and Hensleigh Wedgwood. Created baronet, 1883; created Baron Farrer of Abinger, 1893. (ODNB; Wedgwood and Wedgwood 1980.) 3 April 1875, 11 July 1875, 12 July 1875 Fayrer, Joseph, 1st baronet (1824–1907). Surgeon and physician. Served in the Indian Medical Service, 1850–95. Professor of surgery at the medical college, Calcutta, 1859. President of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1867. Returned to Britain in 1872. President of the medical board of the India Office, 1873–95. Published on surgery, but most noted for his work, with Thomas Lauder Brunton, on snake venoms. Created baronet, 1896. FRS 1877. (ODNB.) 6 January 1875, 8 July 1875, 31 August 1875, 1 September 1875 Feilden, Henry Wemyss (1838–1921). Army officer, Arctic explorer, and naturalist. Joined the army at the age of 19. Naturalist on HMS Alert during the polar expedition of 1875; responsible for ethnology, mammals, and ornithology. (Ibis 63 (1921): 726–8.) Fergusson, William, 1st baronet (1808–77). Scottish surgeon. Professor of surgery, King’s College, London, 1840–70. Surgeon-in-ordinary to the prince consort, 1849; surgeon extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1855. Created baronet, 1866. FRS 1848. (ODNB.) Ffinden, George Sketchley (1836/7–1911). Clergyman. Ordained priest, 1861. Curate of Monks Risborough, Buckinghamshire, 1860–1; Newport Pagnell, 1861–2; Moulsoe, Buckinghamshire, 1863–9. Domestic chaplain to Earl Carrington, 1871. Vicar of Down, 1871–1911. (BMD (Death index); Crockford’s clerical directory 1872; Freeman 1978.) Fichte, Johann Gottlieb (1762–1814). German philosopher. (ADB.) Fiske, John (1842–1901). Historian and populariser of evolutionary science. Influenced by Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer. Graduated from Harvard University in 1863. Gave a series of lectures on positive philosophy at Harvard, 1869–70. Assistant librarian, Harvard, 1872–9. Travelled to England in 1873. Published Outlines of cosmic philosophy (1874). Freelance lecturer and writer, 1879– 88; retained by Houghton Mifflin Company from 1888. Wrote extensively on American history and politics. (ANB.) 15 March 1875, 21 October [1875] FitzRoy, Robert (1805–65). Naval officer, hydrographer, and meteorologist.

Biographical register

629

Commander of HMS Beagle, 1828–36. Tory MP for Durham, 1841–3. Governor of New Zealand, 1843–5. Superintendent of the dockyard at Woolwich, 1848–50. Chief of the meteorological department at the Board of Trade, 1854; chief of the Meteorological Office from 1855. Rear admiral, 1857; vice-admiral, 1863. FRS 1851. (DSB; ODNB.) Fitzgerald, Robert David (1830–92). Irish-born surveyor and naturalist in Australia. Studied civil engineering at Queen’s College, Cork. Emigrated to Sydney, Australia, in 1856. Draftsman to the Department of Lands, 1856; in charge of the roads branch, 1868; deputy surveyor-general, 1873. Chief mining surveyor, 1874–82. Made botanical collections on Lord Howe Island. Published Australian orchids in parts from 1875. Fellow of the Linnean Society, 1874. (Aust. dict. biog.) 16 July 1875, 20 September 1875 Flower, William Henry (1831–99). Anatomist and zoologist. Curator of the Hunterian Museum, Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1861–84; Hunterian Professor of comparative anatomy, Royal College of Surgeons, 1870–84. Director of the Natural History Museum, London, 1884–98. President of the Zoological Society of London, 1879–99. President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1889. Knighted, 1892. FRS 1864. (DNB; ODNB.) Fol, Hermann (1845–92). Swiss zoologist and cytologist. Studied natural sciences at Geneva, then medicine and zoology at Jena, Heidelberg, Zurich, and Berlin. MD 1869. Took part in Ernst Haeckel’s research expedition to Africa and the Canary Islands, 1866–7. Professor of embryology, Geneva, 1878; professor of general morphology, 1885–6. Founder and director, laboratory for marine biology, Villefranche-sur-Mer, 1880. Founder and editor of Recueil zoologique suisse, 1883. In 1877, he was the first person to observe fertilisation of an egg and is considered to be the father of modern cytology. (Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz.) Forbes, Edward (1815–54). Zoologist, botanist, and palaeontologist. Naturalist on board HMS Beacon, 1841–2. Appointed professor of botany, King’s College, London, and curator of the museum of the Geological Society of London, 1842. Palaeontologist with the Geological Survey of Great Britain, 1844–54. Professor of natural history, Edinburgh University, 1854. FRS 1845. (DSB; ODNB.) Forster, Laura May (1839–1924). A life-long friend of Henrietta Emma Litchfield, whom she met while staying in Wales in 1865. An aunt of E. M. Forster. Made observations on harvester ants in Algiers for John Traherne Moggridge in 1872. Forster loaned her house to the Darwins in 1879 so that CD could have a complete rest. (L. M. Forster, ‘Journal’, f. 26 (King’s College Cambridge, PP/ EMF/22 vol. 3/10); Freeman 1978; letter to L. M. Forster, 25 June 1879 (Calendar no. 12120); Moggridge 1873.) Forster, William Edward (1818–86). Liberal politician. Secretary of state under William Ewart Gladstone, 1880. (DNB.) Foster, Michael (1836–1907). Physiologist and politician. BA, University College, London, 1854; MD 1859. Practised medicine until 1866. Instructor in physiology and histology, University College, 1867; assistant professor, 1869. Fullerian

630

Biographical register

Professor of physiology, Royal Institution of Great Britain. Praelector in physiology, Trinity College, Cambridge, from 1870; professor of physiology, Cambridge, 1883–1903. MP, University of London, 1900–6. Knighted, 1899. FRS 1872. (ODNB.) 30 January 1875 Fox, Ellen Sophia (1820–87). Daughter of Basil George Woodd of Hillfield, Hampstead. Married William Darwin Fox in 1846. (Darwin pedigree.) Fox, Emma (1803–85). Sister of William Darwin Fox. (Darwin pedigree.) Fox, Julia (1809–96). Sister of William Darwin Fox. (BMD (Death index); Darwin pedigree.) Fox, William Darwin (1805–80). Clergyman. CD’s second cousin. A friend of CD’s at Cambridge; introduced CD to entomology. Maintained an active interest in natural history throughout his life and provided CD with much information. Rector of Delamere, Cheshire, 1838–73. Spent the last years of his life at Sandown, Isle of Wight. (Alum. Cantab.; Correspondence; ‘Recollections’.) 16 July [1875] Francis, duke of Teck (1837–1900). German prince. Married Princess Mary Adelaide, granddaughter of George III, in 1866. Created duke of Teck, 1871. President, Royal Botanic Society. (ODNB s.v. Mary Adelaide, Princess; The Times, 11 August 1875, p. 5.) François de Chaumont, Francis Stephen Bennet (1833–88). Physician and military surgeon. MD, Edinburgh, 1853; LRCS 1853; FRCS 1864. Assistant surgeon with the Army Medical Department, 1854; surgeon, 1865, surgeon-major, 1876. Served with the Rifle Brigade in the Crimea in 1855. Assistant professor of military hygiene, Army Medical School, Netley hospital, 1863–76; professor, 1876–88. (Edinburgh Academy register, 1914; Modern English biography.) 23 December 1875 Frankland, Edward (1825–99). Chemist. Professor of chemistry, Putney College for Civil Engineering, 1850, and Owens College, Manchester, 1851–7. Lecturer in chemistry, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, 1857–64. Professor of chemistry, Royal Institution of Great Britain, 1863–8, and Royal College of Chemistry, 1865–8. President of the Chemical Society, 1871–2; of the Institute of Chemistry, 1877–80. Director of the Royal College of Chemistry, 1868–85. Knighted, 1897. FRS 1853. (DSB; ODNB.) Franklin, John (1786–1847). Naval officer and Arctic explorer. Lieutenant-governor of Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania), 1837–43. Leader of the 1845 expedition in search of a north-west passage during which all hands perished. Knighted, 1829. FRS 1823. (ODNB; Record of the Royal Society of London.) Freeman, Edward Augustus (1823–92). Historian. BA, Oxford, 1845. Wrote a six-volume work, A history of the Norman Conquest, begun in 1865 and finished in 1876. Did much reviewing, notably in the Saturday Review. (ODNB.) Fritsche, Gustavus (b. 1838). Polish doctor. Studied medicine at Heidelberg, graduating in 1869. Physician at the hospital in Czenstochowa, Poland, in the

Biographical register

631

1870s. Director, Reserve Hospital, Warsaw. Later edited the Polish medical weekly journal, Medycyna. (BLA s.v. Fritsche, Gustav von; Transactions of the Clinical Society of London 6 (1873): 160.) 13 February 1875, 23 October 1875, 27 October 1875 Galton, Douglas Strutt (1822–99). Military engineer and civil servant. Officer in the Royal Engineers. Joined the Ordnance Survey in 1846. Secretary, Railway Commission, 1847; Railway Department, Board of Trade, 1854. Assistant permanent under-secretary of state for war, 1862. Director of public works and buildings, Office of Works, 1869–75. Author of numerous government reports on sanitation, telegraphy, and railways. Member, British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1860; general secretary, 1871–95; president, 1895. Knighted, 1887. FRS 1859. (ODNB.) Galton, Francis (1822–1911). Traveller, statistician, and scientific writer. CD’s cousin. Explored in south-western Africa, 1850–2. Carried out various researches on heredity. Founder of the eugenics movement. FRS 1860. (DSB; ODNB.) 14 April 1875, 2 June 1875, 22 September 1875, 22 September 1875, 24 September 1875, 25 September 1875, 2 November [1875], 3 November 1875, 4 November [1875], 5 November 1875, 7 November [1875], 8 November 1875, 10 November [1875], 26 November 1875, 18 December [1875], 19 December 1875, 22 December 1875 (to G. H. Darwin) Galton, Louisa Jane (1822–97). Daughter of George Butler, the headmaster of Harrow. Married Francis Galton in 1853. (London, England, births and baptisms, 1813–1906 (Ancestry.com, accessed 30 October 2014); ODNB s.v. Galton, Sir Francis.) Galwey, James (1800–80). Irish landowner. Of Glen Lodge, Kilsheelan, and later Colligan Lodge, Dungarvan, County Waterford. Inspector-general of prisons (Ireland). High sheriff, County Waterford, 1867. A director of the Waterford and Limerick Railway. A breeder and trainer of greyhounds, including the famous Master McGrath. (Burke’s Irish family records.) Gärtner, Karl Friedrich von (1772–1850). German physician and botanist. Practised medicine in Calw, Germany, from 1796, but left medical practice in 1800 to pursue a career in botany. Travelled in England and Holland in 1802. Studied plant hybridisation from circa 1824. Elected a member of the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, 1826. Ennobled, 1846. (ADB; DBE; DSB.) Gassiot, John Peter (1797–1877). Wine merchant and scientific writer. Chairman of the Royal Society of London’s Kew Observatory committee. Carried out electrical experiments. FRS 1840. (DSB; ODNB.) Gegenbaur, Carl (or Karl) (1826–1903). German anatomist and zoologist. A supporter of CD; emphasised the importance of comparative anatomy in evolutionary reconstruction. Professor extraordinarius of zoology, Jena, 1855–8; professor of anatomy and zoology, 1858–62; of anatomy, 1862–73. Professor of anatomy and comparative anatomy, Heidelberg, 1873–1901. Elected to the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, 1857. (DBE; DSB; NDB.)

632

Biographical register

Geikie, Archibald (1835–1924). Scottish geologist. Appointed member of the Scottish branch of the Geological Survey in 1855. Director of the Geological Survey of Scotland, 1867–82. Director-general of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, 1882–1901. Murchison Professor of geology and mineralogy, Edinburgh University, 1871–81. Knighted, 1891. FRS 1865. (DNB; DSB.) 9 December 1875 Gentry, Thomas George (1843–1905). American teacher, naturalist, and writer. ( 1880 United States Federal Census (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: District 454); NUC; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, death certificates index, 1803–1915 (Ancestry.com, accessed 26 March 2013).) Gerard, John (1545–1612). Herbalist. Superintendent of the gardens of Lord Burghley in the Strand, London, and at Theobalds, Hertfordshire; had his own garden at Holborn, London. Published his famous Herball in 1597. Chosen master of the Barber-Surgeons’ Company, 1607. (DNB.) Gibb, James (1844–1910). Insurance broker and underwriter at Lloyd’s of London. Member of the Lewisham and Blackheath Scientific Society. MP for Harrow, 1906–10. (Lewisham and Blackheath Scientific Association, Proceedings 1879, and List of Members; WWW.) 23 February 1875 Gibb, James Glenny (1874–1912). Surgeon. Son of James Gibb. Educated at the City of London School, after which he spent six years in his father’s office. FRCS 1908. MD, Durham, 1908. House physician, Westminster Hospital, 1906; house surgeon, St Bartholemew’s Hospital, 1907; ophthalmic house surgeon, 1908. Surgeon to the Union Medical College, Harbin, China. Helped to organise the work of the Chinese Central Red Cross Society, 1911. (Plarr 1930.) Gibson, John (1805/6–54). Medical practitioner. In Barton, Westmorland, 1837– 8. Surgeon, Penrith, Cumberland, 1841. General practitioner, Hutton End, Cumberland, 1851. (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1841 (The National Archives: Public Record Office HO107/174/7/10/15), 1851 (HO107/2426/7/7); Medical directory.) Gilbert, Ann (1782–1866). Writer and poet. Mother of Joseph Henry Gilbert. Trained as an engraver. With her sister, Jane Taylor (1783–1824), and other teenage girls, founded a literary circle, the Umbelliferous Society, in Colchester. Contributed poetry to periodicals, and collaborated with Jane on illustrated collections of poetry for children. Married a Congregational minister, Joseph Gilbert (1779–1852), in 1813. Her autobiography was published posthumously (A. Gilbert 1874). (ODNB s.v. Taylor, Jane.) Gilbert, Joseph Henry (1817–1901). Agricultural chemist. Collaborated with John Bennet Lawes at the Rothamsted Agricultural Station, 1843–1900. Sibthorpian Professor of rural economy, Oxford University, 1884–90. Knighted, 1893. FRS 1860. (ODNB.) 24 July 1875, 11 August 1875, 31 December 1875 Gilbert, Josiah (1814–92). Artist and author. Portrait painter in London. Son of

Biographical register

633

Ann Gilbert, and brother of Joseph Henry Gilbert. Edited Ann Gilbert’s autobiography (A. Gilbert 1874). (Modern English biography; letter from J. H. Gilbert, 31 December 1875.) Gilchrist, James (d.  1885). Scottish physician. Apprenticed to a draper, then trained for the Presbyterian ministry, but had to abandon his studies due to ill health. MD, Edinburgh, 1850. Assistant, Crichton Royal Institution, Dumfries; medical superintendent, Royal Lunatic Asylum, Montrose, 1853–7; medical superintendent, Crichton Royal Institution and Southern Counties Asylum, 1857–79. Member of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh and president of the Dumfries Field Club. (Medical directory; Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh 17 (1887–9): 2–11.) Gilman, Daniel Coit (1831–1908). American educator and university president. Graduated from Yale in 1852. Attaché to the American legation at St Petersburg, 1853. Assistant director then director, Yale College Library, 1856–65. Professor of physical geography at Yale’s Sheffield Scientific School, 1863. President, University of California at Berkeley, 1872; Johns Hopkins University, 1875–1901; Carnegie Institution, 1902–4. Known for his promotion of graduate education and original research. (ANB.) Godron, Dominique Alexandre (1807–80). French botanist, zoologist, and ethnologist. In 1854, became head of the science faculty at Nancy, where he established a natural history museum and a botanic garden. (DBF.) Goeppert, Heinrich Robert (1800–84). German botanist. MD, Berlin, 1825. Lecturer in the faculty of medicine and assistant at the botanical garden, University of Breslau, 1827; professor extraordinarius, 1831; professor, 1839; professor of botany and director of the botanical garden, 1852. Worked on the influence of temperature and injury on plants, and on the palaeobotany of Carboniferous, Palaeozoic, Mesozoic, and Tertiary floras. (Complete dictionary of scientific biography; DBE.) Goette, Alexander Wilhelm von (1840–1922). German zoologist. Studied medicine at the Universities of Dorpat and Tübingen. Assistant, Zoological Institute, University of Strasbourg; professor extraordinarius, 1877; director of the zoological collections of the museum, 1880. Professor of zoology and director of the zoological institute, university of Rostock, 1882–6. Professor of zoology, Strasbourg, 1886–1914. Critic of generalisations of the theory of evolution, especially that of Ernst Haeckel. (DBE; DSB.) Goodacre, Francis Burges (1829–85). Clergyman and naturalist. MD, Cambridge (St John’s College), 1860. Deacon, Exeter, 1858; priest, 1860. Rector of Wilby with Hargham, 1863–85. Presented his museum to the University of Cambridge, 1861. Wrote on domestic animals. (Alum. Cantab.) 5 January 1875, 20 February 1875 Gordon-Lennox, Charles Henry, 6th duke of Richmond, 6th duke of Lennox, and 1st duke of Gordon (1818–1903). Politician and landowner. Son of Charles Gordon-Lennox, fifth duke of Richmond and fifth duke of

634

Biographical register

Lennox. BA, Oxford (Christ Church), 1839. Conservative MP for West Sussex, 1841–60. President of the Board of Trade, 1867. Leader of the House of Lords, 1869–76; president of the council, 1874. Interested in farming; president of the Agricultural Society in 1868 and 1883. Created first duke of Gordon, 1876. (ODNB.) Gordon-Lennox, Henry Charles George (Henry) (1821–86). Politician and speculator. Third son of the fifth duke of Richmond. BA, Oxford (Christ Church), 1843. MP for Chichester, 1846–85. Lord of the Treasury, 1852  and 1858–9; secretary to the Admiralty, 1866–8; first commissioner of public works, 1874–6. (ODNB s.v. Lennox, Charles Gordon-, fifth duke of Richmond and fifth duke of Lennox.) Gordon, Richard (1828–95). French physician and translator. Practised in Montpellier. Librarian of the faculty of medicine, Montpellier. Translated Climbing plants into French. (Bibliothèque nationale de France, data.bnf.fr (accessed 22 October 2014).) Gorup-Besanez, Eugen Franz von (1817–78). Austrian chemist. Studied medicine in Vienna, Padua, Munich, and Bamberg, 1836–43. MD 1842. Privat-dozent, medical faculty, Erlangen, 1846; professor extraordinarius, organic chemistry, 1849. Professor of chemistry, philosophical faculty, University of Erlangen, 1855. Worked on the metabolic processes, the effect of enzymes in plants, and the influence of ozone on organic substances. (DBE; OBL s.v. Gorup von Besánez, Eugen Franz.) Goss, John (1787–1833). Schoolmaster. Born in Hatherleigh, Devon. Performed crossing experiments on peas. (England, select births and christenings, 1538–1975 (Ancestry.com, accessed 5 January 2015); Goss 1822; Registers of births, marriages and deaths surrendered to the non-parochial Registers Commissions of 1837 and 1857 (RG4/1214), General Register Office, England.) Gould, John (1804–81). Ornithologist and artist. Taxidermist to the Zoological Society of London, 1828–81. Described the birds collected by CD on the Beagle expedition. FRS 1843. (ODNB.) Gratiolet, Louis Pierre (1815–65). French anatomist and anthropologist. Laboratory assistant, Muséum d’histoire naturelle, Paris, 1842–53; lectured on anatomy, 1844–50; director of anatomical studies, 1853–62. Deputy to the professor of zoology, Faculté des sciences, Paris, 1862–3; professor, 1863–5. (DSB.) Gray, Asa (1810–88). American botanist. Fisher Professor of natural history, Harvard University, 1842–73. Wrote numerous botanical textbooks and works on North American flora. President of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1863– 73; of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1872. Regent of the Smithsonian Institution, 1874–88. Foreign member, Royal Society of London, 1873. (DAB; DSB; J. L. Gray ed. 1893, Record of the Royal Society of London.) 29 January [1875], 30 May [1875], 29 July 1875, 28 December 1875 Gray, Jane Loring (1821–1909). Daughter of Charles Greely Loring, Boston lawyer and politician, and Anna Pierce Brace. Married Asa Gray in 1848. Edited the Letters of Asa Gray (1893). (Barnhart comp. 1965; Dupree 1959, pp. 177–84.)

Biographical register

635

Gray, John Edward (1800–75). Botanist and zoologist. Assistant keeper of the zoological collections at the British Museum, 1824; keeper, 1840–74. President, Botanical Society of London, 1836–57. FRS 1832. (R. Desmond 1994, ODNB.) Green, John Richard (1837–83). Historian. BA, Oxford, 1859. Ordained priest, 1861; worked for a decade in poor London parishes and began to do social work as well, but resigned his living in 1869. Librarian, Lambeth Palace, 1869–77. Began writing articles and reviews for the Saturday Review in 1867. Wrote the popular history Short history of the English people (1874). Made innovative use of geography and archaeology in his more scholarly work, The making of England (1882). (ODNB.) Greg, William Rathbone (1809–81). Essayist. Mill owner, 1832–50. Author of the Creed of Christendom (1851). Wrote articles for the leading quarterlies, and books, mostly on politics and economics. Comptroller of the Stationery Office, 1864– 77. (ODNB; Tort 1996.) Grenier, Louis ( fl. 1870s). French botanist. Member of the botanical society of Lyon. (Correspondence vol. 24, letter from Louis Grenier, 20 May 1876.) 22 December 1875 (to John Murray), 22 December 1875 Grote, George (1794–1871). Historian. One of the founders of University College, London. Vice-chancellor of the University of London, 1862–71. FRS 1857. (DNB.) Grote, Harriet (1792–1878). Woman of letters. Married George Grote in 1820. Became involved in radical politics, especially women’s suffrage. Wrote her husband’s biography and edited his posthumous publications. (ODNB.) Günther, Albrecht Carl Ludwig Gotthilf (Albert) (1830–1914). German-born zoologist. Began his association with the British Museum in 1857; made catalogues of the museum’s specimens of Amphibia, reptiles, and fish; officially joined the staff in 1862. Assistant keeper of the zoological department, 1872– 5; keeper, 1875–95. Edited the Record of Zoological Literature, 1864–9. FRS 1867. (NDB; ODNB.) 6 February 1875, 9 February [1875] Haeckel, Ernst Philipp August (Ernst) (1834–1919). German zoologist. MD, Berlin, 1857. Lecturer in comparative anatomy, University of Jena, 1861–2; professor extraordinarius of zoology, 1862–5; professor of zoology and director of the Zoological Institute, 1865–1909. Specialist in marine invertebrates. Leading populariser of evolutionary theory. His Generelle Morphologie der Organismen (1866) linked morphology to the study of the phylogenetic evolution of organisms. (DSB; NDB.) 11 January [1875], 6 June 1875, 7 November 1875, 13 November 1875, 25 November 1875 Haime, Jules (1821–57). French geologist, palaeontologist, and zoologist. Gave up medical studies to become Henri Milne-Edwards’s preparator at the Muséum d’histoire naturelle in Paris. Professor of natural history at the Lycée Napoléon, Paris. Vice-president of the Société géologique de France. (DBF.)

636

Biographical register

Hallett, Frederic Francis (1830/1–1901). Brewer, landowner, and agriculturist. Major in the volunteers. Partner in the brewing firm Hallett & Abbey, Hove, Sussex. Farmed at Black Rock, Brighton, Sussex. Developed pedigree strains of wheat, and established a seed company. Fellow of the Linnean Society, 1862. (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (Public Record Office RG11/1079/21/36); Gentleman’s Magazine 212 (1862): 655; List of the Linnean Society of London, 1862.) 18 May 1875, [19 or 20 May 1875], 21 May 1875 Halliwell–Phillipps, James Orchard (1820–89). Literary scholar and antiquarian. Educated at Jesus College, Cambridge. Best known for his editions of nursery rhymes and Elizabethan works. Assumed the name Phillipps in 1872, in accordance with the will of the grandfather of his first wife, Henrietta Phillipps. FRS 1839. (ODNB.) Hamond, Robert Nicholas (1809–83). Naval officer. Lieutenant, 1827. Midshipman on HMS Beagle, 1832–3. (Burke’s landed gentry 1952; Correspondence vol. 1, Appendix III; O’Byrne 1849.) Hancock, Albany (1806–73). Zoologist and palaeontologist. Collaborated with Joshua Alder on the Monograph of British nudibranchiate Mollusca (1845–55). Contributed several papers on the boring apparatus of sponges, molluscs, and cirripedes to the Tyneside Naturalists’ Field Club, which he had helped to found in 1846. Fellow of the Linnean Society of London, 1862. (ODNB.) Harris, George (1809–90). Author. Called to the bar, 1843; joined the Midland Circuit. Deputy court judge, Bristol district, 1853. Registrar of the court of bankruptcy, Manchester, 1862–8. Retired from the law owing to ill health. Wrote on legal, political, and anthropological subjects. Vice-president of the Anthropological Society of London, 1871. Co-founder of the Psychological Society, 1875. Wrote books and articles on history, anthropology, law, and politics. (ODNB.) 27 April 1875 Hart, Henry Chichester (1847–1908). Irish naturalist and writer. BA, Trinity College, Dublin, 1869. Naturalist on HMS Discovery on the polar expedition of 1875. Explored Palestine under the auspices of the Palestine Exploration Fund in 1883. Author of Animals of the Bible (1888). Edited Shakespeare and Ben Jonson. (Irish Naturalist (1908): 249–54.) Hartismere, Lord. See Henniker-Major, John Major, 5th Baron Henniker and 2d Baron Hartismere. Haughton, Samuel (1821–97). Irish clergyman, mathematician, geologist, and palaeontologist. Professor of geology, Trinity College, Dublin, 1851–81. Became registrar of the medical school after graduating in medicine in 1862. Co-editor of the Natural History Review, 1854–60. President of the Royal Irish Academy, 1886–91. FRS 1858. (R. Desmond 1994; ODNB; Sarjeant 1980–96.) Hawkshaw, Ann (1812–85). Poet. Daughter of the Rev. James Jackson of Green Hammerton, Yorkshire. Married John Hawkshaw in 1835. Published several volumes of poetry including Sonnets on Anglo-Saxon history and Cecil’s own book,

Biographical register

637

which was for her grandson, Cecil Wedgwood. (Bark 2014; Manchester Guardian, 1 May 1885, p. 8; ODNB s.v. Hawkshaw, John.) Hawkshaw, Cecily Mary (1837–1917). Daughter of Francis and Frances Wedgwood. Emma Darwin’s niece. Married Clarke Hawkshaw in 1865. (Freeman 1978; Wedgwood and Wedgwood 1980.) Hawkshaw, John Clarke (Clarke) (1841–1921). Civil engineer. Son of John Hawkshaw (1811–91). Married Cecily Mary Wedgwood in 1865. Member of the council of Hawkshaw and Hayter, civil engineers; retired, 1915. Member of the Alpine Club, 1860–1921. (Alum. Cantab.; Freeman 1978.) Heckel, Édouard Marie (1843–1916). French pharmacist, physician, and botanist. Studied at the naval medical school, Toulon, then studied flora in Martinique for therapeutic agents, 1859. Pharmacist, first class, Montpellier, 1867; MD 1869; doctorate in natural sciences, 1875. Botanised in Australia, China, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and elsewhere. Served as a physician in the Franco-Prussian War; resigned from the navy in 1874. Professor of botany, Faculty of Sciences, Marseille, 1877; of materia medica, École de plain exercise de médicine et de pharmacie, 1879. Translated CD’s Cross and self fertilisation and other works into French. (Osborne 2014, pp. 165–9.) Heer, Oswald (1809–83). Swiss biogeographer, palaeontologist, and botanist. An expert on Tertiary flora. Lecturer in botany, University of Zürich, 1834–5; director of the botanic garden, 1834; professor extraordinarius, 1835–52; professor of botany and entomology, 1852–83. (DSB; NDB.) 1 March 1875, 8 March [1875], 23 March 1875, 28 September 1875 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1770–1831). German philosopher. Professor of philosophy, University of Berlin, from 1818. (EB.) Heldreich, Theodor Heinrich Hermann (Theodor) von (1822–1902). German botanist. Studied botany in Montpellier, 1837; in Geneva with A. P. de Candolle and Alphonse de Candolle, 1838–42. Based in Athens from 1843; made several botanical research trips to Sicily, Naples, Crete, and Anatolia. Travelled to England, 1849–50. Director of Athens botanical gardens, 1851–1902; conservator of the natural history museum, 1858–83. Discovered over seven hundred new species in Greece and the Orient and wrote on flora in the works of Homer. (NDB.) Hellwald, Friedrich Anton Heller (Friedrich) von (1842–92). Austrian geographer, anthropologist, and cultural historian. Served in the Austrian army from 1858. Editor of the weekly journal Das Ausland, 1872–81; under his leadership the journal broadened its focus to include anthropology and cultural history as well as geography. Prolific popular writer and strong supporter of Ernst Haeckel, Darwinism, and monism. (ADB.) Henderson, John Andrew (1794–1872). Nurseryman. Proprietor of A. Henderson & Co., nurseries at 1 Pineapple Place, Maida Vale, and 1 Garden Road, St John’s Wood, London. (R. Desmond 1994, Post Office London directory 1863.) Henniker-Major, John Major, 5th Baron Henniker and 2d Baron Hartismere (1842–1902). Conservative politician. BA, Cambridge (Trinity), 1863.

638

Biographical register

MP for East Suffolk, 1866–70. Succeeded his father as fifth Baron Henniker and second Baron Hartismere in 1870. (Alum. Cantab.; Complete peerage.) Henry VII (1457–1509). King of England and lord of Ireland. Crowned in 1484. (ODNB.) Henslow, John Stevens (1796–1861). Clergyman, botanist, and mineralogist. CD’s teacher and friend. Professor of mineralogy, Cambridge University, 1822– 7; professor of botany, 1825–61. Extended and remodelled the Cambridge botanic garden. Curate of Little St Mary’s Church, Cambridge, 1824–32; vicar of Cholsey-cum-Moulsford, Berkshire, 1832–7; rector of Hitcham, Suffolk, 1837– 61. (DSB; Historical register of the University of Cambridge; ODNB.) Heraclitus ( fl. 500 bce). Greek philosopher. (Oxford classical dictionary.) Herder, Johann Gottfried (1744–1803). German philosopher, poet, and theologian. (NDB.) Herschel, John Frederick William (1792–1871). Astronomer, mathematician, chemist, and philosopher. Member of many learned societies. Carried out astronomical observations at the Cape of Good Hope, 1834–8. Master of the Royal Mint, 1850–5. Created baronet, 1838. FRS 1813. (DSB; ODNB.) Hertwig, Oscar Wilhelm August (Oscar) (1849–1922). German anatomist and zoologist. Studied medicine at Jena, Zurich, and Bonn. MD 1872. Habilitated in anatomy in the medical faculty, Jena, 1875; professor extraordinarius of anatomy, 1878; professor, 1881. Director, Anatomical Institute, Berlin, 1888–1921. Worked on the embryology of tunicates and sea urchins; observed fertilisation of sea-urchin eggs and explained the process. (NDB.) Hertwig, Richard Carl Wilhelm Theodor (Richard) (1850–1937). German zoologist. Studied zoology at Jena and Bonn; assistant to Max Schultze, 1872–4. Habilitated in zoology at Jena, 1875. Professor, Königsburg, 1881; Bonn, 1883. Professor and director of the Zoological Institute, Munich, 1885. With his brother, Oscar, worked on the fertilisation and development of sea urchins. His textbook of zoology, first published in 1891, went through fifteen editions. (NDB.) Hesse-Wartegg, Ernst von (1854–1918). Austrian travel writer. Consul-general. Travelled from his youth and wrote popular and educational travel books. (OBL.) 16 August 1875, 20 September 1875 Hewitson, William Chapman (1806–78). Naturalist. Worked as a land surveyor, circa 1828–45, after which he devoted his time to scientific research. Co-founder of the Natural History Society of Northumberland, Durham and Newcastle upon Tyne, 1829. Specialised in the diurnal Lepidoptera and formed one of the most complete collections in the world; published Genera of diurnal lepidoptera (1846–52) with Edward Doubleday. Also wrote on ornithology and oology. (ODNB.) Heynsius, Adriaan (1831–85). Dutch physiologist. MD, Utrecht, 1854. Professor of physiology, Leiden University, from 1866; rector, 1874–5. (Dutch medical biography.) Hildebrand, Friedrich Hermann Gustav (Friedrich) (1835–1915). German botanist. After studying mineralogy, geology, and agriculture at Berlin, he took

Biographical register

639

up botany, studying at Bonn, then from 1855 to 1858 at Berlin, where he received his doctorate. Habilitated at Bonn, becoming privat-dozent there, in 1859. Professor of botany, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1868–1907. Worked mainly on hybridity, dimorphism, and generation. (Correns 1916, Junker 1989, Tort 1996.) 17 July 1875, 26 July 1875, 28 July [1875] Hilgendorf, Franz Martin (Franz) (1839–1904). German zoologist, palaeontologist, and museologist. Studied philology in Berlin, 1859–62. Received a doctorate from Tübingen for palaeontology, 1863. Assistant, zoological museum, Berlin, 1860–2, 1863–7. In 1865, spent several months doing further palaeontological research at Steinheim. Director, zoological garden and aquarium, Hamburg, 1868–70. Docent, imperial medical academy, Tokyo, 1872–6. Returned to the zoological museum, Berlin, 1876; keeper, 1880. (Archiv für Naturgeschichte 72 (1) (1906): i–xii.) Hirst, Thomas Archer (1830–92). Mathematician. Mathematical master of University College School, London, 1860–4. Professor of mathematical physics, University College, London, from 1865; of mathematics, 1867–70. Assistant registrar of the University of London, 1870–83. General secretary of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1866–70. Director of studies, Royal Naval College, Greenwich, 1873–83. Took a prominent part in the founding of the London Mathematical Society in 1865; president, 1872–4. FRS 1861. (ODNB.) Hoare, John Newenham (1837/8–1901). Clergyman. BA, Dublin, 1859. Ordained priest, 1864. Curate, Muckross, 1863; St Ann’s, Dublin, 1864–7; Holy Trinity, Brompton, 1875–8; St Luke’s, Chelsea, 1878–83. Honorary chaplain to the lord lieutenant of Ireland, 1868–75. Rector of Killiskey, 1867–75; of Dykes Marshall, from 1884. Vicar of St John, Keswick, from 1883. Lectured on pre-Christian religion. (BMD (Death index); Crockford’s clerical directory; NUC.) 18 July [1875] Hodgson, Brian Houghton (1801?–94). Diplomat and Nepalese scholar. In the service of the East India Company from 1816; assistant resident in Nepal, 1820; resident, 1833–43. Acquired an important collection of Sanskrit and Tibetan manuscripts. Wrote extensively on the geography, ethnography, and natural history of India and the Himalayas. Lived in Darjeeling, 1845–58; thereafter settled in England. FRS 1877. (ODNB.) Hodgson, Susan (b. 1843/4). Daughter of the Rev. Chambré Townshend of Derry, county Cork. Married Brian Houghton Hodgson as his second wife in 1869. (Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/2580/16/2); ODNB s.v. Hodgson, Brian Houghton.) Hoek, Paulus Peronius Cato (1851–1914). Dutch zoologist. Studied at Leiden, 1872–5; doctorate, 1875. Assistant, Zoötomisch Laboratorium, 1874–81. Instructor in natural history, Leiden Gymnasium, 1878–88. Fisheries advisor to the government, 1888; director of the zoological station, Den Helder, 1890. First general secretary, International Council for Exploration of the Sea, 1902–8. Worked on

640

Biographical register

Cirripedia; published reports on cirripedes for the Challenger expedition (1883) and the Saboga expedition (1907 and 1913). Discovered that organs identified by Darwin as olfactory were maxillary glands. (Biografisch woordenboek van Nederland; W. A. Newman 1993, p. 428.) 11 March 1875 Hoffmann, Karl Heinrich Hermann (Hermann) (1819–91). German botanist and physician. Studied medicine and biology at the universities of Giessen and Berlin, 1837–41. GP and lecturer in medicine, Giessen, from 1842. A pioneer in bacteriology. Also worked on variability, propagation, migration, and dissemination in plants. (DBE.) Hofmann, August Wilhelm von (1818–92). German organic chemist. Student of Justus von Liebig at the University of Giessen; assistant to Liebig, 1843. Director, Royal College of Chemistry, London, 1845–65. Professor of chemistry, Berlin University, 1865–92. Founded the Deutsche Chemische Gesellschaft, Berlin, 1867. FRS 1851. (ADB; DBE; DSB; NDB.) Hofmeister, Wilhelm Friedrich Benedikt (Wilhelm) (1824–77). German botanist. Joined the family publishing, music, and bookshop business in 1841. Honorary doctor of philosophy, University of Rostock (for his work on the embryology of flowering plants), 1851. Professor of botany and director of the botanic garden, University of Heidelberg, 1863–72; professor of botany, University of Tübingen, 1872–6. (ADB; DSB; Goebel 1926; NDB.) Hogg, Robert (1818–97). Scottish horticulturist and pomologist. Gained practical horticultural training with Peter Lawson in Edinburgh and Hugh Ronalds in Brentford, after which he studied in Paris, Belgium, and Germany. Partner in a nursery in Brompton Park, London, 1842–51. Co-editor of the Cottage Gardener (from 1861, Journal of Horticulture), 1855–95. (R. Desmond 1994; ODNB.) Hole, Frederick (1839/40–1918). Officer in the Indian Army. First commission, 1860. Staff corps, 1872. Police captain in Cuddapah (Kadapa), Madras Presidency, 1875. Rose to the rank of lieutenant-colonel before retirement. (Census returns of England and Wales 1911 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG14/12783/160); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 9 December 2013); India list 1875.) Hooker, Brian Harvey Hodgson (1860–1932). Fifth child of Frances Harriet and Joseph Dalton Hooker. (Allan 1967 s.v. ‘Hooker pedigree’.) Hooker, Charles Paget (1855–1933). Physician and surgeon. Third child of Frances Harriet and Joseph Dalton Hooker. Trained at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; made a licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians of London and the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, 1879, before being appointed to the staff of the Hertfordshire General Infirmary. Cottishall Cottage Hospital, Norfolk, 1880–5; Cirencester Cottage Hospital, Gloucestershire, 1885–1912. (Allan 1967; Medical directory 1881–1933; Medical who’s who 1914.) Hooker, Frances Harriet (1825–74). Daughter of John Stevens Henslow. Married Joseph Dalton Hooker in 1851. Assisted her husband significantly in

Biographical register

641

his published work. Translated A general system of botany, descriptive and analytical, by Emmanuel Le Maout and Joseph Decaisne (1873). (Allan  1967; Lightman ed. 2004.) Hooker, Harriet Anne (1854–1945). Second child of Frances Harriet and Joseph Dalton Hooker. (Allan 1967 s.v. ‘Hooker pedigree’.) Hooker, Joseph Dalton (1817–1911). Botanist. Worked chiefly on taxonomy and plant geography. Son of William Jackson Hooker. Friend and confidant of CD. Accompanied James Clark Ross on his Antarctic expedition, 1839–43, and published the botanical results of the voyage. Appointed palaeobotanist to the Geological Survey of Great Britain, 1846. Travelled in the Himalayas, 1847–9. Assistant director, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1855–65; director, 1865–85. Knighted, 1877. FRS 1847. (DSB; ODNB.) 3 January [1875], 3 January [1875], 5 January 1875, 6 January [1875], 7 January 1875, 8 January [1875], 14 January 1875, 15 January [1875], 16 January 1875, 17 January [1875], [7 February 1875], 10 February [1875], 17 February 1875, 23 February 1875, [24 February 1875], 25 February [1875], 17 March 1875, 30 March [1875], 7 April 1875, 14 April [1875], 15 April 1875, 16 April 1875, 17 April 1875, 19 June [1875], 20 June 1875, 22 June 1875, 25 July 1875, 27 July 1875, [29 July 1875], [30 July 1875], 16 August 1875, 18 August [1875], 13 October [1875], 14 October 1875, 15 October [1875], 19 October 1875, 21 October [1875], 23 October 1875, 24 November 1875, 1 December [1875], 2 December 1875, 10 December [1875], [12 December 1875] Hooker, Reginald Hawthorn (1867–1944). Sixth child of Joseph Dalton and Frances Harriet Hooker. Took B-ès-Sc.  in Paris, and studied mathematics at Trinity College, Cambridge, 1886–9. Assistant to the director of the Intelligence Department of the Board of Agriculture, and subsequently head of the statistical branch until 1927. Secretary, Royal Statistical Society; president, Royal Meteorological Society, 1920–1. (Allan 1967; Alum. Cantab.; Royal Meteorological Society.) Hooker, William Henslow (1853–1942). Eldest child of Frances Harriet and Joseph Dalton Hooker. Civil servant, India Office, 1877–1904. Encouraged imperial ties between metropolitan institutions (particularly the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) and British East Africa, circa 1896–1906. (Allan 1967; India list 1904–5; Zanzibar Gazette, 5 February 1896, p. 6, and 28 November 1900, p. 5.) Hopkins, Johns (1795–1873). American merchant and financier. Formed a wholesale business with his brothers in 1820, from which he retired in 1845. Became a leading venture capitalist and financier, investing heavily in railroads and waterfront property. Endowed a university and a hospital in Baltimore in 1867. (ANB.) Horsman, Samuel James O’Hara (1829/30–86). Clergyman. Educated at Trinity College, Dublin. Curate of All Saints, Northamptonshire, 1858; of St Matthew’s, Rugby, 1860. Ordained priest, 1860. Assistant minister and acting chaplain to the forces, Stirling Castle, 1862; curate of St Philip’s, Liverpool, 1864; of Acton Trussell, Staffordshire, 1865; of Down, 1867–8; of St Luke’s,

642

Biographical register

Marylebone, London, 1868; of St George the Martyr, Southwark, London, 1880; of St Mark’s, Regent’s Park, London, 1883; rector of Condicote, Gloucestershire, 1884. (Alum. Dublin.; BMD (Death index); Correspondence vol. 16, letter from S. J. O’H. Horsman, 2 June [1868]; Crockford’s clerical directory 1886; Moore 1985, pp. 470, 477.) Hudson, Robert (1801–83). Zoologist. Vice-president of the Zoological Society of London, 1875–8, 1880–1. Awarded the silver medal of the Zoological Society for valuable services as a member of council, 1877. FRS 1834. (Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (1875): 30 (1876–8, 1880–1): ii; Record of the Royal Society of London; Scherren 1905, p. 169; UK and Ireland, Find a grave index, 1300s–current (Ancestry.com, accessed 31 October 2014).) Huet, Guillaume Daniel Louis (1831–91). Dutch physician. MD, Leiden University, 1856; doctor of obstetrics, 1857; doctor of surgery, 1862. Practised in Amsterdam, 1862–72. Professor of medicine and pharmacology, Leiden University, 1872–90. (Dutch medical biography.) Hughes, Thomas McKenny (1832–1917). Geologist, speleologist, and archaeologist. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1857. Worked for the geological survey, 1861–73. Suceeded Adam Sedgwick as Woodwardian Professor of geology at Cambridge in 1873. Responsible for the planning and building of the Sedgwick Museum of Geology. FRS 1889. (ODNB.) 24 May 1875 Humphry, George Murray (1820–96). Surgeon and anatomist. Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, 1841. Lectured on human anatomy, Cambridge University, 1847–66; professor of human anatomy, 1866–83; of surgery from 1883. Founder and co-editor of the Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, 1867. Knighted, 1891. FRS 1859. (DNB.) Huth, Alfred Henry (1850–1910). Writer and book collector. Travelled as a boy with the historian Henry Thomas Buckle. Studied at London and Berlin Universities. Of independent means. Married his cousin Octavia in 1872. Published The marriage of near kin considered with respect to the laws of nations (1875). From 1878, cultivated his father’s library. President of the Bibliographical Society, 1903. (ODNB.) Huxley, Ethel Gladys (1866–1941). Daughter and youngest child of Henrietta Anne and Thomas Henry Huxley. Married artist–author John Collier in 1889. Because of the British law against marrying a deceased wife’s sister they married in Norway. (R. W. Clark 1968, p. 110; A. Desmond 1994–7, 1: 348.) Huxley, Henrietta Anne (1825–1915). Born Henrietta Anne Heathorn. Emigrated to Australia in 1843. Met Thomas Henry Huxley in Sydney, Australia, in 1847, and married him in 1855. (A. Desmond 1994–7, Freeman 1978.) 28 July 1875 Huxley, Henry (1865–1946). Physician. Son of Henrietta Anne and Thomas Henry Huxley. Became a fashionable general practitioner in London. (R. W. Clark 1968.) Huxley, Jessie Oriana (1858–1927). Daughter of Henrietta Anne and Thomas

Biographical register

643

Henry Huxley. Married Fred Waller, architect, in 1877. Shared her mother’s interest in Moravian principles of education, and published an article, ‘Mental and physical training of children’, in 1889. (Bibby 1959; R. W. Clark 1968; A. Desmond 1994–7; Waller 1889.) Huxley, Leonard (1860–1933). Biographer, editor, and poet. Son of Henrietta Anne and Thomas Henry Huxley. Assistant master at Charterhouse, 1884– 1901. Assistant editor, Cornhill Magazine, 1901–16; editor from 1916. Married Julia Frances Arnold, niece of Matthew Arnold, in 1885. (R. W. Clark 1968, ODNB.) Huxley, Marian (1859–87). Artist. Daughter of Henrietta Anne and Thomas Henry Huxley. Studied art at the Slade School, London. Exhibited at the Royal Academy, 1880–4. Married artist–author John Collier in 1879. Her sketch of CD, made when she was 18, is in the National Portrait Gallery. (Bibby 1959; Bryan’s dictionary of painters and engravers; R. W. Clark 1968, p. 97 and passim; A. Desmond 1994–7; Petteys 1985.) Huxley, Nettie (1863–1940). Singer and illustrator. Daughter of Henrietta Anne and Thomas Henry Huxley. Married Harold Roller, joint owner of a firm of picture restorers, in 1889, but spent most of her time travelling in Europe with her daughter, supporting herself as a singer. (Bibby 1959, pp. 15, 275, 283; R. W. Clark 1968, pp. 111, 252, and passim.) Huxley, Rachel (1862–1934). Daughter of Henrietta Anne and Thomas Henry Huxley. Married Alfred Eckersley, a civil engineer, in 1884 and lived in various countries until his death in 1895 in San Salvador. Returned to London, where she ran a laundry business until her marriage to Harold Shawcross, when she moved to Lancashire. (R. W. Clark 1968, pp. 98, 109, 129, 165, and passim.) Huxley, Thomas Henry (1825–95). Zoologist. Assistant-surgeon on HMS Rattlesnake, 1846–50, during which time he investigated Hydrozoa and other marine invertebrates. Lecturer in natural history, Royal School of Mines, 1854; professor, 1857. Appointed naturalist to the Geological Survey of Great Britain, 1854. Hunterian Professor, Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1862–9. Fullerian Professor of physiology, Royal Institution of Great Britain, 1855–8, 1866–9. President of the Royal Society of London, 1883–5. FRS 1851. (R. W. Clark 1968; A. Desmond 1994–7; DSB; ODNB.) 6 January 1875, [after 12 January 1875], 14 January 1875, 18 January 1875, 22 January 1875, 27 January [1875], [4 April 1875], 21 April 1875, 19 May 1875, 21 May 1875, 5 June 1875, 23 October [1875], 30 October 1875, 1 November [1875], 2 November 1875, 12 November [1875], 10 December [1875] Hyatt, Alpheus (1838–1902). American palaeontologist and marine biologist. BS, Harvard, 1862. Studied marine fossils with Louis Agassiz. Served in the army, 1862–5, during the American Civil War. Curator, Essex Institute, 1867. Cofounder and editor, American Naturalist, 1867–71. Custodian, Boston Society of Natural History, 1870–81; curator, 1881–1902. Taught zoology and palaeontology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1870–88; Boston University,

644

Biographical register

1877–1902. Founded a natural history laboratory at Annisquam, 1879; the laboratory was moved to Woods Hole, 1888, and incorporated as the Marine Biological Laboratory, with Hyatt as first president of its board of trustees. Palaeontologist to the US Geological Survey from 1889. (ANB.) 8 January [1875], 21 January [1875] Hywel Dda (Hywel Dda ap Cadell) (d. 949/50). Welsh king. Said to have been the first to codify and promulgate Welsh customary law. (ODNB.) Innes, Eliza Mary Brodie (1820–1909). Daughter of John Laidlaw of Dominica, West Indies, and his wife Mary Stuart. Married John Innes (later John Brodie Innes) at Hythe, Kent, 1847. Died at Milton Brodie, Elginshire, Scotland. (Burke’s landed gentry 1879 s.v. Brodie-Innes, John; Gentleman’s Magazine n.s. 28 (1847): 80; Scotland Statutory Deaths 125/00 0005 (Scotlandspeople.gov.uk, accessed 26 March 2014).) Innes, John Brodie (1815–94). Clergyman. Son of John Innes, gentleman, and Mary, of Brunswick Square, London. Perpetual curate of Down, 1846–68; vicar, 1868–9. Left Down in 1862 after inheriting an entailed estate at Milton Brodie, near Forres, Scotland; changed his name to Brodie Innes in 1861 as required by the entail. Priest in charge of Milton Brodie Mission and general licentiate of the diocese of Moray, 1861. Chaplain to the Bishop of Moray, 1861–80 and 1886–94. (Clergy list; County families 1864; Crockford’s clerical directory; Freeman 1978; London Metropolitan Archives, Bloomsbury St George, Register of baptisms (P82/GEO1, Item 004); Moore 1985.) 7 May 1875, 10 May [1875], 24 December [1875] (from Emma Darwin) Innes, John William Brodie (1848–1923). Barrister and novelist. Son of John Brodie Innes. BA, Cambridge (St John’s), 1872. Called to the bar, 1876. Advocate at the Scottish bar, 1888. Interested in antiquarian research, romance, demonology, witchcraft, and criminology. (Alum. Cantab.; Freeman 1978.) Isabella, countess of Angoulême (b. c. 1188 d. 1246). Second wife of King John of England, whom she married in 1200. (ODNB.) James, Henry (1803–77). Military officer. Second lieutenant, Royal Engineers, 1826; colonel, 1857. Joined the staff of the Ordnance Survey in 1827. Local superintendent, Geological Survey of Ireland, 1843–6. Transferred to admiralty employment in 1846, but returned to the Ordnance Survey in 1850; superintendent, 1854–75. Director of the topographical and statistical department of the War Office, 1857–70. Knighted, 1860. FRS 1848 (ODNB.) James, William (1842–1910). American philosopher and psychologist. Taught at Harvard. Brother of the novelist Henry James. (ANB.) Jameson, James (1837–1904). Scottish surgeon. Educated at Glasgow University; LRCS, Edinburgh, 1857; MD, Glasgow, 1865. Entered the army as staff assistant surgeon, 1857; surgeon, 1870; surgeon major, 1873; brigade surgeon, 1883; deputy surgeon general, 1888. Director-general of the Army Medical Department, 1896–1901. FRCS 1900. Knighted, 1896. (Plarr 1930.) 26 October 1875

Biographical register

645

Jardine, Hyacinth (1842–1921). Daughter of William Samuel Symonds. Married Sir William Jardine of Applegirth, seventh baronet, in 1871; widowed, 1874. Married Joseph Dalton Hooker in 1876. (Allan 1967 s.v. ‘Hooker pedigree’; ODNB s.v. Jardine, Sir William of Applegirth.) Jevons, William Stanley (1835–82). Economist and philosopher of science. Studied mathematics and chemistry at University College, London, 1851–3. Assayer at the Royal Mint, Sydney, Australia, 1854–9. Made meteorological and geological observations in Australia. BA, University College, London, 1860; MA in mental philosophy and political economy, 1862. Junior tutor, Owens College, Manchester, 1863–6; professor of logic, mental and moral philosophy, and political economy, 1866–75. Developed a logical machine, later recognised as a forerunner of twentieth-century computers. Published The theory of political economy (1871) and The principles of science (1874). Professor of political economy, University College, London, 1875–80. FRS 1872. (ODNB.) John (1167–1216). King of England. Succeeded to the throne in 1199. (ODNB.) Johnson, Caroline (1822–81). Daughter of James Adey Ogle, regius professor of medicine at Oxford (ODNB), and his wife, Sarah; older sister of William Ogle, and twin of Amelia Mozley. Married Manuel John Johnson (d. 1859), keeper of the Radcliffe Observatory in Oxford, in 1850; had six children. After Amelia died in 1872, she lived with Amelia’s husband, James Bowling Mozley, regius professor of divinity at Oxford, and assisted in his parish of Old Shoreham, Sussex. (Ancestry.com, family trees (accessed 1 April 2014); ODNB s.v. Johnson, Manuel John, and Mozley, James Bowling.) Johnston, Edwin John (1842–1917). Clerk. Born and died in Oporto, Portugal. (Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/365/54/6); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 10 November 2014); Portugal, select baptisms, 1570–1910 (Ancestry.com, accessed 10 November 2014).) 16 March 1875, 22 March 1875, 24 May 1875 Judd, John Wesley (1840–1916). Geologist. Educated at the Royal School of Mines, London. Worked as a chemist and school inspector. Commissioned to study the volcanic districts of Europe, 1874–6. Professor of geology, Royal School of Mines, from 1877. Awarded the Wollaston Medal of the Geological Society, 1891. FRS 1877. (ODNB.) Jussieu, Antoine Laurent de (1748–1836). French botanist. Appointed deputy to the professor of botany at the Jardin du roi, Paris, 1770. Studied plant taxonomy. Published his Genera plantarum in 1789. Promoted the ‘natural system’ of classification. After the founding of the Muséum d’histoire naturelle in 1793, became professor of botany; director, 1802–26. (DSB; NBU; Taxonomic literature.) Jäger, Gustav (1832–1917). German physician and zoologist. Co-founder and director of the Vienna zoological garden, 1858–66. Professor of zoology and anthropology, Hohenheim Academy, from 1867; Stuttgart Polytechnic, from 1870. Taught physiology and histology at the Veterinary School, Stuttgart, from 1874.

646

Biographical register

Co-editor of Kosmos, 1877–9. Returned to medical practice in 1884. (DBE; Freeman 1978; NDB; Weinreich 1993.) 3 February 1875 Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. 20 July 1875, [after 20 July 1875] Kane, Elisha Kent (1820–57). American physician and Arctic explorer. MD, Pennsylvania, 1842. Surgeon with the US Navy from 1846. Surgeon and official historian on the American expedition to the Arctic to locate traces of the Franklin expedition, 1850–1, and leader of the second expedition, 1853–5. Wrote an account of the second expedition, published in 1856. (ANB.) Kant, Immanuel (1724–1804). German philosopher. (DSB; NDB.) Kerner von Marilaun, Anton (1831–98). Austrian botanist. Studied medicine in Vienna, 1848–53. MD 1854. Teacher of natural history, Oberrealshule, Ofen, 1855; professor of natural history, Josefs-Polytechnikum, 1858–60. Professor of natural history and director of the botanic gardens and museum of natural history, University of Innsbruck, 1860–78. Professor of systematic botany and director of the botanic gardens, University of Vienna, 1878–98. Established an experimental alpine garden near the top of Mount Blaser, above Trins in the Gschnitztal (Tirol). Studied the effects of climate on the morphology of plants. (NDB; OBL.) King, Elizabeth (1815–89). Daughter of Hannibal Hawkins Macarthur. Married Philip Gidley King, her cousin, in 1843. (Aust. dict. biog.; Australia birth index, 1788– 1922 (Ancestry.com, accessed 5 January 2015).) King, George (1840–1909). Scottish botanist. MB, Aberdeen, 1865; entered the Indian Medical Service, arriving in Calcutta in 1866. Temporary superintendent, Botanic Garden, Saharunpore (now Saharanpur), 1868–9. Indian forest service, 1869–71. Superintendent of the Royal Botanic Garden, Calcutta, and of cinchona cultivation in Bengal, 1871–98. Organised the botanical survey of India; first director, 1891. Knighted, 1898. FRS 1887. (ODNB.) King, Henry Samuel (1817–78). Publisher and businessman. Started a bookselling business with his brother in Brighton, 1838. Partner in Smith, Elder & Co., 1853; on dissolution of the partnership in 1868, King retained the banking and export side of the business and in 1871 began publishing under the name Henry S. King & Co. Expanded commercial and export services to India and from 1871 published the Week’s News, a paper for English residents abroad. Sold the publishing side of the business to Charles Kegan Paul in 1877. (Howsam 1998.) King, Philip Gidley (1817–1904). Australian farmer and mining company manager. Son of Phillip Parker King. Midshipman in HMS Beagle, 1831–6. Settled in Australia in 1836. Entered the service of the Australian Agricultural Company in 1842; superintendent of stock, 1851. New South Wales manager for the Peel River Land and Mineral Company, 1852–81. (Aust. dict. biog.) Kirby, William (1759–1850). Clergyman and entomologist. One of the authors of the Bridgewater Treatises (1833–6) and, in collaboration with William Spence,

Biographical register

647

co-author of Introduction to entomology (1815–26). Vicar of Barham, Suffolk, 1797– 1850. One of the original fellows of the Linnean Society, 1788. Honorary president of the Entomological Society, 1837. FRS 1818. (Alum. Cantab.; DNB.) Kiwisch von Rotterau, Franz (1814–51). Bohemian gynaecologist. Studied at the University of Prague. Professor of obstetrics, University of Würzburg, 1845–9; University of Prague from 1850. (DBE.) Klein, Edward Emanuel (1844–1925). Slavonian-born histologist and bacteriologist. MD Vienna. Emigrated in 1871 to Britain, where he worked at the Brown Animal Sanatory Institute and lectured at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London. Professor of bacteriology at the College of State Medicine, London, 1889–91. Naturalised British, 1887. FRS 1875. (ODNB.) Kleinwächter, Ludwig (1820–85). Bohemian gynaecologist. Professor extraordinarius of obstetrics, University of Prague, 1875–78; University of Innsbruck, 1878–81. (DBE.) Knapp, John Leonard (1767–1845). Botanist. Joined the navy at a young age but left due to ill health. Lieutenant in the Herefordshire militia, 1792; captain, Northamptonshire militia, 1795, but resigned the same year. In 1813, moved to Alveston, Gloucestershire, where he owned some farmland. Wrote The journal of a naturalist (1829), describing the natural history, agriculture, and life of the area. (ODNB.) Knight, Thomas Andrew (1759–1838). Botanist and horticulturist. Correspondent to the Board of Agriculture from 1795. President of the Horticultural Society of London, 1811–38. Interested in crossbreeding and hybridisation; conducted research on the phenomenon now known as geotropism. FRS 1805. (R.  Desmond 1994; DSB.) Knowles, James Thomas (1831–1908). Journal editor and architect. Architect in London, circa 1854–83. Editor of the Contemporary Review, 1870–7; of Nineteenth Century, 1877–1908. (ODNB.) 8 February 1875 (from G. H. Darwin), 9 February 1875 Koch, Eduard (1838–97). German publisher. Took over E.  Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung in 1867, after which the firm published mostly scientific titles. Published a multi-volume edition of CD’s works, translated by Julius Victor Carus. (Biographisches Jahrbuch und deutscher Nekrolog 2 (1898): 227.) Koch, Karl Heinrich Emil (1809–79). German botanist, dendrologist, and horticulturist. MD, University of Würzburg, 1833. DPhil., Jena, 1834, privat-dozent, 1834, professor extraordinarius, 1836. A member of two botanical expeditions to Asia, between 1838 and 1844. From 1847 Adjunkt at the Royal Botanic Garden, Berlin, where he was responsible for expanding the tree collection. Appointed director of the state nursery in Berlin, 1851. Founded a society for pomology and fruit cultivation in 1853. Published a series on Asian flora, and a major work on dendrology. (ADB; Taxonomic literature.) Kolbe, Adolf Wilhelm Hermann (1818–84). German chemist. Worked for Lyon Playfair at the Royal School of Mines, London, 1845–7. Professor of chemistry,

648

Biographical register

Marburg University, 1851; Leipzig University, 1865. Foreign member, Royal Society, 1877. (DSB; NDB.) Kölreuter, Joseph Gottlieb (1733–1806). German botanist. Assistant keeper of the natural history collections, Imperial Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, 1756–61. Professor of natural history and director of the gardens of the margrave of Baden, Karlsruhe, 1763–86. Carried out extensive hybridisation experiments on plants. (ADB; DBE; DSB; NDB; Taxonomic literature.) Kovalevsky, Alexander Onufrievich (1840–1901). Russian embryologist. Brother of Vladimir Onufrievich Kovalevsky. Held academic posts at various Russian universities; professor of histology, St Petersburg, 1890–4. His studies of ascidian embryology revealed that tunicates were chordates and gave strong support to Darwinian transmutation theory. Foreign member of the Royal Society of London, 1885. (DSB; GSE s.v. Tunicata.) Kovalevsky, Vladimir Onufrievich (1842–83). Russian palaeontologist. Graduated from the School of Jurisprudence in 1861. Thereafter published, translated, and edited works by CD, Charles Lyell, Louis Agassiz, and others. Studied natural science and palaeontology, travelling throughout Europe, 1869–74. Submitted his doctoral thesis on the palaeontology of horses at the university of Jena in 1872. Associate professor, Moscow University, 1880–3. (DSB.) Lane Fox, Alexander Edward (1855/6–1927). Born in Malta. Eldest son of Alice Margaret Lane Fox and Augustus Henry Lane Fox, later Pitt-Rivers. (Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG 10/35/19); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 28 May 2014).) Lane Fox, Alice Margaret (1828–1910). Eldest daughter of Edward John Stanley, second baron of Alderley. Married Augustus Henry Lane Fox (later Pitt-Rivers) in 1853. (Debrett’s illustrated peerage; ODNB s.v. Pitt-Rivers, Augustus Henry Lane Fox.) 25 July [1875] (to E. F. Lubbock), 3 August 1875 Lane Fox, Augustus Henry (1827–1900). Archaeologist and anthropologist. Educated at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and commissioned into the Grenadier Guards in 1845. Became interested in archaeology during his military career and after 1867, concentrated on field excavation. Inspector of ancient monuments, 1882. FRS 1876. (ODNB s.v. Pitt-Rivers, Augustus Henry Lane Fox.) Lane Fox, William Augustus (1858–1945). Soldier. Son of Alice Margaret and Augustus Henry Lane Fox. Assumed the additional name of Pitt in 1880. At Charterhouse, 1868–75. Ninety-first Highlanders, 1879; Grenadier Guards, 1880. Retired as major in 1904. Served in the Zulu and South African Wars, and in the First World War. Lieutenant-colonel, Royal Welch Fusiliers. High Sheriff of Anglesey, 1911. (Charterhouse register 1769–1872, p. 228.) Langton, Charles (1801–86). Rector of Onibury, Shropshire, 1832–41. Left the Church of England in 1841. Resided at Maer, Staffordshire, 1841–7, and at Hartfield Grove, Hartfield, Sussex, 1847–63. Married Emma Darwin’s sister,

Biographical register

649

Charlotte Wedgwood, in 1832. After her death, married CD’s sister, Emily Catherine Darwin, in 1863. (Alum. Oxon.; Emma Darwin (1915), Freeman 1978.) Langton, Edmund (1841–75). Son of Charles and Charlotte Langton. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1864. Admitted at Lincoln’s Inn, 1864. (Alum. Cantab.; Emma Darwin (1915).) Langton, Emily Caroline (Lena) (1847–97). Suffragist, and anti-vivisection and temperance campaigner. Married her second cousin Edmund Langton in 1867. Resided principally in Bournemouth. Succeeded to the estate of Gunby Hall, Lincolnshire, in 1887 and resumed her maiden name of Massingberd. Founded a women’s club, the Pioneer Club in London, in 1892. (ODNB s.v. Massingberd, Emily Caroline Langton.) Lankester, Edwin Ray (1847–1929). Zoologist. Studied natural sciences at Oxford under George Rolleston, 1866–8; physiology at Leipzig and Vienna; morphology under Ernst Haeckel at Jena; marine zoology with Anton Dohrn in Naples, 1871–2. Fellow and tutor, Exeter College, Oxford, 1872–5; professor of zoology, University College, London, 1875–91; Linacre Professor of comparative anatomy, Oxford, 1891–8; director of the natural history departments and keeper of zoology, British Museum, 1898–1907. Knighted, 1907. FRS 1875. (ODNB.) Lawes, John Bennet, 1st baronet (1814–1900). Agricultural chemist. Developed British industrial production of organic and chemical fertilisers and founded the Rothamsted Experiment Station near St Albans, Hertfordshire, in 1843. Created baronet, 1882. FRS 1854. (DSB; ODNB.) Layton, Charles (b. 1826/7). Publisher’s agent. London agent for D. Appleton & Co., New York City. (Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11/68: 13); Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Charles Layton, 22 November 1869.) Le Couteur, John (1794–1875). Soldier and agriculturalist. Son of John Le Couteur (1760–1835). Commander of the Jersey Militia. Founder and president, Royal Jersey Agricultural Society. Author of a well-known work on wheat (1836). Displayed  104  varieties of wheat at the Great Exhibition of 1851. FRS 1843. (R. Desmond 1994; ODNB s.v. Le Couteur, John (1760–1835).) Lee, George (1816/17–1913). Market gardener. Resided in Clevedon, Somerset. Fellow of the Royal Horticultural Society. (Census returns of England and Wales, 1871 (Public Record Office, The National Archives RG10/2514/19/16); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858– 1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 4 November 2014).) Legrain, Jean Baptiste (b. 1836). Belgian veterinary physician. Wrote on consanguineous marriages in 1866. Director and editor of Tribune vétérinaire, circa 1860s. (Legrain 1866; NUC.) Leslie-Melville, Sophia, countess of Leven and Melville (1806–87). Daughter of Henry Thornton. Married John Thornton Leslie-Melville in 1834. Lived at Roehampton House, Roehampton, Surrey. (BMD (Death index); Burke’s peerage; Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public

650

Biographical register

Record Office RG10/1087/10/13); London, England, baptisms, marriages and burials, 1538–1812 (Ancestry.com, accessed 10 November 2014); London, England, marriages and banns, 1754–1921 (Ancestry.com, accessed 10 November 2014).) Leslie, Thomas Edward Cliffe (1826–82). Irish economist. BA, Trinity College, Dublin, 1847. Called to the Irish bar, 1850. LLB, Dublin, 1851. Called to the bar, Lincoln’s Inn, 1857, but never practised. Professor of jurisprudence and political economy, Queen’s College, Belfast, from 1853. (ODNB.) Lettington, Henry (b. 1822/3). Gardener in the village of Down, Kent. Worked as a gardener at Down House, 1854–79, and occasionally in following years. Assisted CD with botanical experiments. Son-in-law of William Brooks, who was also employed by the Darwins. (CD’s Classed account books (Down House MS); Census returns of England and Wales 1861 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG9/462: 70); F. Darwin 1920, pp. 56–7; letter from Emma Darwin to G. H. Darwin, 5 July [1884] (DAR 210.3: 110); Recollections of CD by Francis Darwin (DAR 140.3: 90a).) Lindley, John (1799–1865). Botanist and horticulturist. Assistant in Joseph Banks’s library and herbarium, 1819. Garden assistant secretary, Horticultural Society of London, 1822–6; assistant secretary, 1826–41; vice-secretary, 1841–58; honorary secretary, 1858–62. Lecturer on botany, Apothecaries’ Company, from 1836. Professor of botany, London University (later University College, London), 1829–60. Horticultural editor of the Gardeners’ Chronicle from 1841. FRS 1828. (R. Desmond 1994 ; DSB; ODNB.) Link, Heinrich Friedrich (1767–1851). German naturalist and philosopher. Professor of zoology, botany, and chemistry, University of Rostock, 1792–1811; professor of chemistry and botany, University of Breslau, 1811–15. Professor of botany and director of the botanic garden at the University of Berlin, 1815. Interested in the philosophical foundations of the natural sciences. Foreign member, Royal Society of London, 1842. (DSB; NDB; Record of the Royal Society of London.) Linné, Carl von (Carolus Linnaeus) (1707–78). Swedish botanist and zoologist. Professor of practical medicine, University of Uppsala, 1741; professor of botany, diatetics, and materia medica, 1742; court physician, 1747. Proposed a system for the classification of the natural world, and reformed scientific nomenclature. FRS 1753. (DSB; Record of the Royal Society of London.) Linnean Society. 1 January [1875], 23 January [1875], 23 June 1875 Lister, Joseph (1827–1912). Surgeon. Assistant surgeon to the Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, 1856–60; professor of surgery, Glasgow University, 1860–9; of clinical surgery, 1869–77. Announced his system of antiseptic surgery in the Lancet in 1867. Professor of surgery, King’s College, London, 1877–92. FRS 1860. (DSB; ODNB.) Litchfield, Henrietta Emma (1843–1927). CD’s daughter. Married Richard Buckley Litchfield in 1871. Assisted CD with his work. Edited Emma Darwin (1904) and (1915). (Burke’s landed gentry 1952; Correspondence; Freeman 1978.) 4 January [1875]

Biographical register

651

Litchfield, Richard Buckley (1832–1903). Barrister. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1853. Admitted to the Inner Temple, 1854; called to the bar, 1863. Firstclass clerk in the office of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Married Henrietta Emma Darwin in 1871. A founder and treasurer of the Working Men’s College; taught mathematics there, 1854–70, and music from 1860. (Alum. Cantab.; Emma Darwin (1915) 2: 204, 206; R. B. Litchfield, Record, personal and domestic, vol. 1 (DAR 248/1).) [24 April 1875], 24 April [1875] Livingstone, David (1813–73). Explorer and missionary. Travelled in Africa, 1841–56, and published an account of his travels in 1857. Consul for part of the east coast and interior of Africa and commander of an expedition to explore East and Central Africa, 1858–64. In England, 1864–6. Read a paper on Africa at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Bath in 1864. Explored the Nile basin, 1866–73. FRS 1858. (DNB; ODNB.) Llewelyn, John Dillwyn (1810–82). Botanist and photographer. Son of Lewis Weston Dillwyn. Assumed the name Llewelyn on inheriting his maternal grandfather’s estates in Wales. Fellow of the Linnean Society, 1837; Royal Astronomical Society, 1852. FRS 1836. (ODNB.) Lockyer, Joseph Norman (1836–1920). Astronomer. Civil servant in the War Office from 1857; published papers on solar physics. Secretary to the royal commission on scientific instruction and the advancement of science, 1870–5; seconded to the Science and Art Department at South Kensington from 1875; first director of the Solar Physics Observatory, and professor of astronomical physics, Royal College of Science, South Kensington, 1890–1911. Established the journal Nature in 1869. Knighted, 1897. FRS 1869. (DNB; DSB; ODNB.) Loudon, John Claudius (1783–1843). Landscape gardener and horticultural writer. Travelled in northern Europe, 1813–15; in France and Italy, 1819–20. Urban and rural landscape designer. A prolific author; founded and edited the Gardener’s Magazine, 1826–43, and the Magazine of Natural History, 1828–36. (R.  Desmond 1994; DNB.) Lowne, Benjamin Thompson (b. c. 1839 d. 1925). Surgeon and naturalist. FRCS, LSA, 1873; MD, Durham, 1896. Collected plants in Palestine and Syria, 1863–4. Lecturer, physiology and general anatomy, Middlesex Hospital Medical School, 1871–95; Royal College of Surgeons, 1876–80. Junior surgeon, Great Northern Hospital, 1874–6; ophthalmic surgeon from 1876. Lecturer in botany, Royal Veterinary College, from 1885. (R. Desmond 1994, Plarr 1930.) Lubbock, Ellen Frances (1834/5–79). Daughter of the Rev. Peter Hordern of Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Lancashire. Married John Lubbock in 1856. (Burke’s peerage 1970; Census returns of England and Wales 1861 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG9/462: 75).) [after 2 July] 1875, 25 July [1875] (from A. M. Lane Fox) Lubbock, John, 4th baronet and 1st Baron Avebury (1834–1913). Banker, politician, and naturalist. Son of John William Lubbock and a neighbour of

652

Biographical register

CD’s in Down. Studied entomology and anthropology. Worked at the family bank from 1849; head of the bank from 1865. Liberal MP for Maidstone, Kent, 1870–80; for London University, 1880–1900. Succeeded to the baronetcy in 1865. Created Baron Avebury, 1900. FRS 1858. (DSB; Hutchinson 1914; ODNB; Record of the Royal Society of London.) 5 April [1875], 8 April 1875, 3 May [1875], 7 July [1875], [8 August 1875 or earlier], Lucas, Charles Duncan (1869–1911). Journalist. Son of Samuel Bright and Jessie Lucas. (BMD (Birth index, Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1891 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG12/209/32/16).) Lucas, Margaret Bright (1818–90). Temperance activist and suffragist. Married Samuel Lucas (1811–65, ODNB) in 1839. President, British Women’s Temperance Association, 1878–90. In 1879, petitioned the House of Commons to close public houses on Sundays. Made several trips to America; was an important link in Anglo-American women’s reform networks and a pioneer in British women’s temperance. (ODNB.) Lucas, Margaret Elizabeth (1871–1942). Daughter of Samuel Bright Lucas. Married Wellesley Edward Rudston-Read in 1900. (BMD (Birth index, Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1891 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG12/209/32/16); London, England, marriages and banns, 1754–1921 (Ancestry.com, accessed 10 November 2014).) Lucas, Prosper (1805–85). French physician and medical writer. Interested in heredity. Psychiatrist at the hospital at Bicêtre, then at the Sainte-Anne asylum in Paris. (NUC; Tort 1996.) Lucas, Samuel (1811–65). Journalist and educational reformer. Married Margaret Bright in 1839. Co-founder of the Lancashire Public Schools Association, 1847. Editor of the Morning Star, 1857–65. (ODNB.) Lucas, Samuel Bright (1840–1919). Artist. Son of Samuel and Margaret Bright Lucas; married Jessie Oliver in 1868. Described on the marriage bond, 23 September 1868, as ‘deaf and dumb but able to read and write’. Described in the 1871 census as ‘deaf but not dumb’. (BMD (Birth index); Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/1428/18/6; Ireland, civil registration deaths index, 1864–1958; London and Surrey, England, marriage bonds and allegations, 1597–1921 (Ancestry.com, accessed 10 November 2014).) Lucretius (Titus Lucretius Carus) (c. 94 bce – 55 or 51 bce?). Roman philosophical poet. (Oxford classical dictionary.) Lushington, Godfrey (1832–1907). Civil servant. Twin brother of Vernon Lushington. BA, Oxford (Balliol College), 1854; fellow, All Souls College, 1854. Called to the bar at the Inner Temple, 1858. Legal adviser at the Home Office, 1869; legal assistant under-secretary, 1876; permanent under-secretary, 1885–95. Knighted, 1892. (ODNB.) Lushington, Vernon (1832–1912). Lawyer. Twin brother of Godfrey Lushington. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1855; LLB, 1859; LLM, 1885. Called to the

Biographical register

653

bar, 1857. Deputy judge-advocate-general, 1864–9; became secretary to the Admiralty in 1869. (ODNB.) Luther, Martin (1483–1546). German leader of the Reformation. (ADB.) Lyell, Charles, 1st baronet (1797–1875). Scottish geologist. Uniformitarian geologist whose Principles of geology (1830–3), Elements of geology (1838), and Antiquity of man (1863) appeared in many editions. Professor of geology, King’s College, London, 1831. President of the Geological Society of London, 1835–7 and 1849– 51; of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1864. Travelled widely and published accounts of his trips to the United States. CD’s scientific mentor and friend. Knighted, 1848; created baronet, 1864. FRS 1826. (DSB; ODNB.) Lyell, Henry (1804–75). Army officer in India. Married Katharine Murray Horner in 1848. Brother of Charles Lyell. (Burke’s peerage 1980.) Lyell, Katharine Murray (1817–1915). Daughter of Leonard Horner. Married Henry Lyell, brother of Charles Lyell, in 1848. Collected plants in India. Edited Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell (1881), and memoirs of Charles James Fox Bunbury and Leonard Horner. (R. Desmond 1994; Freeman 1978.) 26 December [1875] Lyell, Marianne (1801–81). Sister of Charles Lyell. (Wilson 1972.) Lyell, Mary Elizabeth (1808–73). Eldest child of Leonard Horner. Married Charles Lyell in 1832. (Freeman 1978.) Macaulay, Thomas Babington, Baron Macaulay (1800–59). Historian, writer, and politician. Took the title Baron Macaulay of Rothley in 1857. (ODNB.) McClintock, Francis Leopold (1819–1907). Naval commander and Arctic traveller. Given command of HMS Intrepid; accompanied Edward Belcher’s Arctic expedition, 1852–4. Commanded an expedition in search of the missing Arctic explorer John Franklin, commissioned by his wife; brought back proof of his death and that of his party in 1859. Admiral, 1884. Knighted, 1860. (DNB.) Mackintosh, James (1765–1832). Philosopher and historian. Professor of law and general politics at the East India Company College, Haileybury, 1818–24. Married Catherine Allen, his second wife, sister-in-law of Josiah Wedgwood, in 1798. Knighted, 1803 (DNB; ODNB.) McLennan, John Ferguson (1827–81). Scottish lawyer and social anthropologist. MA, King’s College, Aberdeen, 1849. Studied mathematics at Trinity College, Cambridge. Began practising law in Edinburgh in 1857. Published on kinship, marriage, and the law. Moved to London in 1870. Appointed parliamentary draughtsman for Scotland, 1871. Regarded as one of the founders of modern British social anthropology. (ODNB.) McRae, Alexandrina Cornfute (1859–1942). Twin daughter with a deformity of the little finger born to Donald McRae, farmer, and his wife, Annabella Miller, of Luskentyre, Harris, Inverness-shire. Married John Tolmie in a double wedding with her twin sister in Fulham, London, 1887. (BMD (Death index); Certificate of Marriage, Charles Gordon MacKay to Elizabeth Ann Macrae, 27

654

Biographical register

April 1887, Fulham, London, General Register Office, England; Certificate of Marriage, John Tolmie to Alexandrina Cornfute Macrae, 27 April 1887, Fulham, London, General Register Office, England; letter from Francis Galton, 22 September 1875; Scotland Statutory Births 111/010117 (Scotlandspeople.com, accessed 19 March 2014).) McRae, Elizabeth Anne (Bessie) (1859–1954). Twin daughter with a deformity of the little finger born to Donald McRae, farmer, and his wife Annabella Miller of Harris, Inverness-shire. Married Dr Charles Gordon MacKay of Lochcarron, Ross-shire, in a double wedding with her twin sister in Fulham, London, 1887. (Certificate of Marriage, Charles Gordon MacKay to Elizabeth Ann Macrae, 27 April 1887, Fulham, London, General Register Office, England; Certificate of Marriage, John Tolmie to Alexandrina Cornfute Macrae, 27 April 1887, Fulham, London, General Register Office, England; England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 19 March 2014); letter from Francis Galton, 22 September 1875; Scotland Statutory Births 111/010117 (Scotlandspeople.com, accessed 19 March 2014).) Magnus, Paul Wilhelm (1844–1914). German botanist. Studied in Berlin and Freiburg, receiving his doctorate in 1870. Commissioned by the German Ministry of Agriculture to take part in voyages in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. Privat-dozent in botany, Berlin University, 1875; professor extraordinarius, 1880. Worked particularly on algae and fungi. (Berichte der Deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft 32 (1914): (32)–(63).) Malan, Solomon Caesar (originally César Jean Salomon) (1812–94). Swissborn orientalist and biblical scholar. BA, Oxford (St Edmund Hall), 1837. Senior classical professor at Bishop’s College, Calcutta, 1838–40. Ordained as an Anglican priest, 1843. Naturalised as a British subject, 1845. Rector of Broadwindsor, Dorset, 1845–85. Author of a history of the Georgian church. Travelled extensively and was conversant with about eighty languages. (DNB; ODNB.) Maliev, Nikolai Mikhailovich (b. 1841 d. after 1916). Russian anthropologist. Secretary of the Naturalists’ Society of the Imperial University of Kazan. Prosector of anatomy, Kazan University, 1875–88. Professor of anatomy, Tomsk University, 1888–96. Assistant professor of anatomy, St Petersburg University, 1897–1916. His fate after 1916 is unknown. Worked on Bulgarian and Bashkir human skulls. (DAR 229: 41 (see Appendix III); Nature, 1 March 1877, p. 382, and 28 June 1883, p. 213; Sibirskii Meditsinskii Zhurnal 26 (2011): 178–81.) Malm, August Hugo (1844–1907). Swedish ichthyologist and botanist. Son of August Wilhelm Malm. PhD, Lund, 1874; his thesis was in ichthyology. Teacher in Gothenburg while he studied the fauna of the Swedish west coast under his father’s guidance. Assistant, Gothenburg Museum of Natural History, from 1878. Made study trips to England. Contributed to the west-coast fishing boom and became a pioneer of new methods and tools. (SBL s.v. Malm, August Wilhelm.)

Biographical register

655

Malm, August Wilhelm (1821–82). Swedish zoologist. Studied zoology in Lund with Sven Nilsson; at the national museum in Stockholm; in Copenhagen. Curator, Gothenburg Museum of Natural History, 1848; professor, 1881. Specialist in fish and molluscs. (SBL; Tort 1996.) 31 January 1875 Mantegazza, Paolo (1831–1910). Italian anthropologist and pathologist. MD, Pavia, 1853. Travelled extensively in Europe and South America. Assistant, Ospedale Maggiore, Milan, 1858. Professor of pathology, Pavia, 1860; anthropology, Florence, 1870. Did research on animal organ transplants. Deputy for Monza in the Italian parliament, 1865–76; senator from 1876. Co-founder of the Archivio di etnologia e d’antropologia. (Dizionario del risorgimento nazionale; DSB.) Marsh-Caldwell, Anne (1791–1873). Novelist. Family friend of the Wedgwoods. (ODNB.) Marshall, William Adolf Ludwig (William) (1845–1907). German zoologist. Studied in Jena and Göttingen; DPhil., Göttingen, 1871. Assistant at the National Museum of Natural History in Leiden, the Netherlands, 1867–72. Secretary to the grand duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, 1872–9. Assistant in zoology to Rudolf Leuckart, Leipzig, 1877; lecturer, 1880; professor extraordinarius of zoology and comparative anatomy, 1885–1907. (Daum 1998, p. 500.) 29 May 1875, 2 June 1875, 21 August 1875 Martins, Charles Frédéric (1806–89). French botanist. Qualified as a doctor in Paris in 1834. Professor of botany and natural history, faculty of medicine, Montpellier, 1851. Director of the botanic garden, Montpellier, 1851–79. Also published on geology and meteorology. (Dictionnaire universel des contemporains; NBU; Rioux 2011.) Masłowski, Ludwik (1847–1928). Polish journalist, publisher, and translator. Studied medicine and natural sciences in Paris. First editor of Kurjer Lwowski. Translated Descent into Polish in 1874. (Polski słownik biograficzny.) 25 July 1875 (to [ John Murray?] Masters, Maxwell Tylden (1833–1907). Botanist, journal editor, and general medical practitioner. Subcurator, Fielding Herbarium, University of Oxford, circa 1853–7. GP at Peckham from 1856. Lecturer on botany at St George’s Hospital medical school, 1855–68. Editor of the Gardeners’ Chronicle, 1865–1907. Active in the Royal Horticultural Society, succeeding Joseph Dalton Hooker as the chairman of the scientific committee; secretary of the International Horticultural Congress, 1866. FRS 1870. (Clokie 1964, pp. 106, 208; ODNB.) 7 March 1875, [ July 1875], 10 July [1875] Masters, William (1796–1874). Nurseryman. Of Canterbury. Founded the Canterbury Museum in 1823; honorary curator, 1823–46. Conducted hybridisation experiments on passion flowers. Designed the formal gardens at Walmer Castle. Father of Maxwell Tylden Masters. (R. Desmond 1994.) Max Müller, Friedrich (1823–1900). German-born orientalist and philologist. Published an edition of the Rig Veda, the most important of the sacred books of

656

Biographical register

the Brahmans, 1849–74. Moved to Paris in 1845; settled in Oxford in 1848 after fleeing the revolution in France. Deputy Taylorian Professor of modern European languages, Oxford University, 1851–4; professor, 1854–68; professor of comparative philology, 1868–1900. Curator of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, 1856–63 and 1881–94. (ODNB.) 5 January 1875, 7 January 1875, 13 October [1875], 15 October [1875] Maximowicz, Carl Johann (Karl Ivanovich Maksimovich, Carl Maximowitsch, Karl Johann Maximowicz) (1827–91). Russian botanist. Studied botany at Dorpat (Tartu), 1845–50. Assistant director, botanic gardens, Dorpat, 1851. Keeper of the herbarium, St Petersburg, 1852; director of the botanic garden, 1864; botanic museum, 1870. Made collecting trips to Amur, 1853–7; China, Korea, 1859–60; Japan, 1860–64. Compiled floras of Japan and other Asiatic regions. (Album Dorpat s.v. Maximowitsch, Carl; Meyers Konversationslexikon s.v. Maximowicz, Karl Johann; Royal Society catalogue of scientific papers.) Maxwell, James Clerk (1831–79). Scottish physicist. Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge, 1855. Professor of natural philosophy, King’s College, London, 1860–5. Member of the newly formed electrical standards committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1862. Superintended the building of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge; first professor of experimental physics, University of Cambridge, 1871. Wrote papers on colour vision, the kinetic theory of gases, electricity, and magnetism. FRS 1861. (DSB; ODNB.) Mayo, Thomas (1790–1871). Physician. BA, Oxford (Oriel College), 1811; fellow of Oriel, 1813. Practised in Tunbridge Wells, 1818–35. Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, 1819; president, 1857–62. An authority on mental illness. (ODNB.) Medveczky, Frigyes (1856–1914). Hungarian philosopher and educationalist. Professor extraordinarius of philosophy at the University of Budapest, 1882; professor, 1886. Published several philosophical works under the pseudonym Friedrich von Bärenbach; also collaborated in a number of popular journals and magazines. President of the Ungarische philosophische Gesellschaft, 1912. (OBL.) Meehan, Thomas (1826–1901). English-born botanist, horticulturist, and author. Gardener at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1845–8. In 1848, emigrated to the United States, where he worked as a gardener. Established a nursery in Germantown, Pennsylvania, circa 1853. Editor, Gardener’s Monthly, 1859–87; Meehan’s Monthly, 1891–1901. Botanist on the Philadelphia state board of agriculture, 1877–1901. Elected to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1860; to the American Philosophical Society, 1871. (Baker 1965, DAB.) 3 October 1875 Mel’nikov, Nikolai Mikhailovich (1840–1900). Russian zoologist. PhD, Kazan, 1869; professor extraordinarius, 1871; professor of zoology and director of the zoological museum, 1873–97. Founding member of the Society of Naturalists at Kazan and president, 1873–5. Chairman of the entomological commission to

Biographical register

657

study insect pests, 1885–90. Specialised in parasitology and insect embryology. (Entsiklopedicheskii slovar.) Michelis, Friedrich (1815–86). German Catholic theologian and philosopher. Professor extraordinarius at the Lyceum Hosianum in Braunsberg (Eastern Prussia), 1864; professor, 1869. Member of the Prussian Chamber of Deputies, 1866; of the North German Parliament, 1867. Editor of the journal Natur und Offenbarung (Nature and revelation), 1855–69. Opponent of materialism and evolution. Excommunicated in 1871 as a result of his opposition to the dogma of papal infallibility. (DBE; NDB.) Miller, Annabella (1807–36). Maternal grandmother of A. C. and E. A. McRae, with similar deformity of the finger. Daughter of James Douglas, minister of Stewarton, Ayr, and his wife Annabella Tod. Married, in Glasgow, David Miller of Pow in 1831. Mother of Annabella Miller, born in Perth, 1833. (Letter from Francis Galton, 22 September 1875; Old Parish Registers Births 387/00 0260 0153 Perth; Old Parish Registers Births 616/00 0030 0255 Stewarton; Old Parish Registers Marriages 644/01 0410 0280 Glasgow; Perth Courier, 7 January 1836, p.2.) Milne-Edwards, Henri (1800–85). French zoologist. Professor of hygiene and natural history, École centrale des arts et manufactures, 1832. Professor of entomology, Muséum d’histoire naturelle, 1841, with responsibility for the collections of crustaceans, myriapods, and arachnids as well as insects; professor of mammalogy, 1861. Foreign member, Royal Society of London, 1848. (DSB.) Mitford, Algernon Bertram, 1st Baron Redesdale (1837–1916). Diplomat, civil servant, and author. Second secretary at the British embassy, St Petersburg, 1863. In Peking (Beijing), 1865; Japan, 1866–70. Secretary to the Board of Works, 1874–86. Wrote books on Japan. Added Freeman to his name in 1886, on inheriting the wealth but not the title of his cousin the Earl of Redesdale. Created Baron Redesdale, 1902. (ODNB.) Mivart, St George Jackson (1827–1900). Comparative anatomist. Converted to Catholicism, 1844. Called to the bar, 1851, but never practised. Established his reputation as an anatomist by his studies on primates. Lecturer in comparative anatomy, St Mary’s Hospital Medical School, London, 1862–84. Secretary, Linnean Society, 1874–80; vice-president, 1892. Professor of the philosophy of natural history, University of Louvain, 1890–3. Excommunicated, 1900. Vigorous critic of Darwinism. Attempted to reconcile evolutionary theory and Catholicism. FRS 1869. (DNB.) 12 January 1875 Modderman, Antony Ewoud Jan (1838–85). Dutch lawyer. Doctorate in law, Leiden University, 1863; professor of criminal law, 1870–9. (NNBW vol. 8.) Moggridge, John Traherne (1842–74). Entomologist and botanist. Wintered in Mentone, France, and studied the flora of the area. (R. Desmond 1994, Gardeners’ Chronicle n.s. 2 (1874): 723.) Moltke, Helmuth Karl Bernhard (Helmuth) von (1800–91). German field marshal and politician. Chief of staff of the Prussian army during the Franco-Prussian

658

Biographical register

War, 1870–1. Field marshal, 1871. Chief of the General Staff, German Empire, 1871–88. Member of the Reichstag, 1871–91. (ADB, NDB.) Monti, Luigi (1830–1914). Italian author and lecturer. Educated in Palermo. Served in the revolutionary army, 1848–9; exiled, 1850. Instructor in Italian, Harvard, 1854–9. United States consul at Palermo, 1861–73. Lectured at the Lowell Institute, Wellesley, Vassar, and the Peabody Institute, Baltimore. Published works on Italian grammar and travel, as well as translations from Italian. (Appleton’s cyclopædia of American biography; NUC.) Moore, Norman, 1st baronet (1847–1922). Physician. BA, Cambridge, 1869. MD, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, 1876. Warden of the college, 1873–91; lecturer in anatomy, pathology, and medicine, and physician to the hospital, 1902. Created baronet, 1919. (Alum. Cantab.; ODNB.) Moore, Samuel William (1848–75). Surgeon and chemist. LRCP, Edinburgh, and LRCS, 1871. Assistant analyst, St Thomas’s Hospital, London, and assistant medical officer, Hanwell Asylum. Lecturer on and demonstrator of physiological chemistry, St George’s Hospital, London. (BMD (Birth index); British Medical Journal, 5 June 1875, p. 751; Medical directory.) Morehouse, George Wilkinson (1840–1920). American druggist and teacher. (1870 United States Federal Census (Wayland, Steuben, New York, M593_1096, 547B); 1880 United States Federal Census (Wayland, Steuben, New York, 934, 588B); Cook County, Illinois, deaths index, 1878–1922 (Ancestry.com, accessed 24 October 2014).) 25 October 1875 Morley, John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn (1838–1923). Politician and writer. Lost his faith while at Lincoln College, Oxford; earned a living in London from 1860 as a teacher and journalist. Editor of the Fortnightly Review, 1867–82; of the Pall Mall Gazette, 1880–3; of Macmillan’s Magazine, 1883–5. Liberal MP for Newcastle, 1883–95; for Montrose Burghs, 1896–1908. Chief secretary for Ireland, 1886 and 1892–5; secretary of state for India, 1905–10. Created Viscount Morley of Blackburn, 1908. (ODNB.) Morphy, Ferdinand Jamison (1846–1904). Merchant in Argentina. Freemason; founded chapters in Argentina and Uruguay. Connected with the Gran Ferrocarril del Sud (Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway). (Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, being the Transactions of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge no. 2076, London 18 (1905): 61; BMD (Birth index); letter from F. J. Morphy, 6 September 1875.) 6 September 1875 Morren, Charles François Antoine (1807–58). Belgian botanist and horticultural writer. Taught physics at the industrial school and the university in Ghent, 1831–5; studied medicine and qualified in 1835. Professor extraordinarius of botany, University of Liège, 1835–7; professor, 1837–54. (BNB; P. Gilbert 1977.) Mozley, Amelia (1822–72). Daughter of James Adey Ogle, regius professor of medicine at Oxford (ODNB) and his wife Sarah; elder sister of William Ogle and twin of Caroline Johnson. Married James Bowling Mozley, regius professor of

Biographical register

659

divinity at Oxford, in 1856. (Ancestry.com, family trees (accessed 1 April 2014); ODNB s.v. Mozley, James Bowling.) Müller, Heinrich Ludwig Hermann (Hermann) (1829–83). German botanist and entomologist. Brother of Johann Friedrich Theodor (Fritz) Müller. Schoolteacher in Schwerin, 1854–5. Studied blind cave insects in Krain, 1855. Teacher of natural sciences at the Realschule in Lippstadt, 1855–83; became director of the school. After settling in Lippstadt, studied the local flora, in particular the mosses. CD’s Orchids directed Müller’s attention to the pollination and fertilisation of flowers, on which he published several papers and books. (P. Gilbert 1977; Krause 1883; Science 2 (1883): 487–8.) 7 August 1875, 23 October 1875, 26 October 1875 Müller, Johann Friedrich Theodor (Fritz) (1822–97). German naturalist. Emigrated to the German colony in Blumenau, Brazil, in 1852. Taught mathematics at the Lyceum in Destêrro (now Florianópolis), 1856–67. Naturalista viajante of the National Museum, Rio de Janeiro, 1876–91. His anatomical studies on invertebrates and work on mimicry provided important support for CD’s theories. (ADB; DBE; Möller ed. 1915–21; NDB; West 2003.) 12 September 1875, 25 December 1875 Murchison, Finlay (1846–1937). Scottish medical practitioner. MA, Edinburgh, 1867; MB 1872. Medical officer for North Harris, 1874–5. Assistant physician, Crichton Royal Institution, Dumfries, 1876–7. Assistant medical officer, Middlesex Asylum, Banstead Downs, Sutton, Surrey, 1878–85. Medical superintendent, Peckham House Asylum, London, 1886–91. Resident proprietor, Wyke House Asylum, Isleworth, 1892–1929. (England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 18 March 2014); Medical directory; Scotland Old Parish Registers OPR058-000-0020-0244Z (supplied by Scotland’s people (www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk), 13 November 2014).) Murchison, Roderick Impey, 1st baronet (1792–1871). Geologist and army officer. Served in the British army, 1807–15. Noted for his work on the Silurian system. President of the Geological Society of London, 1831–3 and 1841–3; of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1846; of the Royal Geographical Society of London, 1843–4, 1851, 1857–8, 1862–70. Director-general of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, 1855. Knighted, 1863; created baronet, 1866. FRS 1826. (DSB; Journal of the Royal Geographical Society; ODNB.) Murie, James (1832–1925). Physician and naturalist. MD, Glasgow, 1857; appointed pathologist to the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 1857. Naturalist and medical officer on John Petherick’s expedition to the upper White Nile, 1861–3. Prosector to the Zoological Society of London, 1865–70. Assistant secretary, Linnean Society, 1876–80; librarian, 1880–8. (R. Desmond 1994; Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1925–6): 92–4.) Murray, Andrew Dickson (Andrew) (1812–78). Lawyer, entomologist, and botanist. Practised law in Edinburgh; later moved to London. Assistant secretary to the Royal Horticultural Society, 1861; member of the council from 1865;

660

Biographical register

member of the scientific committee from 1868. An expert on insects harmful to crops. In entomology, specialised in the Coleoptera; in botany, in the Coniferae. (ODNB.) Murray, John (1808–92). Publisher, and author of guide-books. CD’s publisher from 1845. (Freeman 1978, ODNB s.v. Murray family, publishers.) 16 February [1875], 17 February [1875], 23 March [1875], 9 April [1875], 10 April [1875], 29 April [1875], 1 May [1875], 3 May 1875, 4 May [1875], 5 May 1875, 18 May 1875 (from G. Chiantore), 24 June [1875], 19 November [1875], 20 November 1875, 22 November [1875] 23 November 1875, 23 November [1875], 22 December 1875 (from Louis Grenier) Murray, John (1841–1914). Canadian-born marine scientist and oceanographer. Went to Scotland to complete his education; studied at the University of Edinburgh, 1864–5, 1868–72, but did not graduate. Worked under Peter Guthrie Tait on the construction of an electrical deep-sea thermometer. Prepared scientific apparatus for the Challenger expedition, 1872; naturalist to the expedition, 1872–6. Chief assistant, Challenger office, Edinburgh, 1876–82; director, 1882–95. Editor of the Report on the scientific results of the voyage of HMS Challenger (1880–1895). Knighted, 1898. FRS 1896. (ODNB.) Murton, Henry James (1853–82). Gardener. Gardener at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1872–3. Superintendent, Singapore Botanic Gardens, 1875–80. Head of Bangkok Royal Gardens, 1881. (R. Desmond 1994.) Nägeli, Carl Wilhelm von (1817–91). Swiss botanist. Maintained a teleological view of evolution. Originally studied medicine, but transferred to botany under Alphonse de Candolle at Geneva. Worked for eighteen months with Matthais Jacob Schleiden at the University of Jena, then worked in Zurich, where he collaborated with Carl Cramer, 1845–52. Professor of botany, University of Freiburg, 1852; University of Munich, 1857. (DSB s.v. Naegeli, Carl Wilhelm von.) Napoleon I (1769–1821). Emperor of the French. (EB.) Nares, George Strong (bap. 1831 d. 1915). Naval officer and Arctic explorer. Attended the Royal Naval School at New Cross and entered the navy in 1845. Captain of the Challenger during its expedition of oceanographic exploration, 1872–4. Leader of the Arctic expedition, 1875–6. Knighted, 1876. FRS 1875. (ODNB.) Nash, Louisa A’hmuty (1838–1922). Author. Daughter of Henry and Mary Desborough. Married Wallis Nash in 1868; they lived in Down during part of the 1870s, and later emigrated to the US. Painted a portrait of CD in indian ink. Author of Recollections of Abraham Lincoln (1897). (BMD (Marriage index); England, select births and christenings, 1538–1975 (Ancestry.com, accessed 6 February 2015); Freeman  1978; Oregon death index 1921–1930 (Ancestry.com, accessed 6 February 2015).) Nash, Wallis (1837–1926). Lawyer and agriculturalist. Studied at New College, University of London. Lived at The Rookery, north of Down, Kent, 1873–7. Emigrated to Oregon in 1879. Practised law and farming. Involved in founding

Biographical register

661

the Oregon Pacific Railroad and Oregon Agricultural College. Editorial writer for the Oregon Journal. Wrote about his travels in Oregon. (K. G. V. Smith and Dimick 1976, pp. 78–9.) Naudin, Charles Victor (1815–99). French botanist. Joined the herbarium staff at the Muséum d’histoire naturelle and became professor of zoology at the Collège Chaptal, Paris, in 1846. Resigned his professorship almost immediately owing to a severe nervous disorder. Appointed aide-naturaliste at the Muséum d’histoire naturelle, 1854. Established a private experimental garden at Collioure in 1869, earning his living by selling seeds and specimens. First director of the staterun experimental garden at Antibes, 1878. Experimented widely on plants, particularly on acclimatisation and hybridity. Published a theory of transmutation based on hybridisation. (DSB; Taxonomic literature.) Nevill, Dorothy Fanny (1826–1913). Society hostess and horticulturist. Daughter of Horatio Walpole, third earl of Orford; married Reginald Henry Nevill in 1847. Developed a notable garden at Dangstein, near Petersfield, Hampshire, where she cultivated orchids, pitcher-plants, and other tropical plants; employed thirty-four gardeners. (ODNB.) 14 [February 1875], 15 February 1875, 17 [April 1875], 2 July [1875], 13 [July 1875], 15 July [1875], 26 [December 1875?] Newall, Robert Stirling (1812–89). Scottish-born engineer and astronomer. Patented wire rope, 1850. Manufacturer of telegraph cables and owner of a cable-laying company. Mayor of Gateshead, 1867–8. Member of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1864; member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1879. FRS 1875. (ODNB.) Newington, Samuel (1814–82). Superintendent of mental home and horticulturist. Superintendent of a mental home at Ticehurst in Sussex. Invented horticultural equipment. Contributed to Gardeners’ Chronicle. (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/1046/62/22); R. Desmond 1994.) 30 August 1875, 1 September [1875], 2 September 1875, 17 September 1875, 10 December 1875 Newton, Alfred (1829–1907). Zoologist and ornithologist. Travelled throughout northern Europe and North America on ornithological expeditions, 1854–63. Editor of Ibis, the journal of the British Ornithologists’ Union, 1865–70. Professor of zoology and comparative anatomy, Cambridge University, 1866–1907. FRS 1870. (DNB.) Newton, Thomas William (1822–1902). Assistant librarian at the Museum of Practical Geology, London, 1860–95. (BLC; England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 13 December 2014); Flett 1937.) Nicol, James (1810–79). Scottish mineralogist and stratigrapher. Professor of geology, Queen’s College, Cork, 1849–53. Professor of natural history, University of Aberdeen, 1853–79. (ODNB.)

662

Biographical register

Nicols, Robert Arthur (Arthur) (1840–91). Writer and traveller. (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1841 (The National Archives: Public Record Office HO107/657/6); 1871 (RG10/1330/23/39); Correspondence vol. 19, letter from Arthur Nicols, 7 March 1871.) [before 10 November 1875], 10 November 1875, 8 December 1875 Nightingale, William Shore (1831–94). Landowner. Born William Shore Smith; adopted the surname Nightingale as the nephew and heir of William Edward Nightingale. Of Embley Park, Hampshire, and Lea Hurst, Derbyshire. Cousin of Florence Nightingale. (ODNB s.v. Nash, Vaughan Robinson.) Nitschke, Theodor Rudolf Joseph (Theodor) (1834–83). German botanist. Studied theology, philosophy, and natural science at Breslau; PhD 1858; habilitated, Münster, 1860. Professor extraordinarius of botany and director of the botanic garden, Münster, 1867; professor, 1875. (ADB.) Nordenskiöld, Nils Adolf Erik (Adolf Erik) (1832–1901). Finnish–Swedish explorer, mineralogist, and geographer. Educated at the University of Helsinki, but moved to Sweden in 1858. Chief of mineralogy at the Swedish National Museum, 1858–1901. Made several voyages of Arctic exploration between 1857 and 1886, the chief of which was the Vega expedition, 1878–9, for which he was created baron by the Swedish government. Published seminal works in the history of cartography. (DSB.) Northcote, Stafford Henry (Stafford), 1st earl of Iddesleigh (1818–87). Politician. BA, Oxford (Balliol), 1839. Secretary to William Ewart Gladstone from 1842  until circa 1850. Legal assistant at the Board of Trade, 1845–50. Called to the bar, 1847. Secretary of the Great Exhibition, 1850. MP for Dudley, 1855–7; Stamford, 1858–66; North Devonshire, 1866–85. Assisted Benjamin Disraeli in financial matters, 1858–81. President of the Board of Trade from 1866. Secretary of state for India, 1867–9. Elected chairman of the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1869. Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1874–80. First lord of the Treasury, 1885–6. Foreign minister, 1886–7. Created earl of Iddesleigh and Viscount St Cyres, 1885. (ODNB.) Norton, Charles Eliot (1827–1908). American editor, literary critic, and art historian. Graduated from Harvard College in 1846. Apprenticed himself in the East India trade, travelling widely in India and Europe. Gradually shifted to a literary career; wrote, translated, and edited books; contributed to the Atlantic Monthly; co-edited the North American Review, 1863–8; and co-founded and wrote for the Nation. Travelled and lived in England and continental Europe, 1868–73. Taught history of art and literature at Harvard, 1874–98. (ANB.) 22 September 1875, 7 October 1875 Norton, Sara (Sally) (1864–1922). Daughter of Charles Eliot and Susan Ridley Sedgwick Norton. Co-edited her father’s letters. (Turner 1999; U.S., Find A Grave index, 1600s–current (Ancestry.com, accessed 17 February 2015); U.S. passport applications, 1795–1925 (Ancestry.com, accessed 17 February 2015).) Norton, Susan Ridley Sedgwick (1838–72). Daughter of Sara Ashburner and the American legal theorist Theodore Sedgwick. Grew up in New York and

Biographical register

663

Massachusetts. Married Charles Eliot Norton in 1862. Died in Dresden, Germany, after giving birth to her sixth child. (Turner 1999.) Odebrecht, Emil (1835–1912). Pomeranian-born Brazilian engineer and cartographer. Studied engineering at Greifswald; emigrated in 1856 to Brazil, where he was one of the founding colonists at Blumenau. Worked mostly in Santa Catarina and Paraná. Discovered the Iguaçu waterfalls in 1883. Mapped out the route for the rail link between Rio de Janeiro and Porto Alegre. (Preußische allgemeine Zeitung, 25 September 2010.) Offley, Isabella (1798/9–1873). Mother of Gould Anne Wolfe. Daughter of James Carlyle of Craddockstown, county Kildare. Married Henry Upton Ruxton RN of Ardee House, county Louth, in 1814. Widowed by February 1828, and married in 1829, in Florence, John Henry Offley. Lived in Dublin from 1866 until her death. (Landed gentry of Ireland 1899; Index of Irish Wills, 1484–1858, Testamentary Records at the National Archives of Ireland cd-rom (Eneclann, 1999) (accessed on www.findmypast.co.uk, 28 October 2013); Ireland, church records: churchrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/reels/d-45-3-4-007.pdf, churchrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/reels/d-298-1-1-036.pdf ‘Ruston’ sic; Italia, Matrimoni, 1809–1900 (index), ‘Buxton’ sic: familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XK3L-399 (accessed 15 October 2013); Thom’s Irish almanac 1866–73.) Ogle, William (1827–1912). Physician and naturalist. Took holy orders in 1853. MD 1861. Lecturer on physiology at St George’s Hospital, 1858–69; assistant physician, 1869–72. Medical officer for health for East Hertfordshire, 1873–9. Superintendent of statistics, General Register Office, 1880–1903. Translated Aristotle’s On the parts of animals into English in 1882. Published on flower structure and mechanisms for fertilisation. (Alum. Oxon.; Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 75 (1912): 659–61; Szreter 1996, p. 86 n. 37.) 22 September 1875, [23–4 September 1875], 25 September 1875 Oldham, Thomas (1816–78). Irish geologist. Chief geological assistant to the Geological Survey of Ireland, 1839–50. Professor of geology, Trinity College, Dublin, 1845–51. In 1849, discovered in the rocks of Bray Head, county Wicklow, fossils or organic marks, which were named Oldhamia, after him. Director, Geological Survey of India, 1850–76. FRS 1848. (Modern English biography; ODNB; Sarjeant 1980–96.) Oliver, Daniel (1830–1916). Botanist. Assistant in the herbarium of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1858; librarian, 1860–90; keeper, 1864–90. Professor of botany, University College, London, 1861–88. FRS 1863. (R. Desmond 1994; List of the Linnean Society of London, 1859–91.) 2 January 1875, 6 January [1875], [15 December 1875] Ouless, Walter William (1848–1933). Portrait painter. Entered the Royal Academy Schools in 1865. Exhibited at the Royal Academy, 1869–1928. Painted a portrait of Charles Darwin in 1875. (ODNB.) Owen, Richard (1804–92). Comparative anatomist. Assistant conservator of the Hunterian Museum, Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1827; Hunterian

664

Biographical register

Professor of comparative anatomy and physiology, 1836–56. Superintendent of the natural history departments, British Museum, 1856–84; prime mover in establishing the Natural History Museum, South Kensington, 1881. President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1858. Described the Beagle fossil mammal specimens. Knighted, 1884. FRS 1834. (DSB; ODNB.) Paget, James, 1st baronet (1814–99). Surgeon. Assistant surgeon at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, 1847; surgeon, 1861–71. Arris and Gale Professor of anatomy and surgery at the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1847–52. Lectured on physiology in the medical school, St Bartholomew’s, 1859–61; on surgery, 1865–9. Appointed surgeon-extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1858; serjeant-surgeon, 1877. Created baronet, 1871. FRS 1851. (ODNB.) 3 May 1875, 12 May 1875, 7 July 1875, 14 August 1875 Palmer, Elizabeth (1824/5–1901). Schoolteacher. Taught in Esther Creswell’s school in Brighton, 1851. Ran a school in Clapham, 1861. Head of a school at Nilgherry House, 5 Lansdowne Road, Wimbledon, from at least 1866 until at least 1882; Reginald Hawthorn Hooker attended from 1875. From at least 1888 until 1900, in Brighton, Sussex; for part of that time ran a home for Anglo-Indian children at 50a Westbourne Villas. (Brighton and Hove blue book 1888–1900; Census returns of England and Wales 1851 (The National Archives: Public Record Office HO107/1645/40/41), 1861 (RG9/368/261/39); letter from J. D. Hooker, 14 January 1875; Post Office directory of the six home counties 1866, 1882.) Panum, Peder Ludvik (1820–85). Danish physiologist and pathologist. Professor extraordinarius, medicinal chemistry, physiology, and general pathology, Kiel University, 1853; professor, 1857–64. Professor of physiology, physiological chemistry, and comparative anatomy, Copenhagen University, from 1864. (DBL.) Papé, Charlotte ( fl. 1870s). Woman fluent in English and German interested in women’s rights. In Manchester, 1875. Probably the author of an article about a mother’s legal rights concerning her children in a German women’s journal, 1876. In Leipzig, planning to publish an appreciation of John Stuart Mill in a German women’s journal, 1879. (‘Die Rechte der Mutter über ihre Kinder’, Neue Bahnen (1876): 9–12; letter from Charlotte Papé, 16 July 1875; letter to Helen Taylor (London School of Economics Women’s Library: Mill–Taylor 8: 26).) 16 July 1875 Parker, William Kitchen (1823–90). Comparative anatomist. Hunterian Professor of comparative anatomy, Royal College of Surgeons, from 1873. Known for his research on the skull. FRS 1865. (DNB; Record of the Royal Society of London.) Paul, Charles Kegan (1828–1902). Publisher and author. BA, Oxford (Exeter College), 1849. Ordained priest, 1852. Chaplain at Eton, 1853–62. Vicar of Sturminster Marshall, Dorset, 1862–74. Became manager and editor for the publisher Henry Samuel King and bought the business in 1877. Converted to Catholicism, 1890. (ODNB.) Payne, George (b. 1841/2). Gardener. Gardener at Abinger Hall from 1870 until at least 1914. (Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives:

Biographical register

665

Public Record Office RG10/827/79/9), 1911 (RG14/3177/50); Kew Guild Journal 2: 50 (www.kewguild.org.uk).) Pearson, Charles (b.  1845/6). Schoolteacher, innkeeper, and organist. Schoolmaster at Down national school from 1867; taught at Down until at least 1881. By 1881, he was a shopkeeper, wine and spirit merchant, and proprietor of the George Inn, Down. (CD’s Account book–banking account (Down House MS); Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/875: 37), 1881 (RG11/855: 87); Post Office directory of the six home counties 1866, 1874, 1882.) Pedicino, Nicola Antonio (1839–83). Italian botanist. MD, Naples, 1861; then studied botany. Founded the laboratory and botanic garden in the school of agriculture at Portici. Professor of botany, Rome, 1877. Worked on the histology and anatomy of plants and fertilisation. (EI.) Penny, Edward Lewton (1836–99). Clergyman. BA, Oxford (Pembroke College), 1859. Held various curacies, 1859–67. Royal Navy chaplain, 1867. (Alum. Oxon.; England, select births and christenings, 1538–1975 (Ancestry.com, accessed 18 August 2014); England & Wales, National probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 18 August 2014).) Pfeiffer, Ludwig Georg Karl (Ludwig) (1805–77). German physician, botanist, and zoologist. Studied medicine at Göttingen and Marburg and practised from 1826 until 1831, when he turned to writing on botanical and zoological topics. Travelled to Cuba, 1838–9. In zoology, worked almost exclusively on conchology; in botany, worked on problems of synonymy in taxonomy, especially in the cactus family. His Nomenclator botanicus gave author and publication details, clarifying synonymy greatly. (ADB.) Pflüger, Eduard Friedrich Wilhelm (1829–1910). German physician. Studied medicine in Marburg, Berlin, and Jena until 1855. In 1868, habilitated at Berlin, where he acted as assistant to Emil Du Bois-Reymond. Professor of physiology, Bonn, from 1859. Started Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere in 1868. (DBE.) 14 April 1875, [after 14 April 1875] Phillips-Jodrell, Thomas Jodrell (1807–89). Barrister. Born Thomas Jodrell Phillips; assumed the name and arms of Jodrell by Royal Licence in 1868. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1829. Fellow of Trinity, 1830. Called to the bar, 1835. Donated money for scientific research. (Alum. Cantab.; Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 46 (1889): 453.) Phillips, John (1800–74). Geologist. Keeper of the Yorkshire Museum, 1825–40. Assistant secretary, British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1832– 62. Professor of geology, King’s College, London, 1834–9. Palaeontologist to the Geological Survey of Great Britain, 1841–4. Deputy reader in geology, Oxford University, 1853; professor, 1860–74. FRS 1834. (DSB; ODNB.) Pickard-Cambridge, Octavius (1828–1917). Anglican clergyman and zoologist. Ordained deacon, 1858; priest, 1859. Succeeded his father as rector of

666

Biographical register

Bloxworth, Dorset, 1860. Travelled in Europe and the Middle East in 1864 and 1865 and collected Lepidoptera. An expert on spiders, on which he published numerous papers and monographs. FRS 1887. (A. W. Pickard-Cambridge 1918; Proceedings of the Royal Society series B, 91 (1920): xlix–liii.) Piggot, Horatio (1821–1913). Landowner, attorney, and solicitor. Practised in Chelmsford. Retired to Frant, near Tunbridge Wells, by 1871. (Census returns of England and Wales  1861 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG9/1079/33/21), 1871 (RG10/1050/78/7); Registers of births, marriages and deaths surrendered to the non-parochial registers commissions of 1837 and 1857 (The National Archives: General Register Office RG4/1767); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 10 November 2014).) 20 March 1875, 20 March [1875] Plato (c. 427–347 bce). Athenian philosopher. (Oxford classical dictionary.) Playfair, Agnes Ranken (Agnes) (1832–1918). Daughter of Major-General Thomas Webster of Belgarvie, Fife. Married Robert Lambert Playfair in 1851. (1841  Scotland census, Monimail parish, 1/43/420 (Ancestry.com, accessed 11 November 2014); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 11 November 2014); ODNB s.v. Playfair, Sir Robert Lambert; Scotland Old Parish Registers Births OPR 44800-0030-0036 Monimail (Scotlandspeople.gov.uk, accessed 2 December 2014).) Playfair, Lyon, 1st Baron Playfair of St Andrews (1818–98). Statesman and chemist. Chemist to the Geological Survey of Great Britain and professor of chemistry at the School of Mines, 1845. Secretary at the Department of Science and Art, 1853–8. President of the Chemical Society, 1857–9. Professor of chemistry, Edinburgh University, 1858–69. Liberal MP for the Universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews, 1868–85; for South Leeds, 1885–92. Postmaster general, 1873; chairman and deputy speaker of the House of Commons, 1880–3. Knighted, 1883; created Baron Playfair of St Andrews, 1892. FRS 1848. (DNB; DSB.) [before 29 April 1875], 29 April 1875, 15 May [1875], 21 May 1875, 26 May 1875, 27 May 1875, 28 May [1875] Playfair, Robert Lambert (1828–99). Colonial administrator and author. Royal (Madras) Artillery, 1846–61; Madras staff corps, 1861–3. Consul and lieutenant-colonel, Zanzibar, 1863–7; consul-general, Algeria, 1867; territory of Algeria and northern Africa, 1889. Wrote books for travellers on Algeria and other parts of the region, as well as extensive bibliographies of Algeria and Morocco. (ODNB.) Polack, Joel Samuel (1807–82). Merchant and author. Lived in New Zealand, 1831–7 and 1842–50. Published New Zealand: a narrative of travels and adventures (1838) and Manners and customs of the New Zealanders (1840). (ODNB.) Polano, Machiel (1813–78). Dutch surgeon. Qualified in surgery at the State Military Medical School, Utrecht. Practised surgery in Rotterdam, 1835–69. Professor of surgery, Leiden University, from 1869. (Dutch medical biography.)

Biographical register

667

Pöppig, Eduard Friedrich (1798–1868). German naturalist who travelled in South America. Professor of zoology, Leipzig University, 1833. (ADB; Larousse du XXe siècle.) Powell, Thomas (1809–87). Naturalist and missionary. Sent by the London Missionary Society to Samoa, 1845. Served in the New Hebrides (Vanuatu) mission, 1848–54. Returned to Samoa, 1854–85. Collected plants, particularly ferns; his collection of cryptogams was acquired by the British Museum. ( JSTOR Global Plants (plants.jstor.org, accessed 16 December 2014).) Prestwich, Joseph (1812–96). Geologist and businessman. Entered the family wine business in London in 1830; became proprietor in 1842. Professor of geology, Oxford University, 1874–88. President of the Geological Society of London, 1870–2. An expert on the Tertiary geology of Europe. Prominent in studies of human prehistory. Knighted, 1896. FRS 1853. (DSB; ODNB.) Price, John (1803–87). Scholar, schoolteacher, and naturalist. Educated at Shrewsbury School, 1818–22, and St John’s College, Cambridge. Assistant master, Shrewsbury, 1826–7. Headmaster of the junior department at Bristol College, then classics principal at Liverpool High School, before settling in Chester. A founding member of the Chester Natural Science Society. (Alum. Cantab.; Eagle (St John’s College, Cambridge) 15 (1888): 169–72; Modern English biography.) Pryor, Elizabeth Caroline (1819/20–1906). Mother of Marlborough Robert Pryor. (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1851 (The National Archives: Public Record Office HO107/1489/509/34); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966. (Ancestry.com, accessed 31 May 2013).) Pryor, Marlborough Robert (1848–1920). Businessman. BA, Cambridge, 1870; fellow of Trinity College, 1870. Chairman, Sun Life Insurance Co. (Alum. Cantab.) Radovanović, Milan Marinković (Milan) (1849–78). Serbian doctor and writer. Studied medicine in Berlin, after which he served in the Serbo-Turkish war in 1876. Translated Origin into Serbian. (Letter from M. M. Radovanović, 17 September 1874; PONS Medical Journal 9 (2012) supplement 1: 25.) Rakić, Mita (1846–90). Serbian writer, translator, and politician. Studied in Munich, Zurich, Göttingen, and London. Member, Serbian learned society, 1872. Editor of the political magazine Time, 1874. Worked in the Ministry of Finance, 1873–9; secretary to the minister of foreign affairs, 1881. Finance minister, 1888. (Milićević 1888–1901.) Ralfs, John (1807–90). Surgeon and botanist. Gave up medical practice because of ill health. Resided in Penzance, Cornwall, where he pursued his botanical researches, specialising in freshwater algae, 1837–90. After suffering financial losses, he was provided with an annuity from a relief fund set up by Thomas Henry Huxley and Joseph Dalton Hooker in 1858. (ODNB.) Ralston, William Ralston Shedden- (1828–89). Librarian, folklorist, and Russian scholar. BA, Cambridge (Trinity), 1850. Entered Lincoln’s Inn, 1850; called

668

Biographical register

to the bar, 1861, but never practised. Became involved with the Working Men’s College. Employed in the department of printed books at the British Museum, 1853–75. Became a Russian specialist, making translations and writing reviews and articles. His books included Krilof and his fables (1869), The songs of the Russian people (1872), Russian folk-tales (1873), and Early Russian history (1874). Helped to found the Folklore Society. (ODNB.) 24 April [1875], 26 April 1875, 2 December 1875, 3 December 1875, 7 December [1875], 20 December 1875 Ramsay, Andrew Crombie (1814–91). Geologist. Appointed to the Geological Survey of Great Britain, 1841; senior director for England and Wales, 1862; director-general, 1872–81. Professor of geology, University College, London, 1847–52; lecturer on geology at the Royal School of Mines, 1852–71. President of the Geological Society of London, 1862–4. Knighted, 1881. FRS 1862. (DSB; ODNB.) Ramsay, Edward Pierson (1842–1916). Australian ornithologist and zoologist. Studied at the University of Sydney, 1863–5. Curator, Australian Museum, 1874–94; consultant ornithologist, 1894–1909. (Aust. dict. biog.) Rayner, Frederick. Gamekeeper and dog breeder. Worked at Wemyss Hall Lodge, near Cupar, Fife, Scotland, in 1874. (Correspondence vol. 22, letter from George Cupples, 21 February 1874, enclosure 1.) Reade, William Winwood (1838–75). Traveller, novelist, and journalist. Travelled in West Africa, 1861–3. Studied at St Mary’s Hospital, London, in 1865; worked at a cholera hospital in Southampton, 1866. Travelled in West Africa, 1868–70, and again in 1873 as correspondent for The Times. Wrote novels as well as travel observations. Nephew of the novelist Charles Reade. (Correspondence vol. 18, letter from W. W. Reade, 3 September 1870, ODNB.) 20 April 1875 Reichenbach, Karl Ludwig Friedrich (Karl) Freiherr von (1788–1869). German chemist, industrialist, and naturalist. DPhil., Tübingen, 1821. Worked on coal-tar and wood-tar derivatives, and on geomagnetism, and established a metallurgical factory. After retirement from industry, developed the idea of a life principle, which he called ‘Od’, after the Norse god, Odin. (ADB; NDB.) Reinwald, Charles-Ferdinand (1812–91). German-born bookseller and editor. Founded a business exporting French books in Paris in 1849. Editor in particular of foreign scientific works, and of the Dictionnaire universel de la langue française, by M.  P.  Poitevin. Published the Catalogue annuel de la librairie française. (Dictionnaire universel des contemporains.) 26 December 1875 Rendall, Gerald Henry (1851–1945). Classicist, college head, and clergyman. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1874. Fellow and assistant tutor, Trinity College, Cambridge, 1875–80. Gladstone Professor of Greek, University College, Liverpool, 1880–97; principal of the college. Vice-chancellor, Victoria University, 1890–4. Headmaster of Charterhouse, 1897–1911. Ordained deacon, 1898; priest, 1899. (Alum. Cantab.)

Biographical register

669

Renshaw, Thomas Charles (1810–86). Barrister. Student at Lincoln’s Inn, 1826; called to the bar, 1832; QC, 1872; bencher, 1872. (England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 10 April 2014); Men-at-the-bar.) Retzius, Magnus Gustaf (Gustaf) (1842–1919). Swedish anatomist and physiologist. Studied medicine in Uppsala and Stockholm; doctorate, Lund, 1871. Docent in anatomy, Karolinska Institutet, 1871; professor extraordinarius, histology, 1877; professor of anatomy, 1889–90. After 1890, devoted all his time to research. Prolific writer in German and Swedish on anatomy, histology, and anthropology. (DSB; SBL.) 12 February 1875 Reuter, Adolf (1825–1901). German horticulturist. Studied horticulture in the Prussian royal botanic gardens at Sanssouci and Berlin from 1843; Liege, Ghent, Paris, and Kew, 1850–4. Planteur in the royal nursery, Sanssouci, 1854; inspector, 1865; head gardener, 1866. Head court gardener, 1894. (Gartenflora 51 (1902): 64–8.) Rhŷs, John (1840–1915). Celtic scholar. BA, Oxford, 1869; fellow of Merton College, Oxford, 1869. Honorary fellow, Jesus College, Oxford, 1877–81; fellow and bursar, 1881; principal, 1895. Professor of Celtic, Oxford, 1877. His principal interest was Celtic and Welsh philology, but he also worked on ethnology, archaeology, and the history of religion. (ODNB.) Riccardi, Paolo ( fl. 1870s). Italian naturalist. Doctorate by 1879, professor by 1880. Fellow of the Società dei Naturalisti in Modena, 1874–9; secretary, 1874–7. (Atti della Società dei Naturalisti e Matematici di Modena, 1874–80; Barbieri and Taddei 2006; EI.) Riedel, Johan Gerard Friedrich (1832–1911). Dutch naturalist. Colonial administrator in the East Indies, 1853–83. ( Jobling 2010.) 30 June 1875 Riemann, Rudolf Ehrenfried (Rudolf) (1825–85). German agriculturalist and promoter of alpine tourism. In the late 1840s, studied agriculture, ecology, and natural science at Berlin. Bought the manor at Sagschütz bei Breslau, where he was a sheep-breeder, 1850. Bought an estate at Zell am See, 1868. Chairman, Pinzgau alpine club, 1871. Responsible for building several mountain paths and guest-houses and organising guided climbing in the area. (Pachmann 1925, p. 44; Scholz 2011.) 9 July 1875 Riley, Charles Valentine (1843–95). Entomologist. Emigrated to the United States circa 1859. Worked as a livestock farmer in Illinois. Wrote and illustrated for the Prairie Farmer in Chicago, 1863–8; served in a volunteer regiment in 1864. State entomologist of Missouri, 1868–76. Became a US citizen in 1869. Chief of the Department of the Interior’s US Entomological Commission, 1877–82. Entomologist with the Division of Entomology of the Department of Agriculture, 1878, 1881–94. Appointed honorary curator of the Department of Insects

670

Biographical register

of the Smithsonian Institution, 1881. Organised the American Association of Economic Entomologists in 1889. (ANB.) 30 May 1875, 25 June [1875] Ritchie, Emily Marion (1851/2–1932). Sister of Richmond Thackeray Willoughby Ritchie, cousin and later husband of Anne Isabella Thackeray, daughter of William Makepeace Thackeray. Edited a collection of Anne Thackeray’s work, From friend to friend (1919). Photographed by Julia Margaret Cameron. (BMD (Death index); Cox and Ford 2003.) Robertson, George Croom (1842–92). Philosopher and psychologist. MA, Marischal College, Aberdeen, 1861. Studied philosophy and psychology in Germany, 1862–3. Grote Professor of mind and logic, University College, London, 1866. First editor of Mind, 1876–91. Promoted women’s suffrage and the admission of women to classes in the University of London. (ODNB.) 17 February 1875, 19 February [1875] Rogers, Henry Darwin (1808–66). American geologist. Professor of geology and mineralogy, University of Pennsylvania, 1835. Appointed director of the geological survey of New Jersey, 1835; of Pennsylvania, 1836. Chairman, Association of American Geologists, 1843. Regius professor of natural history, Glasgow University, 1857–66. FRS 1858. (DAB; DSB; Record of the Royal Society of London.) Rokitansky, Karl Freiherr von (1804–78). Austrian anatomist. Professor of pathological anatomy, Vienna, 1844. President of the Kaiserliche königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, 1867–78. (OBL.) Rolfe, Robert Monsey, 1st Baron Cranworth of Cranworth (1790–1868). Statesman and jurist. Whig MP for Penryn and Falmouth, 1832–9. Solicitorgeneral, 1834 and 1835–9. Created Baron Cranworth of Cranworth, 1850. Lord justice of appeal, 1851–2. Lord chancellor, 1852–8 and 1865–6. Holwood Park, his country residence, was a mile and a half north of Down House, the Darwins’ residence. (Dod’s parliamentary companion; Freeman 1978; ODNB.) Rolleston, George (1829–81). Physician and physiologist. Appointed physician to the British Civil Hospital at Smyrna (Izmir), Turkey, 1855, during the Crimean War. Physician to Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, and Lee’s Reader in anatomy at Christ Church, Oxford, 1857. Linacre Professor of anatomy and physiology, Oxford University, 1860–81. FRS 1862. (ODNB.) 30 August 1875, 2 September [1875] Romanes, George John (1848–94). Evolutionary biologist. Of independent means. BA, Cambridge, 1871. Struggled to combine scientific reason and Christian faith. Carried out physiological studies on jellyfish, and wrote on the evolutionary psychology of animals and humans. Studied under John Scott Burdon Sanderson, 1874–6. Honorary secretary of the Physiological Society, set up to influence legislation on vivisection, 1876. FRS 1879. (Alum. Cantab.; DSB; ODNB; Record of the Royal Society of London.) 13 January [1875], 14 January 1875, 7 April [1875], 21 April 1875, 12 July [1875], 14 July 1875, 18 July 1875, 20 July 1875, 24 September [1875], 29 September 1875,

Biographical register

671

8 October 1875, [before 4 November 1875], [4 November 1875], 4 November 1875, 17 [December 1875], [before 26 December 1875], 26 December 1875 Rosenstein, Samuel Siegmund (Siegmund) (1832–1906). German-born physician. MD, Berlin, 1854. Practised in Danzig, 1856–8, Berlin, 1858–65. Professor of medicine, Groningen, 1865–73. Professor of medicine and pathology, Leiden University, 1873–1902. (Dutch medical biography.) Ross-Lewin, Robert O’Donelan (1850–1922). Clergyman, artist, and songwriter. Curate of Ponteland, Northumberland, 1873–6. Royal Navy chaplain, 1876–92. Served on HMS London, 1877–82. Rector of Wark-on-Tyne, 1892–1917; rural dean of Bellingham, 1904–17. (Clergy list; The Times, 14 March 1922, p. 9.) Rost, Reinhold (1822–96). German-born Orientalist. Oriental lecturer, St Augustine’s Missionary College, Canterbury, 1851–96. Secretary, Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1863–9. Librarian at the India Office, 1869–93. (ODNB.) Rothery, Henry Cadogan (1817–88). Legal adviser. BA, Cambridge (St John’s) 1840. Employed in ecclesiastical and Admiralty courts from 1842. Became registrar of the Privy Council in ecclesiastical and maritime causes, circa 1854. In 1860, succeeded his father as legal adviser to the Treasury in questions and proceedings arising out of the slave trade. Appointed commissioner to inquire into the causes and circumstances of maritime wrecks, 1876. Fellow of the Linnean Society, 1847. (List of the Linnean Society of London; ODNB.) Roxburgh, William (1751–1815). Scottish botanist and surgeon. Medical officer with the Madras Medical Service, 1776–80. Superintendent, Samulcotta Botanic Garden, 1781–93. Chief botanist to the East India Company and superintendent of the Calcutta Botanic Garden, 1793–1813. (R. Desmond 1994; ODNB.) Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. 30 April 1875, 3 May 1875 Royal Society of London. 27 November 1875 Ruck, Arthur Ashley (1847–1939). Soldier and civic official. Entered the army in 1866; major, 1882; retired with the rank of lieutenant-colonel, 1886. Chief constable of Carnarvonshire after his retirement from the army until 1912. (Army list; BMD (Birth index); Records of the Carnarvonshire Constabulary, GB 0219 XJ, XS/1234 (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk, accessed 17 January 2014); The Times, 15 July 1939, p. 1.) Ruck, Lawrence (1819/20–96). Landowner. Married Mary Anne Matthews in 1841. Father of Amy Richenda Ruck, who married Francis Darwin in 1874. (BMD (Death index, Marriage index); Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11/5478/64/18); Montgomeryshire collections 17: 52; ODNB s.v. Darwin, Bernard Richard Meirion, and Darwin, Sir Francis.) Rüdinger, Nicolaus R. (1832–96). German physician and anatomist. MD, Giessen, 1855. Demonstrator in anatomy, Munich, 1855; honorary professor of medicine,

672

Biographical register

1868; professor extraordinarius, 1870; professor of anatomy and co-director of the anatomical institute, 1880. Wrote on anatomical and anthropological topics. (ADB.) Russell, Arthur John Edward (Arthur) (1825–92). Member of Parliament. Brother of the ninth duke of Bedford, Hastings Russell. Granted the rank of a duke’s younger son. Private secretary to Lord John Russell, 1849–54. Liberal MP for Tavistock, 1857–85. Member of the Royal Geographical, Linnean, and Zoological Societies of London, and the Anthropological Institute. (Grant Duff 1903, 2: 112–28; Stenton 1976.) Russell, Mr ( fl. 1870s). Arranged for the delivery of the first part of Fitzgerald 1875–94 to CD. (Letter to R. D. Fitzgerald, 16 July 1875.) 26 June [1875], 12 July 1875 Rütimeyer, Karl Ludwig (Ludwig) (1825–95). Swiss palaeozoologist and geographer. Professor of zoology and comparative anatomy, University of Basel, 1855; rector, 1865; professor in the medical and philosophical faculties, 1874–93. Made important contributions to the natural history and evolutionary palaeontology of ungulate mammals. (DSB.) 17 July 1875 Ryder, Dudley, 2d earl of Harrowby (1798–1882). Politician. BA, Oxford (Christ Church), 1820. MP for Tiverton, 1819–31; Liverpool, 1831–47. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1855; lord privy seal, 1855–8. President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and prominent defender of the Church of England. Became second earl of Harrowby in 1847. FRS 1853. (ODNB.) Sabine, Joseph (1770–1837). Elder brother of Edward Sabine. Barrister and horticulturist. Honorary secretary of the Horticultural Society, 1810–30. Treasurer of the Zoological Society, 1830. An authority on British birds. FRS 1799. (DNB.) Sachs, Julius (1832–97). German botanist and plant physiologist. PhD, Prague, 1856. Research assistant, forestry academy, Tharandt, 1859. Professor of botany, agricultural training institute, Poppelsdorf, 1861; professor, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1867; Wurzburg, 1868. Founded the institute of plant physiology, Wurzburg. Ennobled, 1877. (DBE; DSB.) 4 July 1875 Sallier de la Tour, Vittorio (1827–94). Italian diplomat. Appointed Italian extraordinary envoy to Portugal, January 1864; Mexico, December 1864; Japan and China, 1867; Sweden, 1871; Rio de Janeiro, 1879. (Moscati 1961; María Pilar Araguás Biescas, ‘Objetos orientales en la colección romana del conde Vittorio Sallier de La Tour (1888)’, www.adecjapan.es/congreso-aeje/programa/comunicaciones/49-pilar-araguas.html (accessed 9 July 2014); The Times, 10 September 1879, p. 5.) Salmon, John Drew (1802–59). Ornithologist and botanist. Probably trained as a maltster under his father; worked in breweries in Thetford and later Godalming. Collected eggs from an early age and donated specimens to the Norfolk and

Biographical register

673

Norwich Museum. By 1843, had joined the Botanical Society of London; compiled a flora of Surrey from 1849. Manager of the Wenham Lake Ice Company from 1851. Fellow of the Linnean Society of London. (ODNB.) Salvin, Osbert (1835–98). Ornithologist and entomologist. Undertook natural history explorations in North Africa, 1857, and Central America, 1857–60, 1861–3, 1873–4. Strickland Curator of ornithology, University of Cambridge, 1874–82. FRS 1873. (DNB.) 22 August [1875] Sandwith, Humphry (1822–81). Author and military surgeon. Surgeon to Austen Henry Layard’s expedition to Nineveh, 1849–51. In charge of the British hospital at Constantinople (Istanbul), 1851–4. Chief medical officer to the British and Turkish forces at Kars during the Crimean War, 1854–5. Wrote A narrative of the siege of Kars (1856). Colonial secretary of Mauritius, 1857–9. Campaigned on behalf of the Serbs in their war against the Ottoman Empire, 1876–7. (ODNB.) 25 April 1875, 26 April 1875 Sandwith, Lucy Ann (1842–82). Daughter of Robert Hargreaves. Married Humphry Sandwith in 1860. (ODNB s.v. Sandwith, Humphry.) Saporta, Louis Charles Joseph Gaston (Gaston), comte de (1823–96). French palaeobotanist. Specialist on the Tertiary and Jurassic flora. Wrote extensively on the relationship between climatic change and palaeobotany. (DSB.) Sayce, Archibald Henry (1845–1933). Orientalist and comparative philologist. BA, Oxford, 1869; fellow, Queen’s College, Oxford, 1869; lecturer and tutor, 1870. Ordained priest, 1870. Wrote for The Times and the New York Independent. Deputy professor of comparative philology, Oxford, 1876–90. Moved to Egypt in 1890; helped to found the Alexandria Museum, Cairo. Professor of Assyriology, Oxford, 1891–1915. (Alum. Oxon.; ODNB.) Schacht, Hermann (1814–64). German botanist. Pharmacist until 1847. Private lecturer, Berlin, 1853–60. Professor of botany and director of the botanical garden at Bonn, 1860–4. Specialised in plant anatomy and embryology. (Taxonomic literature.) Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von (1775–1854). German philosopher. (ADB.) Schiff, Moritz (1823–96). German physiologist. Studied biology and medicine, specialising in comparative anatomy and physiology, at Heidelberg, Berlin, and Göttingen; PhD, Göttingen, 1845. Professor extraordinarius of comparative anatomy, Bern,1856; professor of physiology, Istituto di Studii Superiori, Florence, 1862–76; professor of physiology, Geneva, 1876. Studied the physiology of the spinal cord, cardiac contraction, and digestion, and was important in the development of physiological chemistry as a discipline. (DSB; NDB.) Schleiden, Matthias Jacob (1804–81). German botanist, author, and lecturer. Trained and practised as a lawyer but abandoned the profession in 1833 for medical and botanical studies at Göttingen and Berlin. Honorary professor of botany, University of Jena, 1846; professor, 1850–62. Professor of plant chemistry,

674

Biographical register

University of Dorpat, 1863–4. Thereafter a private lecturer, residing in various German cities. (ADB; DBE; DSB.) Schmidt, Eduard Oskar (Oskar) (1823–86). German zoologist. Professor extraordinarius of zoology, Jena, 1849; director of the zoological museum, 1851. Professor of zoology and comparative anatomy, Graz, 1857; director of the agricultural and zoological museum, 1863. Professor of zoology and zootomy, Strasbourg, 1872. His major research interest was the anatomy of sponges. His inaugural lecture supporting Darwinism, made in 1865 at the University of Graz, led to conflict with the Catholic Church in Austria and sparked a wider debate between Catholics and German nationalists at the university. (ADB; OBL.) Schöbl, Josef (1837–1902). Bohemian physician. MD, Prague, 1861. State ophthalmologist, Prague, 1867. Professor of ophthalmology, technical university, Prague, 1883. Author of many works on medicine and natural history in German and Czech. (Biographisches Lexikon zur Geschichte der Böhmischen Länder.) Schreiner, Carl (Carlos) (1849–96). German-born Brazilian naturalist. Assistant naturalist, Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, 1872; travelling naturalist, 1889; subdirector, zoological section, 1895. (Beolens et al. 2014.) Schultze, Fritz (1846–1908). German philosopher. (NUC.) 12 June 1875, 14 June [1875] Schulze, Franz Eilhard (1840–1921). German zoologist and physician. MD, Rostock, 1863; habilitated in anatomy, 1864; professor extraordinarius of medicine and surgery, 1865; professor of zoology and comparative anatomy, 1871. Took part in a research expedition in the North Sea, 1872. Professor, Graz, 1873; set up a zoological institute there. Co-founder of the Zoological Station, Trieste, 1875. Professor of zoology and comparative anatomy, Berlin, 1884; emeritus, 1917. His research focused mainly on the anatomy, physiology, and development of Hexactinellida (glass sponges). (NDB.) Schweinfurth, Georg August (Georg) (1836–1925). German explorer, botanist, geologist, and palaeontologist. Studied botany in Heidelberg, Munich, and Berlin, 1856–62; DPhil., botany, Heidelberg, 1863. Beginning with his doctoral dissertation on plants of the Nile region, published a series of works on African flora. Made many botanical collecting trips in Africa for the Prussian Academy of Sciences, but also made discoveries in anthropology, geology, and archaeology. Published a popular account of his African travels in 1874. Founded a geographical society in Cairo in 1878. (NDB.) E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. German publishing company in Stuttgart. Founded by Wilhelm Emanuel Schweizerbart in 1830; conducted by his nephew Christian Friedrich Schweizbart from 1841, and by Eduard Koch from 1867. (Jubiläums-Katalog.) Sclater, Philip Lutley (1829–1913). Lawyer and ornithologist. One of the founders of Ibis, the journal of the British Ornithologists’ Union, 1858; editor, 1858– 65 and 1878–1912. Secretary of the Zoological Society of London, 1860–1903. FRS 1861. (DSB; Scherren 1905.)

Biographical register

675

Scott, John (1836–80). Scottish botanist. Gardener at several different country estates, before becoming foreman of the propagating department at the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, in 1859. Through CD’s patronage emigrated to India in 1864, and worked briefly on a Cinchona plantation before taking a position as curator of the Calcutta botanic garden in 1865. Seconded to the opium department, 1872–8. Carried out numerous botanical experiments and observations on CD’s behalf. Fellow of the Linnean Society of London, 1873. (Lightman ed. 2004; ODNB.) Scott, William Henry (1849–1917). Solicitor. Son of William Robson Scott, principal of the West of England Institution for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb. Practised in London, 1871–82, Bradford, Yorkshire, 1883–1905, and Ilkley, Yorkshire, 1890–1905. Retired to Bromley, Kent, by 1911. (BMD (Birth index); Census returns of England and Wales 1911 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG14/3633/72); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 18 February 2015); Law list; letter from W. H. Scott, 13 November 1875.) 13 November 1875 Scott, William Robson (1811–77). Teacher. Principal of the West of England Institution for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb, 1841–77. In his book, The deaf and dumb, he provided the earliest comprehensive linguistic analysis of British Sign Language. (Arnold 1901, pp. 74–5; BMD (Death index); Branson and Miller 2002, p. 158.) Secretary of the Royal Commission on vivisection. 8 November 1875 Sedgwick, Adam (1785–1873). Geologist and clergyman. Woodwardian Professor of geology, Cambridge University, 1818–73. Prebendary of Norwich Cathedral, 1834–73. President, Geological Society of London, 1829–31; British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1833. FRS 1821. (DSB; ODNB; Record of the Royal Society of London.) Sedgwick, Sara Price Ashburner (1839–1902). Daughter of Sara Ashburner and Theodore Sedgwick. Sister of Susan Ridley Sedgwick Norton. Married William Erasmus Darwin in 1877. (Freeman 1978; Turner 1999.) Segrave, William Francis (1825/6–1903). Army officer and diplomat. Captain in the seventy-first Highland Light Infantry. Served in the Crimean War, the Indian Mutiny, and the 1863 campaign against the hill tribes on the NorthWest Frontier of India. British consul in the Island of Réunion, 1867–74, Stockholm, 1874–9, and later in Nantes and Baltimore. (Highland Light Infantry Chronicle 3 (1903): 881; London Gazette, 20 February 1874, p. 766, and 10 October 1879, p. 5831.) 28 May 1875 Seidlitz, Georg Karl Maria (Georg) von (1840–1917). Baltic German entomologist. Privat-dozent, Dorpat, 1868–77. Docent and assistant for zoology, medical faculty, Königsberg, 1877–9. Landowner and farmer near Königsberg, 1879–88.

676

Biographical register

Specialised in the study of beetles in eastern German provinces and Russia. (Entomologische Blätter 13 (1917) : 239–48.) 17 July 1875 Sella, Quintino (1827–84). Italian mineralogist, crystallographer, and statesman. Professor of geometry (later of mathematics), Instituto Tecnico di Torino (later University of Turin), 1852. An active member of the Accademia dei Lincei; a founding member of the Italian geological society and of the Alpine Club. Entered politics in 1860. Italian minister of finance, 1862, 1865, and 1869–73. (EI; Sarjeant 1980–96.) 28 November 1875, 4 December 1875 Semper, Carl Gottfried (1832–93). German zoologist. Studied engineering, Hannover, 1851–4. Studied zoology, histology, and comparative anatomy, University of Würzburg; completed his thesis in 1856. Travelled in the Philippines and Palau Islands, 1858–65, and acquired zoological and ethnographical collections. Appointed privat-dozent, University of Würzburg, 1866; professor and director of the Zoological Institute, 1869. Published on zoology (especially molluscs), geography, and ethnography. (DSB.) Severtsov, Nikolai Alekseevich (1827–85). Russian naturalist, zoologist, geographer, and explorer. Studied at Moscow University, 1843–6; MSc, Moscow, with a thesis in zoology, 1855; honorary doctorate, 1868. Travelled in Turkestan, Kazakhstan, Pamir, and Siberia. Formulated his own theory of evolution, rejecting the analogy between artificial selection and the formation of new species in the wild. (Tort 1996 s.v. Severcov, Nikolaj Alekseevič.) 25 September [1875] Shaen, William (1821–87). Lawyer. Studied classics at University College, London, and law at Edinburgh University; became a solicitor in 1848. Founder of the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association. Part of a group of London Unitarians working for political and social reform. Involved with a number of controversial legal cases, including the Jamaica committee, set up in 1866 to lobby for the governor of Jamaica to be tried for his excesses in suppressing the Morant Bay rebellion of 1865. (ODNB.) Sharpey, William (1802–80). Scottish physiologist. MD, Edinburgh University, 1823. Joint lecturer on systematic anatomy, Edinburgh University, 1832. Professor of anatomy and physiology, University College, London, 1836–74. Examiner in anatomy, London University, from 1840. Secretary of the Royal Society of London, 1853–72. Member of the General Medical Council, 1861–76. FRS 1839. (DNB; DSB.) Sibson, Francis (1814–76). Physician. Apprenticed to a surgeon in Edinburgh, 1828; studied at Guy’s and St Thomas’s Hospitals, London; resident surgeon and apothecary, Nottingham General Hospital, 1835–48. Set up a consulting practice in London in 1848; physician to Joseph Dalton Hooker and his family. Physician at St Mary’s Hospital, 1851–71. Lectured on medicine. Published on the physiology and pathology of respiration. FRS 1849. (ODNB; Physicians.)

Biographical register

677

Sidgwick, Henry (1838–1900). Philosopher. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1859; fellow and lecturer in classics, 1859–69; lecturer, 1869–83; Knightbridge Professor of moral philosophy, 1883–1900. Author of The methods of ethics (1874). First president of the Society for Psychical Research (1882–5). Promoter of the higher education of women. (ODNB.) Siebold, Karl Theodor Ernst von (1804–85). German zoologist and doctor. District physician, Heilsburg, 1831; Königsberg, 1834. Professor extraordinarius of zoology, comparative anatomy, and veterinary medicine, Erlangen, 1840; Freiburg, 1845. Professor of physiology, Breslau, 1850. Professor of physiology and comparative anatomy, Munich, 1853; of zoology and comparative anatomy, 1855. Curator, Bavarian state zoological collection, 1855. Co-founder and editor of Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 1848. A supporter of Darwinian transmutation theory; did research on generation, especially parthenogenesis. (ADB; DBE; DSB.) Siegel, Heinrich (1830–99). Austrian legal historian and jurist. Studied law at Heidelberg and Bonn. Professor extraordinarius of German imperial history and legal history, Vienna, 1858; professor, 1862. Member, Imperial Academy of Science, 1863; secretary of the philosophical-historical section, 1874; general secretary, 1875. (BLKO.) Simon, John (1816–1904). Surgeon and public-health officer. Apprentice at St Thomas’s Hospital, London, 1833–9; demonstrator in anatomy at King’s College, London, 1839–47; senior assistant surgeon, King’s College Hospital, 1840–53; lecturer in anatomical pathology at St Thomas’s Hospital, 1847–71; full surgeon at St Thomas’s, 1863–76. President of the Pathological Society, 1867; council of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1868–80; president, 1878. First medical officer of health to the Sewers Commission of the City of London from 1848; chief medical officer of the Board of Health and its successors, 1855–76. Important sanitary reformer and publiciser of public-health problems. Knighted, 1887. (ODNB.) Simpson, James Young (1811–70). Physician. MD, Edinburgh, 1832. Professor of midwifery, Edinburgh University, from 1839. Introduced the use of chloroform as an anaesthetic in 1847. (ODNB.) Smee, Alfred (1818–77). Chemist and surgeon. Studied medicine at King’s College and St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London. Interested in chemistry and electricity; developed a battery cell that was used to produce electrotypes, including those used for printing bank-notes. Surgeon general to the Bank of England, 1841. Founder and medical officer of the Gresham Life Assurance and Accident Company. Published on a variety of subjects, including a book about his garden in Wallington, Surrey. FRS 1841. (ODNB.) Smith, Elder & Co. Publishers. Partnership of George Smith (1789–1846) and Alexander Elder (1790–1876). (Modern English biography; ODNB s.v. Smith, George Murray (1824–1901).) 30 October 1875

678

Biographical register

Smith, Frederick (1805–79). Entomologist. Entomologist in the zoology department of the British Museum from 1849. Specialised in the Hymenoptera. President of the Entomological Society of London, 1862–3. (Entomologist 12 (1879): 89–92; P. Gilbert 1977.) Smith, John (1821–88). Scottish gardener. Gardener to the duke of Roxburgh; to the duke of Northumberland at Syon House, Middlesex, 1859–64. Curator, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1864–86. (R. Desmond 1994.) Smith, Samuel (1832/3–83). Clergyman. Associate in theology, King’s College, London, 1860; deacon, 1860; priest, 1861. Chaplain and secretary to the Royal Association in Aid of the Deaf and Dumb; minister, St Saviour’s Church, London. (Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11/92/51/20); Crockford’s clerical directory; The Times, 5  January 1883, p. 7.) Smith, Timothy (1820–63). Gentleman. Born in Boston, Lincolnshire, the son of Joseph and Mary Smith. Married Mary Pauline Smith (1826–63) in London in 1853. (England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 17 December 2014); England, select births and christenings, 1538–1975 (Ancestry.com, accessed 17 December 2014); London Metropolitan Archives, All Saints, Paddington, Register of marriages (P87/ALL 003) (Ancestry.com, accessed 17 December 2014).) Smith, Walter Joseph (1859–1923). Agriculturist. At Charterhouse, 1873–7. Tea and coffee planter in Ceylon (Sri Lanka). (Charterhouse register, 1872–1900; England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 6 October 2014).) Smith, William (1813–93). Classical and biblical scholar. Taught classics at University College School; professor of classics, Independent College, St John’s Wood. Published many classical grammars and textbooks. Editor of the Quarterly Review, 1867–93. Knighted, 1892. (ODNB.) Smith, William Henry (1825–91). Newsagent and politician. In  1851, secured a monopoly of bookstalls on the London and North-Western railway and by 1862 had secured exclusive bookstall rights on all the important English railway systems. Member of Parliament, 1868–91, holding cabinet posts in various administrations. (ODNB.) Socrates (469–399 bce). Greek philosopher. (Oxford classical dictionary.) Sorby, Henry Clifton (1826–1908). Geologist. Pioneered microscopic petrology. President of the Geological Society, 1878–80. Established the chair of geology at Sheffield University. FRS 1857. (DNB; DSB.) Sowerby, George Brettingham Jr (1812–84). Conchologist and illustrator. Assisted his father, George Brettingham Sowerby (1788–1854), in a business selling natural history specimens; succeeded to the business in 1854. Illustrated numerous works on shells. Fellow of the Linnean Society of London, 1844. (DNB s.v. Sowerby, George Brettingham the elder.) Spence, William (1783–1860). Entomologist. A founder of the Entomological

Biographical register

679

Society of London, 1833; president, 1847. Author, with William Kirby, of Introduction to entomology (1815–26). FRS 1834. (DNB; P. Gilbert 1977.) Spencer, Herbert (1820–1903). Philosopher. Apprenticed as a civil engineer on the railways, 1837–41. Became subeditor of the Pilot, a newspaper devoted to the suffrage movement, in 1844. Subeditor of the Economist, 1848–53. From  1852, author of books and papers on transmutation theory, philosophy, and the social sciences. (DSB; ODNB.) 7 July 1875, 13 November 1875 Spottiswoode, William (1825–83). Mathematician and physicist. Succeeded his father as queen’s printer in 1846. Throughout his life pursued mathematical studies in which he supplied new proofs of known theorems and also did important original work; produced a series of memoirs on the contact of curves and surfaces. President of the mathematical section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1865; of the Royal Society of London, 1878–83. FRS 1853. (DNB.) Sprengel, Christian Konrad (1750–1816). German botanist. Rector of the Great Lutheran Town School, Spandau, where he taught languages and natural science, 1780–94. Moved to Berlin, where he worked as a private tutor. Published his major work on insect-aided fertilisation of flowers in 1793. (ADB; DSB.) Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn (1815–81). Clergyman, ecclesiastical historian, and travel writer. Fellow of University College, Oxford, 1838–50; secretary of the Oxford University commission, 1850–2. Canon of Canterbury, 1851. Professor of ecclesiastical history, Oxford University, 1856; canon of Christ Church, 1858. Dean of Westminster, 1864–81. (DNB.) Stanley, Edward Henry, 15th earl of Derby (1826–93). Politician and diarist. BA (Trinity College), Cambridge, 1848. MP for King’s Lynn, 1848–69. Visited the West Indies twice, 1848–50. First secretary of state for India from 1858. Foreign secretary from 1874. Colonial secretary from 1882. Succeeded to the earldom in October 1869. (ODNB.) 15 April 1875, 17 April 1875 Stanley, John Thomas, 1st Baron Stanley of Alderley (1766–1850). Politician. MP for Wootton Basset, 1790–96. Created first Baron Stanley of Alderley, 1839. FRS 1790. (Complete peerage; Record of the Royal Society of London.) Stanley, Mary Catherine, countess of Derby (1824–1900). Political hostess. Daughter of George Sackville-West, fifth Earl De La Warr (1791–1869). Married James Brownlow William Gascoyne-Cecil in 1847. After his death, married Edward Henry Stanley, fifteenth earl of Derby, in 1870. Deeply involved in Conservative politics. (ODNB.) 14 September 1875, 22 December 1875 Steudel, Ernst Gottlieb (1783–1856). Swiss physician and botanist. Began medical practice in Esslingen, Switzerland, in 1806. Senior consultant, 1828–56. (ADB.)

680

Biographical register

Stokes, George Gabriel, 1st baronet (1819–1903). Physicist. Lucasian Professor of mathematics, Cambridge University, 1849–1903. Secretary of the Royal Society of London, 1854–85; president, 1885–90. President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1869. Conservative MP for Cambridge University, 1887–91. Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, 1902–3. Created baronet, 1889. FRS 1851. (DSB; ODNB.) 20 December 1875, 22 December 1875 Storer, John (1811–76). Clergyman and author on cattle-breeding. BA, Cambridge (Trinity Hall), 1834. Deacon, 1834; priest, 1835. Rector of Hawksworth, Nottinghamshire, 1837–50. Frequent contributor to the Live Stock Journal under the pen name Historicus. His account of the wild white cattle of Great Britain was published posthumously. (Alum. Cantab.; Storer [1879], p. xx.) [before 3 October 1875] (to William Boyd Dawkins) Story-Maskelyne, Mervyn Herbert Nevil (Nevil) (1823–1911). Mineralogist. Lectured on mineralogy, Oxford University, 1850–7; professor of mineralogy, 1856–95. Keeper of the mineral department, British Museum, 1857–80. MP for Cricklade, 1880–5; North Wiltshire, 1885–92. FRS 1870. (Alum. Oxon.; Morton 1987; ODNB.) 26 December 1875 Story-Maskelyne, Thereza Mary (1834–1926). Welsh botanist, astronomer, and experimental photographer. A granddaughter of the naturalist Lewis Weston Dillwyn, and daughter of the photographer John Dillwyn Llewelyn. Supplied climate data to the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Married Mervyn Herbert Nevil Story-Maskelyne, professor of mineralogy, University of Oxford, in 1858. Mother of three daughters, including the educator and gardener Thereza, Lady Rucker. (Morton 1987; ODNB s.v. Llewelyn, John Dillwyn, and Rucker, Thereza Charlotte.) Strachey, Richard (1817–1908). Army officer, botanist, and geographer. Served in the Bengal engineers; lieutenant, 1841; major-general, 1871; lieutenant-general, 1875. Studied botany, physical geography, and geology in India. Carried out scientific expeditions in the Himalayas. Collected plants in Tibet, 1848. Consulting engineer in the railway department, 1858; secretary and head of the public works department, 1862. Member of the Council of India, 1875–89. President of the Royal Geographical Society, 1888–90. FRS 1854. (ODNB; Sarjeant 1980–96.) Strahan, Alexander Stuart (1833–1918). Scottish publisher. Founded Strahan & Co.  in partnership with William Isbister in 1858; moved to London in 1862. Founded the periodicals Good Words, the Sunday Magazine, Argosy, and the Contemporary Review. Forced to resign from Strahan & Co., 1872; in 1874 the firm’s name was changed to Isbister & Co. (ODNB.) Strasburger, Eduard Adolf (Eduard) (1844–1912). Botanist. Inspired by Ernst Haeckel’s enthusiasm for Darwin’s theory of evolution. Studied natural sciences in Paris, Bonn, and Jena from 1862. PhD in botany, 1866. Professor extraordinarius and director of the Botanical Institute, Jena, 1869; professor, 1871. Taught at

Biographical register

681

the University of Bonn from 1881; rector, 1891–2. Travelled through Italy, Egypt, and around the Red Sea. Co-editor of Jahrbuch für wissenschaftliche Botanik from 1894. Published histological–cytological works on plant fertilisation. (DBE; DSB.) Strickland, Sefton West (1839–1910). Conveyancer and equity draftsman. Friend of William Erasmus Darwin. BA, Cambridge (Christ’s College), 1862. Admitted to Lincoln’s Inn, 1863; called to the bar, 1866. (Alum. Cantab.) Strutt, John William, 3d Baron Rayleigh (1842–1919). Experimental and mathematical physicist. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1865; fellow, 1866–71; Cavendish Professor of experimental physics, 1879–84. Professor, natural philosophy, Royal Institution of Great Britain, 1887–1905. Nobel prize, physics, 1904. Co-discoverer of the inert element argon. Became third Baron Rayleigh in 1873. FRS 1873. (Alum. Cantab.; ODNB.) Stuart, Andrew John, 6th Earl Castlestewart (1841–1921). Civil servant. Matriculated at St John’s, Cambridge, 1860. Joined the Indian Civil Service, 1861. Served in the Madras Presidency. Judge at Godoweri, 1879. Became blind. Retired in 1882. Succeeded his cousin as sixth earl and viscount and fourteenth Baron Castlestewart in 1914. (Alum. Cantab.) 2 September 1875 Stubbs, William (1825–1901). Historian and clergyman. BA, Oxford (Christ Church), 1848; fellow, Trinity College, Oxford, 1848. Ordained priest, 1850. Regius professor of modern history, Oxford, 1866. Bishop of Chester, 1884; Oxford, 1888. Wrote a constitutional history of England. (ODNB.) Sturtevant, Edward Lewis (1842–98). American agronomist. Graduated from Bowdoin, 1863; Harvard Medical School, 1866. With his two brothers, purchased Waushakum Farm, South Framingham, Massachusetts, which became renowned for agricultural experiment and innovation, in 1867. Co-editor of the Scientific Farmer, 1876–9. First director of the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, 1882–7. Published The dairy cow: a monograph on the Ayrshire breed (1875), and Sturtevant’s notes on edible plants (posthumously, 1919). Developed the Waushakum variety of yellow flint corn, and the New Christiana muskmelon. (DAB.) Sulivan, Bartholomew James (1810–90). Naval officer and hydrographer. Lieutenant on HMS Beagle, 1831–6. Surveyed the Falkland Islands in HMS Arrow, 1838–9. Commander of HMS Philomel, 1842–6. Resided in the Falkland Islands, 1848–51. Commanded HMS Lightning in the Baltic, 1854–5. Naval officer in the marine department of the Board of Trade, 1856–65. Admiral, 1877. Knighted, 1869. (ODNB.) 29 December 1875 Sulivan, George Lydiard (1832–1904). Naval officer. Youngest brother of Bartholomew James Sulivan. Lieutenant, 1853; commander, 1862; rear admiral, 1896; retired in 1892; admiral, 1897. (England, select births and christenings, 1538–1975 (Ancestry.com, accessed 18 August 2014); Sulivan ed. 1896; The Times, 5 July 1904, p. 10.)

682

Biographical register

Sulivan, Sophia (1809/10–90). Daughter of vice-admiral James Young, of Barton End, near Stroud, Gloucestershire. Married Bartholomew James Sulivan in 1837. (County families 1871, s.v. Sulivan, Bartholomew James; ODNB s.v. Sulivan, Bartholomew James; Sulivan ed. 1896, pp. xii, 395.) Sulivan, Thomas Baker Martin Mason (1826–1906). Naval officer. Cousin of Bartholomew James Sulivan. (England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 18 August 2014); England, select births and christenings, 1538–1975 (Ancestry.com, accessed 18 August 2014); Sulivan ed. 1896, p. 374.) Sully, James (1842–1923). Psychologist. Contributed to the child-study movement. Grote Professor of the philosophy of mind and logic at University College, London, 1892–1903. Instrumental in setting up the psychology laboratory at UCL, 1898. (ODNB.) 23 December 1875 Swan, Isabella Stuart (1819/20–1874). Sister of Eliza Mary Brodie Innes. Second daughter of John Laidlaw of Dominica, West Indies, and his wife Mary Stuart. Married Robert Dalgleish Swan, of Hythe, Kent, a coffee planter, in Kandy, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), 1844. Of Blessington Road, Lee, Kent, in 1866 and 1871. (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1851 (The National Archives: Public Record Office HO107/1633/570/9), 1871 (RG10/765/71/17); Correspondence vol. 12, letter from J. B. Innes to Emma Darwin, 23 January [1864]; Correspondence vol. 19, letter from J. B. Innes, 5 June 1871; Observer, 25 March 1844, p. 4; Post Office directory of the six home counties 1866.) Swayne, George ( 1745/6–1827). Botanist and clergyman. BA, Oxford (Wadham), 1766. Incumbent of Pucklechurch, Gloucestershire, from 1772, and also of Dyrham from 1806. (Alum. Oxon.; R. Desmond 1994.) Swinhoe, Robert (1836–77). Diplomat and ornithologist. Attached to the British consulate in Hong Kong, 1854; in Amoy (Xiamen), China, 1855. British vice-consul, Formosa (Taiwan), 1860–5; consul, 1865–73. Acting consul, Amoy, 1865–71; Ning-po (Ningbo), 1871–3; Chefoo (Yantai), 1873. Consul, Ning-po, 1873–5. Suffered two paralytic strokes, probably as a result of syphilis, shortly after becoming acting consul at Ning-po. Returned to China in 1873 after two years’ sick leave; suffered a further stroke after becoming consul of Ning-po and returned to England. Retired in 1875 due to ill health. Collected plants and animals in eastern Asia; wrote ornithological and zoological papers. FRS 1876. (P. D. Coates 1988; Foreign Office list 1877; Hall 1987; ODNB.) Sylvester, James Joseph (1814–97). Mathematician. Professor of natural philosophy, University College, London, 1838–41. Professor of mathematics, University of Virginia, 1841–2; Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, 1855–70; Johns Hopkins University, 1876–83. Savilian Professor of geometry, University of Oxford, 1883–94. FRS 1839. (ODNB; Parshall 2006.) Syme, James (1799–1870). Scottish surgeon. Studied at Edinburgh University, and visited medical schools in Germany in 1824. Taught and practised surgery at the

Biographical register

683

Brown Square school of medicine and later in his own lecture course. Established a private surgical hospital at Minto House, Edinburgh. Published Principles of surgery (1832). Professor of clinical surgery, University of Edinburgh, 1833–69. Surgeon-in-ordinary to the queen in Scotland from 1838. President of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, 1850. (ODNB.) Tait, Robert Lawson (Lawson) (1845–99). Scottish gynaecological surgeon. Studied in Edinburgh with James Young Simpson. House surgeon, Clayton Hospital, Wakefield, 1867–70. Started a practice in Birmingham in 1870. Junior surgeon, Birmingham and Midland Hospital for Women, 1871. Instigated a nurse’s training programme, and supported education and professional positions for women as nurses and doctors. Internationally recognised pioneer in abdominal surgery, especially ovariotomy. Professor of gynaecology, Queen’s College, Birmingham, 1887. Founding member of the Birmingham Medical Society; president of the Birmingham Medical Institute, 1889–93. (ODNB.) 12 March [1875], [13–15  March  1875], 16 March [1875], 17 March [1875], 20 March [1875], 25 March 1875, 27 March [1875], 8 April [1875], 2 June [1875], 4 June [1875], 5 June [1875], 11 June [1875], 12 June [1875], 12 June [1875], 13 June [1875], 16 June [1875], 17 June [1875], [after 17 June 1875], 24 June [1875], 15 July [1875], 17 [ July 1875], 19 July [1875], 20 July [1875], 21 July [1875], 22 July [1875] (from Francis Darwin), 15 August [1875], 16 August 1875, 7 September [1875], 10 September [1875], 11 October 1875, 15 October [1875], 23 October [1875], 6 November [1875], 16 November [1875], 16 November [1875], 20 November [1875], 23 November [1875], 25 November [1875], 27 November [1875], 29 November [1875], 1 December [1875] Tait, Sybil Anne (1844–1909). Daughter of William Stewart. Married Lawson Tait in 1871. (BMD (Birth index, Death index); West Yorkshire, England, marriages and banns, 1813–1935 (Ancestry.com, accessed 9 January 2014).) Teesdale, Ellen Augusta (1856–1941). Daughter of John Marmaduke and Maria Teesdale. (BMD (Birth index, Death index); Census returns of England & Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11/855/92/19).) Teesdale, Frances Maria (1846/7–1900). Daughter of John Marmaduke and Maria Teesdale. (BMD (Death index); London, England, births and baptisms, 1813–1906 (Ancestry.com, accessed 24 November 2014).) Teesdale, John Marmaduke (1818/19–88). Solicitor. A neighbour of CD from 1875; lived at Downe Hall. (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11/855/92/19); letter from Emma Darwin to J. B. Innes, 24 December [1875].) Teesdale, Julia (1847/8–1941). Daughter of John Marmaduke and Maria Teesdale. Married Montague Charles Perreau (1834–1917), officer in the Indian Army, in 1891. (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1891 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG12/895/76/23); Indian Army quarterly list for 1 January 1912 (Ancestry.com, accessed 24 November 2014); London, England, births and baptisms, 1813–1906 (Ancestry.com, accessed 7 October

684

Biographical register

2014); Surrey, England, marriages, 1754–1937 (Ancestry.com, accessed 7 October 2014).) Teesdale, Maria (1822–82). Poet. Daughter of Nathaniel Snell and Ann Oram Chauncy. Married John Marmaduke Teesdale in 1842. A neighbour of CD from 1875; lived at Downe Hall. Poems by M. T. was posthumously published by her children in 1888. (BMD (Death index, Marriage index); Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11/855/92/19); England, select births and christenings, 1538–1975 (Ancestry.com, accessed 24 November 2014); letter from Emma Darwin to J. B. Innes, 24 December [1875].) Teesdale, Marmaduke John (1844–1928). Solicitor. Assistant solicitor to the Treasury c. 1891. Son of John Marmaduke and Maria Teesdale. (BMD (Birth index, Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1861 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG9/10/54/42), 1891 (RG12/516/34/9).) Tegetmeier, William Bernhard (1816–1912). Editor, journalist, lecturer, and naturalist. Pigeon-fancier and expert on poultry. Pigeon and poultry editor of the Field, 1864–1907. Secretary of the Apiarian Society of London. (Field, 23 November 1912, p. 1070; ODNB; E. W. Richardson 1916.) 8 August [1875], 15 August [1875] Thiselton-Dyer, William Turner (1843–1928). Botanist. Educated at Christ Church, Oxford. Professor of natural history at the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, 1868–70. Professor of botany, Royal College of Science, Dublin, 1870–2; Royal Horticultural Society, London, 1872. Directed botanical teaching at the Department of Science and Art, South Kensington, London, 1873, 1875, 1876. Appointed assistant director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, by Joseph Dalton Hooker, 1875. Married Hooker’s eldest daughter, Harriet Anne, in 1877. Appointed director of Kew, 1885. Knighted, 1899. FRS 1880. (ODNB.) 14 April [1875], 7 July 1875, 12 July 1875, 21 July 1875, 23 July 1875, 28 September 1875, 30 September 1875, 3 October [1875], 16 October [1875], [16–22 October 1875], 20 October 1875, 22 October 1875, 26 October [1875], 16 December [1875], [19 December 1875] Thomasson, Beatrice (1870–1937). Daughter of John and Katharine Thomasson. Married John Arthur Coe in 1893. (BMD (Birth index, Marriage index); Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/3928/71/18); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 14 December 2014).) Thomasson, Franklin (1873–1941). Cotton spinner. Son of John and Katharine Thomasson. Married Elizabeth Lawton Coffin in 1895. (BMD (Birth index, Marriage index); Census returns of England and Wales 1891 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG12/3103/87/16), 1911 (RG14/79); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 14 December 2014).) Thomasson, John Pennington (1841–1904). Master spinner and landowner. MP for Bolton. (BMD (Birth index); Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The

Biographical register

685

National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/3928/71/18); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 14 December 2014); ODNB s.v. Lucas, Margaret Bright.) 23 March 1875 Thomasson, Katharine (1842–1932). Daughter of Samuel and Margaret Bright Lucas; wife of John Pennington Thomasson. (BMD (Birth index); Census returns of England and Wales  1861 (The National Archive: Public Record Office RG9/88/133/30), 1871 (RG10/3928/71/18); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 14 December 2014).) Thomasson, Lucas (1868–98). Engineer. Son of John and Katharine Thomasson. Owens College, Manchester, 1885–8. Manager, John Thomasson & Sons cotton-spinning factory, Bolton, 1888–9. (BMD (Birth index); Census returns of England and Wales  1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/3928/71/18); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 14 December 2014); UK, civil engineer records, 1820–1930 (Ancestry.com, accessed 14 December 2014).) Thompson, Joseph Parrish (1819–79). American clergyman. Graduated from Yale in 1838; studied for the ministry at Andover and New Haven. Ordained, 1840. Congregational clergyman in New York City, 1845–71. Anti-slavery campaigner. Studied Egyptology. Lived in Germany after his retirement. (DAB.) 20 December 1875 Thomson, Charles Wyville (1830–82). Scottish naturalist and oceanographer. Professor of mineralogy and geology, Queen’s College, Belfast, 1854–62; of natural history from 1862. Professor of botany, Royal College of Science, Dublin, 1868–70. Appointed regius professor of natural history, University of Edinburgh, 1870. Interested in deep-sea researches; appointed chief of the civilian scientific staff of the Challenger expedition, 1872–6. Knighted, 1877. FRS 1869. (DSB; ODNB.) Thomson, William (1819–90). Clergyman. BA, Oxford (Queen’s College), 1840. Ordained priest, 1843. College tutor, chaplain, and dean, Queen’s College, 1847; junior bursar, 1852; bursar, 1854. Select preacher, Oxford University, 1848; Bampton lecturer, 1853. Provost of Queen’s College, 1855. Chaplain-in-ordinary to the queen, 1859. Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, 1861–2; archbishop of York, 1862–90. (ODNB.) Thozet, Anthelme (1826–78). French-born botanist and agriculturist in Australia. Left France between 1848 and 1851 and moved to Sydney. Had an estate at Rockhampton, Queensland. JP 1877. (Capricornian, 8 June 1878, p. 11; Queenslander, 8 June 1878, p. 302.) Town, Daniel (1823/4–94). Carpenter, builder, and undertaker. Kept a shop and house on Station Road, Down. (Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11/855/92/20); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 14 December 2014); Post Office directory of the six home counties 1874.)

686

Biographical register

Traube, Moritz (1826–94). German chemist. Studied chemistry at Giessen, Breslau (Wrocław), and Berlin, receiving his doctorate in 1847. Worked in his father’s wine business, eventually setting up a private laboratory in Breslau in 1866. Stepped down as head of the business in 1886  and moved to Berlin in 1891. Worked on the oxidation process in animals and plants. Discovered that alcoholic fermentation was caused by a non-living enzyme. Developed the Traube cell, an artificial semi-permeable membrane, for osmotic investigations. (DBE; DSB.) 2 March 1875, 5 March 1875 Treat, Mary Lua Adelia (Mary) (1830–1923). American botanist and entomologist. Née Davis; married Joseph Treat in 1863. Moved to Vineland, New Jersey, in 1868 to join the intellectual and agricultural community established by Charles Landis. Wrote many scientific and popular works on plants and insects from 1869. Separated from her husband in 1874 and supported herself by her writing and by collecting plant and insect specimens. Corresponded with CD, Asa Gray, C. V. Riley, August Forel, and Gustav Mayr. Advocate of the theory of natural selection. Her most notable research was on the anatomy and behaviour of harvesting ants, and on carnivorous plants. (Burstyn ed. 1990.) 11 February 1875 Trench, John Power (1818–59). Army surgeon. MD, Edinburgh, 1840. Entered the army in 1841. Staff surgeon at Malta, 1853–9. ( Johnston 1917; Hart’s army list.) Turner, Dawson Fyers Duckworth (1857–1928). Son of Dawson William and Ophelia Turner. (Allan 1967.) Turner, Dawson William (1815–85). Philanthropist and education writer. Son of Dawson Turner; uncle of Joseph Dalton Hooker. Ordained deacon, 1840. Headmaster of the Royal Institution School, Liverpool, 1851–85. Benefactor of London hospitals. (ODNB s.v. Turner, Dawson; Modern English biography.) Turner, Effie Elizabeth (1853–1939). Daughter of Dawson William Turner and Ophelia Turner, née Dixon. J. D. Hooker’s cousin. Married Calverley Theodore Bewicke in 1878. (Allan 1967, Turner pedigree; BMD (Marriage index).) Turner, Mr ( fl. 1870s). 2 October 1875 Turner, Ophelia (1828–96). Née Dixon. Wife of Dawson William Turner. J. D. Hooker’s aunt by marriage. (Allan 1967, Turner pedigree.) Turner, William (1832–1916). Anatomist and administrator. Senior demonstrator to John Goodsir, professor of anatomy, University of Edinburgh, 1854–67; professor of anatomy, 1867–1916; principal, 1903–16. Published papers on anthropology and comparative anatomy from 1854. Knighted, 1886. FRS 1877. (DSB; ODNB.) Turpie, Roger (1834–1901). Mariner. Only mate certificate, 1854; first mate, 1856; master, 1860. Mate and later first officer on the London Missionary Society ship, John Williams, from 1856; captain from at least 1871 until 1894. (BMD (Death index); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858– 1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 30 January 2014); New Zealand Herald, 13 June 1896,

Biographical register

687

p. 2; UK and Ireland, masters and mates certificates, 1850–1927 (Ancestry.com, accessed 30 January 2014).) Tylor, Alfred (1824–84). Geologist. Educated at the School of the Society of Friends, Grove House, Tottenham. Entered the family brassfoundry business in 1840, but studied geology in his spare time. Wrote on the Quaternary period. Brother of Edward Burnett Tylor. (ODNB; Sarjeant 1980–96.) Tylor, Anna Rebecca (1831–1921). Daughter of Sylvanus Fox (1791/2–1851), woollen manufacturer of Wellington, Somerset. Married Edward Burnett Tylor in 1858. (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1841 (The National Archives: Public Record Office HO107/950/5/8/8); England, select births and christenings, 1538–1975 (Ancestry.com, accessed 14 December 2014); ODNB s.v. Tylor, Edward Burnett.) Tylor, Edward Burnett (1832–1917). Anthropologist. Educated at the School of the Society of Friends, Grove House, Tottenham. Author of Primitive culture (1871). Keeper of Oxford University Museum, 1883; reader in anthropology, Oxford University, 1883; professor, 1896; professor emeritus, 1909. President of the Anthropological Society, 1879–80, 1891–2. Helped to establish anthropology as a legitimate field of scientific enquiry. Knighted, 1912. FRS 1871. (Men and women of the time 1899, ODNB.) [28 January 1875], 29 January [1875], 4 May 1875 Tyndall, John (1820–93). Irish physicist, lecturer, and populariser of science. Studied in Marburg and Berlin, 1848–51. Professor of natural philosophy, Royal Institution of Great Britain, 1853–87; professor of natural philosophy, Royal School of Mines, 1859–68; superintendent of the Royal Institution, 1867–87. Scientific adviser to Trinity House and the Board of Trade, 1866–83. FRS 1852. (DSB; ODNB.) 7 October [1875] (from Emma Darwin), 20 October [1875], 23 October [1875], 25 October [1875] Verbeek, Rogier Diederik Marius (1845–1926). Dutch geologist. DPhil., Delft, 1866. Worked extensively in Borneo and Indonesia; studied the eruption of Krakatoa. Produced geological maps of several places including Sumatra and the Moluccas. (BHGW vol. 4, Sarjeant 1980–96.) Victor Emmanuel II (1820–78). King of Sardinia and first king of Italy. (EB.) Victoria (1819–1901). Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and empress of India. Succeeded to the throne in 1837; designated empress of India, 1876. (ODNB.) Vincenzi, Carlo. Italian publisher. Ran the publishing company Vincenzi of Modena, 1846–77. (Gigli Marchetti et al. 2004.) Virchow, Rudolf Carl (1821–1902). German physician, pathologist, medical reformer, and politician. Professor of pathological anatomy at the University of Würzburg, 1849–56. Professor of pathological anatomy and director of the Pathological Institute, University of Berlin, from 1856. Foreign member, Royal Society of London, 1884; awarded the Copley Medal, 1892. (BLA; DBE; DSB; Record of the Royal Society of London; Wrede and Reinfels eds. 1897.)

688

Biographical register

Vogt, Carl (1817–95). German naturalist. Received a doctorate in Giessen in 1839; worked in Switzerland with Louis Agassiz on a treatise on fossil and freshwater fish until 1846. Professor of zoology, Giessen, 1846. Forced to leave the German Federation for political reasons, 1849; settled in Geneva. Professor of geology, Geneva, 1852; director of the Institute of Zoology, 1872. (ADB; DSB; Judel 2004.) Volpicèlli, Paolo (1804–79). Italian mathematician and physicist. Professor of experimental physics, University of Rome, 1845–72; professor of mathematical physics from 1872. Secretary of the Accademia dei Lincei, Rome, from 1847. (Enciclopedia Italiana (treccani.it/enciclopedia/paolo-volpicelli/, accessed 6 November 2014).) Voysey, Charles (1828–1912). Theistic preacher. BA, Oxford, 1851. Incumbent of St Andrew’s, Craigton, Jamaica, 1858; curate at St Mark’s, Whitechapel, 1861; at St Mark’s, Victoria Docks, 1863. Vicar of Healaugh, 1864. Denounced for unorthodoxy, 1869, and expelled from the Church of England, 1871. Founded the Theistic church, which was based in Swallow Street, London, from 1885. His reforming sermons were widely published from the late 1860s. (ODNB.) 18 October 1875 Vries, Hugo de (1848–1935). Dutch botanist, cytologist, and hybridiser. Studied at Leiden, 1866–70; at Heidelberg with Wilhelm Hofmeister in 1870, and at Würzburg with Julius von Sachs in 1871. Completed a doctorate in physiological botany in 1876. Professor extraordinarius, botany, Amsterdam, 1878; professor, 1881. Developed a theory of heredity inspired by CD’s hypothesis of pangenesis (Intracellulare pangenesis (1889)). Rediscovered Mendelian segregation laws in the 1890s, and published on them in Die Mutationstheorie (1901–3). (DSB; Tort 1996 s.v. de Vries, Hugo.) 7 November 1875, 10 November 1875, 17 November 1875 Wächter, Johann Karl Augustin (1773–1846). German forester. Published on botany, including Über die Reproductionskraft der Gewächse insbesondere der Holzpflanzen (On the reproductive capacity of plants in particular the woody plants; 1840). (CERL Thesaurus, thesaurus.cerl.org/record/cnp00178660 (accessed 17 January 2014).) Wagner, Moritz (1813–87). German zoologist and explorer. Studied at the natural history colleges in Erlangen and Munich, 1834–5. Made a scientific expedition to Algeria, 1836. Editor of the Augsburger allgemeine Zeitung, 1838. Continued his studies in Göttingen, 1840. Made research trips to the Caucasus, Armenia, Persia, and South Asia, 1843–5; to North and Central America, 1852–5; to Panama and Ecuador, 1857–9. Professor at Munich University from 1862. Formulated the migration theory for fauna and flora in 1868. (DBE; Tort 1996.) Wagner, Nikolai Petrovich (1829–1907). Russian zoologist, entomologist, and writer. Graduated from the University of Kazan, 1854. Professor of zoology, Kazan, 1860; St Petersburg University, 1871. Instrumental in the founding of the Solovki Biological Station (later relocated and renamed Murmansk Marine

Biographical register

689

Biology Institute). Discovered the phenomenon of paedogenesis, or larval reproduction. (P. Gilbert 1977; GSE.) Wallace, Alfred Russel (1823–1913). Naturalist. Collector in the Amazon, 1848– 52; in the Malay Archipelago, 1854–62. Independently formulated a theory of evolution by natural selection in 1858. Lecturer and author of works on protective coloration, mimicry, and zoogeography. President of the Land Nationalisation Society, 1881–1913. Wrote on socialism, spiritualism, and vaccination. FRS 1893. (DSB; ODNB.) 21 July 1875, 22 July [1875], 7 November 1875, 23 December 1875, 28 December 1875 Wallich, Nathaniel (1786–1854). Danish-born botanist and surgeon. Surgeon at Serampore, India, 1807–13. Superintendent of the Calcutta botanic garden, 1817–46. Made collections of plants in India and Burma. FRS 1829. (R. Desmond 1994, DNB.) Warming, Johannes Eugenius Bülow (Eugenius) (1841–1924). Danish botanist. Worked in Brazil, 1863–6. Adopted a Lamarckian theory of evolution in the 1870s. Founder of plant ecology. Professor of botany, University of Copenhagen, 1886–1911. (DSB.) Watson, Robert Boog (1823–1910). Scottish malacologist and minister of the Free Church of Scotland. Chaplain to the forces during the Crimean War. Minister of the Scottish Church in Madeira. Author of ‘Mollusca of HMS “Challenger” expedition’, published in parts in the Journal of the Linnean Society (Zoology), 1878–84. Wrote on the geology of Arran and on the parallel roads of Glen Roy. (Geological Magazine 8 (1911): 336; Scotland, select births and baptisms, 1564–1950 (Ancestry.com, accessed 14 December 2014); The Times, 16 June 1910, p. 12.) Watts, Henry (1815–84). Chemist. Assistant to the professor of practical chemistry at University College London, 1846–57. Unable to obtain a professorship owing to a speech impediment. Published textbooks on chemistry, including several editions of his Dictionary of chemistry. FRS 1866. (ODNB.) Webster, James Claude (1840/1–1908). Barrister. Secretary of the Athenaeum Club, London, until 1897. (Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11/163/64/14); [Cowell] 1975, p. 108; England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858– 1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 6 November 2014).) Wedderburn, David (1835–82). Scottish advocate and politician. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1858. Called to the Scottish bar, 1861. Lieutenant, South Gloucester militia, 1867–70; captain, 1870–82. MP for South Ayrshire, 1868–74; for Haddington, 1879–82. (Modern English biography.) Wedderburn, William, 4th baronet (1838–1918). Scottish politician and administrator in India. Entered the Indian civil service in 1859. Held revenue and judicial positions in Bombay. A leading supporter of Indian self-government. Retired in 1887. MP for Banffshire, 1893–1900. Became fourth baronet in 1882. (ODNB.)

690

Biographical register

Wedgwood, Caroline Sarah (1800–88). CD’s sister. Married Josiah Wedgwood III, her cousin, in 1837. (Darwin pedigree.) Wedgwood, Frances Emma Elizabeth (Fanny) (1800–89). Second child of James Mackintosh and Catherine Allen. Married Hensleigh Wedgwood in 1832. (Freeman 1978; O’Leary 1989.) Wedgwood, Godfrey (1833–1905). Son of Francis Wedgwood and Frances Mosley. Joined the Wedgwood pottery works in Staffordshire; partner, 1859; senior partner, 1875–1905. (Freeman 1978; Wedgwood and Wedgwood 1980.) Wedgwood, Hensleigh (1803–91). Philologist. Emma Darwin’s brother. Qualified as a barrister in 1828, but never practised. Fellow, Christ’s College, Cambridge, 1829–30. Police magistrate at Lambeth, 1831–7; registrar of metropolitan carriages, 1838–49. An original member of the Philological Society, 1842. Published A dictionary of English etymology (1859–65). Married Frances Emma Elizabeth Mackintosh in 1832. (Freeman 1978; ODNB.) [22 August 1875] Wedgwood, Hope Elizabeth (Dot) (1844–1935). Daughter of Hensleigh and Frances Emma Elizabeth Wedgwood. Second wife of Godfrey Wedgwood. (Freeman 1978.) Wedgwood, Katherine Elizabeth Sophy (Sophy) (1842–1911). Daughter of Caroline Sarah Wedgwood and Josiah Wedgwood III. CD’s niece. (Darwin pedigree; Freeman 1978.) Wedgwood, Mary Jane Jackson (1838–63). Daughter of John and Ann Hawkshaw. Married Godfrey Wedgwood in 1862. (BMD (Birth index, Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1851 (The National Archives: Public Record Office HO107/1480/151/14); London, England, Crisp’s marriage licence index (Ancestry.com, accessed 14 December 2014).) Weinland, David Friedrich (1829–1915). German theologian and zoologist. Travelled extensively in North America and Haiti. Assistant to Louis Agassiz, 1855–8. Lecturer in zoology at the Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt, and secretary of the Zoological Society, 1858. Founder and editor of Der zoologische Garten, 1859. Director of the Senckenberg naturalists’ society, 1859–63. (DBE; Zoologischer Beobachter 57 (1916): 160.) Weir, Harrison William (1824–1906). Painter and illustrator. Specialised in landscape and natural history subjects. Brother of John Jenner Weir. (ODNB.) Weir, John Jenner (1822–94). Naturalist and accountant. Worked in HM Customs as an accountant, 1839–85. Studied entomology, especially microlepidoptera; conducted experiments on the relations between insects and insectivorous birds and published papers in 1869 and 1870. Member of the Entomological Society of London from 1845, serving many times on the council. Fellow of the Linnean Society of London, 1865; Zoological Society of London, 1876. (Science Gossip n.s. 1 (1894): 49–50.) 1 May 1875, 5 July 1875, 6 July 1875, 7 July 1875, 8 July [1875], 9 July 1875, 10 July 1875, 14 July 1875, 18 December [1875]

Biographical register

691

Weismann, Leopold Friedrich August (August) (1834–1914). German zoologist. Studied medicine at Göttingen, 1852–6; qualified as a doctor, 1858. Physician to Archduke Stephan of Austria, 1861–3. Studied zoology at Giessen in 1861; habilitated at Freiburg im Breisgau, 1863; privat-dozent in zoology and comparative anatomy, 1863; professor extraordinarius, 1866; professor of zoology, 1874. Best known for his work on heredity, especially the theory of continuity of the germ-plasm. (DBE; DSB.) 1 and 4 May 1875, 6 December 1875 Wendland, Lydia (1837/43–1913). German-born governess. Born in Schwerin, Germany. Employed by John Lubbock during the 1870s and 1880s. (BMD (Death index); Census returns of England and Wales 1881 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG11/118/32/50), 1911 (RG14/3467/68); Lubbock 1874–7, pp. 246, 257.) 7 June [1875] Wentworth, John (1800/1–77). Farmer. Farmed 600 acres at Beckhampton, Avebury, Wiltshire. (Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/1904/20/31); England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1861–1941 (Ancestry.com, accessed 18 November 2014).) Westwood, John Obadiah (1805–93). Entomologist and palaeographer. Founding member of the Entomological Society of London, 1833; honorary president, 1883. Hope Professor of zoology, Oxford University, 1861–93. Entomological referee for the Gardeners’ Chronicle. Royal Society of London Royal Medallist, 1855. (ODNB; Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 1 (1833–6): xxxiv.) White, Walter (1811–93). Miscellaneous writer. Cabinetmaker in Reading until 1834. Travelled in America, 1834–9. Attendant in the library of the Royal Society of London, 1844; assistant secretary and librarian, 1861–84. Author of many travel books. (DNB; Modern English biography.) Whitney, William Dwight (1827–94). American Sanskrit scholar, linguistic scientist, and lexicographer. Pursued botany and ornithology as a young man; presented a collection of stuffed birds (including the last wild turkey) to the Peabody Museum, Yale. Worked in his father’s bank, 1846–9. Accompanied his brother Josiah Whitney on a geological survey of the Lake Superior region in 1849 and contributed a chapter on botany to the survey report. Studied Sanskrit in Germany with Franz Bopp and others, 1850–3. Professor of Sanskrit at Yale, 1854, adding comparative philology in 1869. President, American Oriental Society, 1884–90; co-founder and first president, American Philological Association, 1869–70. Published extensively on grammar and oriental languages. (ANB; DAB.) 8 May 1875, 9 May 1875 (from Emma Darwin), 1 September 1875, 21 December 1875 (from G. H. Darwin) Whitworth, Joseph, baronet (1803–87). Mechanical engineer and machine-tool manufacturer. Worked as a mechanic in Manchester from 1821. Joined Maudslay and Field, London, 1825; developed a technique for producing highly accurate

692

Biographical register

planes. Set up in business as a toolmaker, Manchester, 1833. Improved or invented several machine tools and a system of measures that opened the way for the production of standardised parts in tools and machinery. Developed the Whitworth rifle, 1857, and made several advances in armaments manufacture. Created baronet, 1869. FRS 1857. (ODNB.) Wiener, Charles (1851–1913). Austro-French archaeologist. Diploma in education, École Normale de Cluny, 1870. Taught French and German in England, 1870–1. Appointed to the lycée Fontanes, 1872. PhD, 1874. Took part in an archaeological mission to Peru and Bolivia under the auspices of the French government in 1875–7; studied the Sambaquis (shell mounds) of Santa Catarina island, Brazil, with a Brazilian scientific team in late 1875. Explored archaeological sites in Peru and Bolivia from 1876. Naturalised French, 1878. French consul to Chile, 1883–8, after which he held several French consular posts throughout South and Central America. (Wiener 2010.) Wigand, Julius Wilhelm Albert (Albert) (1821–86). German botanist. Taught at Marburg from 1851. An opponent of Darwinism. (ADB.) Wilberforce, Samuel (1805–73). Clergyman. Rector of Brighstone, Isle of Wight, 1830–40; of Alverstoke, Hampshire, 1840–3. Chaplain to Prince Albert, 1841. Dean of Westminster, 1845. Bishop of Oxford, 1845–69. Bishop of Winchester, 1869–73. FRS 1845. (ODNB; Record of the Royal Society of London.) Wilder, Burt Green (1841–1925). American anatomist. MD 1866. Assistant in comparative anatomy, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, 1866–8. Curator of herpetology, Boston Society of Natural History, 1867–8. Professor of neurology and vertebrate zoology, Cornell University, 1867–1910; professor emeritus, 1910. Worked especially on the brain. (WWWS.) 26 January [1875] Wilkinson, Henry Marlow (1827–1909). Clergyman. BA, Oxford (Worcester College), 1852. Ordained priest, 1853. Curate of St Luke, Leeds, 1852; St Mary, Bishophill Junior, York, 1853–5; St Paul, Bisterne, 1855–87. Vicar of Milford, 1887–1908. (BMD (Death index); Crockford’s clerical directory; England & Wales christening records, 1530–1906 (Ancestry.com, accessed 20 January 2014).) Williams & Norgate. Booksellers and publishers specialising in foreign scientific literature, with premises at Covent Garden, London, and South Frederick Street, Edinburgh. A partnership between Edmund Sydney Williams (1817–91) and Frederick Norgate. Publishers of the Natural History Review. (Modern English biography s.v. Williams, Edmund Sidney; Post Office Edinburgh directory.) Williams, Arthur Charles Vaughan (1834–75). Clergyman. Student at Christ Church, Oxford, 1853–68; BA 1857. Vicar of Down Ampney, Wiltshire, 1868–75. (Alum. Oxon.; ODNB s.v. Williams, Ralph Vaughan.) Williams, Margaret Susan Vaughan (1843–1937). Daughter of Caroline Wedgwood and Josiah Wedgwood III. CD’s niece. Married Arthur Charles Vaughan Williams in 1869. Mother of Ralph Vaughan Williams (ODNB). (Emma Darwin (1915); Freeman 1978.)

Biographical register

693

Williams, Monier (1777–1823). Surveyor. Served in the Bombay infantry; surveyor general of Bombay, 1807–15. (Edney 1997, p. 348.) Williamson, William Crawford (1816–95). Surgeon and naturalist. Surgeon to the Chorlton-on-Medlock dispensary, Manchester, 1842–68; to the Manchester Institute for Diseases of the Ear, 1855–70. Professor of natural history, anatomy, and physiology, Owens College, Manchester, 1851–91. Began a comprehensive study of the plants of the coal measures in 1858. FRS 1854. (DSB; ODNB.) 30 June [1875] Willis, Frances (1800–92). Sister-in-law of James Syme. Born in Leith, Scotland, the daughter of Robert Willis, a wine merchant, and his wife Agnes Hay. Her younger sister Ann married James Syme, 1829. After Ann’s death in 1840 Frances looked after James Syme’s children. After James Syme’s death in 1870 she lived with her elder sister, Agnes Mason, and her family in Jedburgh. (Census returns of Scotland: Census 1841 (692/01021/00005), 1871 (792/00006/00002); ODNB s.v. Syme, James; Scotland Old Parish Registers Births 692/02 0070 0322 and 692/02 0070 0427 Leith; Scotland Statutory Deaths 792/00 0046 (Scottish records consulted on Scotlandspeople.gov.uk, 27 and 28 January 2014).) Wilmot, Joseph Pratt (1799/1800–1863). Barrister. BA, Cambridge (Trinity College), 1822. Called to the bar, Lincoln’s Inn, 1828. Deputy registrar of the Manchester district court of bankruptcy. (Alum. Cantab.; England & Wales, national probate calendar (index of wills and administrations), 1858–1966 (Ancestry.com, accessed 14 December 2014).) Wolfe, Gould Anne (1824/5–85). Daughter of Henry Upton Ruxton RN of Ardee House, county Louth, and Isabella, daughter of James Carlyle of Craddockstown, county Kildare. Married Charles Wolfe, clergyman, in 1849. Lived in Dublin from 1867. (Ireland, church records: churchrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/reels/d-45-3-4-105. pdf (accessed 4 December 2013); Ireland, civil registration deaths index, 1864–1958 (Ancestry.com, accessed 4 November 2013); Thom’s Irish almanac 1863–75, 1885.) 9 March 1875 Wood, George (b. 1819/20). Farmer. Of Down, Kent. (Census returns of England and Wales 1861 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG9/462/78/18); Post Office directory of the six home counties 1862.) Wood, Thomas W. (b. 1833/4). Illustrator. Son of the animal artist Thomas W. Wood. Made some animal illustrations for Descent 2d ed. and Expression. (Census returns of England and Wales 1871 (The National Archives: Public Record Office RG10/205/37/66); Engen 1985; Tort 1996.) Woolner, Thomas (1825–92). Sculptor and poet. Member of the Pre-Raphaelite brotherhood. Established his reputation in the 1850s with medallion portrait sculptures of Robert Browning, Thomas Carlyle, and William Wordsworth. Went on to make acclaimed busts of CD, Charles Dickens, Thomas Henry Huxley, Adam Sedgwick, and Alfred Tennyson, and life-size studies of Francis Bacon, John Stuart Mill, and William Whewell. (DNB.) 24 February 1875

694

Biographical register

Wright, Chauncey (1830–75). American mathematician and philosopher. Calculator for the newly established American ephemeris and nautical almanac, for which he devised new methods of calculation, 1852–72. Recording secretary, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Boston, 1863–70. Published the first of a series of philosophical essays in the North American Review in 1864. (ANB.) 24 February 1875, 13 March 1875 Wright, Edward Perceval (1834–1910). Irish naturalist. One of the editors of the Natural History Review, 1854–65. Curator of the university museum in Dublin, 1857. Lecturer in zoology, Trinity College, Dublin, 1858–68; professor of botany and keeper of the herbarium, 1869. Resigned the professorship in 1904 owing to ill health, but continued to superintend the herbarium. His principal research was in marine zoology. (ODNB.) Wyman, Jeffries (1814–74). American comparative anatomist and ethnologist. Curator of the Lowell Institute, Boston, 1839–42. Travelled in Europe, 1841–2. Professor of anatomy and physiology, Hampden-Sydney College, Virginia, 1843–8. Hersey Professor of anatomy, Harvard College, 1847–74. Curator, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard, 1866–74. (ANB; DSB.) Wyman, Morrill (1812–1903). American physician and social reformer. MD, Harvard, 1837; medical practitioner in Boston, 1837–92. Interim professor of anatomy at Harvard, 1853–56; elected to the Board of Overseers, 1875  and 1881. Worked on ventilation of sickrooms and public buildings, and served on a sanitary committee during the American Civil War. Devised a method for removing excess fluid from the chest cavity, and conducted experiments on ‘autumnal cattarh’ (hay fever), publishing the first pollen maps of the United States. Campaigner against corporal punishment in schools. Founding member of the Cambridge Scientific Club. (Morrill Wyman Jr, A brief record of the lives and writings of Dr. Rufus Wyman (1778–1842) and his son Dr. Morrill Wyman (1812–1903) (Cambridge, Mass.: Riverside Press, 1913).) Xenophon (b. c. 430 bce). Greek mercenary leader and writer. (Oxford classical dictionary.) Youatt, William (1776–1847). Veterinary surgeon in London. Gave private lectures on veterinary science; from 1830 he delivered these lectures at London University. Founded the Veterinarian in 1828. Author of a series of handbooks on the breeds, management, and diseases of farm animals. (DNB.) Young, George (1819–1907). Scottish lawyer and politician. Admitted as advocate to the Scottish bar, 1840. Solicitor-general for Scotland, 1862–6, 1868–9. Liberal MP for Wigtown Burghs, 1865–74. Lord advocate of Scotland, 1869. Judge of the Court of Session, 1874. (ODNB.) Zaaijer, Teunis (1837–1902). Dutch anatomist and forensic scientist. MD and doctorate in obstetrics and surgery, Leiden University, 1862; prosector, 1863; professor extraordinarius, 1866; professor of anatomy and practical forensic medicine from 1870. (Dutch medical biography.)

Biographical register

695

Zacharias, Otto (1846–1916). German journalist and zoologist. Edited several magazines and wrote articles and book reviews on evolution. Populariser of CD’s theories, and supporter of Ernst Haeckel. Had a second career as a zoologist, specialising in plankton. Founded a private research station in Plön, northern Germany, which later became the Max-Planck-Institute for Limnology. (Nöthlich et al. 2006.) 3 June 1875, [11 June 1875], 19 August 1875 Zanichelli, Nicola (1819–84). Italian bookseller and publisher based in Modena and Bologna. Published the first Italian edition of Origin. (EI; Freeman 1977, p. 105.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY The following bibliography contains all the books and papers referred to in this volume by author–date reference or by short title. Short titles are used for some standard reference works (e.g. ODNB, OED), for CD’s books, and for editions of his letters and manuscripts (e.g., Descent, LL, Notebooks). Works referred to by short titles are listed in alphabetical order according to the title; those given author–date references occur in alphabetical order according to the author’s surname. Notes on manuscript sources are given at the end of the bibliography. ADB: Allgemeine deutsche Biographie. Under the auspices of the Historical Commission of the Royal Academy of Sciences. 56 vols. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. 1875–1912. Ahlstrom, Sydney E. and Mullin, Robert Bruce. 1987. The scientific theist: a life of Francis Ellingwood Abbot. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press. Airy, George Biddell, ed. 1881. Account of observations of the transit of Venus, 1874, December  8: made under the authority of the British government: and of the reduction of the observations. [London]: H.M. Stationery Office, under the authority of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury. Album Dorpat: Album academicum der Kaiserlichen Universität Dorpat. Compiled by A. Hasselblatt and D. Otto. Dorpat: C. Mattiesen 1889. Allaby, Michael, ed. 2013. A dictionary of earth sciences. 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allan, Mea. 1967. The Hookers of Kew, 1785–1911. London: Michael Joseph. Allen, Joel Asaph. 1871. On the mammals and winter birds of East Florida, with an examination of certain assumed specific characters in birds, and a sketch of the bird-faunæ of Eastern North America. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy 2 (1870–1): 161–450. ——. 1872. Notes of an ornithological reconnaissance of portions of Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy 3 (1871–6): 113–83. Allen, Lewis F. 1874. Pedigrees of English short-horn bulls to which American short-horns trace. Selected from Coates’ herd book. Buffalo: Warren, Johnson & Company. Allman, George James. 1855. On the signification of the so-called ova of the Hippocrepian Polyzoa, and on the development of the proper embryo in these animals. Report of the 25th meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1855), Transactions of the sections, pp. 118–19. Alter, Stephen G. 2005. William Dwight Whitney and the science of language. Baltimore, Md., and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bibliography

697

Alum. Cantab.: Alumni Cantabrigienses. A biographical list of all known students, graduates and holders of office at the University of Cambridge, from the earliest times to 1900. Compiled by John Venn and J. A. Venn. 10 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1922–54. Alum. Dublin.: Alumni Dublinenses. A register of the students, graduates, professors and provosts of Trinity College in the University of Dublin (1593–1860). New edition with supplement. Edited by George Dames Burtchaell and Thomas Ulick Sadleir. Dublin: Alex. Thom & Co. 1935. Alum. Oxon.: Alumni Oxonienses: the members of the University of Oxford, 1500–1886: … with a record of their degrees. Being the matriculation register of the university. Alphabetically arranged, revised, and annotated by Joseph Foster. 8 vols. London and Oxford: Parker & Co. 1887–91. American cyclopædia: The American cyclopædia: a popular dictionary of general knowledge. Edited by George Ripley and Charles A. Dana. 16 vols. New York and London: D. Appleton and Company. 1873–9. ANB: American national biography. Edited by John A.  Garraty and Mark C. Carnes. 24 vols. and supplement. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1999–2002. ‘Ancient glaciers of Caernarvonshire’: Notes on the effects produced by the ancient glaciers of Caernarvonshire, and on the boulders transported by floating ice. By Charles Darwin. Philosophical Magazine 3d ser. 21 (1842): 180–8. [Shorter publications, pp. 140–7.] Appel, Toby A. 1987. The Cuvier–Geoffroy debate: French biology in the decades before Darwin. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Appleton’s cyclopædia of American biography. Edited by James Grant Wilson and John Fiske. 6 vols. New York: D. Appleton. 1887–9. Army list: The army list. London: printed for the compiler of the annual official army list; Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 1815–1900. Arnold, Thomas. 1901. On the education of the deaf. A manual for teachers. Revised and re-written by A. Farrar. London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co. Athenæum: rules and regulations, and list of members. London: n.p. 1862. Aust. dict. biog.: Australian dictionary of biography. Edited by Douglas Pike et al. 14 vols. [Melbourne]: Melbourne University Press. London and New York: Cambridge University Press. 1966–96. Baker, Herbert G. 1965. Charles Darwin and the perennial flax–a controversy and its implications. Huntia 2: 141–61. Balbiani, Édouard-Gérard.  1866. On the reproduction and embryogeny of the Aphides. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 3d ser. 18: 62–9, 106–9. Balfour, Francis Maitland. 1874. A preliminary account of the development of the elasmobranch fishes. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science n.s. 14: 323–64. Barber, Mary Elizabeth. 1874. Notes on the peculiar habits and changes which take place in the larva and pupa of Papilio nireus. [Read 2 November 1874.] Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 22: 519–21.

698

Bibliography

Barbier, Edmond, trans. 1877. Les plantes insectivores. By Charles Darwin. [Translation of Insectivorous plants.] With introduction and notes by Charles Martin. Paris: Reinwald. Barbieri, Francesco and Taddei, Ferdinando. 2006. L’Accademia nazionale di scienze, lettere ed arti di Modena dalle origini (1683) al 2005. Modena: Mucchi. Bark, Debbie. 2014. The collected works of Ann Hawkshaw. London: Anthem Press. Barnhart, John Hendley, comp. 1965. Biographical notes upon botanists … maintained in the New York Botanical Garden Library. 3 vols. Boston, Mass.: G. K. Hall. Bartlett, Abraham Dee.  1861. Remarks on the Japanese masked pig. [Read 11 June 1861.] Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (1861): 263–4. Barton, Ruth. 2014. Sunday lecture societies: naturalistic scientists, Unitarians, and secularists unite against sabbatarian legislation. In Victorian scientific naturalism: community, identity, continuity, edited by Gowan Dawson and Bernard Lightman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bastian, Henry Charlton. 1872. The beginnings of life: being some account of the nature, modes of origin and transformations of lower organisms. 2 vols. London: Macmillan. Batchelor, John. 1892. The Ainu of Japan: the religion, superstitions, and general history of the hairy aborigines of Japan. London: The Religious Tract Society. ‘Beagle’ diary: Charles Darwin’s Beagle diary. Edited by Richard Darwin Keynes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988. Bean, William Jackson. 1970–88. Trees and shrubs hardy in the British Isles. 8th edition, fully revised by D. L. Clarke and George Taylor. 4 vols. and supplement. London: John Murray. Beaton, Donald. 1860. Crossing flowers. Cottage Gardener 24: 253–5. Bechstein, Johann Matthäus. 1789–95. Gemeinnützige Naturgeschichte Deutschlands nach allen drey Reichen. Ein Handbuch zur deutlichern und vollständigern Selbstbelehrung besonders für Forstmänner, Jugendlehrer und Oekonomen. 4 vols. Leipzig: Siegfried Lebrecht Crusius. ——. 1840. Naturgeschichte der Stubenvögel, oder Anleitung zur Kenntniss, Wartung, Zähmung, Fortpflanzung und zum Fang derjenigen in- und ausländischen Vögel, welche man in der Stube halten kann. 4th edition. Halle: E. Heynemann. Belt, Thomas. 1874a. The naturalist in Nicaragua: a narrative of a residence at the gold mines of Chontales; journeys in the savannahs and forests. With observations on animals and plants in reference to the theory of evolution of living forms. London: John Murray. ——. 1874b. An examination of the theories that have been proposed to account for the climate of the Glacial period. Quarterly Journal of Science n.s. 4: 421–64. Bennett, Alfred William. 1869. On the fertilisation of winter-flowering plants. Nature 1: 11–13. ——. 1876. The absorptive glands of carnivorous plants. [Read 1 December 1875.] Monthly Microscopical Journal 15: 1–5. Bentham, George. 1873. Notes on the classification, history, and geographical distribution of Compositæ. Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 13: 335–577. ——. 1874. On the recent progress and present state of systematic botany. Report of the 44th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1874): 27–54.

Bibliography

699

Bentham, George and Hooker, Joseph Dalton. 1862–83. Genera plantarum. Ad exemplaria imprimis in herbariis Kewensibus servata definita. 3 vols. in 7. London: A. Black [and others]. Beolens, Bo, et al. 2014. The eponym dictionary of birds. London: Bloomsbury. Bernard, Claude. 1874. Cours de physiologie générale au Muséum d’histoire naturelle: phénomènes de la vie communs aux animaux et aux végétaux. Revue scientifique 2d ser. 7: 289–95, 317–21, 323–28, 349–56, 377–80, 392–402, 441–53, 467–77. BHGW: Biographisch-literarisches Handwörterbuch zur Geschichte der exacten Wissenschaften enthaltend Nachweisung über Lebensverhältnisse und Leistungen von Mathematikern, Astronomen, Physikern, Chemikern, Mineralogen, Geologen usw. By Johann Christian Poggendorff. 5 vols. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth; Verlag Chemie. 1863–1926. Bianconi, Giovanni Giuseppe. 1874. La théorie darwinienne et la création dite indépendante. Lettre à Ch. Darwin. Bologna: Zanichelli. ——. 1875. La teoria Darwiniana e la creazione detta indipendente: lettera al signor Carlo Darwin. Translated from French by Dr G. Antonio Bianconi. Bologna: N. Zanichelli. ——.  1879. La teoria Darwiniana e la creazione detta indipendente. 2d edition. Bologna: N. Zanichelli. Bibby, Cyril. 1959. T. H. Huxley. Scientist, humanist and educator. London: Watts. Binney, Keith Robert. [2005.] Horsemen of the first frontier (1788–1900) and the serpent’s legacy. Neutral Bay, Australia: Volcanic Productions. Biografisch woordenboek van Nederland: Biografisch woordenboek van Nederland. Under the direction of J. Charité. The Hague: Nijhoff. 1979. ‘Biographical sketch of an infant’: A biographical sketch of an infant. By Charles Darwin. Mind 2 (1877): 285–94. [Shorter publications, pp. 409–16.] Biographisches Lexikon zur Geschichte der böhmischen Länder. By Heribert Sturm et al. 3 vols. (A–Sch) to date. Munich: R. Oldenbourg. 1979– Bird, Isabella Lucy. 1875. The Hawaiian archipelago: six months among the palm groves, coral reefs, and volcanoes of the Sandwich Islands. London: John Murray. Birds of the world: Handbook of the birds of the world. By Josep del Hoyo et al. 17 vols. Barcelona: Lynx editions. 1991–2013. BLA: Biographisches Lexikon der hervorragenden Aerzte aller Zeiten und Völker. Edited by A. Wernich et al. 6 vols. Vienna and Leipzig: Urban and Schwarzenberg. 1884–8. BLC: The British Library general catalogue of printed books to 1975. 360 vols. and supplement (6 vols.). London: Clive Bingley; K. G. Saur. 1979–88. BLKO: Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, enthaltend die Lebensskizzen der denkwürdigen Personen, welche seit 1750 in den österreichischen Kronländern geboren wurden oder darin gelebt und gewirkt haben. By Constant von Wurzbach.  60  vols. Vienna: L. C. Zamarski. 1856–91. Blocker, Jack S., Jr et al. 2003. Alchohol and temperance in modern history: an international encyclopedia. 2 vols. Santa Barbara, Calif., and Oxford: ABC-CLIO. BMD: General Register Office, England and Wales civil registration indexes. England & Wales birth index, 1837–1983. England and Wales marriage index, 1837–1983. England

700

Bibliography

and Wales death index, 1837–1983. Online database. Provo, Utah: The Generations Network. 2006. www.ancestry.co.uk. BNB: Biographie nationale publiée par l’académie royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique. 44 vols., including 16 supplements. Brussels: H. Thiry-Van Buggenhoudt [and others]. 1866–1986. Bonney, T. G. 1919. Annals of the Philosophical Club of the Royal Society written from its minute books. London: Macmillan. Bowler, Peter John. 1996. Life’s splendid drama: evolutionary biology and the reconstruction of life’s ancestry, 1860–1940. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Branson, Jan and Miller, Don. 2002. Damned for their difference: the cultural construction of deaf people as ‘disabled’. Washington DC: Gallaudet. Brantjes, N. B. M. and Bos, J. J. 1980. Hawkmoth behaviour and flower adaptation reducing self pollination in two Liliiflorae. New Phytologist 84: 139–43. Brehm, Alfred Edmund, et al. 1864–9. Illustrirtes Thierleben. Eine allgemeine Kunde des Thierreichs, etc. 6 vols. Hildburghausen: Bibliographisches Institut. Brewer, W. H., et al. 1876–80. Geological Survey of California. Botany. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Welch, Bigelow & Co. Bridges, John Henry. 1875. Is our cause in China just? Fortnightly Review 18: 642–63. Brighton and Hove blue book: Pike’s Brighton and Hove blue book and local directory. Brighton: Robinson, son, and Pike. 1888–1940. Broca, Paul. 1864. Tableau chromatique des yeux, de la peau et des cheveux pour les observations anthropologiques. Bulletins de la Société d’anthopologie de Paris 5: 767–73. Brömer, Rainer. 2008. Many Darwinisms by many names: Darwinism and nature in the kingdom of Italy. In The reception of Charles Darwin in Europe, edited by Eve-Marie Engels and Thomas F. Glick. London: Continuum. Bronn, Heinrich Georg, trans.  1860. Charles Darwin, über die Entstehung der Arten im Thier- und Pflanzen-Reich durch natürliche Züchtung, oder Erhaltung der vervollkommneten Rassen im Kampfe um’s Daseyn. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart. Bronn, Heinrich Georg and Carus, Julius Victor, trans. 1872. Über die Entstehung der Arten: durch natürliche Zuchtwahl oder die Erhaltung der begünstigen Rassen im Kampfe um’s Dasein. By Charles Darwin. 5th edition (from the English 6th edition). Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). ——, trans. 1876. Über die Entstehung der Arten durch natürliche Zuchtwahl oder die Erhaltung der begünstigen Rassen im Kampfe um’s Dasein. By Charles Darwin. 6th edition (from the English 6th edition). Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). Brotero, Félix de Avellar. 1815. Descriptions of a new genus of plants named Araujia, and of a new species of Passiflora. [Read 7 November 1815.] Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 12 (1817–18): 62–75. Brown, Alan Willard. 1947. The Metaphysical Society; Victorian minds in crisis, 1869–1880. New York: Columbia University Press. Brown-Séquard, Charles Édouard.  1860. Hereditary transmission of an epileptiform affection accidentally produced. [Read 2 February 1860.] Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 10 (1859–60): 297–8.

Bibliography

701

Brown-Séquard, Charles Édouard. 1875. On the hereditary transmission of the effects of certain injuries to the nervous system. Lancet, 2 January 1875, pp. 6–7. Browne, Janet. 1995. Charles Darwin. Voyaging. Volume I of a biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ——. 2002. Charles Darwin. The power of place. Volume II of a biography. London: Pimlico. ——. 2009. Looking at Darwin: portraits and the making of an icon. Isis 100: 542– 70. Browne, Thomas. 1658. The garden of Cyrus. Or, the quincunciall, lozenge, or network plantations of the ancients, artificially, naturally, mystically considered. In Hydriotaphia. London: Henry Brome. Bruce Lowe, Charles. 1895. Breeding racehorses by the figure system. Compiled by the late C. Bruce Lowe; edited by William Allison. London: Horace Cox. Brücke, Ernst Wilhelm. 1861. Beiträge zur Lehre von der Verdauung. Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse 43 (2d part): 601–23. Brunton, Thomas Lauder, and Fayrer, Joseph. 1873–4. On the nature and physiological action of the poison of Naja tripudians and other Indian venomous snakes. [Read 19 June 1873 and 22 January 1874.] Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 21 (1872–3): 358–74; 22 (1873–4): 68–133. ——. 1875. On the nature and physiological action of the Crotalus-poison as compared with that of Naja tripudians and other Indian venomous snakes; also investigations into the nature of the influence of Naja- and Crotalus-poison on ciliary and amœboid action and on Vallisneria, and on the influence of inspiration of pure oxygen on poisoned animals. [Read 18 February 1875.] Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 23 (1874–5): 261–79. Burchfield, Joe D. 1998. The age of the Earth and the invention of geological time. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 143: 137–43. Burdon Sanderson, John.  1870. On the intimate pathology of contagion. Twelfth report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, Appendix 11. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. ——.  1874a. Venus’s fly-trap (Dionæa muscipula). (Lecture delivered at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 5  June  1874.) Nature, 11  June  1874, pp.  105–7, and 18 June 1874, pp. 127–8. ——. 1874b. On the mechanism of the leaf of Dionæa muscipula, and on the electrical phenomena which accompany contraction. [Read 5 June 1874.] Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain 7 (1873–5): 332–5. Burke’s Irish family records. 5th edition. London: Burke’s Peerage. 1976. Burke’s landed gentry: A genealogical and heraldic history of the commoners of Great Britain and Ireland enjoying territorial possessions or high official rank but unvisited with heritable honours. Burke’s genealogical and heraldic history of the landed gentry. By John Burke et al. 1st–18th edition. London: Henry Colburn [and others]. 1833–1969. Burke’s peerage: A genealogical and heraldic dictionary of the peerage and baronetage of the United

702

Bibliography

Kingdom. Burke’s peerage and baronetage. 1st– edition. London: Henry Colburn [and others]. 1826–. Burstyn, Joan N. ed. 1990. Past and promise: lives of New Jersey women. Metuchen, NJ, and London: The Scarecrow Press. Calendar: A calendar of the correspondence of Charles Darwin, 1821–1882. With supplement. 2d edition. Edited by Frederick Burkhardt et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994. Candolle, Alphonse de. 1875. Des effets différents d’une même température sur une même espèce au nord et au midi. [Read 7 June 1875.] Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences 80: 1369–75. Candolle, Augustin Pyramus de and Candolle, Alphonse de. 1824–73. Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis, sive enumeratio contracta ordinum generum specierumque plantarum huc usque cognitarum, juxta methodi naturalis normas digesta. 19  vols. Paris: Treuttel & Würtz [and others]. Canestrini, Giovanni, trans. 1875. Sulla origine delle specie per elezione naturale, ovvero, conservazione delle razze perfezionate nella lotta per l’esistenza. By Charles Darwin. Translation of Origin 6th ed. Turin: Unione Tipografico-Editrice. ——. 1876. Variazione degli animali e delle piante allo stato domestico. By Charles Darwin. Translation of Variation 2d ed. Turin: Unione Tipografico-Editrice. Canestrini, Giovanni and Bassani, Francesco, trans. 1878. L’espressione dei sentimenti nell’uomo e negli animali. By Charles Darwin. Turin: Unione Tipografico-Editrice. Carlyle, Thomas. 1837. Memoirs of Mirabeau. London and Westminster Review ( January 1837): 382–439. Carpenter, William Benjamin.  1854. Principles of comparative physiology. 4th edition. London: John Churchill. ——. 1873. On the hereditary transmission of acquired psychical habits. Contemporary Review 21 (1872–3): 295–314, 779–95, 867–85. Carus, Julius Victor, trans. 1868. Das Variiren der Thiere und Pflanzen im Zustande der Domestication. By Charles Darwin. (German translation of Variation.) 2 vols. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). ——, trans. 1873. Das Variiren der Thiere und Pflanzen im Zustande der Domestication. By Charles Darwin. (German translation of Variation.) 2d edition. 2 vols. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). ——, trans.  1875a. Die Abstammung des Menschen und die geschlechtliche Zuchtwahl. By Charles Darwin. (German translation of Descent.) 3d edition.  2  vols. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). ——, trans. 1875b. Reise eines Naturforschers um die Welt. By Charles Darwin. German translation of Journal of researches. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). ——, trans. 1875–87. Charles Darwin’s gesammelte Werke. 16 vols. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). ——, trans. 1876a. Insectenfressende Pflanzen. By Charles Darwin. (German translation of Insectivorous plants.) Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch).

Bibliography

703

Carus, Julius Victor, trans. 1876b. Die Bewegungen und Lebensweise der kletternden Pflanzen. By Charles Darwin. (German translation of Climbing plants 2d ed.) Vol. 9, part 1 of Charles Darwin’s gesammelte Werke. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). ——, trans. 1877. Geologische Beobachtungen über die vulcanischen Inseln. By Charles Darwin. (German translation of Volcanic islands 2d ed.) Vol. 11, part 2 of Charles Darwin’s gesammelte Werke. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). ——, trans. 1878a. Das Variiren der Thiere und Pflanzen im Zustande der Domestication. By Charles Darwin. (German translation of Variation 2d ed.) 3d edition. 2 vols. Vols. 3 and 4 of Charles Darwin’s gesammelte Werke. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). ——, trans. 1878b. Geologische Beobachtungen über Süd-America. By Charles Darwin. (German translation of South America.) Vol. 12, part 1 of Charles Darwin’s gesammelte Werke. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). ——, trans. 1878c. Kleinere geologische Abhandlungen. By Charles Darwin. (German translation of several shorter geological papers.) Vol. 12, part 2 of Charles Darwin’s gesammelte Werke. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). Carus, Julius Victor and Gerstaecker, Carl Edouard Adolph. 1863–75. Handbuch der Zoologie. 2 vols. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. Cattermole, Michael J. G. and Wolfe, Arthur F. 1987. Horace Darwin’s shop: a history of the Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company 1878 to 1968. Bristol and Boston: Adam Hilger. Challinor, John. 1978. A dictionary of geology. 5th edition. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Chambers: The Chambers dictionary. Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers. 1998. Charnley, Berris. 2013. Seeds without patents: science and morality in British plant breeding in the long nineteenth-century. Revue économique 64: 69–87. Charter and bye-laws of the Linnean Society of London. London: Taylor and Francis. 1874. Charterhouse register, 1769–1872: Charterhouse register, 1769–1872: with appendix of nonFoundationers, 1614–1769. Compiled by R. L. Arrowsmith. London: Phillimore. 1974. Charterhouse register, 1872–1900. Compiled by John L. Stokes and Edmund Aubrey Malaher. London: Gentry Books. 1980. Cheeseman, Thomas Frederick. 1872. On the fertilization of the New Zealand species of Pterostylis. Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute 5: 352–7. Christensen, Knud I. 1992. Revision of Crataegus section Crataegus and nothosection Crataeguineae (Rosaceae–Maloideae) in the Old World. Vol. 35 of Systematic botany monographs. Laramie, Wyo.: American Society of Plant Taxonomists. Clark, John Spencer. 1917. The life and letters of John Fiske. 2 vols. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Clark, John Willis and Hughes, Thomas McKenny, eds. 1890. The life and letters of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, Joseph Warner. 1875. On the absorption of nutrient material by the leaves of some insectivorous plants. Journal of Botany, British and Foreign n.s. 4: 268–74.

704

Bibliography

Clark, Ronald W. 1968. The Huxleys. London: Heinemann. Claus, Carl Friedrich.  1875. Ueber die Entwickelung, Organisation und systematische Stellung der Arguliden. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie 25: 217–84. ——.  1876. Untersuchungen zur Erforschung der genealogischen Grundlage des CrustaceenSystems. Ein Beitrag zur Descendenzlehre. Vienna: Carl Gerold’s Sohn. Clergy list: The clergy list … containing an alphabetical list of the clergy. London: C. Cox [and others]. 1841–89. ‘Climbing plants’: On the movements and habits of climbing plants. By Charles Darwin. [Read 2 February 1865.] Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 9 (1867): 1–118. Climbing plants: On the movements and habits of climbing plants. By Charles Darwin. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green; Williams & Norgate. 1865. Climbing plants 2d ed.: The movements and habits of climbing plants. 2d edition. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1875. Climbing plants US ed.: The movements and habits of climbing plants. 2d edition, revised. By Charles Darwin. New York: D. Appleton. 1876. Clokie, Hermia Newman. 1964. An account of the herbaria of the department of botany in the University of Oxford. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clowes, William Beaufoy. [1953.] Family business 1803–1953. London: William Clowes and Sons. Coates, George. 1822. The general short-horned herd-book: containing the pedigrees of shorthorned bulls, cows, &c. of the improved Durham breed. Otley: W. Walker. ——. 1847. Coates’s herd book: containing the pedigrees of improved short-horned cows, and their produce from the earliest period, as given in the first, second, and third volumes. Revised by H. Strafford. London: Joseph Rogerson. Coates, Patrick Devereux. 1988. The China consuls: British consular officers, 1843–1943. Hong Kong and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cobbe, Frances Power. 1904. Life of Frances Power Cobbe as told by herself. Posthumous edition. London: Swan Sonnenschein. Codrington, Thomas. 1870. On the superficial deposits of the South of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. [Read 8 June 1870.] Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 26: 528–51. Cohen, Alan. 2000. Mary Elizabeth Barber: South Africa’s first lady natural historian. Archives of Natural History 27: 187–208. Cohn, Ferdinand Julius. 1874. Botanische Probleme. Deutsche Rundschau 1: 80–93. ——. 1875a. Ueber die Function der Blasen von Aldrovanda und Utricularia. Beiträge zur Biologie der Pflanzen 1 (1870–5) 3d pt: 71–92. ——. 1875b. Die Entwickelungsgeschichte der Gattung Volvox. Beiträge zur Biologie der Pflanzen 1 (1870–5) 3d pt: 93–115. ——. 1876. Insectenfressende Pflanzen. Deutsche Rundschau 2: 441–56. Cohn, Ferdinand Julius and Eidam, Eduard. 1872–5. Untersuchungen über Bacterien. Beiträge zur Biologie der Pflanzen 1 (1870–5) pt 2: 127–224; pt 3: 141–207; 208–24. Cohn, Gustav. 1874–83. Untersuchungen über die englische Eisenbahnpolitik. 3 vols. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.

Bibliography

705

Collected papers: The collected papers of Charles Darwin. Edited by Paul H. Barrett. 2 vols. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. 1977. Columbia gazetteer of the world: The Columbia gazetteer of the world. Edited by Saul B. Cohen. 3 vols. New York: Columbia University Press. 1998. Comes, Orazio. 1875. Continuazione degli studii sulla impollinazione. Rendiconto dell’Accademia delle Scienze Fisiche e Matematiche 14: 64–71. Complete dictionary of scientific biography. By Charles Coulston Gillispie, Frederic Lawrence Holmes, and Noretta Koertge. Electronic publication. Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 2008. Complete peerage: The complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom, extant, extinct, or dormant. By George Edward Cokayne. Revised edition. Edited by Vicary Gibbs, et al. 12 vols. London: St Catherine Press. 1910–59. Cope, Edward Drinker. 1871. The method of creation of organic forms. [Read 15 December 1871.] Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 12 (1871–2): 229–63. Coral reefs: The structure and distribution of coral reefs. Being the first part of the geology of the voyage of the Beagle, under the command of Capt. FitzRoy RN, during the years 1832 to 1836. By Charles Darwin. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1842. Coral reefs 2d ed.: The structure and distribution of coral reefs. By Charles Darwin. Revised edition. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1874. Correns, C. 1916. Friedrich Hildebrand. Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft 34 (pt 2): 28–49. Correspondence: The correspondence of Charles Darwin. Edited by Frederick Burkhardt et al. 23 vols to date. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985–. Corsi, Pietro and Weindling, Paul J. 1985. Darwinism in Germany, France and Italy. In The Darwinian heritage, edited by David Kohn. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press in association with Nova Pacifica. County families: The county families of the United Kingdom; or, royal manual of the titled & untitled aristocracy of Great Britain & Ireland. By Edward Walford. London: Robert Hardwicke; Chatto & Windus. 1860–93. Walford’s county families of the United Kingdom or royal manual of the titled and untitled aristocracy of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. London: Chatto & Windus; Spottiswoode & Co. 1894–1920. [Cowell, F. R.] 1975. The Athenaeum Club and social life in London, 1824–1974. London: Heinemann. Cox, Julian and Ford, Colin. 2003. Julia Margaret Cameron: the complete photographs. London: Thames & Hudson. Cross and self fertilisation: The effects of cross and self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1876. Crüger, Hermann. 1864. A few notes on the fecundation of orchids and their morphology. [Read 3 March 1864.] Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 8 (1865): 127–35. DAB: Dictionary of American biography. Under the auspices of the American Council of Learned Societies. 20 vols., index, and 10 supplements. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; Simon & Schuster Macmillan. London: Oxford University Press; Humphrey Milford. 1928–95.

706

Bibliography

Dallas, William Sweetland, trans. 1869. Facts and arguments for Darwin. By Fritz Müller. London: John Murray. DAPL: A dictionary of the anonymous and pseudonymous literature of Great Britain. Compiled by Samuel Halkett and John Laing.  4  vols.  Edinburgh: William Paterson. 1882–8. Dareste, Camille. 1862. Mémoire sur l’histoire physiologique des œufs a double germe et sur les origines de la duplicité monstrueuse chez les oiseaux. Annales des sciences naturelles (zoologie) 4th ser. 17: 31–77. Darwin, Charles and Wallace, Alfred Russel.  1858. On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection … Communicated by Sir Charles Lyell … and J. D. Hooker. [Read 1 July 1858.] Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society (Zoology) 3 (1859): 45–62. [Shorter publications, pp. 282–96.] Darwin, Francis. 1875a. On the primary vascular dilatation in acute inflammation. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology 10 (1875–6): 1–16. ——. 1875b. On the structure of the proboscis of Ophideres fullonica, an orange-sucking moth. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science n.s. 15: 384–9. ——. 1876a. On the structure of the snail’s heart. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology 10: 506–10. ——. 1876b. The process of aggregation in the tentacles of Drosera rotundifolia. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 16: 309–19. ——. 1876c. On the hygroscopic mechanism by which certain seeds are enabled to bury themselves in the ground. [Read 16 March 1876.] Transactions of the Linnean Society (Botany) 2d ser. 1 (1875–80): 149–67. ——. 1914. William Erasmus Darwin. Christ’s College Magazine 29: 16–23. ——. 1920. Springtime and other essays. London: John Murray. Darwin, George Howard.  1873. On beneficial restrictions to liberty of marriage. Contemporary Review 22: 412–26. ——.  1874. Professor Whitney on the origin of language. Contemporary Review 24: 894–904. ——.  1875a. Marriages between first cousins in England and their effects. [Read 16 March 1875.] Journal of the Statistical Society of London 38: 153–84. ——. 1875b. Marriages between first cousins in England and their effects. Fortnightly Review 18: 22–41. ——. 1875c. On maps of the world. Philosophical Magazine 4th ser. 50: 431–4. ——. 1875d. The theory of exchange value. Fortnightly Review 17: 243–53. ——. 1876. Die Ehen zwischen Geschwisterkindern und ihre Folgen. Translated by Alfred van der Velde; with an introduction by Otto Zacharias. (German translation of ‘Marriages between first cousins in England and their effects’.) Leipzig: W. Engelmann. ——. 1878. On the bodily tides of viscous and semi-elastic spheroids, and on the ocean tides upon a yielding nucleus. [Read 23 May 1878.] Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 170 (1879): 1–35.

Bibliography

707

Darwin, George Howard. 1907–16. Scientific papers. 5 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Darwin pedigree: Pedigree of the family of Darwin. Compiled by H. Farnham Burke. N.p.: privately printed.  1888. [Reprinted in facsimile in Darwin pedigrees, by Richard Broke Freeman. London: printed for the author. 1984.] Daston, Lorraine and Lunbeck, Elizabeth, eds. 2011. Histories of scientific observation. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press Daum, Andreas W. 1998. Wissenschaftspopularisierung im 19. Jahrhundert: bürgerliche Kultur, naturwissenschaftliche Bildung und die deutsche Offentlichkeit, 1848–1914. Munich: R. Oldenbourg. Dawkins, William Boyd. 1874a. Cave hunting: researches on the evidences of caves respecting the early inhabitants of Europe. London: Macmillan and Co. ——. 1874b. The northern range of the Basques. Fortnightly Review 16: 323–37. ——. 1876. Die Höhlen und die Ureinwohner Europas. Translated by J. W. Spengel. Foreword by Oscar Fraas. (German translation of Cave hunting.) Leipzig and Heidelberg: C. F. Winter. ——. 1878. A preliminary treatise on the relation of the Pleistocene Mammalia to those now living in Europe. Part A of The British Pleistocene Mammalia, by William Boyd Dawkins. Palaeontographical Society vol. 32. London: Palæontographical Society. DBE: Deutsche biographische Enzyklopädie. Edited by Walter Killy et al. 12 vols. in 14. Munich: K. G. Saur. 1995–2000. DBF: Dictionnaire de biographie Française. Under the direction of J. Balteau et al. 20 vols. (A–Le Roy) to date. Paris: Librairie Letouzey & Ané. 1933–. DBI: Dizionario biografico degli Italiani. Edited by Alberto M. Ghisalberti et al. 80 vols. (A–Pansa) to date. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. 1960–. DBL: Dansk biografisk leksikon. Founded by Carl Frederick Bricka, edited by Povl Engelstoft and Svend Dahl. 26 vols. and supplement. Copenhagen: J. H. Schultz. 1933– 44. 3d edition. Edited by Sv. Cedergreen Bech. 16 vols. Copenhagen: Gyldendal. 1979–84. De Beer, Gavin, ed. 1959a. Darwin’s journal. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History). Historical Series 2 (1959–63): 3–21. Debrett’s illustrated peerage: Debrett’s illustrated peerage, and titles of courtesy, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. London: Dean & Son. 1865–. Delamer, Eugene Sebastian [Edmund Saul Dixon]. 1854. Pigeons and rabbits, in their wild, domestic, & captive states. London: G. Routledge. Delpino, Federico. 1868–75. Ulteriori osservazioni sulla dicogamia nel regno vegetale. 2 parts. Milan: Giuseppe Bernardoni. ——. 1869. Rivista monografica della famiglia delle Marcgraviaceæ. Nuovo Giornale Botanico Italiano 1: 257–90. ——. 1871. Sulle piante a bicchieri. Nuovo Giornale Botanico Italiano 3: 174–6. ——. 1875. Rapporti tra insetti e tra nettarii estranuziali in alcuni piante. Bulletino della Società Entomologica Italiana 7: 69–90.

708

Bibliography

Descent: The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. By Charles Darwin.  2  vols. London: John Murray. 1871. Descent 2d ed.: The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1874. Descent US ed.: The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. By Charles Darwin. 2 vols. New York: D. Appleton. 1871. Descent 2d US ed.: The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. By Charles Darwin. New York: D. Appleton. 1875. Desmond, Adrian. 1994–7. Huxley. 2 vols. London: Michael Joseph. Desmond, Ray. 1994. Dictionary of British and Irish botanists and horticulturists including plant collectors, flower painters and garden designers. New edition, revised with the assistance of Christine Ellwood. London: Taylor & Francis and the Natural History Museum. Bristol, Pa.: Taylor & Francis. ——. 1995. Kew: the history of the Royal Botanic Gardens. London: Harvill Press with the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Dictionnaire historique & biographique de la Suisse. Under the direction of Marcel Godet et al. 7 vols. and supplement. Neuchâtel: Administration du Dictionnaire Historique & Biographique de la Suisse. 1921–34. Diderot, Denis and Alembert, Jean le Rond d’, eds. 1751–65. Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers. 17 vols. Paris: Briasson. ‘Dimorphic condition in Primula’: On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. By Charles Darwin. [Read 21 November 1861.] Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society (Botany) 6 (1862): 77–96. [Collected papers 2: 45–63.] Dippenaar-Schoeman, A. S. 2002. Baboon and trapdoor spiders of southern Africa: an identification manual. Plant Protection Research Institute Handbook no. 13. Pretoria: Agricultural Research Council. ‘Distribution of the erratic boulders’: On the distribution of the erratic boulders and on the contemporaneous unstratified deposits of South America. By Charles Darwin. [Read 14 April 1841.] Transactions of the Geological Society of London 2d ser. 6 (1841–2): 415–31. [Shorter publications, pp. 147–62.] Dizionario del risorgimento nazionale: Dizionario del risorgimento nazionale: dalle origine a Roma capitale. Fatti e persone. Director, Michele Rosi.  4  vols. Milan: Francesco Vallardi. 1930–7. DNB: Dictionary of national biography. Edited by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee. 63 vols. and 2 supplements (6 vols.). London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1912. Dictionary of national biography 1912–90. Edited by H. W. C. Davis et al. 9 vols. London: Oxford University Press. 1927–96. Dobbs, Arthur. 1750. A letter from Arthur Dobbs Esq; to Charles Stanhope Esq; F.R.S. concerning bees, and their method of gathering wax and honey. [Read 8 November 1750.] Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 46 (1749–50): 536–49. Dodel, Arnold.  1875. Die neuere Schöpfungsgeschichte nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Naturwissenschaften. Leipzig: F. U. Brockhaus.

Bibliography

709

Dodel, Arnold. 1876. Die Kraushaar-Alge, Ulothrix zonata: ihre geschlechtliche und ungeschlechtliche Fortpflanzung. Eine entwickelungsgeschichtliche Studie als Beitrag zur Kenntnis der untern Grenze des pflanzlichen Sexuallebens. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. Dod’s parliamentary companion: The parliamentary pocket companion … compiled from official documents, and from the personal communications of members of both houses. Dod’s parliamentary companion. London: Whittaker, Treacher, & Arnot; Whittaker & Co. 1833–1914. Dohrn, Anton. 1875. Der Ursprung der Wirbelthiere und das Princip des Functionswechsels. Genealogische Skizzen. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. [Reprinted in Theory in Biosciences 125 (2007): 181–241.] Dorland’s medical dictionary: Dorland’s illustrated medical dictionary. By William Alexander Newman Dorland. 30th edition. Philadelphia, Pa.: W. B. Saunders. 2003. Douglas, John Christie. 1875. A manual of telegraph construction: the mechanical elements of electric telegraph engineering. London: Charles Griffin and Company. Draper, John William. 1864. History of the intellectual development of Europe. 2 vols. London: Bell and Daldy. ——.  1871–4. Istorija umnoga razvića Jevrope. Translated by Mita Rakić. 2  vols. Belgrade: Srpsko učeno društvo. ——. 1875. History of the conflict between religion and science. London: Henry S. King. Dresser, Henry Eeles. 1871–96. A history of the birds of Europe, including all the species inhabiting the western Palæarctic region. 8 vols. and supplement, 1 vol. London: the author. DSAB: Dictionary of South African biography. Edited by W. J. de Kock et al. 4 vols. Pretoria and Cape Town: Nasionale Boekhandel Beperk [and others]. 1968–81. DSB: Dictionary of scientific biography. Edited by Charles Coulston Gillispie and Frederic L. Holmes. 18 vols. including index and supplements. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1970–90. Duncan, Andrew. 1830. The Edinburgh new dispensatory. 12th edition. Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute. Duncan, Peter Martin. 1866–72. A monograph of the British fossil corals. Second series. Being a supplement to the ‘Monograph of the British fossil corals,’ by MM. Milne-Edwards and Jules Haime. London: Paleontographical Society. Dupree, Anderson Hunter. 1959. Asa Gray, 1810–1888. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University. Dutch medical biography: Dutch medical biography: a biographical dictionary of Dutch physicians and surgeons 1475–1975. By G. A. Lindeboom. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 1984. Earthworms: The formation of vegetable mould, through the action of worms, with observations on their habits. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1881. EB: The Encyclopædia Britannica. A dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information. 11th edition. 29 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1910–11. EB 9th ed.: The Encyclopaedia Britannica : a dictionary of arts, sciences, and general literature. 9th edition. 24 vols. and index. Edinburgh: A. and C. Black. 1875–89. Edinburgh Academy register: The Edinburgh Academy register. A record of all those who have entered the school since its foundation in 1824. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Academical Club. 1914.

710

Bibliography

Edney, Matthew H. 1997. Mapping an empire: the geographical construction of British India, 1765–1843. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Edwards, Henry. 1875. Darlingtonia californica. [Read 6 September 1875.] Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 6: 161–6. EI: Enciclopedia Italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti. 36 vols. Rome: Giovanni Treccani. 1929– 37. Eisen, Sydney. 2000. Herbert Spencer and the spectre of Comte. In Herbert Spencer: critical assessments, edited by John Offer. London: Routledge. ‘Elevation on the coast of Chili’: Observations of proofs of recent elevation on the coast of Chili, made during the survey of His Majesty’s ship Beagle, commanded by Capt. FitzRoy, R.N. [Read 4 January 1837.] By Charles Darwin. Proceedings of the Geological Society of London 2 (1838): 446–9. [Shorter publications, pp. 32–5.] Emens, Etta A., comp. 1920. Descendants of Captain Samuel Church of Churchville. Rochester, N.Y.: n.p. Emma Darwin (1904): Emma Darwin, wife of Charles Darwin. A century of family letters. Edited by Henrietta Litchfield. 2 vols. Cambridge: privately printed by Cambridge University Press. 1904. Emma Darwin (1915): Emma Darwin: a century of family letters, 1792–1896. Edited by Henrietta Litchfield. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 1915. Endersby, Jim. 2008. Imperial nature: Joseph Hooker and the practices of Victorian science. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Endlicher, Stephan Ladislaus. 1836–42. Genera plantarum secundum ordines naturales disposita. With 4 supplements; in 2 vols. Vienna: Friedrich Beck. Engen, Rodney K.  1985. Dictionary of Victorian wood engravers. Cambridge: ChadwyckHealey. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar. Compiled under the direction of K. K. Arsenev and completed by F. F. Petrushevskii. 43 vols. St Petersburg: I. A. Efron. 1890–1907. Ersch, Johann Samuel and Gruber, Johann Gottfried. 1818–89. Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste in alphabetischer Folge. 167 vols. Leipzig: J. F. Gleditsch; F. A. Brockhaus. Erziehungsrate des Kantons Zürich ed. 1938. Die Universität Zürich, 1833–1933, und ihre Vorläufer. Zurich: Verlag der Erziehungsdirektion. Expression: The expression of the emotions in man and animals. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1872. Expression 2d ed.: The expression of the emotions in man and animals. By Charles Darwin. 2d edition. Edited by Francis Darwin. London: John Murray. 1890. Expression US ed.: The expression of the emotions in man and animals. By Charles Darwin. New York: D. Appleton. 1873. Fayrer, Joseph. 1875. The royal tiger of Bengal, his life and death. London: J. & A. Churchill. Feather, John.  2006. A history of British publishing. 2d edition. London: Routledge.

Bibliography

711

Feller, David Allan. 2009. Dog fight: Darwin as animal advocate in the antivivisection controversy of 1875. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science 40: 265–71. ‘Fertilization of orchids’: Notes on the fertilization of orchids. By Charles Darwin. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 4th ser. 4 (1869): 141–59. [Collected papers 2: 138–56.] Fiske, John. 1874. Outlines of cosmic philosophy: based on the doctrine of evolution, with criticisms on the positive philosophy. 2 vols. London: Macmillan and Co. Fitzgerald, Robert David. 1875–94. Australian orchids. 2 vols. Sydney: Thomas Richards. Flett, John Smith. 1937. The first hundred years of the Geological Survey of Great Britain. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office. Fol, Hermann. 1875. Études sur le développement des mollusques. I. Sur le développement des ptéropodes. II. Du développement embryonnaire des ptéropodes. III. La période larvaire du développement des ptéropodes. IV. La métamorphose et le développement ultérieur. V. Des divers types de développement des ptéropodes comparés entre eux et avec ceux des autres mollusques. Archives de zoologie expérimentale et générale 4: 1–214. Foreign Office list: The Foreign Office list. London: Harrison & Sons. 1852–1965. Forms of flowers: The different forms of flowers on plants of the same species. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1877. Forster, Paul I. and Bruyns, Peter V. 1992. Clarification of synonymy for the common moth-vine Araujia sericifera (Asclepiadaceae). Taxon 41: 746–9. Foster, Michael and Lankester, Edwin Ray, eds. 1898–1903. The scientific memoirs of Thomas Henry Huxley. 4  vols.  and supplement. London: Macmillan. New York: D. Appleton. François de Chaumont, Francis Stephen Bennet. 1875. Lectures on state medicine delivered before the Society of Apothecaries at their hall in Blackfriars: May & June 1875. London: Smith, Elder, & Co. Freeman, Richard Broke. 1977. The works of Charles Darwin: an annotated bibliographical handlist. 2d edition. Folkestone, Kent: William Dawson & Sons. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, Shoe String Press. ——. 1978. Charles Darwin: a companion. Folkestone, Kent: William Dawson & Sons. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, Shoe String Press. French, Richard D. 1970. Darwin and the physiologists, or the medusa and modern cardiology. Journal of the History of Biology 3: 253–74. ——. 1975. Antivivsection and medical science in Victorian society. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Fripp, H. E. 1866. Genesis, or parthenogenesis. Popular Science Review 5: 442–52. Fryxell, Paul A. 2001. Talipariti (Malvaceae), a segregate from Hibiscus. Contributions from the University of Michigan Herbarium 23: 225–70. Gaisinovich, A. E., ed. 1988. A. O. i V. O. Kovalevskie. Perepiska 1867–1873gg. Moscow: Nauka (science). Galton, Francis. 1869. Hereditary genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan.

712

Bibliography

Galton, Francis.  1871. Experiments in pangenesis, by breeding from rabbits of a pure variety, into whose circulation blood taken from other varieties had previously been largely transfused. [Read 30 March 1871.] Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 19 (1870–1): 393–410. ——. 1874. English men of science: their nature and nurture. London: Macmillan and Co. ——. 1875a. The history of twins, as a criterion of the relative powers of nature and nurture. Fraser’s Magazine, November 1875, pp. 566–76. ——. 1875b. A theory of heredity. Contemporary Review 27: 80–95. ——. 1876a. The history of twins, as a criterion of the relative powers of nature and nurture. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 5 (1875–6): 391–406. [Reprint of Galton 1875a.] ——. 1877a. Typical laws of heredity. [Read 9 February 1877.] Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain 8 (1876–8): 282–301. ——. 1877b. Typical laws of heredity. Nature, 5 April 1877, pp. 492–5; 12 April 1877, pp. 512–14; 19 April 1877, pp. 532–3. ——. 1889. Natural inheritance. London: Macmillan. Gärtner, Karl Friedrich von. 1849. Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Bastarderzeugung im Pflanzenreich. Mit Hinweisung auf die ähnlichen Erscheinungen im Thierreiche, ganz umgearbeitete und sehr vermehrte Ausgabe der von der Königlich holländischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart. Gaspar, Maria Dulce, et al. 2008. Sambaqui (shell mound) societies of coastal Brazil. In Handbook of South American archaeology, edited by Helaine Silverman and William H. Isbell. New York: Springer. Gegenbaur, Carl. 1863. Vergleichend-anatomische Bemerkungen über das Fussskelet der Vögel. Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie und wissenschaftliche Medicin (1863): 450–72. ——. 1870. Grundzüge der vergleichenden Anatomie. 2d edition. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. ——. 1875. Die Stellung und Bedeutung der Morphologie. Morphologisches Jahrbuch 1 (1875–6): 1–19. Geison, Gerald L. 1978. Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology: the scientific enterprise in late Victorian society. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gentes, Andrew A. 2002. The insititution of Russia’s Sakhalin policy, from 1868 to 1875. Journal of Asian History 36: 1–31. Gentry, Thomas George. 1875. The fertilization of certain flowers through insect agency. American Naturalist 9: 263–7. Geological observations 2d ed.: Geological observations on the volcanic islands and parts of South America visited during the voyage of H.M.S. ‘Beagle’. By Charles Darwin. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1876. Gerard, John. 1597. The Herball, or, Generall historie of plantes. London: John Norton. Gigli Marchetti, Ada, et al. 2004. Editori italiani dell’ottocento. 2 vols. Milan: Franco Angeli. Gilbert, Ann. 1874. Autobiography and other memorials of Mrs Gilbert, (formerly Ann Taylor). Edited by Josiah Gilbert. 2 vols. London: C. Kegan Paul & Co.

Bibliography

713

Gilbert, Joseph Henry. 1875. Note on the occurrence of ‘fairy-rings’. [Read 3 June 1875.] Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 15 (1877): 17–24. Gilbert, Pamela. 1977. A compendium of the biographical literature on deceased entomologists. London: British Museum (Natural History). Glick, Thomas F., ed. 1988. The comparative reception of Darwinism. With a new preface. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. [Glubb, P. C.] 1923. The Savile Club, 1868 to 1923. Edinburgh: privately printed. Godron, Dominique Alexandre. 1864. Sur les fumariées à fleurs irrégulières et sur la cause de leur irrégularité. [Read 19 December 1864.] Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des sciences 59: 1039–41. Goebel, K. von. 1926. Wilhelm Hofmeister. The work and life of a nineteenth century botanist. With a biographical supplement by Constanze Ganzenmüller. Translated by H. M. Bower. Botanical editor, F. O. Bower. London: Ray Society. Goette, Alexander Wilhelm.  1874–5. Die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Unke (Bombinator igneus) als Grundlage einer vergleichenden Morphologie der Wirbelthiere. 1 vol. and atlas. Leipzig: Leopold Voss. Goodacre, Francis Burges. 1875. A few remarks on hemerozoology; or the study of domestic animals. London: Robert Hardwicke. Gordon, Richard, trans. 1877. Les mouvements et les habitudes des plantes grimpantes. (French translation of Climbing plants.) By Charles Darwin. Paris: C. Reinwald. Gorup-Besanez, Eugen Franz von. 1874. Ueber das Vorkommen eines diastatischen und peptonbildenden Ferments in den Wickensamen. [Read 9 November 1874.] Berichte der Deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin 7: 1478–80. Gosden, Peter. 1961. The friendly societies in England, 1815–1875. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Goss, John. 1822. On the variation in the colour of peas, occasioned by cross impregnation. [Read 15 October 1822.] Transactions of the Horticultural Society of London 5 (1824): 234–7. Gould, Stephen Jay. 2002.The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, Mass., and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Grande encyclopédie: La grande encyclopédie inventaire raisonné des sciences, des lettres et des arts. Edited by F. Camille Dreyfus et al. 31 vols. Paris: H. Lamirault; Société Anonyme de la Grande Encyclopédie. [1886–1902.] Grant Duff, Mountstuart E. 1903. Out of the past: some biographical essays. 2 vols. London: John Murray. Gratiolet, Pierre. [1865.] De la physionomie et des mouvements d’expression. Paris: J. Hetzel. Gray, Asa. 1876. Darwiniana: essays and reviews pertaining to Darwinism. New York: D. Appleton and Company. [——.] 1884. Oswald Heer. [Obituary.] Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Science 19 (1883–4): 556–9. Gray, Jane Loring, ed. 1893. Letters of Asa Gray. 2 vols. London: Macmillan and Co. Gray, John Edward.  1862. On the skull of the Japanese pig (Sus pliciceps). [Read 28 January 1862.] Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (1862): 13–17.

714

Bibliography

Greg, William Rathbone. 1872. Enigmas of life. London: Trübner. Gregory, P. H. 1982. Fairy rings; free and tethered. Bulletin of the British Mycological Society 16: 161–3. Grenier, Louis. 1876. Analyse de l’ouvrage de M. Ch. Darwin sur les plantes insectivores. Annales de la Société botanique de Lyon 4 (1875–7): 96–114. Griffith, John William and Henfrey, Arthur. 1856. The micrographic dictionary: a guide to the examination and investigation of the structure and nature of microscopic objects. London: John van Voorst. Griffith, William.  1846. On the structure of the ascidia and stomata of Dischidia rafflesiana Wall. [Read 20 January 1846.] Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 20 (1846–7): 387–90. ——. 1847. On the impregnation of Dischidia. [Read 2 March 1847.] Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 20 (1846–7): 391–6. Groeben, Christiane, ed. 1982. Charles Darwin 1809–1882, Anton Dohrn 1840–1909: correspondence. Naples: Macchiaroli. ——. 2008. Tourists in science: 19th century research trips to the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 4th ser. 59: 139–54. GSE: Great Soviet encyclopedia. Edited by Jean Paradise et al. 31 vols. (Translation of the 3d edition of Bol’shaya Sovetskaya entsiklopediya, edited by A. M. Prokhorov.) New York: Macmillan. London: Collier Macmillan. 1973–83. Gunn, Mary and Codd, L. E. 1981. Botanical exploration of Southern Africa. Cape Town: A. A. Balkema. Hadfield, Miles, et al. 1980. British gardeners. A biographical dictionary. London: A. Zwemmer in association with The Condé Nast Publications. Haeckel, Ernst.  1865. Die Familie der Rüsselquallen (Geryonida.) Vol. 1 of Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte der Hydromedusen. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. ——.  1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine Grundzüge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie. 2 vols. Berlin: Georg Reimer. ——. 1868. Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte. Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Entwickelungslehre im Allgemeinen und diejenige von Darwin, Goethe und Lamarck, im Besonderen über die Anwendung derselben auf den Ursprung des Menschen und andere damit zusammenhangende Grundfragen der Naturwissenschaft. Berlin: Georg Reimer. ——. 1869. Zur Entwickelungsgeschichte der Siphonophoren. Utrecht: C. van der Post, Jr. ——. 1872. Die Kalkschwämme: eine Monographie. 3 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer. ——.  1874. Anthropogenie: oder, Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen. Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Grundzüge der menschlichen Keimes- und StammesGeschichte. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. ——.  1875a. Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte: gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Entwickelungslehre im Allgemeinen und diejenige von Darwin, Goethe und Lamarck im Besonderen. 6th edition. Berlin: Georg Reimer. ——. 1875b. Die Gastrula und die Eifurchung der Thiere. Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft 9: 61–167.

Bibliography

715

Haeckel, Ernst. 1876a. The history of creation: or the development of the earth and its inhabitants by the action of natural causes. A popular exposition of the doctrine of evolution in general, and that of Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck in particular. Translation [by Dora Schmitz] of Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, revised by E. Ray Lankester. 2 vols. London: Henry S. King & Co. ——. 1876b. Arabische Korallen. Ein Ausflug nach den Korallenbänken des rothen Meeres und ein Blick in das Leben der Korallenthiere. Berlin: Georg Reimer. ——. 1877. Anthropogenie oder Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen. Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Grundzüge der menschlichen Keimes- und Stammes-Geschichte. 3d edition. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. ——. 1879a. The evolution of man: a popular exposition of the principal points of human ontogeny and phylogeny. 2 vols. London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. ——. 1879b. The evolution of man: a popular exposition of the principal points of human ontogeny and phylogeny. 2 vols. New York: D Appleton and Company Hafner, Arthur Wayne, ed. 1993. Directory of deceased American physicians, 1804–1929: a genealogical guide to over 149,000 medical practitioners providing brief biographical sketches drawn from the American Medical Association’s deceased physician masterfile. 2 vols. Chicago: American Medical Association. Hall, Henry, ed. 1895–6. America’s successful men of affairs: an encyclopedia of contemporaneous biography. 8 vols. New York: New York Tribune. Hall, Philip B.  1987. Robert Swinhoe (1836–1877), FRS, FZS, FRGS: a Victorian naturalist in Treaty Port China. Geographical Journal 153: 37–47. Hallett, Frederic F. 1861. On ‘pedigree’ in wheat as a means of increasing the crop. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England 22: 371–81. ——. 1862. On ‘pedigree’ in wheat as a means of increasing the crop. London: W. Clowes and Sons. Harlan, Harold J. 2006. Bed bugs 101: the basics of Cimex lectularius. American Entomologist 52: 99–101. Harris, George. 1876. A philosophical treatise on the nature and constitution of man. 2 vols. London: George Bell & Sons. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, & Co. Harshberger, John W. 1899. The botanists of Philadelphia and their work. Philadelphia: T. C. Davis & Son. Hart’s army list: The new annual army list … with an index. Compiled by H. G. Hart. London: John Murray. 1840–1900. Harvard University catalogue: Harvard University quinquennial catalogue of the officers and graduates 1636–1925. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1925. HBLS: Historisch-Biographisches Lexikon der Schweiz. Under the auspices of the Allgemeine Geschichtsforschende Gesellschaft der Schweiz. Edited by Heinrich Türler et al. 7 vols. and supplement. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Administration des Historisch-Biographischen Lexikons der Schweiz. 1921–34. Healey, Edna. 2001. Emma Darwin: the inspirational wife of a genius. London: Headline Book Publishing. Heckel, Edouard Marie. 1876. On the floral glands of Parnassia palustris; new physiological functions. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 4th ser. 17: 335–6.

716

Bibliography

Heer, Oswald. 1855–9. Flora tertiaria Helvetiae. Die tertiäre Flora der Schweiz. 3 vols. Winterthur, Switzerland: J. Wurster. ——. 1868–83. Flora fossilis arctica. Die fossile flora der Polarländer. 7 vols. Zurich: J. Wurster & Comp. ——.  1874. Ueber fossile Pflanzen von Sumatra. Abhandlungen der schweizerischen paläontologischen Gesellschaft 1 (pt 2): 2–19. ——. 1875. Beiträge zur fossilen Flora Spitzbergens, gegründet aur die Sammlungen der schwedischen Expedition vom Jahre 1872 auf 1873. Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar 14 (1875–6): (5) 1–141. ——.  1876. Beiträge zur Jura-Flora Ostsibiriens und des Amurlandes. [Read 23 March 1876.] Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 7th ser. 22: 1–122. [Heer 1868–83 (Flora fossilis arctica), vol. 4.] ——. 1878. Primitiae florae fossilis Sachalinensis. Miocene Flora der Insel Sachalin. Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 7th ser. 25: 1–61. —— 1883. Beiträge zur fossilen Flora von Sumatra. Neue Denkschriften der allgemeinen schweizerischen Gesellschaft für die gesammten Naturwissenschaften 28: 3–22. Hellwald, Friedrich von.  1875. Culturgeschichte in ihrer natürlichen Entwickelung bis zur Gegenwart. Augsburg: Lampart & Co. Herder, Johann Gotfried. 1772. Abhandlung über den Ursprung der Sprache. Berlin: Christian Friedrich Voß. Herries Davies, Gordon L. 2007. Whatever is under the earth: the Geological Society of London 1807 to 2007. London: Geological Society. Herschel calendar: A calendar of the correspondence of Sir John Herschel. Edited by Michael J. Crowe et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998. Herschel, John Frederick William, ed.  1849. A manual of scientific enquiry; prepared for the use of Her Majesty’s Navy: and adapted for travellers in general. London: John Murray. Heß, Richard Alexander. 1885. Lebensbilder hervorragender Forstmänner und um das Forstwesen verdienter Mathematiker, Naturforscher und Nationalökonomen. Berlin: P. Parey. Hesse[-Wartegg], Ernst A. von. 1874. Die Werkzeug-Maschinen zur Metall- und Holzbearbeitung nach den Ergebnissen der Wiener Weltausstellung. Leipzig: Baumgärtner. ——. [1875a.] Charles Robert Darwin. Biographische Skizze nach Darwin’s eigenen Mitteilungen. Der Pionier. Illustrierte Zeitschrift zur Unterhaltung und Belehrung für Jedermann 14: 342–3, 337 (portrait). [——.] [1875b.] Insectenfressende Pflanzen. Der Pionier. Illustrierte Zeitschrift zur Unterhaltung und Belehrung für Jedermann 14: 374–6, 382–4. [——.] 1875c. Insektenfressende Pflanzen. Fremden-Blatt, 10 August 1875, pp. 11–12, and 11 August 1875, pp. 11–12. ——. 1875d. Der Unterseeische Tunnel zwischen England und Frankreich vom geologischen, technischen und finanziellen Standpunkte beleuchtet, etc. Leipzig: Verlag von Baumgärtner’s Buchhandlung. Heuss, Theodor. 1991. Anton Dohrn: a life for science. Translated from the German by Liselotte Dieckmann. Berlin and New York: Springer Verlag.

Bibliography

717

Hewitson, William Chapman. 1856. Coloured illustrations of the eggs of British birds: with descriptions of their nests and nidification. 3d edition. 2 vols. London: John Van Voorst. Hildebrand, Friedrich Hermann Gustav. 1863. Die Fruchtbildung der Orchideen, ein Beweis für die doppelte Wirkung des Pollen. Botanische Zeitung 21: 329–33, 337–45. ——. 1865. Bastardirungsversuche an Orchideen. Botanische Zeitung 23: 245–9. ——. 1868. Einige Experimente und Beobachtungen 1) über den Einfluss der Unterlage auf das Pfropfreis und 2) über den direkten Einfluss des fremden Pollens auf die Beschaffenheit der durch ihn erzeugten Frucht. Botanische Zeitung 26: 322–7. ——. 1873. Die Verbreitungsmittel der Pflanzen. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. Hilgendorf, Franz. 1866. Ueber Planorbis multiformis im Steinheimer Süswasserkalk. Monatsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1866): 474–504. Historical register of the University of Cambridge: The historical register of the University of Cambridge, being a supplement to the Calendar with a record of university offices, honours, and distinctions to the year 1910. Edited by J.  R.  Tanner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1917. Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz. Edited by Marco Jorio. 13 vols. Basel: Schwabe. 2002– 14. Hoare, John Newenham. 1875. Hospital Sunday. A sermon preached on Sunday, November 15th, 1874. Dublin. E. Ponsonby. Hoek, Paulus Peronius Cato.  1875. Eerste bijdrage tot een nauwkeuriger kennis der sessile cirripedien. [Doctoral dissertation at Leiden University.] Leiden: P. Somerwil. Hoffmann, Hermann. 1869. Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung des Werthes von Species und Varietät. Ein Beitrag zur Kritik der Darwin’schen Hypothese. Giessen: J.  Ricker’sche Buchhandlung. Hooker, Joseph Dalton. 1874a. Address to the Department of Botany and Zoology. Report of the 44th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1874), Transactions of the sections, pp.  102–16. [Also published as ‘The carnivorous habits of plants’, Nature, 3 September 1874, pp. 366–72.] ——. 1874b. The carnivorous habits of plants. Nature, 3 September 1874, pp. 366–72. ——. 1874c. Presidential address. [Read 30 November 1874.] Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 23 (1874–5): 50–68. [Extracts reprinted in Nature, 31 December 1874, pp. 175–8, and 7 January 1875, pp. 196–9.] ——. 1875–97. The flora of British India. Assisted by various botanists. 7 vols. London: L. Reeve & Co. ——. 1876. Botany. London: Macmillan and Co. Howell, David L. 2005. Geographies of identity in nineteenth-century Japan. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. Howsam, Leslie. 1998. Kegan Paul: a Victorian imprint: publishers, books and cultural history. London: Kegan Paul International. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hutchinson, Horace Gordon. 1914. Life of Sir John Lubbock, Lord Avebury. 2 vols. London: Macmillan.

718

Bibliography

Huth, Alfred Henry. 1875. The marriage of near kin considered with respect to the laws of nations, the results of experience, and the teachings of biology. London: J. & A. Churchill. Huxley, Leonard, ed. 1900. Life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley. 2 vols. London: Macmillan. Huxley, Thomas Henry.  1858. On the agamic reproduction and morphology of Aphis. [Read 5 November 1857 and 21 January 1858.] Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 22 (1859): 193–220, 221–36. [Reprinted in Foster and Lankester eds. 1898–1903, 2: 26–80.] ——. 1867. On the classification of birds; and on the taxonomic value of the modifications of certain of the cranial bones observable in that class. [Read 11 April 1867.] Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (1867): 415–72. ——. 1868a. On the animals which are most nearly intermediate between birds and reptiles. [Read before the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 7 February 1868.] Annals and Magazine of Natural History 4th ser. 2: 66–75. ——. 1868b. On some organisms living at great depths in the North Atlantic Ocean. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science n.s. 8: 203–12. ——. 1869. The scientific aspects of positivism. Fortnightly Review n.s. 5: 653–70. ——. 1875. On some of the results of the expedition of H.M.S. ‘Challenger’. Contemporary Review 25 (1874–5): 639–60. Huxley, Thomas Henry and Martin, H. N. 1875. A course of practical instruction in elementary biology. London: Macmillan & Co. Hyatt, Alpheus. 1874. Abstract of a memoir on the ‘Biological relations of the Jurassic ammonites’. [Read 16 December 1874.] Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History 17 (1874–5): 236–41. ——. 1880. The genesis of the Tertiary species of Planorbis at Steinheim. Boston: Boston Society of Natural History. IBN: Index bio-bibliographicus notorum hominum. Pt C: Corpus alphabeticum sectio generalis. Edited by Jean-Pierre Lobies et al. 182 vols. to date. (A–Muntada Segalà, Robert). Osnabrück, Germany: Biblio Verlag. 1974–. Ickert, Scott.  1998. Luther and animals: subject to Adam’s fall? In Animals on the agenda: questions about animals for theology and ethics, edited by Andrew Linzey and Dorothy Yamamoto. London: SCM Press. IGI: International genealogical index. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. www. familysearch.org. 2012. ‘Illegitimate offspring of dimorphic and trimorphic plants’: On the character and hybrid-like nature of the offspring from the illegitimate unions of dimorphic and trimorphic plants. By Charles Darwin. [Read 20 February 1868.] Journal of the Linnean Society of London (Botany) 10 (1869): 393–437. India list: The East-India register and directory. 1803–44. The East-India register and army list. 1845–60. The Indian Army and civil service list. 1861–76. The India list, civil and military. 1877–95. The India list and India Office list. 1896–1917. London: Wm. H. Allen [and others]. Insectivorous plants. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1875.

Bibliography

719

Insectivorous plants 2d ed. By Charles Darwin. Revised by Francis Darwin. London: John Murray. 1888. Insectivorous plants Russian trans.: Nasekomoyadnye rasteniya. [Translation of Insectivorous plants by Charles Darwin.] Translated under the direction of A. T. 2 vols. in three parts. Moscow: V. P. Plemyannikov. Insectivorous plants US ed. By Charles Darwin. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1875. Jackson, Benjamin Daydon. 1900. A glossary of botanic terms: with their description and accent. London: Duckworth & Co. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippencott Company. Jäger, Gustav. 1874. In Sachen Darwin’s insbesondere contra Wigand. Ein Beitrag zur Rechtfertigung und Fortbildung der Umwandlungslehre. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). [ James, William.] 1875. Chauncey Wright. Nation, 23 September 1875, p. 194. Jevons, William Stanley. 1871. The theory of political economy. London and New York: Macmillan. Jobling, James A.  2010. Helm dictionary of scientific bird names. London: Christopher Helm (A & C Black). Johnston, William. 1917. Roll of commissioned officers in the medical service of the British Army, who served on full pay within the period between the accession of George II and the formation of the Royal Army Medical Corps, 20 June 1727 to 23 June 1898. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. Jones, Thomas Rupert, ed.  1875. Manual of the natural history, geology, and physics of Greenland and the neighbouring regions; prepared for the use of the Arctic expedition of 1875 … together with instructions suggested by the Arctic committee of the Royal Society for the use of the expedition. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Jones, Thomas Rymer, trans. [1869–73.] Cassell’s book of birds. By Alfred Edmund Brehm. (Translation of part 2 of Brehm et al. 1864–9.) 4 vols. London and New York: Cassell & Co. Journal of researches: Journal of researches into the geology and natural history of the various countries visited by HMS Beagle, under the command of Captain FitzRoy, RN, from 1832 to 1836. By Charles Darwin. London: Henry Colburn. 1839. Journal of researches 2d ed.: Journal of researches into the natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of HMS Beagle round the world, under the command of Capt. FitzRoy RN. 2d edition, corrected, with additions. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1845. Journal of researches (1860): Journal of researches into the natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of HMS Beagle around the world, under the command of Capt. FitzRoy RN. By Charles Darwin. Reprint edition. London: John Murray. 1860. Journal of researches (1870): Journal of researches into the natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of HMS Beagle round the world, under the command of Capt. FitzRoy RN. By Charles Darwin. New edition. London: John Murray. 1870. Jubiläums-Katalog: Jubiläums-Katalog der E. Schweizerbart’schen Verlagsbuchhandlung (Erwin Nägele) G.m.b.H., Stuttgart, 1826–1926. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart. 1926.

720

Bibliography

Judd, John Wesley. 1874. On the ancient volcanoes of the Highlands and the relations of their products to the Mesozoic strata. [Read 21 January 1874.] Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 30: 220–302. Judel, Claus Günther. 2004. Der Liebigschüler Carl Vogt als Wissenschaftlicher, Philosoph und Politiker. Giessener Universitätsblätter 37: 51–6. Junker, Thomas. 1989. Darwinismus und Botanik. Rezeption, Kritik und theoretische Alternativen im Deutschland des 19. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart: Deutscher Apotheker Verlag. ——. 2011. Der Darwinismus-Streit in der deutschen Botanik: Evolution, Wissenschaftstheorie und Weltanschauung im 19. Jahrhundert. Norderstedt: Books on Demand. Kane, Elisha Kent. 1856. Arctic explorations: the second Grinnell expedition in search of Sir John Franklin, 1853, ’54, ’55. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Childs & Peterson. Kant, Immanuel. 1777. Von den verschiedenen Racen der Menschen. In Der Philosoph für die Welt, edited by Johann Jakob Engel. Leipzig: Dyckische Buchhandlung. Kawecki, Zbigniew. 1978. Zasługi Marii z Baranowskich profesorowej Dohrnowej (1856–1918) jako współtwórczyni Stacji Zoologicznej w Neapolu –w 60-lecie zgonu. Przeglad Zoologiezny 22: 309–14. Kent, Christopher. 1978. Brains and numbers: elitism, Comtism, and democracy in mid-Victorian England. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Kerner von Marilaun, Anton. 1874. Vorläufige Mittheilungen über die Bedeutung der Asyngamie für die Entstehung neuer Arten. [Read 21 January 1874.] Berichte des naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischen Vereines in Innsbruck 5 (1875): 3–12. Kieve, Jeffrey L. 1973. The electric telegraph: a social and economic history. Newton Abbot, Devon: David & Charles. King, George. 1875. Note on a sport in Paritium tricuspe, G. Don. [Read 16 December 1875.] Journal of the Linnean Society of London (Botany) 15 (1875–7): 101–3. Kirby, William and Spence, William. 1828. An introduction to entomology, or, elements of the natural history of insects. 5th edition.  4  vols. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green. Klein, Edward, et al. 1873. Handbook for the physiological laboratory. 2 vols. Edited by John Scott Burdon Sanderson. London: J. & A. Churchill. Kleinwächter, Ludwig. 1871. Die Lehre von den Zwillingen. Prague: Haerpfer. [Knapp, John Leonard.] 1829. The journal of a naturalist. London: John Murray. Knight, Thomas Andrew.  1823. Some remarks on the supposed influence of the pollen, in cross breeding, upon the colour of the seed-coats of plants, and the qualities of their fruits. [Read 3 June 1823.] Transactions of the Horticultural Society of London 5 (1824): 377–80. Koch, Karl Heinrich Emil. 1875. Hybrid aroids. Gardeners’ Chronicle, 25 September 1875, pp. 398–9. Kölreuter, Joseph Gottlieb. 1761–6. Vorläufige Nachricht von einigen das Geschlecht der Pflanzen betreffenden Versuchen und Beobachtungen. Leipzig: Gleditschischen Handlung. Kovalevsky, Vladimir Onufrievich, trans.  1868–9. Proiskhozhdenie vidov. Otdel  1. Izmeneniya zhivotnyk i rastenii vsledstvie prirucheniya. Priruchenniya zhivotniya i vozdelanniya rasteniya. By Charles Darwin. (Russian translation of Variation.) Edited by Ivan

Bibliography

721

Mikhailovich Sechenov, the botanical parts by Alexander Heard. 2 vols. St Petersburg: F. S. Sushchinskii. [——], trans. 1872. O vyrazhenii oshchushchenii u cheloveka i zhivotnykh. By Charles Darwin. Translated from the author’s proofs under the editorial direction of Prof. A.  Kovalevsky. (Russian translation of Expression.) St Petersburg: Tipografia F. S. Sushchinskogo. ——. 1873–4. Monographie der Gattung Anthracotherium Cuv. und Versuch einer natürlichen Classification der fossilen Hufthiere. Palaeontographica. Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte der Vorwelt 22 (1873–6): 131–347. Krause, Ernst.  1883. Prof. Dr.  Hermann Müller von Lippstadt. Ein Gedenkblatt. Kosmos 13: 393–401. Lamarck, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet de. 1801. Système des animaux sans vertèbres: ou tableau général des classes, des ordres et des genres de ces animaux; … Précédé du discours d’ouverture du cours de zoologie, donné dans le Muséum national d’histoire naturelle l’an 8 de la République. Paris: Deterville. Landau, Sidney I., ed. 1986. International dictionary of medicine and biology. 3 vols. New York and Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Landed gentry of Ireland: A genealogical and heraldic history of the landed gentry of Ireland. By Bernard Burke. London: Harrison & Sons. 1912. Lane Fox, Alan. 1876. Excavations in Cissbury Camp, Sussex; being a report of the exploration committee of the Anthropological Institute for the year 1875. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 5: 357–90. Lankester, Edwin Ray. 1873a. Summary of zoological observations made at Naples in the winter of 1871–72. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 4th ser. 11: 81–97. ——. 1873b. On the primitive cell-layers of the embryo as the basis of genealogical classification of animals, and on the origin of vascular and lymph systems. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 4th ser. 11: 321–38. Larousse du XXe siècle. Edited by Paul Augé. 6 vols. Paris: Librairie Larousse. 1928–33. Law list: Clarkes’ new law list; being a list of the judges and officers of the different courts of justice … and a variety of other useful matter. London: W. Clarke. 1816–40. The law list; comprising the judges and officers of the different courts of justice: counsel, special pleaders, draftsmen, conveyancers, attorneys, notaries, &c., in England and Wales … and a variety of other useful matter. London: V. & R. Stevens & G. S. Norton [and others]. 1841–1969. Law of Hywel Dda: The law of Hywel Dda: law texts from medieval Wales. Translated and edited by Dafydd Jenkins. Llandysul: Gomer. 1986. Lawes, John Bennet. 1875. Memoranda of the plan and results of the field experiments conducted on the farm of John Bennet Lawes, Esq., at Rothamsted, Herts. London: William Clowes and Sons; W. Engelmann. ——. 1876. Memoranda of the plan and results of the field experiments conducted on the farm of John Bennet Lawes, Esq., at Rothamsted, Herts. London: William Clowes and Sons. Lawes, John Bennet and Gilbert, Joseph Henry. 1859. Report of experiments with different manures on permanent meadow land. London: W. Clowes and Sons.

722

Bibliography

Lawes, John Bennet and Gilbert, Joseph Henry. 1863. Further report of experiments with different manures on permanent meadow land. London: W. Clowes and Sons. Le Couteur, John. 1836. On the varieties, properties, and classification of wheat. London: Shearsmith. Lees, Edwin. 1868. On the formation of fairy rings and the fungi that inhabit them. [Read 9 October 1868.] Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club (1868): 211–24. Legrain, Jean Baptiste. 1866. Recherches critiques et expérimentales relatives aux mariages consanguins. Bulletin de l’Académie royale de médecine de Belgique 2d ser. 9: 280–326. Leland, E. R. 1876. Insectivorous plants. Popular Science Monthly 8 (1875–6): 45–60. Lewkowitsch, H. 1876. Die Ehen zwischen Geschwisterkindern und ihre Folgen. [Review of G. H. Darwin 1876.] Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 8: 158–62 Lightman, Bernard, ed.  2004. Dictionary of nineteenth-century British scientists. 4  vols. Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum. Lindley, John. 1853. The vegetable kingdom; or, the structure, classification, and uses of plants, illustrated upon the natural system. 3d edition with corrections and additional genera. London: Bradbury & Evans. Lipps, Jere H. et al. 2011. What should we call the Foraminifera? Journal of Foraminiferal Research 41: 309–13. List of the Linnean Society of London. London: [Linnean Society of London]. 1805–1939. Lister, Joseph.  1873a. Contribution to the germ theory of putrefaction and other fermentative changes, and to the natural history of torulæ and bacteria. [Read 7 April 1873.] Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 27 (1874–6): 313–44. ——. 1873b. Further contribution to the natural history of bacteria and the germ theory of fermentative changes. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science n.s. 13: 380–408. ——. 1873c. On the germ theory of putrefaction and other fermentative changes. Nature, 10 July 1873, pp. 212–14; 17 July 1873, pp. 232–3. Living Cirripedia (1851): A monograph of the sub-class Cirripedia, with figures of all the species. The Lepadidæ; or, pedunculated cirripedes. By Charles Darwin. London: Ray Society. 1851. LL: The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. Edited by Francis Darwin. 3 vols. London: John Murray. 1887–8. Lloyd, Christopher. 1968. The Navy and the slave trade: the suppression of the African slave trade in the nineteenth century. London: Frank Cass & Co. Lodge, Oliver. 1931. Past years: an autobiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Facsimile reprint, Cambridge University Press, 2012.] Loudon, John Claudius. 1841. An encyclopædia of plants. London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longmans. Lubbock, John. 1865. Pre-historic times, as illustrated by ancient remains, and the manners and customs of modern savages. London and Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate. ——. 1867. Presidential address. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 3d ser. 5 (1865–7): lii–lxv.

Bibliography

723

Lubbock, John. 1870. The origin of civilisation and the primitive condition of man. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. ——. 1874–7. Observations on the habits of ants, bees, and wasps. [Read 19 March and 17 December 1874, 4 November 1875, and 1 February 1877.] Journal of the Linnean Society of London (Zoology) 12 (1876): 110–39, 227–51, 445–514; 13 (1878): 217–58. ——. 1875. On British wild flowers, considered in relation to insects. London: Macmillan and Co. Lucas, Prosper.  1847–50. Traité philosophique et physiologique de l’hérédité naturelle dans les états de santé et de maladie du système nerveux: avec l’application méthodique des lois de la procréation au traitement général des affections dont elle est le principe. 2 vols. Paris: J. B. Baillière. Lyell, Charles. 1830–3. Principles of geology, being an attempt to explain the former changes of the earth’s surface, by reference to causes now in operation. 3 vols. London: John Murray. ——. 1867–8. Principles of geology or the modern changes of the earth and its inhabitants considered as illustrative of geology. 10th edition. 2 vols. London: John Murray. ——. 1875. Principles of geology: or, the modern changes of the earth and its inhabitants considered as illustrative of geology. 12th edition. 2 vols. London: John Murray. Lyell, Katherine Murray, ed.  1881. Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart. 2 vols. London: John Murray. ——, ed. 1890. Memoir of Leonard Horner … consisting of letters to his family and from some of his friends. 2 vols. London: privately printed. [Macaulay, Thomas Babington.] 1827. The New Antijacobin Review.— Nos. I and II. Edinburgh Review 46: 245–67. McClintock, Francis Leopold. 1859. The voyage of the Fox in the Arctic seas: a narrative of the discovery of the fate of Sir John Franklin and his companions. London: John Murray. Machado, Maria Helena P. T., ed. 2006. Brazil through the eyes of William James. Diaries, letters, and drawings, 1865–1866. Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press. Mackintosh, James. 1835. Memoirs of the life of the Right Honourable Sir James Mackintosh. Edited by his son, Robert James Mackintosh. 2 volumes. London: E. Moxon. McLaughlin, Patsy A., et al. 2010. Annotated checklist of anomuran decapod crustaceans of the world (exclusive of the Kiwaoidea and families Chirostylidae and Galatheidae of the Galatheoidea). Part III — Aegloidea. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement 23: 131–7. McLennan, John Ferguson. 1865. Primitive marriage: an inquiry into the origin of the form of capture in marriage ceremonies. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black. Maienschein, Jane. 1994. ‘It’s a long way from Amphioxus’: Anton Dohrn and late nineteenth century debates about vertebrate origins. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 16: 465–78. Malm, August Hugo. 1874. Om den brednäbbade kantnålens — Siphonostoma typhle Yarr:— utveckling och fortplantning. Lund: Berling. Malm, August Wilhelm.  1863. Anteckningar öfver Syrphici i Skandinavien och Finland, med särskildt afseende på de arter och former, hvilka blifvit funna i

724

Bibliography

Götheborgs och Bohns län. Götheborgs Kongl. Vetenskaps och Vitterhets Samhälles Handlingar 8: 1–81. Malm, August Wilhelm. 1874. Om några fynd i en forngrift vid Assleröd i Tossene socken, Bohuslän, samt om fornfolkets användning af stenredskap: Foredrag paa det 11. skandinaviske Naturforskermöde i Kjöbenhavn 1873. Copenhagen: n.p. Mantegazza, Paolo. 1871. L’Elezione sessuale e la neogenesi (lettera a C. Darwin). Archivio per l’Antropologia e la Etnologia 1: 306–25. Marcou, Jules. 1896. Life, letters, and works of Louis Agassiz. 2 vols. London and New York: Macmillan and Co. Marginalia: Charles Darwin’s marginalia. Edited by Mario A. Di Gregorio with the assistance of Nicholas W.  Gill. Vol.  1. New York and London: Garland Publishing. 1990. [Marsh-Caldwell, Anne.] 1834. Two old men’s tales: the deformed, and the admiral’s daughter. 2 vols. London: Saunders & Otley. Marshall, William.  1875a. Pterologische Mittheilungen. III.  Beobachtungen über das Jugendgefieder des Strausses und über das Verhältniss der Federn der Ratiten zu denen der Carinaten. Der Zoologische Garten 16: 121–6. ——. 1875b. Untersuchungen über Hexactinelliden. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie 25 (Suppl.): 142–243. Masłowski, Ludwik, trans. 1874–5. O pochodzeniu czowieka. By Charles Darwin. (Polish translation of Descent.) 2 vols. Vol. I. Cracow: Kraj. Vol. II. Lvov: Ksigarnia Polska. Max Müller, Friedrich. 1867–75. Chips from a German workshop. 4 vols. London: Longmans, Green. ——. 1873. Lectures on Mr. Darwin’s philosophy of language. Fraser’s Magazine 7: 525–42, 659–78; 8: 1–24. ——. 1875. My reply to Mr. Darwin. Contemporary Review 25 (1874–5): 305–26. Maxwell, James Clerk. 1866. On the dynamical theory of gases. [Read 31 May 1866] Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 157 (1867): 49–88. Mayerhöfer, Josef.  1959–70. Lexikon der Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften: Biographien, Sachwörter und Bibliographien. Vol. 1. Vienna: Verlag Brüder Hollinek. Meder, Stephan, et al., eds. 2010. Die Rechtsstellung der Frau um 1900: Eine kommentierte Quellensammlung. Cologne: Böhlau. Medical directory: The London medical directory … every physician, surgeon, and general practitioner resident in London. London: C. Mitchell. 1845. The London and provincial medical directory. London: John Churchill. 1848–60. The London & provincial medical directory, inclusive of the medical directory for Scotland, and the medical directory for Ireland, and general medical register. London: John Churchill. 1861–9. The medical directory . . . including the London and provincial medical directory, the medical directory for Scotland, the medical directory for Ireland. London: J. & A. Churchill. 1870–1905. Meehan, Thomas. 1875. Are insects any material aid to plants in fertilization? Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 24 (1875): 243–51. Men and women of the time: The men of the time in 1852  or sketches of living notables. 2d edition, 1853. 3d edition, 1856. 4th edition, 1857. New edition, 1865. 7th edition,

Bibliography

725

1868. 8th edition, 1872. 9th edition, 1875. 10th edition, 1879. 11th edition, 1884. 12th edition, 1887. 13th edition, 1891. 14th edition, 1895. Men and women of the time: a dictionary. 15th edition. By Victor G.  Plarr.  1899. London: David Bogue [and others]. 1852–99. Men-at-the-bar: Men-at-the-bar: a biographical hand-list of the members of the various inns of court, including Her Majesty’s judges, etc. By Joseph Foster. London: Reeves & Turner. 1885. Meyers Konversationslexikon. 4th edition. Leipzig and Vienna: Verlag des Bibliographischen Instituts. 1885–92. Michelis, Friedrich Bernhardt Ferdinand. 1875. Haeckelogonie. Ein akademischer Protest gegen Häckel’s ‘Anthropogenie’. Bonn: P. Neusser. Mikkelsen, Jon M., ed. 2013. Kant and the concept of race: late eighteenth-century writings. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Milićević, Milan Dakov. 1888–1901 Pomenik znamenitih ljudi u srpskog naroda novijega doba 2 vols. with addendum to 1900. Belgrade: Cupićeva zadužbina. Milne-Edwards, Henri. 1834–40. Histoire naturelle des crustacés, comprenant l’anatomie, la physiologie et la classification de ces animaux. 4 vols. Paris: Librairie encyclopédique de Roret. Milne-Edwards, Henri and Haime, Jules. 1850–4. A monograph of the British fossil corals. London: Palaeontographical Society. Mivart, St George Jackson. 1871. On the genesis of species. London: Macmillan and Co. [——.] 1874. Primitive man: Tylor and Lubbock. [Essay review of the works of John Lubbock and Edward Burnett Tylor.] Quarterly Review 137 (1874): 40–77. Modern English biography: Modern English biography, containing many thousand concise memoirs of persons who have died since the year 1850. By Frederick Boase. 3 vols. and supplement (3 vols.). Truro, Cornwall: the author. 1892–1921. Moggridge, John Traherne. 1873. Harvesting ants and trap-door spiders: notes and observations on their habits and dwellings. London: L. Reeve & Co. Möller, Alfred, ed. 1915–21. Fritz Müller. Werke, Briefe und Leben. 3 vols in 5. Jena: Gustav Fischer. Montgomery, William M. 1988. Germany. In The comparative reception of Darwinism, with a new preface, edited by Thomas F. Glick. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Montgomeryshire Collections: Collections Historical & Archaeological Relating to Montgomeryshire (and its Borders). 48 vols. Welshpool: Powysland Club. 1868–1943. Moore, James Richard.  1985. Darwin of Down: the evolutionist as squarsonnaturalist. In The Darwinian heritage, edited by David Kohn. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press in association with Nova Pacifica. [Morley, John.] 1875. Diderot. Fortnightly Review 18 (1875): 353–98. Morrell, William Parker.  1969. The University of Otago, a centennial history. Dunedin: University of Otago Press. Morren, Charles. 1845. Nouvelles instructions populaires sur les moyens de combattre et d’étruire la maladie actuelle (Gangrène humide) des pommes de terre et sur les moyens d’obtenir pendant

726

Bibliography

l’hiver, et spécialement en France, des récoltes de ces tubercules, suivies de renseignements sur la culture et l’usage du topinambour. Paris: Roret. Morton, Vanda. 1987. Oxford rebels. The life and friends of Nevil Story Maskelyne, 1823– 1911, pioneer Oxford scientist, photographer and politician. Gloucester: Alan Sutton. Moscati, Ruggero. 1961. Il ministero degli affari esteri, 1861–1870. Milan: Giuffrè. Moss, Arthur W. 1961. Valiant crusade: the history of the RSPCA. London: Cassell. Movement in plants: The power of movement in plants. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1880. Müller, Fritz. 1864. Für Darwin. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. ——. 1868. Ueber Befruchtungserscheinungen bei Orchideen. Aus einem Briefe an Friedrich Hildebrand. Botanische Zeitung 26: 629–31. ——. 1871–3. Bestaubungsversuche an Abutilon-Arten. Jenaische Zeitschrift für Medicin und Naturwissenschaft 7: 22–45, 441–50. ——. 1873–5. Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Termiten. I. Die Geschlechtstheile der Soldaten von Calotermes. II. Die Wohnungen unserer Termiten. III. Die ‘Nymphen mit kurzen Flügelscheiden’ (Hagen), ‘nymphes de la deuxième forme’ (Lespès). Ein Sultan in seinem Harem. IV. Die Larven von Calotermes rugosus Hag. Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft 7 (1871–3): 333–58, 451–63; 9 (1875): 241–64. ——. 1875. Stachellose brasilianische Honigbienen; zur Einführung in zoologischen Gärten empfohlen. Der zoologische Garten 16: 41–55. ——.  1876a. Aeglea Odebrechtii n. sp. Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft 10: 13–24. ——. 1876b. Ueber das Haarkissen am Blattstiel der Imbauba (Cecropia), das Gemüsebeet der Imbauba-ameise. Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft 10: 281– 6. Müller, Hermann.  1873–7. Fertilisation of flowers by insects and on the reciprocal adaptations of both. Nature, 3 July 1873, pp. 187–9; 10 July 1873, pp. 205–6; 25  September  1873, pp.  433–5; 20  November  1873, pp.  44–6; 1  January  1874, pp.  164–6; 18  June  1874, pp.  129–30; 12  November  1874, pp.  32–3; 10  December  1874, pp.  110–12; 31  December  1874, pp.  169–71; 20  May  1875, pp.  50–1; 8 July 1875, pp. 190–1; 13 January 1876, pp. 210–12; 10 February 1876, pp. 289–92; 22 June 1876, pp. 173–5; 8 February 1877, pp. 317–19; 29 March 1877, pp. 473–5; 11 October 1877, pp. 507–9. ——. 1873. Die Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten und die gegenseitigen Anpassungen beider. Ein Beitrag zur Erkenntniss des ursächlichen Zusammenhanges in der organischen Natur. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. ——. 1881. Alpenblumen, ihre Befruchtung durch Insekten: und ihre Anpassungen an dieselben. Leipzig: W. Engelmann. Murchison, Charles, ed. 1868. Palæontological memoirs and notes of the late Hugh Falconer … With a biographical sketch of the author. 2 vols. London: Robert Hardwicke. Murray, Hugh, et al. 1843. Historical and descriptive account of British India, from the most remote period to the conclusion of the Afghan war. 4th edition. 3 vols. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. London: Simkin, Marshall & Co.

Bibliography

727

Murray, John. 1908–9. Darwin and his publisher. Science Progress in the Twentieth Century 3: 537–42. Murray, John and Renard, Alphonse François. 1891. Report on deep-sea deposits based on the specimens collected during the voyage of H.M.S. Challenger in the years 1872 to 1876. London: H.M.S.O. Nägeli, Carl Wilhelm von. 1865. Entstehung und Begriff der naturhistorischen Art. Munich: Verlag der königl. Akademie. Nägeli, Carl Wilhelm von and Cramer, Carl. 1855–8. Pflanzenphysiologische Untersuchungen. 4 pts in 1 vol. Zurich: Friedrich Schulthess. Nares, George Strong. 1878. Narrative of a voyage to the Polar Sea during 1875–6 in H.M. ships ‘Alert’ and ‘Discovery’. With notes on the natural history. Edited by H. W. Feilden. 2 vols. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington. Navy list: The navy list. London: John Murray; Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 1815–1900. NBU: Nouvelle biographie universelle depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu’à nos jours, avec les renseignements bibliographiques et l’indication des sources a consulter. Edited by Jean Chrétien Ferdinand Hoefer. 46 vols. in 23. Paris: Firmin Didot Frères. 1852–66. NDB: Neue deutsche Biographie. Under the auspices of the Historical Commission of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences. 25 vols. (A–Teck) to date. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. 1953–. Nevill, Ralph. 1919. The life & letters of Lady Dorothy Nevill. London: Methuen & Co. Newman, Edward. 1841. A familiar introduction to the history of insects; being a new and greatly improved edition of the grammar of entomology. London: John Van Voorst. Newman, William A. 1993. Darwin and cirripedology. History of Carcinology. Crustacean Issues 8: 349–434. Nicol, James. 1869. On the origin of the parallel roads of Glen Roy. [Read 12 May 1869.] Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 25: 282–91. Nicols, Arthur. 1877. The puzzle of life and how it has been put together: a short history of vegetable and animal life upon the earth from the earliest times: including an account of pre-historic man, his weapons, tools, and works. London: Longmans, Green & Co. ——. 1880. Chapters from the physical history of the earth: an introduction to geology and palæontology. London: C. K. Paul & Co. Nitschke, Theodor Rudolf Joseph. 1858. Commentatio anatomico-physiologica de Droserae rotundifoliae (L.) irritabilitate. Part I. Physiologica. Breslau University dissertation. ——. 1860a. Wachsthumsverhältnisse des rundblättrigen Sonnenthaues. Botanische Zeitung 18: 57–61, 65–9. ——. 1860b. Ueber die Reizbarkeit der Blätter von Drosera rotundifolia L. Botanische Zeitung 18: 229–34, 237–43, 245–50. ——. 1861a. Morphologie des Blattes von Drosera rotundifolia L. Botanische Zeitung 19: 145–51. ——. 1861b. Anatomie des Sonnenthaublattes (Drosera rotundifolia L.). Botanische Zeitung 19: 233–5, 241–6, 252–5. NNBW: Nieuw Nederlandsch biografisch Woordenboek. Edited by P.  C.  Molhuysen et al. 10 vols. Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff’s Uitgevers-Maatschappij. 1911–37.

728

Bibliography

Norton, Sara and Howe, Mark Antony De Wolfe, eds. 1913. Letters of Charles Eliot Norton. 2 vols. London: Constable and Co. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin. Nöthlich, Rosemarie, et al. 2006. ‘Ich acquirirte das Schwein sofort, ließ nach dem Niederstechen die Pfoten abhacken u.  schickte dieselben an Darwin’— Der Briefwechsel von Otto Zacharias mit Ernst Haeckel (1874–1898). Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology 11: 177–248. Nowell-Smith, Simon.  1968. International copyright law and the publisher in the reign of Queen Victoria. Oxford: Clarendon Press. NUC: The national union catalog. Pre-1956 imprints. 685 vols. and supplement (69 vols.). London and Chicago: Mansell. 1968–81. OBL: Österreichisches biographisches Lexikon 1815–1950. Edited by Leo Santifaller et al. 12 vols. and 7 fascicles of vol. 13 (A–Töply Robert) to date. Vienna: Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1957–. O’Byrne, William R. 1849. A naval biographical dictionary: comprising the life and services of every living officer in Her Majesty’s Navy, from the rank of admiral of the fleet to that of lieutenant, inclusive. London: John Murray. ODNB: Oxford dictionary of national biography: from the earliest times to the year 2000. (Revised edition.) Edited by H.  C.  G.  Matthew and Brian Harrison.  60  vols.  and index. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004. OED: The Oxford English dictionary. Being a corrected re-issue with an introduction, supplement and bibliography of a new English dictionary. Edited by James A. H. Murray, et al. 12  vols.  and supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.  1970. A supplement to the Oxford English dictionary. 4 vols. Edited by R. W. Burchfield. Oxford: Clarendon Press.  1972–86. The Oxford English dictionary. 2d edition.  20  vols. Prepared by J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1989. Oxford English dictionary additional series. 3 vols. Edited by John Simpson et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1993–7. Ogle, William.  1870. The fertilisation of various flowers by insects. (Compositæ, Ericaceæ, &c.) Popular Science Review 10: 160–72. O’Leary, Patrick.  1989. Sir James Mackintosh: the Whig Cicero. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. Opitz, Donald L. 2004. ‘Behind folding shutters in Whittingehame House’: Alice Blanche Balfour (1850–1936) and amateur natural history. Archives of Natural History 31: 330–48. Orchids: On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects, and on the good effects of intercrossing. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1862. Orchids 2d ed.: The various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects, and the good effects of intercrossing. By Charles Darwin. Second edition, revised. London: John Murray. 1877. Origin: On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1859. Origin 4th ed.: On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of

Bibliography

729

favoured races in the struggle for life. With additions and corrections. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1866. Origin 5th ed.: On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. With additions and corrections. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1869. Origin 6th ed.: The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. With additions and corrections. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1872. Origin (1876): The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. With additions and corrections to 1872 (Origin 6th ed.). By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1876. Origin 3d US ed.: On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. By Charles Darwin. From the 6th London edition. New York: D. Appleton and Company. 1873. Osborne, Michael A. 2014. The emergence of tropical medicine in France. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Oxford classical dictionary. 4th edition, revised. Edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012. Pachmann, Ernst von. 1925. Aus dem Pinzgau. Historische Wanderung vom Zeller See nach Krimml. Zell am See: Mayor’s office. Paget, James. 1853. Lectures on surgical pathology delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2 vols. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans. ——. 1875. Clinical lectures and essays. Edited by Howard Marsh. London: Longman, Green, and Co. Pancaldi, Giuliano. 1991. Darwin in Italy. Science across cultural frontiers. Translated by Ruey Brodine Morelli. Updated and expanded edition. Bloomington and Indianapolis, Ind.: Indiana University Press. Panum, Peter Ludwig. 1860. Untersuchungen über die Entstehung der Missbildungen zunächst in den Eiern der Vögel. Berlin: George Reimer. ‘Parallel roads of Glen Roy’: Observations on the parallel roads of Glen Roy, and of other parts of Lochaber in Scotland, with an attempt to prove that they are of marine origin. By Charles Darwin. [Read 7 February 1839.] Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 129: 39–81. [Shorter publications, pp. 50–88.] Parshall, Karen Hunger. 2006. James Joseph Sylvester: Jewish mathematician in a Victoran world. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pas, Peter W. van der. 1970. The correspondence of Hugo de Vries and Charles Darwin. Janus: revue internationale de l’histoire des sciences, de la médecine, de la pharmacie, et de la technique 57: 173–213. Paterson, Robert. 1874. Memorials of the life of James Syme. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas. Pearson, Karl. 1914–30. The life, letters and labours of Francis Galton. 3 vols. in 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

730

Bibliography

Pedicino, Nicola Antonio. 1875. Della impollinazione nella Thalia dealbata, Fraso, e del modo di ricercare sperimentalmente i processi di impollinazione. Rendiconto dell’Accademia delle Scienze Fisiche e Matematiche 14: 25–7. Penzig, Ottone. 1905. Commemorazione di Federico Delpino. Malpighia 19: 294– 310. Petrunkevitch, Alexander. 1963. August Weismann. Personal reminiscences. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 18: 20–35. Petteys, Chris. 1985. Dictionary of women artists. An international dictionary of women artists born before 1900. Boston, Mass.: G. K. Hall & Co. Pfeiffer, Ludwig . 1873–4. Nomenclator botanicus. 2 vols. Cassel: Theodor Fischer. Pflüger, Eduard Friedrich Wilhelm. 1875. Beiträge zur Lehre von der Respiration I. Über die physiologische Verbrennung in den lebendigen Organismen. Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere 10: 251–367. Physicians: The roll of the Royal College of Physicians of London. By William Munk. 2d edition, revised and enlarged. 3 vols. London: Royal College of Physicians. 1878. Lives of the fellows of the Royal College of Physicians of London. Compiled by G. H. Brown et al. 5 vols. London: Royal College of Physicians. Oxford and Washington, D.C.: IRL Press. 1955–89. Pickard-Cambridge, Arthur Wallace.  1918. Memoir of the Reverend Octavius PickardCambridge. Oxford: printed for private circulation. Pickard-Cambridge, Octavius. 1875. On a new genus and species of trap-door spider from South Africa. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 4th ser. 16: 317–22. Plarr, Victor Gustave. 1930. Plarr’s lives of the fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Revised by Sir D’Arcy Power. 2 vols. London: Simpkin Marshall. Polack, Joel Samuel. 1838. New Zealand; being a narrative of travels and adventures during a residence in that country between the years 1831 and 1837. 2 vols. London: R. Bentley. Polski Słownik biograficzny. Edited by Wladyslaw Konopczyński et al. 48 vols. (and three fascicles of vol. 49 (A–Szwencki Fryderyk) to date. Krakow: Nakadem Polskiej Akademji Umiejtności. 1935– Port, M. H. 1995. Imperial London: civil government building in London, 1850–1915. New Haven, Conn., and London: Yale University Press. Porter, Roy and Rousseau, G. S. 1998. Gout: the patrician malady. London and New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Post Office directory of Hampshire, Dorsetshire, and Wiltshire: Post Office directory of Hampshire, Dorsetshire, and Wiltshire. Post Office directory of Dorsetshire, Wiltshire, and Hampshire, including the Isle of Wight. London: Kelly & Co. 1848–75. Post Office directory of Northamptonshire etc.: Post Office directory of Berkshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, with Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Huntingdonshire. The Post Office directory of Northamptonshire, Huntingdonshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, and Oxfordshire. The Post Office directory of the counties of Bedford, Huntingdon, Northampton, Berks, Buckingham and Oxford. London: Kelly and Co. [1847]–77. Post Office directory of the six home counties: Post Office directory of the six home counties, viz., Essex, Herts, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey and Sussex. London: W. Kelly & Co. 1845–78.

Bibliography

731

Post Office Edinburgh directory: Post-Office annual directory and calendar. Post-Office Edinburgh and Leith directory. Edinburgh: Ballantyne & Hughes [and others]. 1845–1908. Post Office London directory: Post-Office annual directory. ... A list of the principal merchants, traders of eminence, &c.  in the cities of London and Westminster, the borough of Southwark, and parts adjacent … general and special information relating to the Post Office. Post Office London directory. London: His Majesty’s Postmaster-General [and others]. 1802–1967. Post Office London suburban directory: The Post Office London suburban directory. Kelly’s London suburban directory. London: Kelly & Co. 1860–1903. Publishers’ circular: The publishers’ circular … A complete alphabetical catalogue of the new works and new editions, their sizes, prices, date of publication, and publishers’ names. 53 vols. London: Sampson Low. 1837–90. Puvis, Marc-Antoine 1837. De la dégénération et de l’extinction des variétés de végétaux propagés par les greffes, boutures, tubercules, etc., et de la création des variétés nouvelles par les croisemens et les semis. Paris: Mme Huzard, Libraire. Radick, Gregory. 2008. The simian tongue: the long debate about animal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Radovanović, Milan. trans. 1878. Postanak fela pomoću prirodnog odbiranja ili odrzhavanje ponjegovanih rasa u borbi za zhivot. By Charles Darwin. (Translation of Origin 6th ed.) Belgrade: State printer. ‘Recollections’: Recollections of the development of my mind and character. By Charles Darwin. In Evolutionary writings, edited by James A. Secord. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008. Record of the Royal Society of London: The record of the Royal Society of London for the promotion of natural knowledge. 4th edition. London: Royal Society. 1940. Report of the Royal Commission on vivisection: Report of the Royal Commission on the practice of subjecting live animals to experiments for scientific purposes; with minutes of evidence and appendix; 1876 (C.1397, C.1397-1) XLI.277, 689. House of Commons Parliamentary Papers. Retzius, Gustaf. 1872. Anatomische Untersuchungen. Part 1 (no more published): Studien über den Bau des Gehörlabyrinthes. 1st part (no more published): Das Gehörlabyrinth der Knochenfische. Stockholm: Klemmings Antiqvariat. Rice, A. L. 1983. Thomas Henry Huxley and the strange case of Bathybius haeckelii: a possible alternative explanation. Archives of Natural History 11: 169–80. Richardson, Edmund William.  1916. A veteran naturalist; being the life and work of W. B. Tegetmeier. London: Witherby & Co. Richardson, John. 1854. Vertebrals, including fossil mammals. In The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Herald, under the command of Captain Henry Kellett during the years 1845–51, edited by Edward Forbes. London: Lovell Reeve.  Riemann, Rudolf. 1875. Gespräche über Schafzucht. Berlin: Schotte & Voigt. Riley, Charles Valentine. 1869–77. Annual reports on the noxious, beneficial, and other, insects of the State of Missouri. Jefferson City, Mo.: Regan & Edwards, public printer [and others].

732

Bibliography

Riley, Charles Valentine. 1882. Darwin’s work in entomology. [Read 12 May 1882.] Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 1 (1880–2): 70–80. Rioux, Jean-Antoine. 2011. Ecologie, évolution: un précurseur montpelliérain, Charles-Frédéric Martins, directeur exemplaire du Jardin des plantes. [Read 3 October 2011.] Bulletin de l’Academie des sciences et lettres de Montpellier 42: 325–43. Roberts, Michael. 2001. Just before the Beagle: Charles Darwin’s geological fieldwork in Wales, summer 1831. Endeavour 25: 33–7. Rogers, Henry Darwin. 1861. On the origin of the parallel roads of Lochaber (Glen Roy), Scotland. [Read 22 March 1861.] Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain 3 (1858–62): 341–5. Rögind, William. 1937. Historia del Ferrocarril del Sud. Buenos Aires: Establecimiento Gráfico Argentino. Rolleston, George. 1861. On the affinities of the brain of the orang utang. Natural History Review (1861): 201–17. ——. 1875. Address to the Department of Anthropology. Report of the 45th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1875), Transactions of the sections, pp. 142–156. ——. 1884. Scientific papers and addresses. Arranged and edited by William Turner, with a biographical sketch by Edward B. Tylor. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Romanes, Ethel Duncan. 1896. The life and letters of George John Romanes M.A., LL.D., F.R.S. London, New York, and Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co. Romanes, George John.  1874a. Natural selection and dysteleology. Nature, 12 March 1874, pp. 361–2. ——. 1874b. Rudimentary organs. Nature, 9 April 1874, pp. 440–1. ——. 1874c. Disuse as a reducing cause in species. Nature, 2 July 1874, p. 164. ——. 1875a. Sense of humour and reason in animals. Nature, 27 May 1875, pp. 66–7. ——. 1875b. The Croonian lecture.— Preliminary observations on the locomotor system of Medusæ. [Read 16 December 1875.] Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 166 (1876): 269–313. ——. 1876. The physiology of the nervous system of medusae. [Read 28 April 1876.] Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain 8 (1875–8): 166–77. ——. 1876–7. An account of some new species, varieties, and monstrous forms of medusæ. [Read 6 April 1876 and 18 January 1877.] Journal of the Linnean Society (Zoology) 12 (1876): 524–31; 13 (1878): 190–4. Roxburgh, William. 1820–4. Flora Indica; or descriptions of Indian plants … to which are added descriptions of plants more recently discovered by Nathaniel Wallich. Edited by William Carey. 3 vols. Serampore: Mission Press. ——. 1832. Flora Indica; or descriptions of Indian plants. 3 vols. Serampore: W. Thacker and Co., Calcutta. Parbury, Allen and Co., London. Royal Society catalogue of scientific papers: Catalogue of scientific papers (1800–1900). Compiled and published by the Royal Society of London. 19  vols.  and index (3  vols.). London: Royal Society of London. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1867–1925.

Bibliography

733

Russell, Colin Archibald. 1996. Edward Frankland: chemistry, controversy and conspiracy in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rütimeyer, Ludwig. 1875. Der Veränderungen der Theirwelt in der Schweiz seit Anwesenheit des Menschen. Basel: Schweighauserische Verlagsbuchhandlung. Sabine, Joseph. 1822. On the native country of the wild potatoe, with an account of its culture in the garden of the Horticultural Society; and observations on the importance of obtaining improved varieties of the cultivated plant. [Read 19 November 1822.] Transactions of the Horticultural Society of London 5 (1824): 249–59. Sachs, Julius. 1860. Auflösung des Marmors durch Mais-Wurzeln. Botanische Zeitung 18: 117–19. ——. 1862. Zur Keimungsgeschichte der Dattel. Botanische Zeitung 20: 241–6, 249–52. ——. 1864. Ueber die Auflösung verschiedener Mineralien durch die sie berührenden Pflanzenwurzeln. Verhandlungen des naturhistorischen Vereins der preussischen Rheinlande und Westphalens (Sitzungsberichte der niederrheinischen Gesellschaft für Natur- und Heilkunde zu Bonn) 21: 97–9. ——. 1868. Lehrbuch der Botanik: nach dem gegenwärtigen Stand der Wissenschaft. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. ——. 1870. Lehrbuch der Botanik nach dem gegenwärtigen Stand der Wissenschaft. 2d edition. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. ——. 1873. Lehrbuch der Botanik nach dem gegenwärtigen Stand der Wissenschaft. 3d edition. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. ——. 1874a. Traité de botanique conforme à l’état présent de la science. Translated by Philippe Édouard Léon van Tiegheim. [Translation of Sachs 1873.] Paris: F. Savy. ——. 1874b. Lehrbuch der Botanik nach dem gegenwärtigen Stand der Wissenschaft. 4th edition. Leipzig: W. Engelmann. ——. 1875a. Text-book of botany: morphological and physiological. Translated and annotated by Alfred W. Bennett, assisted by W. T. Thiselton Dyer. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——.  1875b. Geschichte der Botanik vom 16. Jahrhundert bis 1860. Munich: R. Oldenbourg. Salvin, Osbert.  1875. On the avifauna of the Galapagos Archipelago. [Read 6 April 1875.] Transactions of the Zoological Society of London 9 (1877): 447–510. Sarjeant, William A.  S.  1980–96. Geologists and the history of geology: an international bibliography. 10 vols. including supplements. London: Macmillan. Malabar, Fla.: Robert E. Krieger Publishing. Savage Landor, Arnold Henry. 1893. Alone with the hairy Ainu, or, 3800 miles of a pack saddle in Yezo and a cruise to the Kurile Islands. London: John Murray. SBL: Svenskt biografiskt lexikon. Edited by Bertil Boëthius et al. 33 vols. (A–Ström) to date. Stockholm: Albert Bonnier and P. A. Norstedt. 1918–. Schacht, Hermann. 1852. Die Pflanzenzelle, der innere Bau und das Leben der Gewächse. Berlin: Verlag von G. W. F. Müller. Scherren, Henry. 1905. The Zoological Society of London: a sketch of its foundation and development and the story of its farm, museum, gardens, menagerie and library. London: Cassell.

734

Bibliography

Schiff, Moritz.  1867. Leçons sur la physiologie de la digestion, faites au Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Florence. 2 vols. Florence: Hermann Loescher. Schiller, Francis. 1979. Paul Broca: founder of French anthropology, explorer of the brain. Berkeley and London: University of California Press. S[chlechtenda]l, [D. F. L.]. 1864. Personal-Nachrichten [Hermann Crüger]. Botanische Zeitung 22: 119–20. Schleiden, Matthias Jacob. 1838. Beiträge zur Phytogenesis. Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie und wissenschaftliche Medicin (1838): 137–76. Schöbl, Josef. 1871. Das äussere Ohr der Mäuse als wichtiges Tastorgan. Archiv für mikroskopische Anatomie 7: 260–8. Scholz, Horst. 2011. Rudolf Riemann—Pioneer aus Norddeutschland. Der Hippolyt 42 (June 2011): 11. Schultze, Fritz.  1875. Kant und Darwin. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Entwicklungslehre. Jena: Hermann Dufft. Schümann, Daniel.  2008. Struggle for or against participation? How Darwinism came to partitioned Poland in the 1860s and early 1870s. In The reception of Charles Darwin in Europe, edited by Eve-Marie Engels and Thomas F. Glick. London and New York: Continuum. Secord, James Andrew. 1981. Nature’s fancy: Charles Darwin and the breeding of pigeons. Isis 72: 162–86. ——. 1986. Controversy in Victorian geology: the Cambrian–Silurian dispute. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ——. 1991. The discovery of a vocation: Darwin’s early geology. British Journal for the History of Science 24: 133–57. ——. 1997. Introduction to Principles of geology, by Charles Lyell. London: Penguin Books. Seidlitz, Georg Carl Maria von. 1871. Die Darwin’sche Theorie: elf Vorlesungen über die Entstehung der Thiere und Pflanzen durch Naturzüchtung. Dorpat: Verlag von C. Mattiesen. ——. 1875. Die Darwin’sche Theorie: elf Vorlesungen über die Entstehung der Thiere und Pflanzen durch Naturzüchtung. 2d edition. Leipzig: W. Engelmann. Semper, Carl Gottfried.  1874. Die Stammesverwandtschaft der Wirbelthiere und Wirbellosen. Arbeiten aus dem zoologisch-zootomischen Institut in Würzburg 2 (1875): 25–76. Severtsov, Nikolai Alekseevich. 1873. Arkary (gornye barany). Book 1 of Priroda. Popularnyi estestvenno-istoricheskii sbornik. (Nature. Popular natural history series.) Edited by S. Usov and L. Sabaneev. Moscow: Tipografia V. Got’e. Sewerzow, N. [Nikolai Alekseevich Severtsov.] 1875. N. Sewerzow’s Erforschung des Thian-Schan-Gerbirgssytems, mit Specialkarte von A. Petermann. Mittheilungen aus Justus Perthes’ geographischer Anstalt über wichtige neue Erforschungen auf dem Gesammtgebiete der Geographie 9 (1875): no. 42, 10 (1875–6): no. 43. Shorter publications: Charles Darwin’s shorter publications, 1829–1883. Edited by John van Wyhe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009.

Bibliography

735

Siddle, Richard. 1997. Ainu: indigenous people of Japan. In Japan’s minorities: the illusion of homogeniety, edited by Michael Weiner. London and New York: Routledge. Siebold, Karl Theodor Ernst von. 1848. Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Anatomie der Wirbellosen Thiere. Part 1 of Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Anatomie by K. von Siebold and H. Stannius. Berlin: Verlag von Veit & Comp. Simpson, James Young. 1848. Cases of spontaneous amputation of the forearm, and subsequent rudimentary regeneration of the hand in the fœtus. Monthly Journal of Medical Science n.s. 2: 890. Smee, Alfred. 1872. My garden: its plan and culture together with a general description of its geology, botany, and natural history. 2d edition. London: Bell and Daldy. Smith, Hobart M. 1989. Discovery of the axolotl and its early history in biological research. In Developmental biology of the axolotl, edited by John B. Armstrong and George M. Malacinski. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, James Edward. 1796. Characters of a new genus of plants named Salisburia. [Read 6 December 1796.] Transactions of the Linnean Society 3 (1797): 330–2. Smith, Kenneth G. V. and Dimick, R. E. 1976. Darwin’s ‘American’ neighbour. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 8 (1976–8): 78–82. Solly, Samuel. 1847. The human brain: its structure, physiology and diseases. With a description of the typical forms of brain in the animal kingdom. 2d edition. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans. Sorby, Henry Clifton. 1875a. On new and improved microscope spectrum apparatus, and on its application to various branches of research. [Read 7 April 1875.] Monthly Microscopical Journal 13: 198–208. ——. 1875b. On a new method of measuring the position of the bands in spectra. [Read 3 November 1875.] Monthly Microscopical Journal 14: 269–73. South America: Geological observations on South America. Being the third part of the geology of the voyage of the Beagle, under the command of Capt. FitzRoy RN, during the years 1832 to 1836. By Charles Darwin. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1846. Speake, Jennifer, ed. 2008. The Oxford dictionary of proverbs. 5th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spencer, Herbert. 1864–7. The principles of biology. 2 vols. London: Williams & Norgate. Sprengel, Christian Konrad. 1793. Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur im Bau und in der Befruchtung der Blumen. Berlin: Friedrich Vieweg. Staley, Thomas W. 2009. The journal Mind in its early years, 1876–1920: an introduction. Journal of the History of Ideas 70: 259–63. Steel, Donald, et al., eds. 1975. Shell International encyclopedia of golf. London: Edbury Press. Steinheimer, Frank D. 2004. Charles Darwin’s bird collection and ornithological knowledge during the voyage of H.M.S. ‘Beagle’. Journal of Ornithology 145: 300– 20. Stenton, Michael. 1976. Who’s who of British members of Parliament, 1832–1885. Brighton: Hanover Press.

736

Bibliography

Sterne, Laurence. 1760–7. The life and opinions of Tristram Shandy, gentleman. 2d edition. 9 vols. London: R. and J. Dodsley. Steudel, Ernst Gottlieb.  1841. Nomenclator botanicus: seu: synonymia plantarum universalis, enumerans ordine alphabetico nomina atque synonyma, tum generica tum specifica, et a Linnaeo et a recentioribus de re botanica scriptoribus plantis phanerogamis imposita. 2d edition. 2 parts. Stuttgart and Tübingen: J. G. Cotta. Storer, John. [1879.] The wild white cattle of Great Britain. An account of their origin, history, and present state. London: Cassell, Petter, & Galpin. Strick, James.  2000. Sparks of life: Darwinism and the Victorian debates over spontaneous generation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Strong, John.  1909. A history of secondary education in Scotland; an account of Scottish secondary education from early times to the Education Act of 1908. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sturtevant, Edward Lewis.  1875. The law of inheritance; or, the philosophy of breeding. Boston: Wright & Potter. Sulivan, Henry Norton, ed. 1896. Life and letters of the late Admiral Sir Bartholomew James Sulivan, KCB, 1810–1890. London: John Murray. Sulloway, Frank J. 1984. Darwin and the Galapagos. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 21: 29–59. Sully, James. 1874. Sensation and intuition: studies in psychology and aesthetics. London: Henry S. King & Co. Szreter, Simon. 1996. Fertility, class and gender in Britain, 1860–1940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tait, Lawson. 1874. The pathology and treatment of diseases of the ovaries; being the Hastings prize essay of 1873. London: Smith, Elder & Co. ——. 1875a. The uses of tails in animals. Hardwicke’s Science-Gossip 11: 126–7. ——. 1875b. Note on the anatomy of the umbilical cord. (Abstract.) Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 23 (1874–5): 498–501. ——. 1875c. On the freezing process for section-cutting: and on various methods of staining and mounting sections. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology 9: 249–58. ——. 1876. Preliminary note on the anatomy of the umbilical cord. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 24 (1875–6): 417–40. ——. 1879. Researches on the digestive principles of plants. [Read 22 May 1879.] Proceedings of the Birmingham Philosophical Society 1 (1876–9) pt 2: 125–39. ——. 1879–80. Notes on the structures of pitcher plants. Midland Naturalist 2 (1879): 265–8, 295–7; 3 (1880): 5–8, 58–62. Taxonomic literature: Taxonomic literature. A selective guide to botanical publications and collections with dates, commentaries and types. By Frans A. Stafleu and Richard S. Cowan. 2d edition. 7 vols. Utrecht, Netherlands: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema. The Hague, Netherlands: W. Junk. 1976–88. Taylor, Peter Geoffrey. 1989. The genus Utricularia — a taxonomic monograph. Kew Bulletin Additional Series XIV. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Taylor, Isaac. 1874. Etruscan researches. London: Macmillan.

Bibliography

737

Tegetmeier, William Bernhard. 1873. Pheasants for coverts and aviaries. Illustrated with full-page engravings drawn from life by T. W. Wood. London: H. Cox. Thayer, James Bradley.  1878. Letters of Chauncey Wright with some account of his life. Cambridge, Mass.: John Wilson and Son (privately printed). Thiselton-Dyer, William Turner. 1875. On the classification and sexual reproduction of thallophytes. London: J. E. Adlard. [Revised version of ‘Sexual reproduction of thallophytes’. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science n.s. 15 (1875): 295–326.] ——. 1910. The Jodrell Laboratory at Kew. Nature, 24 November 1910, pp. 103–4. Thom’s Irish almanac: Thom’s Irish almanac and official directory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Dublin: Alexander Thom. 1846–80. Thompson, Joseph Parrish. 1875. Lucretius or Paul: materialism and theism tested by the nature and needs of man. Berlin: A. Asher and Co. Thomson, Charles Wyville. 1873. Notes from the ‘Challenger’ VII. Nature, 18 September 1873, pp. 400–3. ‘Three forms of Lythrum salicaria’: On the sexual relations of the three forms of Lythrum salicaria. By Charles Darwin. [Read 16 June 1864.] Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 8 (1865): 169–96. [Collected papers 2: 106–31.] Tizard, T.  H., et al. 1885. Narrative of the cruise of H.M.S.  Challenger with a general account of the scientific results of the expedition. Vol. 1, part 1, of Report on the scientific results of the voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873–76, superintended by Charles Wyville Thomson and John Murray. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Tort, Patrick.  1996. Dictionnaire du Darwinisme et de l’evolution. 3  vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Tracy, Nicholas. 2006. Who’s who in Nelson’s navy: 200 naval heroes. London: Chatham. Traube, Moritz. 1867. Experimente zur Theorie der Zellenbildung und Endosmose. Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie und wissenschaftliche Medicin (1867): 87–165. ——.  1874. Experimente zur physikalischen Erklärung der Bildung der Zellhaut, ihres Wachsthums durch Introsusception und des Aufwärtswachsens der Pflanzen. Tageblatt der 47. Versammlung deutscher Naturforscher und Aerzte in Breslau vom 18. bis 24 September 1874, pp. 191–9. Breslau: E. Morgenstern. Treaty on postal union: Treaty concerning the formation of a general postal union. Signed at Berne, October 9, 1874. Washington: Government Printing Office. 1875. Turner, James. 1999. The liberal education of Charles Eliot Norton. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Tylor, Alfred. 1852. On changes of the sea level effected by existing physical causes during stated periods of time. Abstract. [Read 15 December 1852.] Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 9 (1853): 47–9. ——. 1853. On changes of the sea level effected by existing physical causes during stated periods of time. Philosophical Magazine 4th ser. 5: 258–81. ——. 1867. On the Amiens gravel. [Read 6 November 1867.] Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 24 (1868): 1–2, 103–25. ——. 1868a. On the formation of deltas; and on the evidence and cause of great

738

Bibliography

changes in the sea-level during the glacial period. [Read  11  November  1868.] Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 25 (1869): 7–12. Tylor, Alfred. 1868b. On Quaternary gravels. [Read 6 May 1868.] Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 25 (1869): 57–100. ——. 1868c. On the formation of deltas; and on the evidence and cause of great changes in the sea-level during the glacial period. [Read 11 November 1868.] Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 25 (1869): 7–12. ——. 1872. On the formation of deltas: and on the evidence and cause of great changes in the sea-level during the glacial period. Geological Magazine 9: 392–9, 485–501. Tyndall, John. 1875. Six lectures on light delivered in America 1872–1873. 2d edition. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. Variation: The variation of animals and plants under domestication. By Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 1868. Variation 2d ed.: The variation of animals and plants under domestication. By Charles Darwin. 2d edition. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 1875. Variation US ed.: The variation of animals and plants under domestication. By Charles Darwin. 2 vols. New York: Orange Judd & Co. [1868.] Variation 2d US ed.: The variation of animals and plants under domestication. By Charles Darwin. 2 vols. New York: D. Appleton. 1876. Verbeek, Rogier Diederik Marius. 1875. On the geology of central Sumatra. Geological Magazine decade 2, vol. 2: 477–86. Volcanic islands: Geological observations on the volcanic islands, visited during the voyage of HMS Beagle, together with some brief notices on the geology of Australia and the Cape of Good Hope. Being the second part of the geology of the voyage of the Beagle, under the command of Capt. FitzRoy RN, during the years 1832 to 1836. By Charles Darwin. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1844. ‘Volcanic phenomena and the formation of mountain chains’: On the connexion of certain volcanic phenomena in South America; and on the formation of mountain chains and volcanos, as the effect of the same power by which continents are elevated. By Charles Darwin. [Read 7 March 1838.] Transactions of the Geological Society of London 2d ser. 5 (1840): 601–31. [Shorter publications, pp. 97–124.] Voyage: Charles Darwin and the voyage of the Beagle. Edited by Nora Barlow. London: Pilot Press. 1945. Vries, Hugo de.  1873a. Längenwachsthum der Ober- und Unterseite sich krümmender Ranken. Arbeiten des Botanischen Instituts in Würzburg 1 (1871–4): 302–16. ——. 1873b. Zur Mechanik der Bewegungen von Schlingpflanzen. Arbeiten des Botanischen Instituts in Würzburg 1 (1871–4): 317–42. Wächter, Johann Karl Augustin. 1801. Ueber die merkwürdige Ortsveränderung der Antheren, und Befruchtungsart der Linneischen Pflanzengeshclechter Orchis, Ophrys, Serapias und Satyrium, nebst einigen botanischen Bemerkungen. Romer’s Archiv für die Botanik 2: 209–15. Wallace, Alfred Russel. 1867. Creation by law. Quarterly Journal of Science 4: 471–88.

Bibliography

739

Wallace, Alfred Russel. 1876. The geographical distribution of animals, with a study of the relations of living and extinct faunas as elucidating the past changes of the earth’s surface. 2 vols. London: Macmillan and Co. Waller, Jessie Oriana.  1889. Mental and physical training of children. Nineteenth Century 26: 659–67. Wallich, Nathaniel.  1830–2. Plantæ Asiaticæ rariores; or, descriptions and figures of a select number of unpublished East Indian plants. 3 vols. London, Paris, and Strasbourg: Treuttel and Würtz. Warming, Eugenius.  1874. Bidrag til Kundskaben om Lentibulariaceæ. I. Genlisea ornata Mart. (Hertil tab. V og VI). II. Spiringen af Fröene hos Utricularia vulgaris. (Hertil tab. VII). Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra den naturhistoriske Forening i Kjöbenhavn (1874): 33–58. (Resumé in French, pp. 8–15.) Watson, Robert Boog. 1866. On the marine origin of the parallel roads of Glen Roy. (Abstract.) Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 22 (1865–6): 9–12. Watts, Henry.  1863–8. A dictionary of chemistry and the allied branches of other sciences. 5 vols. London: Longman, Green, & Co. ——. 1872–4. A dictionary of chemistry and the allied branches of other sciences. 2d edition. 5 vols. London: Longman, Green, & Co. Waugh, Francis Gledstanes. [1888.] Members of the Athenæum Club, 1824 to 1887. N.p.: privately printed. Webster, Wentworth. 1875. The Basque and the Kelt: an examination of Mr. W. Boyd Dawkins’ paper, ‘The northern range of the Basques,’ in the Fortnightly Review, September, 1874. [Read 9 February 1875.] Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 5 (1875–6): 5–29. Wedderburn, William. n.d. ‘Be ye therefore perfect’: a lay sermon. Bombay: Bombay Gazette. Wedgwood, Barbara and Wedgwood, Hensleigh.  1980. The Wedgwood circle, 1730– 1897: four generations of a family and their friends. London: Studio Vista. Wehler, Hans-Ulrich. 1985. The German Empire, 1871–1918. Leamington Spa and Dover, N.H.: Berg Publishers. Weinreich, Heinrich. 1993. Duftstofftheorie: Gustav Jaeger (1832–1917); vom Biologen zum ‘Seelenriecher’. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft. Weir, John Jenner. 1869. On insects and insectivorous birds; and especially on the relation between the colour and the edibility of Lepidoptera and their larvae. [Read 1 March 1869.] Transactions of the Entomological Society of London (1869): 21–6. ——. 1870. Further observations on the relation between the colour and the edibility of Lepidoptera and their larvae. [Read 4 July 1870.] Transactions of the Entomological Society of London (1870): 337–9. Weismann, August. 1872. Ueber den Einfluss der Isolirung auf die Artbildung. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann. ——. 1875a. Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie. I. Ueber den Saison-Dimorphismus der Schmetterlinge. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.

740

Bibliography

Weismann, August. 1875b. Ueber die Umwandlung des mexicanishen Axolotl in ein Amblystoma. Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Zoologie. 25, suppl. 3: 297–334. Wellesley index: The Wellesley index to Victorian periodicals 1824–1900. Edited by Walter E. Houghton et al. 5 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1966–89. West, David A. 2003. Fritz Müller. A naturalist in Brazil. Blacksburg, Va.: Pocahontas Press. Westwood, John Obadiah. 1839–40. An introduction to the modern classification of insects; founded on the natural habits and corresponding organisation of the differentfamilies. 2 vols. London. [Vols. 6,7] White, Paul. 2010. Darwin’s church. In God’s bounty? The churches and the natural world, edited by Peter Clarke and Tony Claydon. Rochester, New York: Boydell and Brewer. Whitney, Josiah Dwight. 1867. Language and the study of language: twelve lectures on the principles of linguistic science. London: Trübner. Whitney, William Dwight. 1874. Darwinism and language. [Essay review of works by August Schleicher and Friedrich Max Müller.] North American Review 119: 61–88. ——. 1875. Are languages institutions? Contemporary Review 25 (1874–5): 713–32. Wiener, Charles. 1876. Estudos sobre os sambaquis do sul do Brazil. Archivos do Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro 1: 1–20 . ——. 2010. Voyage au Pérou et en Bolivie (1875–1877). Introduction and notes by Pascal Riviale. Paris: Ginkgo. Wigand, Albert.  1874–7. Der Darwinismus und die Naturforschung Newtons und Cuviers. Beiträge zur Methodik der Naturforschung und zur Speciesfrage. 3  vols. Brunswick: F. Vieweg und Sohn. [Wilberforce, Samuel.] 1860. [Review of Origin.] Quarterly Review 108: 225–64. Wilder, Burt Green. 1873. Cerebral variation in domestic dogs, and its bearing upon scientific phrenology. Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1873) section B: 234–49. Williamson, Lori. 2005. Power and protest: Frances Power Cobbe and Victorian society. London: Rivers Oram Press. Williamson, William Crawford. 1875. The dawn of animal life: a lecture delivered in the City Hall, Glasgow, March 2nd 1875; under the auspices of The Glasgow Science Lectures Association. London and Glasgow: William Collins, Sons & Company. Wilson, David Alec. 1898. Mr Froude and Carlyle. London: William Heinemann Wilson, Leonard Gilchrist. 1972. Charles Lyell. The years to 1841: the revolution in geology. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Winsor, Mary Pickard. 1991. Reading the shape of nature. Comparative zoology at the Agassiz museum. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Winter, Alison. 1998. Mesmerized: powers of mind in Victorian Britain. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Wrede, Richard and Reinfels, Hans von, eds. 1897. Das geistige Berlin. Eine Encyklopädie das geistigens Lebens Berlin. Vols. 1 and 3. Berlin: H. Storm.

Bibliography

741

Wright, Chauncey.  1870. [Review of Contributions to the theory of natural selection, by Alfred Russel Wallace, 1870.] North American Review 111: 282–311. ——. 1871. Darwinism: being an examination of Mr. St. George Mivart’s ‘Genesis of species’. [Reprint of ‘The genesis of species’, North American Review 113 (1871): 63–103, with an appendix.] London: John Murray. ——. 1875. German Darwinism. Nation, 9 September 1875, pp. 168–70. ——. 1877. Philosophical discussions. With a biographical sketch of the author by Charles Eliot Norton. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Wright, Edward Perceval. 1865. On a new genus of Alcyonidae. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 2d ser. 5: 213–17. Wright, Terence R. 1986. The religion of humanity: the impact of Comtean positivism on Victorian Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WWW: Who was who: a companion to Who’s who, containing the biographies of those who died during the period [1897–1995]. 9  vols.  and cumulated index (1897–1990). London: Adam & Charles Black. 1920–96. WWWS: World who’s who in science from antiquity to the present. Edited by Allen G. Debus. Chicago: Marquis-Who’s Who. 1968. Youatt, William.  1834. Cattle: their breeds, management, and diseases. London: Baldwin and Cradock. Zacharias, Otto. 1874. Zur Kritik des Darwinismus. Das Ausland, 13 July 1874, pp. 541–8. ——. 1882. Charles R. Darwin und die cultur-historische Bedeutung seiner Theorie vom Ursprung der Arten. Ein Beitrag zur Darwin-Litteratur. Berlin: Elwin Staude. Zahiri, Reza, et al. 2012. Molecular phylogenetics of Erebidae (Lepidoptera, Noctuidea). Systematic Entomology 37: 102–24.

NOTES ON MANUSCRIPT SOURCES The majority of the manuscript sources cited in the footnotes to the letters are either in the Darwin Archive, Cambridge University Library, or at Down House, Downe, Kent. Further details about the Darwin Archive are available in the Handlist of Darwin papers at the University Library Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960) and the unpublished supplementary handlist available at the library; a new catalogue of the papers is currently being prepared. Further details about the manuscripts at Down House are available in Philip Titheradge, ed. The Charles Darwin Memorial at Down House, Downe, Kent, revised ed. ([Downe: Down House Museum], 1981) and from the curator (The Curator, Down House, Downe, Kent, BR6 7JT). In addition, there are a number of named sources that are commonly used in the footnotes: for each of these, the editors have provided brief descriptive notes. Many manuscript sources are now available online at The complete work of Charles Darwin online (darwin-online.org.uk). CD’s Account books (Down House MS). This series of seventeen account books begins on 12 February 1839, a fortnight after CD and Emma’s marriage, and ends with CD’s death. The books contain two sets of accounts. From the start, CD recorded his cash account according to a system of double-entry book-keeping. On each left-hand page he recorded credits (i.e., withdrawals from the bank, either in the form of cash paid to himself or cheques drawn for others), and on each right-hand page he recorded debits (i.e., cash or cheques paid to others). CD also recorded details of his banking account from the start, but only noted them down in a single column at the bottom of the left-hand page of his cash account. In August 1848, however, he began a system of detailing his banking account according to double-entry book-keeping, in a separate chronological section at the back of each account book. On the left, he recorded credits to the account in the form of income (i.e., investments, rent, book sales, etc.). On the right, he recorded debits to the account (i.e., cash or cheque withdrawals). CD’s Classed account books (Down House MS). This series of four account books, covering the years 1839–81, runs parallel to CD’s Account books. For each year, September–August (after 1867, January–December), CD divided his expenditure into different classes; in addition, he made a tally for the year of his income, expenditure, cash in hand, and money in the bank. From 1843, CD also compiled at the back of each book a separate account of the total expenditure under the various headings in each year, and from 1844 he added a full account of his income in each year, and of capital invested and ‘paid’ up.

Notes on manuscript sources

743

CD’s Experimental notebook (DAR 157a).  This notebook contains notes on some of the experiments carried out between 13 November 1855 (with some back references) and 20 May 1868; the majority of the notes date from before 1863. Often only the details of the experiment attempted are given, usually with cross-references to results recorded in CD’s portfolios of notes. The notebook also contains a number of letters to CD. CD’s Investment book (Down House MS).  This book records for each of CD’s investments the income received during the period 1846–81. CD’s ‘Journal’.  See Appendix II. CD’s Library catalogue (DAR 240).  This manuscript catalogue of CD’s scientific library was compiled by Thomas W. Newton, assistant librarian of the Museum of Practical Geology, London, in August 1875. Additions to the catalogue were later made by Francis Darwin (who inherited most of his father’s scientific library) and by H. W. Rutherford, who apparently used this catalogue as a basis for compiling his Catalogue of the library of Charles Darwin now in the Botany School, Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1908). However, there are items listed in this manuscript catalogue that do not appear in Rutherford’s published catalogue, and which must have been dispersed after being listed. Down Coal and Clothing Club account book (Down House MS).  CD was for some years treasurer of this charitable organisation. The account book records subscriptions made by honorary subscribers between 1841 and 1876; between 1848 and 1869 the entries are in CD’s handwriting. For the years 1841–8 and 1868–76, there is also a statement of expenditures, though not in CD’s handwriting. Emma Darwin’s diary (DAR 242).  This is a series of small pocket diaries, in which Emma recorded details of the health of family members, trips made by herself, CD, and their children, school holidays, and visits to Down by others. The collection at CUL comprises diaries for the years 1824, 1833–4, 1839–45, and 1848–96. H. E. Litchfield’s autobiography (DAR 246). This unfinished autobiography, written in 1926 on forty-two loose leaves, and chiefly concerning Henrietta Emma Darwin’s childhood, has never been published. List of pamphlets (DAR 252.4).  This is a catalogue of CD’s pamphlet collection prepared by CD and Francis Darwin in 1878 (see the letter from Emma Darwin to Henrietta Emma Litchfield, [ June 1878] (DAR 219.9: 175)). From about 1878 CD began to arrange the articles, papers, and reprints he received into a numbered collection. CD maintained this reprint collection until his death, when it was taken over by Francis Darwin. Francis continued the collection, adding new items, the numbers running consecutively from those of his father. Evidently, until this catalogue was prepared, CD used a working index similar to that of his ‘List of reviews’. The catalogue is in two sections, a list of the quarto collection and one of the general collection. Both sections are alphabetically arranged with the entries pasted on sheets in a loose-leaf folder.

744

Notes on manuscript sources

List of reviews (DAR 262.8: 9–18 (English Heritage MS: 88206151– 60)).  This manuscript, headed ‘List Reviews of Origin of Sp & of C. Darwins Books’, was CD’s working index to his collection of reviews of his own books. It corresponds approximately to the review collection in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL, but includes some items that were dispersed after being listed. Reading notebooks.  See Correspondence vol. 4, Appendix IV. These notebooks are divided into sections entitled ‘Books Read’ and ‘Books to be Read’. CD’s entries in ‘Books Read’ often include a brief opinion of the work. Scrapbook of reviews (DAR 226.1 and 226.2).  Many of the reviews contained in these two volumes bear CD’s annotations and thus were evidently collected by CD. However, the scrapbook seems to have been assembled by Francis Darwin: the tables of contents are in the handwriting of H. W. Rutherford, an assistant at Cambridge University Library who acted as a copyist for Francis on several occasions (see Francis Darwin and A. C. Seward, eds. More letters of Charles Darwin (London: John Murray, 1903), 1: x, and Francis Darwin, ed. The foundations of the Origin of Species. Two essays written in 1842 and 1844 by Charles Darwin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909)). In addition, the scrapbook is identified as Francis’s in a note (DAR 226.1: 132a) made in 1935 by Arthur Keith, whose appeal led to the purchase of Down House as a Darwin memorial (see Arthur Keith, An autobiography (London: Watts & Co., 1950)). DAR 226.1 bears the inscription ‘Reviews of C. Darwin’s works’ on the spine, and contains, among others, reviews of Origin and Orchids; DAR 226.2 is inscribed: ‘Reviews. Descent. Expression. Insect. Pl. Eras. D.’ W. E. Darwin’s botanical notebook (DAR 117).  This notebook contains observational and experimental notes on plants made by William, often in consultation with CD. The first observation bears the date 13 July 1862, and, although the date of the last observation is 26 June 1870, most of the notes were made between 1862 and 1864. The notebook originally contained letters from CD, but these were later removed. William entered notes made from botanical textbooks in a separate notebook (DAR 234). W. E. Darwin’s botanical sketchbook (DAR 186: 43). This sketchbook, which contains entries dated 1862–72, was evidently begun in parallel to William’s botanical notebook. It contains ink drawings of various parts of plants, and of sections, together with descriptions, which are sometimes very extensive.

INDEX The dates of letters to and from Darwin’s correspondents are listed in the biographical register and index to correspondents and are not repeated here. Darwin’s works are indexed under the short titles used throughout this volume and listed in the bibliography. Abbot, Francis Ellingwood: CD and W.E. Darwin donate £20 to Index, 483 & n.3, 493 & nn.1–3 Abutilon: F. Müller’s article on pollination, 312 & 313 n.1 Academy: E. Haeckel, Anthropogenie, review (T.H. Huxley), 4 & 5 n.3, 12 & n.5, 13 & n.1; A.H. Huth, Marriage of near kin, review (G.H. Darwin), 326 n.1, 327–8 & 328 n.2, 361 n.2; E.F. Lubbock, review of Insectivorous plants, xx; St G.J. Mivart responds to T.H. Huxley’s remarks on anonymous reviewers, 35 & n.4 Acer: Arctic fossils, 89 & 92 n.16, 91, 526 & 528 n.16 Acland, Henry Wentworth: scientists’ petition on vivisection, signature outstanding, 156 & n.5 Acropera: sexes not separate, CD corrects his error, 289 & n.3 Aeglea (Aegla): A. odebrechtii, F. Müller finds and names, 358 & 359–60 n.8, 509 & 509–10 nn.16– 17 Agaricus: A. arvensis and A. nudus (Lepista nuda) observed at Rothamsted agricultural station, 518 & 519 nn. 4 & 6; A. nebularis (Clitocybe nebularis) forms large rings, 269 & n.3 Agassiz, Louis: expedition to South America, 81 & 84 n.6; established John Anderson School of Natural History on Penikese Island, Mass., 211 n.6 Ainu, 207 & 207–8 nn.1–3 Airy, George Biddell: W.E. Darwin tries to see, 483 & n.4 Alcyonaria, 440 & 441 n.6, 558 & 559 n.6 Aldrovanda: F.J. Cohn, paper on Aldrovanda and Utricularia, 1–2 & 2 nn.1 & 3, 16 & n.5, 20 & 21 nn.9–10, 483 & n.1, 521 & 522 nn.9–10; F.J. Cohn’s drawing copied for Insectivorous plants, 1–2 & 2 nn.1–3, 20 & 21 n.10, 521 & 522 n.10; insect

catching, 231–2 & 232 n.5, 232 & n.3; Insectivorous plants, A. vesiculosa var. verticillata (A. verticillata Roxb.), 30 n.7; Insectivorous plants, F.J. Cohn cited, 2 & n.3, 243 & n.3; A. vesiculosa, 20 & 21 n.15, 30 n.7 Allen, Joel Asaph: climate responsible for modifications in birds of the same species, 174 & 175 n.4 Allen, Thomas: skeleton vivisection bill and role of RSPCA, 139–40 & 140 nn.1–4, 165 & 166 n.2 Allman, George James: CD thinks J.D. Hooker might consult over St G.J. Mivart’s conduct, 3 & 4 n.3, 4 & 4–5 n.2; CD thinks of calling on to protest against blackballing of E.R. Lankester, 481 & 482 n.4; president, Linnean Society, 4 n.3, 4–5 n.2, 481 n.1, 481 n.4; study of Polyzoa, 113 n.3 Alnus: Arctic fossils, 89 & 92 n.16, 91, 526 & 528 n.16 Alocasia odora: insect catching, 142 & n.6; spathe holds insects for fertilisation, 147 & n.5 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): T. Meehan, ‘Are insects any material aid to plants in fertilisation?’, 417 n.5 American cyclopaedia: T.H. Huxley, ‘Species’, 415 & n.2, 426 & n.4 American Journal of Science: A. Gray, review of Insectivorous plants and notice of Climbing plants 2d ed., 515 & 516 n.2 American Naturalist: ‘Azalea viscosa, a fly-catcher’, 79 & 79–80 n.1 Amoeba: Arctic fossils, 19–20 & 20–1 n.6, 521 & 522 n.6 Amphioxus (Branchiostoma lanceolatum): A. Dohrn considers a degenerate form, 200 n.2, 210 & 211 n.5; E. Haeckel on development of, 440 & 441 n.4, 558 & 559 n.4

746

Index

Amphistoma conicum (Paramphistomum cervi): M. Treat notes resemblance of vascular system to Utricularia, 63 & n.2 Anemone, 384 n.3; F. Darwin’s experiments with seeds, 377 & n.3, 398 & 400 nn.1 & 4, 401, 403 & 404 n.3 Angraecum sesquipedale: fertilised by sphinx moth, 276 & 277 n.9, 364 & 365 n.4 Anhinga. See Plotus Annales de la Société botanique de Lyon: L. Grenier, CD’s work on insectivorous plants, 501 & 502 n.3, 563 & 564 n.3 Annandale, Thomas: assistant to J. Syme, 307 & 308 n.7 Annuario Scientifico ed Industriale: F. Delpino, review of Insectivorous plants, 150 n.3, 534 n.3 Anthracotherium: V.O. Kovalevsky’s study of, 89 & 92–3 n.17, 91, 527 & 528 n.17 Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland: F. Galton, ‘A theory of heredity’, 429 & 431 n.2; W. Webster, ‘The Basque and the Kelt’, 104 & 105 nn.6 & 8–9 Anthurium: hybrids, 384 n.7 Antirrhinum: A. cooperi (Maurandella cooperi, Neogaerrhinum filipes), twining peduncles, 515 & 516 n.6; A. coulterianum (Sairocarpus coulterianus) and A. vagans, prehensile branchlets, 515 & 516 n.7; A. strictum. See Maurandia stricta; transition from branches to tendrils in Californian spp., 515 & 516 n.7 Apocynaceae: classification, 203 & 204 n.3; fly trapping, 116 n.4 Apocynum androsaemifolium: CD observed in his father’s garden, 116 n.4; destructive powers, 203 & 204 nn.4–6; insect catching described by J.L Knapp, 107–8 & 109 n.5, 116 n.4 apples: orange pearmain produes russet-like fruit, 291 & 293 n.2 D. Appleton & Co.: publish American cyclopaedia, 426 & n.4; Climbing plants 2d ed., electrotypes of woodcuts, 453 & n.1; Climbing plants, printing, 461 & n.2; Climbing plants 2d ed., stereotypes, 308 & 310 n.1, 315 & n.3, 319 & n.2, 335 & 336 n.3, 343 & 344 n.4, 412 & 413 n.3, 418 & n.1, 453 & n.2, 454; Descent 2d ed., stereotypes, 70 & n.4, 198 & 199 n.3; Descent, 2d US ed., reprints, 307 n.4; Expression, stereotypes, 248 & n.3; Insectivorous plants, stereotypes, 198–9 & 199 n.2, 236 & 237 n.7, 241 & 242 n.2, 242 & n.2, 248 & n.3, 308 & 310 n.1; Origin, Expression and Descent, sales and royalties, 47 nn.1–3; Variation, negotiate purchase of plates from Orange Judd, 319 & n.5, 343–4 & 344 n.5, 353 n.1, 387 & 388 n.5, 391 & nn.1–2, 455 n.2; Variation 2d ed., electrotypes of woodcuts, 453 &

n.1, 461 & n.1; Variation 2d ed., stereotypes, 335, 338 & 339 n.3; Variation 2d US ed., 388 n.5, 446 & n.5; Variation 2d US ed., CD will lose money unless it has a low price, 454 & 455 n.2 Aptenodytes (king penguin), 330–1 & 331 n.5, 550 & n.5 Aquilegia: ‘Aquilegia brodii’, 181 & 182 n.3, 185 & n.9 Araceae: K.H.E. Koch describes hybrids, 377 & n.2 Araliaceae: Arctic fossils, 88 & 92 n.8, 90 Araujia sericofera (A. sericifer, Physianthus albens): classification, 203 & 204 n.3; described by F. Brotero, 107 & 108–9 nn.2 & 7; insect catching, 107–8 & 108–9 nn.2–4 & 6–7, 116 & nn.2–3; E.J. Johnston sends CD plants and seeds from Oporto, 116 & n.2, 202–3 & 204 n.1; Physianthus albens, description and illustration, 203 & 204 n.2 Arbeiten des botanischen Instituts in Würzburg: J. Sachs and H. de Vries send CD, 249 & 250 nn.3–4, 539 & 540 nn.3–4 Arca, 507 & 509 n.3 Arcella, 19–20 & 20–1 n.6, 521 & 522 n.6 Argulidae: C.F. Claus’s paper on, 113 & n.6, 200 & 200–1 n.5 Aristotle: bees limit themselves to a single kind of flower, 369 & 370 n.2, 370, 373 Ascidians: development of, 440 & 441 n.4, 558 & 559 n.4; CD believes to be clearly connected to early vertebrates, 54 n.6, 57 n.7; sexual and asexual reproduction, 488 & 489 n.4 Ashdown, Robert: gardener at Down, 178 & 179 n.6 Ashley-Cooper, Anthony, earl of Shaftesbury: agrees to support vivisection bill, 167 & n.3, 181 & n.3, 196 & 197 n.4; vice-president, RSPCA, 167 n.3 Athenaeum: CD seconds S.W. Strickland’s application, 125 & 126 n.1, 127 & 128 n.2; W.E. Darwin would like to renew application, 127 & 128 n.4, 128 & n.1; election of new members, 77 & 79 n.4; vivisection talked of, 153–4 & 154 n.; J.C. Webster, secretary, 128 n.4 Athenaeum: J.W. Draper, History of the conflict between religion and science, review, 12 n.2; note on germination of ancient seeds, 62 n.7; I. Taylor, Etruscan researches, review, 104 & 105 n.7 Atta. See Oecodoma Autographa gamma: caught by Araujia sericofera, 107 & 109 n.4 Avena fatua: J.D. Hooker recalls hygrometer made of, 414 & 415 n.2 axolotl (Siredon mexicanus), 474–5 & 475 n.1 Ayrton, Acton Smee: dispute with J.D. Hooker, 26 n.2, 30 & n.3; J.D. Hooker believes he is behind

Index obstructivism of Office of Works, 69 & 70 n.8, 78 & 79 n.13 Azalea viscosa (Rhododendron viscosum): ‘Azalea viscosa, a fly-catcher’, American Naturalist, 79 & 79–80 n.1 BAAS. See British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) baboons: incessant movement of eyebrows and ridges of the forehead, 104 & n.5 Bachmaier, Anton: CD sends his sources on regrowth of amputated digits, 115 & n.2, 529–30 & 530 n.2; query leads CD to reinvestigate case of reports of regrowth, 299; regrowth of amputated extra digits questioned at Munich Anthropology Society, 49–50 & 50 n.2, 299 & 300 n.2, 523–4 & 524 n.2; sends CD his paper on language, 115 & n.3, 530 & n.3 Backhouse, Edward: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 44 Bagehot, Walter: cited in Descent, 340 n.1, 350 & 351 n.3; CD wishes he had not quoted, 350 & 351 n.3; G. Rolleston rejects assertion that conquest did not reduce ancient barbarian populations, 339 & 340 n.1, 350 & 351 n.3 Baiera, 376 & 376 nn.5 & 7, 554 & 554–5 nn.5 & 7 Baker, Nathaniel: secretary, Royal Commission on vivisection, 428 & n.1, 445 & n.1 Balbiani, Édouard-Gérard: F. Galton attracted by ideas on pre-embryonic sexual differences, 430 & 431 n.5; T.H. Huxley rejects evidence on inheritance, 428 & n.3 Balfour, Alice Blanche: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 44 Balfour, Arthur James: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 44 Balfour, Eleanor Mildred: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 44 Balfour, Francis Maitland: A. Dohrn visits in Cambridge, 304 & 305 n.1; donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43; interest in spiritualism, 328 & n.5; passes CD’s message to C.F. Claus, 112–13 & nn.2–6; studies elasmobranch fish at Naples Zoological Station, 56 & 57 n.3, 112–13; visits Down House, 566 & 567 n.8; vivisectional subjects always anaesthetised, 6 & n.4 Balfour, Gerald William: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 44 Barber, Mary Elizabeth: CD communicated paper on Papilio nireus to Entomological Society, 110 n.1; last address is Kimberley goldfields, 110 & n.1 Barbier, Edmond: Insectivorous plants, French translation, 249 n.4, 314 n.1, 502 n.2, 506 n.1, 512 & 513 n.2, 564 n.2

747

Barkly, Henry, 110 & n.1 Barron, Archibald Farquharson: fruiting in potatoes, 292–3 & 294 n.17 Bartlett, Abraham Dee: superintendent, Zoological Gardens, Regent’s Park, disproved alleged duck/fowl hybrid, 346 & n.2 Basques: origins, 104–5 & 105 nn.6–9 Bassani, Francesco: assists G. Canestrini in translating Expression into Italian, 303 & n.4, 385 n.3, 388 n.2, 410 n.3, 547 & n.4 Bastian, Henry Charlton: controversy with J.S. Burdon Sanderson over germ theory of disease, 274 & 275 n.2; dispute with J. Tyndall over spontaneous generation, 408 n.2; effect of high temperatures on living organisms, 274 & 275 n.4 Bates, Henry Walter: CD canvasses to support E.R. Lankester at second Linnean Society ballot, 484 & 485 n.8, 491 & 492 n.2; horns of horned beetles are ornamental, 100 n.1; Linnean Society, remission of fees, 471 & 472 n.6 Bathybius haeckelii: named by T.H. Huxley, 19 & 20 n.5, 521 & 522 n.5 Baynes, Thomas Spencer: Encyclopaedia Brittanica, asks if CD will contribute article on breeding, 257–8 & 258 nn.1 & 3 Beagle voyage: T. Burgess recalls, 121–2 & 122 nn.1– 3, 138–9 & 139 n.4, 152 & 153 n.3; inflamed eyes of sailor with small eyebrows, 103 & 104 n.4; B.J. Sulivan’s news of old shipmates, 517 & nn.3–4 Beaton, Donald: Imantophyllum crosses, appearance of pods, 403 & 403–4 n.2 Bechstein, Johann Matthäus: interbreeding of canaries and finches, 261 & 262 n.5 beet: G. Romanes experiments with grafting, 432 Beiträge zur Biologie der Pflanzen: F.J. Cohn, ‘Aldrovanda and Utricularia’, 1–2 & 2 n.1, 16 & n.5, 20 & 21 nn.9–10, 521 & 522 nn.9–10 Bell, William: cited in Variation, 406 n.3, 407 n.3; sport of Hibiscus tricuspis, 406 & n.3, 407 n.3 Belt, Thomas: admires T. Codrington’s paper on gravels of south Hampshire, 126 & n.1; Cecropia, ants keep brown scale-insects in hollow trunk, 508 & 509 n.9; climate change due to position of earth’s axis, 118 & 118–19 n.7, 531–2 & 532 n.7; CD invites to lunch in London, 77 & n.1, 124 & n.2; denudation of the Weald, 127 & n.4; T.H. Farrer entertains at Abinger Hall, 126 & n.2, 127 & n.3; glacial theory supported by T.H. Farrer’s information about Abinger neighbourhood, 126 & n.2; Marcgraviaceae, fertilisation, 356 & n.4, 551 & 552 n.4; Naturalist in Nicaragua, birds of prey avoid conspicuously coloured animals, 174 & 176 n.10; Naturalist in Nicaragua, CD describes

748

Index

as best natural-history book of travels ever published, 77 n.1; Naturalist in Nicaragua, CD sends to F. Delpino, 344 & n.6, 355 & 356 n.2, 551 & 552 n.2; Naturalist in Nicaragua, W.E. Darwin enjoys, 127 & 128 n.5; Phaseolus multiflorus sterile unless visited by bees, 342 & 343 n.3; skunks do not need obscure coloration because they can spray assailants with foetid fluid, 103 & n.3; Tritonia, dead bees in corolla, 405 & nn.1–2 Beneden, Edouard van: J.B. Legrain’s experiments with interbreeding rabbits are a hoax, 324 & n.2, 326 & nn.1–2, 327 & 328 n.1, 548 & n.2 Bennett, Alfred William: CD delighted that Insectivorous plants has sold 2250 copies, 280, 567 n.17; CD hopes to call on, health permitting, 484, 485–6, 486 & n.2; CD thanks for review of Insectivorous plants in Nature, 280 & n.2; CD visits, 566 & 567 n.31; Drosera and Pinguicula, hopes to show CD results of his experiments, 485 & 486 n.3, 486 n.2; meets L. Tait, 468 & n.3; Primula, grains of long- and short-styled forms, questions CD’s findings, 101 & n.1 Bennett, Katharine, 485 & 486 n.2 Bentham, George, 270 & 271 n.4; criticises F. Delpino’s classification of Artemesiaceae, 143 & 144 n.6; CD thanks for report on systematic botany and praise for Origin, 34 & nn.2–3; F. Darwin’s application to Linnean Society, 295 & n.2; Genera plantarum, works on with J.D. Hooker, 55 & 56 n.13, 234 & 235 n.10; J.D. Hooker consults on writing to St G. J. Mivart, 7 & n.3; ‘Recent progress and present state of systematic botany’, BAAS, 34 & nn.2–3 Bentham, George and Joseph Dalton Hooker: Genera plantarum, apetalous Gunnera, 358 & 360 n.10 Bergson, Edouard: CD agrees that animal and vegetable cells are indistinguishable, 394–5; possibility of link between animal and plant worlds, 389–90 & 391 nn.4–6, 555–6 & 556–7 nn.4–6 Berkeley, Miles Joseph: fairy rings, 268–9 & 269 n.2 Bernard, Claude: lectures on physiology, 370 & 371 n.1 Bianconi, Giovanni Giuseppe: La teoria Darwiniana e la creazione detta indipendente, 47–8 & 48 nn.2–5, 73 & n.2, 523 & nn.2–5, 524 & 525 n.2 Bignonia capreolata: CD pleased with his account of, 383 & 384 n.2 biology: CD as one of founding fathers of, 356 & 356–7 n.6, 551 & 552 n.6 Bird, Isabella Lucy: Ruck family enjoy her book on Hawaii but E. Darwin thinks her ‘a romancer’, 171 & 171 & 173 n.7

Birmingham Daily Post: L. Tait’s lecture on origin and use of tails, 109 n.2, 134 n.4 Birmingham Natural History Society: L. Tait, origin and uses of tails, 102 & n.5, 109 & n.2, 231 & 232 n.3, 323 & n.4; L. Tait, insectivorous plants, 221 n.6, 222 & n.3, 230 & n.4, 237 & nn.2 & 4 Blackie, John Stuart: helps L. Tait find a Greek name for droserin, 454 & n.3 Blyth, Edward: Pegu ponies, cited in Variation, 352 n.5 Bolinus. See Purpura Bombinator igneus (Bombina bombina): A. Goette’s study of, 326 & 327 n.5, 549 & n.5 Bonaparte, Louis Lucien, 104–5 & 105 n.8 Bonghi, Ruggiero, 467 & n.6, 562 & n.6 Boni, Carlo, 571 Boogaard, Johannes Adrianus, 569 Bornet, Edouard: sent CD seeds of Papaver spp., 212 n.4 Bos grunniens (yak): H. Falconer’s expert knowledge of, 103 & n.5; function of tails, 103 & nn.4–5, 109 & n.5 Boston Natural History Society: A. Hyatt, evolution of ammonites, 17–18 & 19 n.3 Boswell-Syme, John Thomas Irvine: fruiting in potatoes, 292 & 294 n.17 Boudin, Jean-Christian-Marc: offspring of consanguineous marriage especially susceptible to illness, 328 & n.4 Braithwaite, Robert: Droseraceae, disagrees with L. Tait’s conclusions, 230 & n.4 Branchiostoma lanceolatum. See Amphioxus Brehm, Alfred Edmund: Illustrirtes Thierleben, English translation, 41 & n.3 Bridges, John Henry: criticises scientists for not opposing opium wars, 452 & n.1; leading British positivist, 452–3 n.5 Briouze [Breos], Matilda [Maud], 30 n.2 British almanac for the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, 459 & 460 n.2 British Arctic expedition: J.D. Hooker wrote introduction to botany appendix, 144 & n.7 British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS): A.W. Bennett, ‘On the form of pollen-grains in relation to the fertilisation of flowers’, 101 & n.1; G. Bentham, ‘Recent progress and present state of systematic botany’, 34 n.2; C.E. Brown-Séquard, ‘Transmission of abnormal conditions due to accidental causes’ (1870), 444 & 445 n.2; CD regrets his inability to attend Bristol meeting, 307 & 308 n.4; A. Dohrn plans to attend Bristol meeting to thank his supporters, 53 & 54 n.5; J.W. Draper, Darwinian view

Index of development of western civilisation (1860), 12 n.2; F.F. Hallett, ‘On the law of development of cereals’ (1869), 190 & n.1, 196 n.3; J.D. Hooker describes CD’s work on insectivorous plants, 118 & 119 n.8, 532 & n.8; G. Rolleston, address to anthropology section, 339–40 & 340 nn.1–2, 350 & 351 n.2; G.J. Romanes, nervous system of the medusae, 286 & n.3; vivisection committee report (1871), 23 & 24 n.3, 27 & 28 n.6, 60, 145 & n.3, 582, 585 British Museum: A. Günther appointed keeper of zoology, 51 & 52 n.2; F. Smith appointed assistant keeper of zoology, 51 & 52 n.2 Broca, Paul: chart of skin colour, 243 & 244 n.2 Brodie, Benjamin Collins, 470 & 471 n.1 Bronn, Heinrich Georg: CD answered in Origin 6th ed., 221 n.4, 224 & 225 nn.2–3; sneered at natural selection in appendix to his translation of Origin, 220 & 221 n.4, 224 & 225 n.2 Brotero, Félix de Avellar: described Araujia sericofera, 107–8 & 108–9 nn.2 & 7, 203 & 204 nn.2–3 Brown, Thomas Crowther: fossil coral reefs, collection and catalogue, 186 & 187 nn.7–8 Brown-Séquard, Charles Édouard: cited in Variation 2d ed., 433 n.5; CD refers F. Galton to his article in the Lancet on missing toes, 433 & n.5, 435 & n.3, 444 & 445 n.2; F. Galton unconvinced by experiments on guinea pigs, 430 & 431 n.3; inherited effects of acquired injuries, 430 & 431 n.3, 433 & n.5, 435 & n.3, 436 & 437 n.7, 444 & 445 n.2 Browne, Thomas: Garden of Cyrus, 332 & n.1 Brownen, George: Hyoscyamus niger may be insectivorous, 41–2 & 42 n.1 Brücke, Ernst Wilhelm von: method for extracting pepsin, 227 & n.3 Bruce Lowe, Charles: importance of mares in horse-breeding, 318 & n.3 Brunton, Thomas Lauder: cited in Insectivorous plants, xix, 11 n.2; experiments on effect of cobra poison on ciliary action, xix, 8–11 & 11–12 nn.1–6; makes extensive use of vivisection, 579 Buccinum. See Tritonium Buckle, Henry Thomas, 125 & 126 n.1 Buckley, Arabella Burton: CD commiserates with on death of C. Lyell, 73–4 & 74 nn.1–5; informs CD of C. Lyell’s death, xxvii, 76 & n.1; C. Lyell too weak to see her for long, 69 & n.1 Bulletin de l’Académie royale de médicine de Belgique: J.B. Legrain on interbreeding of rabbits and J. Crocq’s refutation of his results, 324 & n.2, 328 & n.5, 548 & n.2 Bulletin de la Societé botanique de France: J.D. Hooker sends CD, 30 & 31 n.9

749

Burdon Sanderson, Ghetal: sends CD her husband’s essays, 274 & 275 n.1 Burdon Sanderson, John Scott: appreciates physiological importance of graft hybrids, 434; H.C. Bastian, debate on germ theory of disease, 274 & 275 n.2; CD consults on ingestion of phosphate of potassium, 60 & n.1, 63 & n.2; CD delighted his labours on vivisection bill will probably be rewarded by success, 170 & n.2; CD enjoys essays, 274 & 275 n.1; CD postulates analogy between sheep-pox and fairy rings, 274 & 275 n.6; CD sees in London, 130 & n.2, 135 & nn.1–2, 145 n.1, 434 & n.4; CD suggests scientists’ petition on vivisection in spirit of BAAS report, 34 & 35 n.2, 60 & nn.2–3; CD summarises letter to Lord Derby, 146 & n.2; CD would join deputation to home secretary, 146 & n.5; Dionaea muscipula, electrical phenomena associated with leaf contraction, 214 & 216 n.2; experiments on ingestion of globulin, 275 & n.7; germ theory of disease, 274 & 275 n.5; vivisection, R. Christison opposes vivisectional demonstrations in classes, 140 & 141 n.4; vivisection, collaborates with T.H. Huxley on petition and bill, 60 & nn.2–3, 63 & 64 n.3, 128 & n.2, 140 & 141 n.5; vivisection, collaborates with R.B. Litchfield on draft bill, 138 & n.2, 156 & n.6; vivisection, discusses approaches to ministers with J. Simon, 137–8 & 138 nn.2–5; vivisection, discusses draft bill with J. Paget, 128 & n.2, 130 & n.2; vivisection, encourages CD to approach Lord Derby, 140 & 140–1 n.3, 141 & 142 n.3, 146 & n.2; vivisection, licensing, 137 & nn.2–5, 156 & n.4; vivisection, makes extensive use of, 579; vivisection, L. Playfair agrees to introduce bill in House of Commons, 156 & n.3, 164 & n.2–3, 167 & n.2, 167–8 & 168 nn.2–3, 181 & nn.2 & 4, 183 & n.2; vivisection, L. Playfair’s draft bill excludes demonstration, 198 & nn.2 & 4, 205 & n.3, 206 & n.3, 206 & 207 n.3, 221 & n.2, 582; vivisection, signed BAAS report, 27 & 28 n.6; vivisection, signs scientists’ petition, 144–5 & 145 n.2; vivisection, works on petition and draft bill, 130 & n.2, 135 & n.1, 135–6 & 136–7 nn.2–8, 137 & nn.2–5, 140 & 141 n.4, 141 & 142 nn.2–3, 156 & n.5, 158 & n.3, 165 & 166 n.3, 170 & 170–1 nn.2–3, 445 n.2, 581 Burgers, Thomas François: gives CD an ostrich feather which he sends to W. Marshall, 208 & n.2, 213 n.2, 535 n.2; introduced to CD by J. Paget, visits Down House, 187 & n.1, 188 & n.1, 188 & n.2 Burgess, Thomas: asks CD for his portrait and a book in memory of Beagle voyage, 121–2 & 122

750

Index

nn.1–3, 138–9 & 139 n.1, 152 & 153 nn.2–3; career since leaving the Beagle, 138–9 Burrows, George: president, Royal College of Physicians, signs scientists’ petition for vivisection bill, 144–5 & 145 n.2, 170 n.2 Busk, George: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43 Butler, Arthur Gardiner: admits to CD that he had voted for blackballing E.R. Lankester at Linnean Society, 484 & 485 n.2, 489 & n.3; CD asks to identify moth from Queensland (Ophideres fullonica), 332–3 & 333 nn.1–3, 333 & 333–4 nn.1–5 Byblis: F. Darwin hopes for a scrap from Kew, 470 & n.7, 471 & 471–2 n.4 Caladenia, 276 & 277 n.2 California Academy of Sciences: H. Edwards, Darlingtonia californica, 511 & n.1 Callandar, Robert John: second secretary, Office of Works, 69 & 70 n.7, 78 & 79 n.13 Calotermes: C. rugosus (Rugitermes rugosus), F. Müller’s study of, 359 & 360 n.12 Cameron, John: new head of Ordnance Survey, 32 n.2 canaries: interbreeding, 259–61 & 261–2 nn.2–5, 260–1, 543–4 & 544 nn.2–4 Canby, William Marriott: cited in Insectivorous plants, 381 nn.3–4; Darlingtonia, acid reaction, 380 & 381 n.4; Drosera filiformis, impulse causing blades to bend, 380 & 381 n.3; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 380 & n.1 Candolle, Alphonse de: effect of temperature and light on development of leafbuds, 272 & n.5, 544 & 545 n.5; germination of ancient seeds, 61–2 & 62 n.7; Glaucium, new variety from ancient seeds, 69 & 70 n.5; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 272 & n.2, 544 & 545 n.2; Sarraceniaceae, described in Prodromus, 272 & n.4, 544 & 545 n.4 Candolle, Casimir de, 272 & n.3, 544 & 545 n.3 Canestrini, Giovanni: Expression, translates into Italian with F. Bassani, 189 n.1, 303 n.4, 385 n.3, 388 n.2, 410 n.3, 547 n.4; Expression, Unione Tipigrafico-Editrice will publish Italian ed., 303 & nn.2–4, 410 & n.3, 547 & nn.2–4, 557 & n.3; Origin, Italian ed., 303 & 304 n.6, 410 & n.4, 547 & 548 n.6, 557 & n.4; Variation, aborted publication of first ed., 204 & 204–5 n.1, 303 & n.2, 547 & n.2; Variation, J. Murray is owed £10 for electrotypes for aborted Italian edition, 204 & 204–5 n.1, 312 & n.2, 384 & 385 n.4, 385 & n.2, 387 & 387–8 n.1; Variation, translates into Italian, 205 n.3, 384 & 385 n.4, 410 n.2, 557 n.2; Variation, Unione Tipigrafico-Editrice will publish,

205 n.3, 303 & nn.2–3, 385 n.4, 410 & n.2, 547 & nn.2–3, 557 & n.2; Variation 2d ed., requests proofs to update translation, 410 & n.2, 557 & n.2 Cardium, 507 & 509 n.3 Cardwell, Edward, Viscount Cardwell: agrees to support scientists’ vivisection bill, 153 & 154 n.1, 158 & n.2, 164 & 165 n.2, 166 & n.1, 167–8 & 168 n.2, 181 & n.2, 196 & 197 n.4; CD sends draft vivisection bill, 164 & 165 nn.2–3, 166 & n.1, 170; Royal Commission on vivisection, chairman, 197 & n.3, 221 n.1, 424 n.1, 425 & 426 n.3, 583; Royal Commission on vivisection, invites CD to attend, 424 & nn.1–2, 424–5 & 425 nn.1–2 Carinatae: relation to Ratitae, 213 n.3, 535 n.3; W. Marshall believes Ratitae to be degenerate form of, 330 & 331 n.3, 550 & n.3 Carlyle, Thomas: stays at Keston Hall, 361 & 362 n.2; visits Down House, xxv, 362 n.2 Carpenter, Alfred John: exudation of carbonic acid from plant rootlets, 349 & 350 n.6 Carpenter, William Benjamin: Dischidia rafflesiana, 454 n.2; inheritance of acquired habits, 20 & 21 n.13 Carpinus, 89 & 92 n.16, 91, 526 & 528 n.16 carrots: CD intrigued by central floret of Daucus carota, 409 & n.3, 414 & 415 n.5; G.J. Romanes succeeds in grafting, 378, 431–2 & 432 n.2, 433–4, 434 Carruccio, Antonio, 571 Cartmell, James: seconds S.W. Strickland’s application to Athenaeum, 125 & 126 n.1 Carus, Agnes Marie Elisabeth, 241 & n.6; assists with translation of Insectivorous plants, 495 & 496 n.13 Carus, Anna Sophie Gertrud, 241 & n.6 Carus, Julius Victor: Climbing plants 2d ed., CD corrects reference to Passiflora, 497 & 498 nn.2–3; Climbing plants 2d ed., CD sends proofs, 397 & 398 n.2, 456 & 457 n.1, 499 n.1; Climbing plants 2d ed. will be a separate book, 151 & n.3; Cross and self fertilisation, CD expects it will take a year, 398 & n.4; CD plans new edition of Orchids, 398 & n.4; CD plans to include papers on dimorphic plants in new book, 506 & 507 n.7; CD suggests he employs an assistant, 397–8 & 398 n.3, 459 & n.4, 495 & 497 n.13; CD will soon be able to send Insectivorous plants and Climbing plants 2d ed., 52 & n.2; CD works on Climbing plants 2d ed. and Variation 2d ed., 245 & n.4; CD’s collected works, CD advises that combined botanical works would require two volumes, 50, 52 & nn.3–4; CD’s collected works, CD does not want to include ‘Parallel roads of Glen Roy’, 496 & 497 n.17, 506 & 507 n.6; CD’s collected works,

Index geological publications, 495–6 & 497 nn.14–15, 506 & 506–7 nn.5–6; CD’s collected works, Insectivorous plants will be first volume of botanical section, 240 & 241 n.1; Descent 2d ed., translates into German, 176 n.9; Handbuch der Zoologie, sends CD concluding volume, 51 & n.6, 52 & 53 n.7, 147 & 148 n.1; health, 52 & 53 n.8, 151, 241 & n.5, 245 & 246 n.7, 325 & n.3, 398 & n.6, 456–7 & 457 n.5, 458, 496 & 497 n.16; Insectivorous plants, A.M.E. Carus assists with translation, 495 & 496 n.13; Insectivorous plants, CD glad he will translate, xxiv, 151 & n.3, 245 & n.6; Insectivorous plants, CD sends errata, 325 & n.1; Insectivorous plants, CD sends proofs, 230–1 & 231 n.3, 236 & 237 n.2, 240 & 241 n.1; Insectivorous plants, CD thinks he may need help with heavy work of translating, 397–8 & 398 n.3, 459 & n.4, 495 & 497 n.13; Insectivorous plants, errata, 457 & n.2, 459 & n.2, 495 & 496–7 nn.2–11, 496; Insectivorous plants, errata to be included in French translation, 512 & 513 n.1; Insectivorous plants, queries about measurements, 457 & nn.3–4, 459 & n.2, 459–60 & 460 n.2; Journal of researches, translates for collected works, 50 & 51 n.3, 147–8 & 148 nn.2–3, 151 & n.2, 240 & 241 n.2; lectured in Edinburgh, 1873 and 1874, 52 & 53 n.8; mistakenly thinks CD has given a public lecture, 148 & n.4, 151; Origin 6th ed., CD has no corrections for German edition, 245 & n.5; Variation 2d ed., 325 & n.2, 398 & n.5 Carus, Sophie Catherine, 241 & n.6 Cassia: CD experiments with glycerine, 401 & 402 n.8; CD receives plants from Kew, 402 n.8; C. mimosoides (Chamaecrista mimosoides), reaction to water, 402 n.8 Casuarius (cassowary): relation of feathers to ostrich, 213 & n.3, 535 & n.3 Catephidae, 333 & 334 n.4 Catocala, 333 & 334 n.2 Catocalidae, 333 & 334 n.2 cats: coil up to conserve heat (L. Tait), 102 & n.5 Cattleya: C. leopoldii (C. tigrina), F. Müller fertilises with pollen of Epidendron cinnabarinum, 293 n.5 Cayley, Arthur: fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, 393 & 394 n.9 Cecropia peltata: F. Müller’s study of embauba tree and the ants that inhabit it, 508 & 509 nn.8–15 Cephalanthera: C. ensifolia (C. longifolia) and C. grandiflora, pollination, 131 & 132 n.9, 533 & & 534 n.9 Chalcididae, 508 & 509 n.14 Challenger expedition: T.H. Huxley writes and lectures on, 55 & 56 nn.6 & 9; J. Murray describes Globigerina ooze, 55 & 56 nn.7—8; G.S. Nares, captain, 55 & 56 n.6; survey of the Azores, 38

751

& 39 n.4; C.W. Thomson head of civilian scientists, 53 n.8, 152 n.4, 192 n.4 Chamaecrista mimosoides. See Cassia mimosoides Chamaerops humilis: possible hybrids with date palm, 268 & n.2 Chambers, Alice: apparent regrowth of amputated extra finger, 301 & n.2, 308 & nn.11–12, 311 & n.2, 315 & 316 nn.3–4, 320 n.3 Chambers, Robert: regrowth of amputated extra digit, 296 & 297 n.7, 299 & 299–300 nn.1 & 4, 301 & n.2, 307–8 & 308 n.2, 311 & n.2, 315 & 316 n.4 Charlesworth, Edward: appointment as curator caused rift in Geological Society, 492 n.14 Cheeseman, T.F.: Pterostylis, fertilisation of New Zealand species, 276 & 277 n.4 Chiantore, G.: director, Unione Tipografico-Editrice, 387 & 388 n.4; possible publication of C. Lyell’s Principles of geology, 387 & 388 n.4; Variation, will publish 2d Italian ed. and pay £10 for stereotype plates, 189 & n.1, 229 & n.1 Childs, George William: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 44 Christison, Robert: opposes vivisectional demonstrations to classes, 140; president, British Medical Association, 138 n.5; signs scientists’ petition for vivisection bill, 138 & n.5, 144–5 & 145 n.2 Chrysanthemum: ‘Cedo nulli’, 292 & 293 n.9 Cimex lectularius (bedbug): occasionally winged, 475 & n.3 Cistus tricuspis: described in Variation, 401 & 402 n.5, 406 civet cats (Civettictis civetta): coil up to conserve heat (L. Tait), 102 & n.3 Clark, Andrew: G.H. Darwin’s physician, 394 n.11; speaks encouragingly of CD’s health to L. Tait, 323 & n.5; told CD of E. Cardwell’s interest in physiologists’ views on vivisection, 164 & 165 n.2; treatments involve a strict diet, 265 & 266 n.3 Clark, Joseph Warner: cited in Expression 2d ed. as T.W. Clark, 58 n.1, 238 n.2; CD thanks for information on action of the iris, 58 & n.1; dilation of pupils through fear, 238 & nn.1–3, 362 & n.2; experiments on Drosera, 362 & n.3 Clarke, Alexander Ross: head of trigonometrical branch of Ordnance Survey, 31 & 32 n.2 Clarke, Richard Trevor: strawberry crosses cited in Variation, 292 & 293 n.4 Clarke, William Branwhite: W.B. Dawkins asks CD to support nomination as fellow of Royal Society, 468–9 & 469 n.1 Claus, Carl Friedrich: CD thanks for paper on Argulidae, 200 & 200–1 n.5; thanks CD for message and specimens, 112–13 & 113 n.2; works on

752

Index

Argulus foliaceus and phylogeny of crustaceans, 113 & n.6 Clematis, 377 & n.3, 384 n.3 Clitocybe nebularis. See Agaricus nebularis Clivia. See Imantophyllum William Clowes & Sons: Climbing plants 2d ed., 304 & n.3, 387 & 388 n.3, 482 & n.1; Insectivorous plants, errata, 264–5 & 265 nn.1–2, 272–3 & 273 n.1, 280–1 & 281 nn.1–3, 284–5 & 285 n.1; Insectivorous plants, hold type in case of reprint, 173 & n.3, 177 & n.1, 199 & n.4, 248 & n.2; print Insectivorous plants, 153 & n.1, 245 & n.3; Variation 2d ed., CD requires to take charge of typographical errors and the index, 337, 385; Variation 2d ed., printing, 316 & 317 n.1, 384 & 385 n.2; Variation 2d ed., printing delayed by flooding, 466 n.2; Variation 2d ed., sample pages, 306 & 307 n.1, 310 & n.3, 312 & n.3, 315 & n.2 Clowes, Edward Arnott, 309, 310 & n.3; R.F. Cooke objects to CD receiving proofs with wider margins, 334–5 & 335 nn.1–2, 337 & 338 n.2, 344 n.2; Variation 2d ed., sample pages, 315 & n.1 Coan, Titus Munson: infanticide in Gujerat and New Zealand, 157–8 & 158 nn.2–3; infanticide in Hawaii, information used in Descent 2d ed., 158 n.1 Coates, George: herd book, 382 n.4 Cobbe, Frances Power: campaigns to gather support for regulation of vivisection, 5–6 & 6 n.3, 23–4 & 24 nn.2–3 & 5, 24–5 & 25 nn.2–5, 27 & 28 nn.1–4, 579; CD condemns cruelty to animals but cannot sign her petition, xviii–xix, 5–6 & 6 nn.3 & 5, 23–4 & 24 nn.2–5, 24–5 & 25 nn.2–5; CD thinks her petition though foolish is gaining support, 27 & 28 nn.1–4, 580; E. Darwin explains why CD is unable to sign her petition, 24–5 & 25 nn.2–5, 580; T.H. Huxley believes her petition will fail due to number of fox-hunting MPs, 34; RSPCA decides not to support her proposal, 166 n.3, 168 n.3; vivisection bill based on her memorial drafted, 135–6 & 136–7 n.3, 140 n.4, 145 n.5, 164 n.3, 166 n.3, 168 n.3, 169 n.1; vivisection bill introduced to House of Lords by Lord Hartismere, 183 & n.3, 197 n.3, 198 n.2, 583 Codrington, Thomas: T. Belt admires paper on superficial deposits of south Hampshire, 126 & n.1 Cohn, Ferdinand Julius: Aldrovanda and Utricularia, article on, 1–2 & 2 nn.1 & 3, 16 & n.5, 20 & 21 nn.9–10, 483 & n.1, 521 & 522 nn.9–10; cited in Insectivorous plants, 2 nn.1 & 3, 243 & n.3; CD seeks permission to copy drawings of Aldrovanda in Insectivorous plants, 1–2 & 2 n.1, 20 & 21 n.10, 521 & 522 n.10; CD sends early copy of Insectivorous

plants, 243 & n.3; CD’s account of aggregation in tentacles of Drosera the most important discovery in biology in our time, 329 & 330 n.3, 337 & n.5, 348 & n.4; Drosera, supervised T. Nitschke’s experiments, 329 & 330 n.4; Drosera rotundifolia, queries CD’s finding that aggregations of matter are protoplasm, 329–30 & 330 nn.3 & 6–8, 334 & n.2, 336–7 & 337 nn.1–4, 347–8 & 348 nn.1–4; gathers Drosera in Jizera mountains, 329 & 330 n.2; H.R. Goeppert’s golden jubilee, 19 & 20 n.3, 521 & 522 n.3; insectivorous plants in Berlin botanic garden thrive in absence of insects, 20 & 21 n.11, 522 & n.11; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 21 n.14, 328–9 & 330 n.1; Insectivorous plants, essay review in Deutsche Rundsschau, 20 & 21 nn.12, 337 n.1, 522 & n.12; new year wishes, 1, 19, 521; Volvox, developmental history of, 19 & 20 n.4, 521 & 522 n.4 Cohn, Gustav: investigations of English railway policy, 395 & n.2 Colam, John: discusses RSPCA’s plan for vivisection bill with J.S. Burdon Sanderson, 167 & 168 n.3; invites medical men to discuss RSPCA’s proposed vivisection bill, 169 & n.1, 178; secretary, RSPCA, 140 & n.4, 167 & 168 n.3, 169 & n.3 Colburn, Henry: published first edition of Journal of researches, 487 n.3 Coleridge, John Duke: supports vivisection bill based on F.P. Cobbe’s petition, 135–6 & 136–7 n.3 Collier, William Frederick: other horses have exceeded Eclipse’s speed, 314 n.2 Colling, Robert: Chillingham cattle, 381 & 382 nn.3 & 5 Comes, Orazio: self-fertilisation of flowers, 416 & 417 n.3 Comptes rendus … de l’Académie des sciences: A. de Candolle, effect of temperature and light on development of leafbuds, 272 & n.5 Comte, Auguste: H. Spencer distances himself from and T.H. Huxley criticises, 452–3 n.5 Coniferae: Arctic flora, 89 & 92 n.12, 91, 526 & 528 n.12 Contemporary Review: CD failed to persuade to publish W.D. Whitney’s ‘Darwinism and language’, 8 n.3.; G.H. Darwin, ‘Professor Whitney on the origin of language’, 7–8 & 8 n.1, 15 & n.4, 57 & 58 n.1, 397 n.3, 498 & 499 nn.3–4; F. Galton, ‘A theory of heredity’, 431 n.2, 435 & n.1, 500 & n.2; T.H. Huxley, results of Challenger expedition, 55 & 56 n.9; J.T. Knowles, editor, 57–8, 59; F. Max Müller, ‘My reply to Mr Darwin’, 7–8

Index & 8 n.1, 15 & n.3, 58 n.1, 397 n.3, 397 n.3; A.J. Strahan, publisher, 58 n.5; W.D. Whitney, ‘Are languages institutions?’ (reply to F. Max Müller), 57–8 & 58 nn.1–2, 59 & 59–60 nn.1–2, 397 n.3 Cooke, Robert Francis: annual trade sale dinner, 306 & 307 nn.2–3, 353 n.3, 384 & n.1, 385 & n.1, 388 n.3; cheap editions yield lower profits unless sales exceed 5000, 70 n.5; Climbing plants 2d ed., advertisements and review copies, 412 & 413 n.2; Climbing plants 2d ed., corrections for reprint, 482 & n.1, 487 & n.4; Climbing plants 2d ed., electrotypes of woodcuts, 453 & n.1; Climbing plants 2d ed., paper size of CD’s proofs, 334–5 & 335 n.1, 337 & 338 n.2, 338 & n.1, 343 & 344 n.2, 352; Climbing plants 2d ed., plans reprint, 482 & n.1; Climbing plants 2d ed., presentations, 411 & n.4, 412 & n.4; Climbing plants 2d ed. published for trade sale dinner, xx, 335 & n.2, 352 & 353 n.3, 384 & 385 n.3, 387 & 388 n.3; Climbing plants 2d ed., sample copy, cover price and profits, 411 & n.1, 412, 418 & n.4; Climbing plants 2d ed., sample pages, 304 & n.1; Climbing plants 2d ed., stereotypes for US ed., 308 & 310 n.1, 335 & 336 n.3, 418 & n.1, 453 & nn.1–2, 454 & 455 n.1; CD advises of reduced postage after 1 July due to postal union, 236 & 237 n.5, 240 & n.3, 242 & n.3; CD protests at denial of proofs on larger paper, 337 & 338 n.4, 338, 343 & 344 n.2; CD trusts J. Murray is pleased with sales, 446 & n.2; Descent 2d ed., reprint for trade sale, 306 & 307 n.2, 310 & n.2; Descent 2d ed., sends to L. Maslowski, 312 & n.1; Expression, Italian ed., price of heliotypes, 392 & n.1; Expression, Italian ed., stereotypes of illustrations paid for, 486 & 487 n.2; Insectivorous plants, 1700 copies sold within a day of publication, xx, 248 & n.1, 248 & 249 n.2; Insectivorous plants, advertisements, 236 & 237 n.6; Insectivorous plants advertises CD’s works, 199 & n.2; Insectivorous plants, copyright registration for foreign editions, 314 & n.1; Insectivorous plants, CD expects sales to be slow, 242; Insectivorous plants, CD needs latest reprint, with errata slip, 412 & 413 n.8; Insectivorous plants, CD unwilling to stereotype, 454–5 & 455 n.3; Insectivorous plants, presentations, 236 & 237 n.4, 239, 240 & n.3; Insectivorous plants, price, 236 & 237 n.4, 239, 240 & n.2, 241 & 242 n.1; Insectivorous plants, printing, 153; Insectivorous plants, reprints, 275–6 & 276 nn.1–3, 455 & n.4; Insectivorous plants, stereotypes for D. Appleton & Co., 198–9 & 199 n.2, 199 & n.3, 236 & 237 n.7, 241 & 242 & n.2, 242 & n.2, 236 & n.7, 248 & n.3, 308 & 310 n.1; Insectivorous plants, title page, 199, 208 & n.1; Insectivorous plants, to be

753

stereotyped, 453 & n.2, 454–5 & 455 n.3, 454–5 & 455 n.3; F. Müller’s pamphlet, 450 copies unsold, 153 & n.3; Orchids, CD suggests revised ed., 412 & 413 n.7; Orchids 2d ed. desirable and quick to produce, 418 & n.3; Origin 6th ed., plans reprint, 482 & n.1; Variation, alteration to a page in reprint, 112 & nn.1–2; Variation 2d ed., cover price, 411 & n.2; Variation 2d ed., electrotypes of woodcuts, 453 & n.1; Variation 2d ed., extent of volumes, 335 & n.1, 337 & 338 n.2, 338; Variation 2d ed., made-up copy of vol.1 for trade sale dinner, 387 & 388 n.3; Variation 2d ed., printing, 316 & 317 n.1; Variation 2d ed., sample pages, 306 & 307 n.1, 310 & n.3, 312 & n.3, 315 & n.2; Variation 2d ed., stereotyped, 352; Variation 2d ed., stereotypes for US ed., 335, 338 & 339 n.3, 454 & 455 n.1; Variation, Italian ed., payment for electrotypes still outstanding, 204 & 204–5 nn.1–2, 312 & n.2, 384 & 385 n.4, 385 & n.2, 387 & n.1; Variation 2d US ed., CD will lose money unless it has a low price, 454 & 455 n.2; C. Wright’s pamphlet, 400 copies unsold, 153 & n.3 Cookson, Blanche Althea Elizabeth: CD sends his autograph, 42 & n.1; G.H. Darwin hopes to see, 420 & 421 n.5 Cookson, Montague Hughes: G.H. Darwin hopes to see, 420 & 421 n.5 Cooper, James Davis: woodcuts for Insectivorous plants, 2 n.4 Cope, Edward Drinker: acceleration and retardation of growth, 18 & 19 n.9 Corbula, 507 & 509 n.5 Cordaites, 376 & n.7, 554 & 555 n.7 Coryanthes: mechanism of pollination by bees, 131 & 132 n.8, 533 & & 534 n.8 Corydalis solida, 475 & 476 n.7 Corylus, 89 & 92 n.16, 91, 526 & 528 n.16 Horace Cox (firm): published the Field, 318 n.4 Crataegus: C. oxyacanthus (C. monogyna) graft, 257 & n.3 Crichton-Brown, James: CD thanks for latest medical report of West Riding Lunatic Asylum, 499 & n.1 Crocq, Jean: discredits J.B. Legrain’s conclusions on inbreeding of rabbits, 324 & n.2, 328 n.5, 548 & n.2 Croll, James: CD nominates for fellowship of Royal Society, 478 & n.2 Cross, Richard Assheton: announces appointment of Royal Commission on vivisection, 583; CD asks for government support for scientists’ vivisection bill, 169–70 & 170 nn.1–3; CD would join deputation to, 146 & n.5; home secretary,

754

Index

145 & n.4, 146 & n.5, 150 & n.1, 167 n.4; likely to support draft vivisection bill, 167 & n.4; Royal Commission on vivisection, selects members, 205 & n.4, 206 & n.4; E. Stanley forwards CD’s letter on vivisection bill, 150 & n.1 Crüger, Hermann: observed bees gnawing labellum of orchids, 276 & 277 n.3; pollination of Coryanthes by bees, 131 & 132 n.8, 533 & 534 n.8 Cryptogamia: Arctic fossils, 88 & 92 n.5, 90, 525 & 527 n.5 cuino: whether offspring of a ram and a sow, 353 & 354 n.2 Culley, George: Chillingham cattle, 381 & 382 n.2 Cumberland, Ernest Augustus duke of, 323 n.3 Cupples, Anne Jane: sends regards to CD and E. Darwin, 87 & n.10 Cupples, George: CD sends copy of Descent 2d ed., 84 & n.1, 86 & 87 n.1; importance of gamekeepers’ records, 87; Irish correspondent has failed to respond, 86–7 & 87 n.7; St Andrews University proposes to elect CD as rector, 86 & 87 n.4; Scots faculty members at University of Otago would gladly send CD information, 87 & n.9 Cuvier, Georges: classification scheme of Muséum d’histoire naturelle, 65 & 66 n.4 Cycadaceae: fossil flora, 89 & 92 n.12, 91, 376 & n.4, 526 & 528 n.12, 554 & n.4 Cypripedium: CD revises views on fertilisation of, 276 & 277 n.8 Cytisus: C. adami (+Laburnocytisus adamii) (C. laburnum � C. purpureus), 251 & n.2, 254, 263–4 & 264 n.2, 271 n.1, 384 n.7; C. adami, hybrid aroids resemble features of, 377 & n.2; C. alpinus (Laburnum alpinum), 251 n.2, 254 n.1, 263–4 & 264 n.2, 271 & n.1; C. laburnum (Laburnum anagyroides), 251 n.2, 377 n.2; C. purpureus, 251 n.2, 254 n.1, 263–4 & 264 nn.3–4, 271 & n.1 Daily Evening Telegraph (Philadelphia): review of Insectivorous plants, 380 & 381 n.5 Dareste, Camille: eggs with double germs, 444 & 445 n.3 Darlingtonia californica: acid reaction, 380 & 381 n.4; H. Edwards’s account of, with colour photographs, 511 & nn.1–2, 514; plants under glass in Berlin grow vigorously in absence of insects, 20 & 21 n.11, 522 & n.11 Darwin, Amy, 345 & n.4, 473 & n.7, 476 & 477 n.3; E. Darwin sends plants to, 171 & n.5 Darwin, Charles Robert: awards and honours: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, honorary member, 212 & n.6, 285–6 & 286 nn. 2–5, 287, 545 & nn.2–5,

570–1; Reale Accademia de’Lincei, Rome, foreign member, 466–7 & 467 nn.2–8, 474 & n.1, 561–2 & 562–3 nn.2–8; Society of Naturalists at the Imperial University of Kazan, honorary member, 159 & n.3, 160, 162 & n.3, 570; Society of Naturalists of Modena, honorary fellow, 571; University of Leiden, honorary doctorate in medicine, 568–9 finances: Climbing plants 2d ed., profit on sales, £63, 411 & n.1, 456 & n.1, 460 & n.2; Coral reefs 2d ed., £2.8s.10d. received from Smith Elder, 426–7 & 427 nn.1–2; Descent 2d ed., J. Murray sends cheque for £66.3s., 70 & n.5, 119 & n.5; Down schoolroom, pays D. Town additional £1 for repair, 133 & n.4; H. Falconer, gave ten guineas to memorial fellowship, 76–7 n.2; E. Forbes memorial fund, £5, 76–7 n.2; Index, donates £10, 482–3 & 483 n.3, 493 & n.2; Insectivorous plants, profit on sales, £560, 177 n.2, 456 & n.1, 460 & n.2; investments in railways, 395 n.2; Jamaica Committee, subscribed £10, 452 & n.2; H. Müller, sends £8.2s.9d. as F. Müller’s profits on Facts and arguments for Darwin, 415 & 416 n.1; Naples Zoological Station, donates £100, 43; Origin 6th ed., profit on sales £130, 456 & n.1, 460 & 460–1 nn.2–3, 461; profits on US sales of Origin, Expression and Descent total £92.8s.9d., 47 & nn.1–4; Sunday Lecture Society, donated £1, 274 n.4 health: better than it was and forgotten when he works, 450; A. Clark speaks encouragingly about, 323 & n.5; fairly good, 506; E. Haeckel inquires after, 440, 558; ill after exertion of having friends in the house, 184 & n.4; may prevent his visiting A.W. Bennett, 484, 486 & n.2; only able to talk with friends for a short time, 256, 268; prevented from standing as rector of St Andrews University (1872), 87 n.4; prevents from attending RSPCA meeting, 178; prevents from being a pall-bearer at C. Lyell’s funeral, 85 & 86 n.7; prevents from conversing for more than half an hour, 64 & nn.2–3, 121, 177; prevents from visiting S. Newington, 346; and Royal Commission on vivisection, 424, 425 & n.2, 426, 427 & n.3; H. Spencer surprised at extent of CD’s research, given his health, 256; too unwell to see anyone but hopes to be better in a week’s time, 188; unable to stand excitement and talk of BAAS meeting, 307; very unwell before holiday at Abinger Hall, 238 opponents of theories: A. Goette, 326 & 327 n.5, 549 & n.5; St G.J. Mivart, 22 & nn.1–3, 35 & n.4; A. Wigand, 47 & 48 n.3, 217& 219 n.7, 219, 537 & n.7; S. Wilberforce, 12 n.2, 13 & n.3

Index publications: — Coral reefs 2d ed.: CD receives £2.8s.10d. as profit on sales, 426–7 & 427 nn.1–2 — Climbing plants: J.V. Carus proposes new German translation for collected works, 50 & 51 n.5; Echinocystis lobata, experiments, 443 n.6, 560 n.6, 449 & n.2; Marcgravia umbellata and M. dubia, 149 n.3; Maurandia semperflorens, revolving peduncles, 515 & 516 n.4; Passiflora, P. acerifolia should be P. sycyoides, 497 & 498 n.3; published in Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany), then by Longman and Williams & Norgate, 2 n.2, 37 n.2, 37 n.2, 134 n.2, 304 n.1 — Climbing plants 2d ed.: Bignonia capreolata, 383 & 384 n.2; cover price and profits, 411 & n.1, 412; CD checks proofs, 343; CD finishes recorrections, 123 & 124 n.2, 134 & n.2, 135 & n.2, 242 & 243 n.4, 304 n.1, 565; CD seeks permission from Linnean Society to republish original paper, 2 & n.2, 37 & n.2; CD will work on after holiday at Abinger Hall, 242 & 243 n.4; CD works on, 52 & n.2, 245 & n.4, 324–5 & 325 n.2; CD’s profit on sales is £63, 456 & n.1, 460 & n.2; Echinocystis lobata, 456 n.3; electrotypes of woodcuts, 453 & n.1; extent, 304 & n.2; French translation, C.F. Martins employs an assistant, 459 & n.4; J. Murray describes as ‘a very curious book’, which he will publish at his own risk, 134, 135; J. Murray will publish as a separate little book, xx, 134 & n.2, 135 & n.2, 151 & n.3, 572; notice, American Journal of Science (A. Gray), 515 & 516 n.2; notice, Gardeners’ Chronicle, 413 n.2; originally intended as appendix to Insectivorous plants, 3 n.3, 134 n.2, 151 & n.3, 243 n.4, 572; pages uncut, 443 & 444 n.2; Passiflora gracilis, 456 n.3; presentations, 383 & 384 n.1, 411 & n.3, 412 & 413 n.4, 437–8 & 440 n.2, 415 & n.3, 441 & 443 n.2, 442, 559 & 560 n.2, 443 & 444 n.1, 515 & 516 n.1, 557–8 & 558 n.2, 572–3 & 574 nn.1–17, 574 & 575 nn.59–60; print run (1500), 338; published 6 November, xx, 2 n.2, 37 n.2, 335 n.2, 352 & 353 n.3, 397, 446 n.3; reprints, 482 & n.1, 487 n.4; review copies, 412 & 413 n.2; reviews, Nation (A. Grey), 515 & 516 n.3; reviews, Nature, 413 n.2; sample copy, 411 & n.1, 412; sample pages, 304 & n.1; stereotyped, 411 & n.1, 453 & n.2; H. de Vries frequently cited, 441 & 443 n.3, 442, 559 & 560 n.3 — Climbing plants, German ed. (trans. J.V. Carus): published 1876, 325 n.1, 398 n.2, 498 n.2 — Climbing plants, US ed.: D. Appleton publish (1876), 461 & n.2; stereotypes, 308 & 310 n.1, 315 & n.3, 319 & n.2, 335 & 336 n.3, 412 & 413 n.3

755

— Coral reefs: atolls originate from subsidence, not volcanos, 236 n.2; E. Haeckel’s admiration for, 440 & 441 n.7, 558 & 559 n.7; C. Lyell’s enthusiasm for, 74 & n.2 — Coral reefs 2d ed., 441 n.7, 559 n.7; corals adapt to different depths and depend on specific external conditions, 186 & 187 n.4; maps and geological woodcuts, 114 n.1; H. Piggot recommends drawings of coral-producing zoophytes in future edition, 113 & 114 n.1, 114 & n.2; written from a geological standpoint, does not discuss fossil corals, 186 & 187 n.1 — Cross and self fertilisation: Aristotle’s observations on bees, 370 n.2; bees visit varieties of the same plant, 373 nn.4–6; CD begins work on, 382 & 383 n.4, 566 & n.5; CD originally intended to include papers on dimorphic plants, 52 & n.4, 209 n.2, 506 & 507 n.7; CD works on, 343 n.1, 416 & 417 n.2; CD’s experiments, 450 & n.5; extends CD’s earlier morphological work, 383 n.4; J.B. Lawes and J.H. Gilbert cited, 316 n.2; H. Müller’s books frequently used in preparation of, 422 & n.2; Papaver spp., experiments, 212 n.4; published 1876, 398 n.4; Tritonia, holes at base of corolla, 405 n.2; Phaseolus, 343 n.2 — Descent: abstraction in animals, 98 & 100 n.4; animals in the wild instinctively avoid poisons, 163–4 n.1; ascidians clearly connected to early vertebrates, 57 n.7; W. Bagehot cited, 340 n.1, 350 & 351 n.3; cheap edition yields lower profit, 70 & n.5; conscience in dogs, 100 n.5; direction of growth of hair, 81–3 & 84 n.7; early maturing of male parts of dichogamous plants and early arrival of male birds in breeding grounds are analogous, 151 n.6, 534 n.6; effects of climate on human’s physical constitution, 65 & 66 n.4; F. Galton cited on heredity and superiority of men’s achievements, 279 n.3; horned beetles are not well adapted for fighting, 97 & 100 n.1; J.F. McClennan cited, 419 n.3; mental powers of dogs, 450–1 & 451 n.1; Muscicapa, similarity of M. grisola and M. luctosa, 119–20 & 120 n.1; origin of parental affections, 354 n.3, 355 & nn.3–4; polydactylism in humans, 296 & 296 n.2, 311 & n.3; prehension in feet of apes and humans, 65 & 66 n.3; G.A. Wolfe comments on, 97–100 & 100 nn.1–7 — Descent 2d ed.: Ainu, hairiness may be due to reversion, 207–8 n.1; J.A. Allen cited, 175 n.4; T. Belt cited, 103 n.3; birds avoid gaudy caterpillars, 175 n.8; J.V. Carus sends errata, 51 & n.7, 52 & n.1; CD inquires about sales, 68 & n.3; climate responsible for modifications in some birds but

756

Index

sexual selection the principal cause of morphological differences, 174 & 175 n.5; consanguineous marriage, consequences will come to be recognised, 120–1 n.4; decline of native populations, xxii, 350 & 351 n.4; German translation in progress, 174 & 176 n.9; greyhounds, proportion of sexes preserved in litters, 84 & n.3, 86 & 87 n.6; illustrations, 298 nn.2–4, 546–7 nn.2–4; infanticide in Hawaii, 158 n.1; parental affection in starfish, spiders, sticklebacks and other fish, 355 & nn.3–4; presentations, 84 & n.2, 106 & n.1; quoted by W.B. Tegetmeier, 319 n.5.; reprints, 306 & 307 n.2, 310 & n.2, 338 n.2, 403 & n.4; C.V. Riley cited, 174 & 175 n.8; royalties amount to £66.3s., 119 & n.2; sales, 1300 copies sold, 70 & n.4; skunks, white bushy tail a conspicuous warning, 103 n.3; stereotyped, 70 n.4 — Descent, 3d German ed. (trans. J.V. Carus), 50 & 51 n.1 — Descent, Polish ed. (trans. L. Masłowski): L. Masłowski seeks clarification on position of illustrations, 297–8 & nn.2–4, 312 & n.1, 545–6 & 546–7 nn.2–4; publication 1874–5, 298 n.5, 547 n.5, 413 & 414 n.5 — Descent, US ed.: D. Appleton publish, 70 & n.4, 199 & n.3; reprints, 307 n.4; sales and royalties, 47 & n.3 — Earthworms: gradual decomposition of flints in the Weald, 127 n.4 — Expression: baboons, incessant movement of eyebrows and ridges of the forehead, 104 n.5; dilation of pupils through fear, only one example, 238 & n.1; gestures of agreement and negation, 370 n.4; L. Gratiolet cited on expression of fear, 362 & n.2; grief muscle, 82 & 84 n.9; horses showing their teeth when combed, 65 & 66 n.2; instinctive shaking of the head in infants, 76 n.1; panniculus carnosus, 81 & 84 n.8; pupils dilate from fear, 362 & n.2; sales weak, 307 & n.3 — Expression 2d ed.: T.W. Clark cited on dilation of iris, should have been J.W. Clark, 58 n.1, 238 n.2; dilation of pupils through fear, 58 n.1, 238 n.2, 362 n.2, 453 n.2; habitual movements of horned cattle, 381 n.1 — Expression, Italian ed. (trans. G. Canestrini and F. Bassani): cost of illustrations, 384 & n.3, 385, 387 & 388 n.2, 392 & n.1; cost of stereotypes, 303 & 304 n.5, 547 & 548 n.5; published 1878, 384 n.3; stereotypes of illustrations paid for, 486 & 487 n.2; Unione Typografico-Editrice publish (1878), 303 & n.4, 388 n.2, 410 & n.3, 487 n.2, 547 & n.4. 557 & n.3

— Expression, Russian ed. (trans. V.O. Kovalevsky): payment for illustrations outstanding, 112 & n.3 — Expression, US ed.: sales and royalties, 47 & n.2 — Forms of flowers: revised versions of papers on dimorphic plants, 52 & n.4, 209 n.2, 506 & 507 n.7 — Forms of flowers, German ed.: included in collected works, 51 n.5 — Geological observations 2d ed.: German translation in CD’s collected works, 497 n.14; Smith, Elder publish (1876), 497 n.14 — Insectivorous plants: advertisement for CD’s works in progress on verso of title page, 199 & n.2; advertisements in Nature and Gardeners’ Chronicle, 199 n.5, 236 & 237 n.6 — Insectivorous plants: Aldrovanda, absorption of insects, 232 & n.3; Aldrovanda, drawing, 1–2 & 2 nn.1–3; Aldrovanda vesiculosa var. verticillata, 30 n.7; T.L. Brunton and J. Fayrer cited on effects of cobra poison, xix, 11 n.2; J.S. Burdon Sanderson cited on ingestion of globulin, 275 n.7; W.M. Canby cited on Darlingtonia, 381 nn.3–4; J.V. Carus anticipates for collected works, 50 & 51 n.5, 52 & n.1; Climbing plants originally intended as second part of, 3 n.3, 134 n.2, 151 & n.3, 243 n.4, 572; cobra poison, effects on animal protoplasm, 11 n.2; F.J. Cohn cited on Aldrovanda, 2 & nn.1 & 3, 243 & n.3; CD completes correction of proofs, 123 & 124 n.3, 230 & 231 n.2, 233, 234 & n.9, 565; CD corrects proofs, 168 & 169 n.2, 171 & nn.1–3, 184 & n.3, 185 & n.7, 208 & n.1, 211 & 212 n.5, 220 & 221 n.5; CD expects sales to be slow and that 1250 copies will last for all eternity, 166 & 167 n.2, 177 & n.1, 242, 248 & n.1, 280 & n.4; CD finishes ms. and delivers to J. Murray, 123 & 124 nn.2–3, 565; CD requires his copy with pages cut, 236 & 237 n.3; CD sends J. Murray a cheque for presentations, 458 & n.4, 461 & 462 n.3, 462 & n.3; CD works on, 30 & n.6, 52 & n.2, 57 & n.8, 61 & n.6, 67 & n.2, 565 & 566 n.2; CD’s ongoing work referred to in science journals, 107 & 108 n.1; CD’s profit on sales £560, 456 & n.1, 460 & n.2; CD’s visit to London delayed by revision, 67 & 68 n.1, 77 n.1; F. Darwin corrects proofs, 168 & 169 n.2, 171 & nn.1–3 & 6, 172, 178 & nn.1–2, 219 & 220 n.2, 220; digestion of albuminous or proteid substances, 348 n.2; Dionaea, 289–90 & 290 n.3; Drosera, 246 n.3, 289–90 & 290 n.3, 291, 368 n.3, 370 n.3; Drosera, CD will modify passage about globulin, 275 & n.7; effect of carbonate of ammonia, 348 n.3; Drosera, effect of cobra poison, 11 n.2; Drosera, experiments with D. rotundifolia, 252 & 253 n.3, 542 n.3; Drosera, experiments with glycerine, 402

Index n.6; Drosera, first twelve chapters devoted to, 1 n.4, 21 n.14, 51 n.5, 56 n.4, 228 n.2, 246 n.3, 247 n.2, 290 n.2, 370 n.3; Drosera, motor impulses resemble a reflex action, 286 & n.2; Drosera, reactions parallel animal nervous systems, 106 n.6, 336 & 337 n.4; Drosera rotundifolia, aggregation of fluid in tentacles, 220–1 n.3, 273 & 274 n.2, 329 & 330 n.3, 336 & 337 n.1; Drosera rotundifolia, leaf sensitivity, 220–1 n.3; Drosera rotundifolia, pigment, 330 n.6; Drosera rotundifolia, protoplasm, 334 n.2; Drosera rotundifolia, spiral vessels of tentacles, 419 n.2; Droseraceae, development of, 289–90 & 290 n.3, 291 & n.3; Drosophyllum lusitanicum, experiments, 204 n.7; errata, 264–5 & 265 nn.1–2, 272–3 & 273 n.1, 281 & n.3, 280–1 & 281 nn.1–2, 280 & n.3, 284–5 & 285 nn.1–2, 325 & n.1, 332 & n.1, 455 & n.4, 456 & n.2, 457 & n.2, 459 & n.2, 495 & 496–7 nn.2–11, 496 & 497 n.18; errata sent by J.V. Carus, 457 & n.2, 459 & n.2, 495 & 496–7 nn.2–11, 496 & 497 n.18; Euphorbia peplus, response to carbonate of ammonia, 348 n.3; French translation, J.V. Carus’s corrections to be added, 496 & 497 n.18, 512 & 513 n.1; Genlisea, 3 n.2, 14 n.3; globulin, digestibility of, 275 n.7; E.F.v. Gorup-Besanez cited on albumen in vetch seeds, 348 n.2; J. Murray will publish Climbing plants as a separate little book, 151 & n.3; Nepenthes, J.D. Hooker’s experiments with, 272 n.4, 545 n.4; T. Nitschke cited, 330 n.4; Pinguicula makes milk curdle, 228 n.5; presentations. See below, Insectivorous plants, presentations; price, 236 & 237 n.4, 239, 240 & n.2, 241 & 242 n.3; print run, J. Murray will print 1000 copies with possibility of a reprint, 173 & nn.2–3, 177 & n.1; print run, CD requests an additional 250 copies, 177 & n.1, 180, 248 & 249 n.3; print run, first printing 3000 copies, 566 & 567 n.17; published 2 July, 1 n.4, 57 n.8, 61 & 62 n.6, 173 n.2, 221 n.5, 223 n.3, 231 n.2, 232 n.3, 234 n.9, 241 & n.7, 243 n.2, 245 n.2, 245 & n.2, 362 n.3, 363 n.3, 366 n.7, 519 n.7, 565, 566; reprints, 173 n.3, 177 n.1, 275–6, 338 n.2, 412 & 413 n.8, 455 & n.4, 456 & n.2, 457–8; reprints, corrections, 496–7 nn.2–11; reviews (Appendix V), 576–7 & 577–8 nn.1–23; reviews, Academy (E.F. Lubbock), xx; reviews, American Journal of Science (A. Gray), 515 & 516 n.2; reviews, Annuario Scientifico ed Industriale (F. Delpino), 150 & n.3, 534 & n.3; reviews, Deutsche Rundsschau (F.J. Cohn), 20 & 21 n.12, 337 n.1, 522 & n.12; reviews, Field [?W.B. Tegetmeier], 314 & n.3; reviews, Fremden-Blatt, Vienna [E.v. Hesse-Wartegg], 320 & 320–1 n.1; reviews, Gardener’s Chronicle [M.T. Masters], 263 & n.2; reviews, Independent (New

757

York), 382 & 383 n.1; reviews, New York Times, 319 & n.3, 419 & n.1; reviews, New York Tribune, 419 & n.1; reviews, Der Pionier (Leipzig), 320 & 321 n.2; reviews, Spectator (L. Tait), 273 & 274 n.3, 288 & n.4, 317 & 318 n.2; J. Sachs frequently cited, 250 n.4, 251 n.6, 540 n.4, 541 n.6; sales buoyant, 275–6 & 276 nn.2–3; sales, 1700 copies sold on publication, 248 & n.1, 248 & 249 n.2; sales, CD expects to be slow 177 & n.1, 242; sales, CD has difficulty in predicting, 166 & 167 n.2; sales, CD thought 1250 copies would last for all eternity, 248 & n.1, 280 & n.4; sales, 2250 copies, 280 & n.4, 567 n.17; sales, 2700 sold immediately, 565 & 566 n.3; sales, 3012 copies, 446 & n. 2; Sarracenia, 149 n.1; M. Schiff cited, 228 n.3, 457 & n.3, 459 & n.3; second printing, errata, 265 nn.1–2; title page, 208 & n.1; Utricularia, 3 n.2, 30 & 31 n.8, 46 & nn.1–2, 289–90 & 290 n.2, 291 & n.3; Utricularia, J.D. Hooker admires CD’s account of, 300 & n.3; Utricularia montana, gift from D.F. Nevill, 67 & 68 n.2; E. Warming cited on Genlisea and Utricularia, 3 n.2; woodcuts, 2 & n.4 — Insectivorous plants, presentations, 572–3, 573–4 & 575 nn.18–58; W.M. Canby, 380 & n.1; A. de Candolle, 272 & n.2, 544 & 545 n.2; F.J. Cohn, 21 n.14, 328–9 & 330 n.1; R.F. Cooke dispatches, 236 & 237 n.4, 239 & n.2, 240 & n.3, 242 & n.3; CD sends J. Murray a cheque for, 458 & n.4, 461 & 462 n.3, 462; F. Delpino, 355–6 & 356 n.2, 551 & 552 n.2; A. Dodel, 252 & 253 n.2, 253, 541 & 542 n.2; A. Dohrn, 305 & n.4; J. Fayrer, 258 & n.1; R.D. Fitzgerald, 364 & n.1; W.D. Fox, 277 & 278 n.2; A. Gray, 305 & 306 n.2; E. Haeckel, 437–8 & 440 n.2, 557–8 & 558 n.2; O. Heer, 96 & 97 n.7, 375 & 376 n.2, 553–4 & 554 n.2; F. Hildebrand, 299; J.D. Hooker, 233 & n.4, 300 & n.1; T.H. Huxley, 415 & n.3, 426 & n.5; J.B. Innes, 504 & 505 n.3; M.T. Masters, 245 & nn.2–3; F. Müller, 357 & 359 n.2, 552 & 553 n.2; H. Müller, 312 & 313 n.2; D.F. Nevill, 246 & n.2, 269 & n.2; J. Paget, 255 & n.1; C-F. Reinwald, 249 & n.4; L. Rütimeyer, 282 & n.4; J. Sachs, 249–50 & 250 n.2, 539–40 & 540 n.2; H. Spencer, 256 & n.1; H. de Vries, 441 & 443 n.4, 442, 559 & 560 n.4; A.R. Wallace, 289 & 290 n.1; O. Zacharias, 326 & 327 n.2, 548 & 549 n.2 — Insectivorous plants 2d ed.: J.V. Carus’s corrections incorporated, 496 n.2; edited by F. Darwin (1888), 167 n.2, 177 n.2, 455 n.3 — Insectivorous plants, French ed. (trans. E. Barbier): copyright registration, 314 & n.1; cost of stereotypes, 249 & n.4; published 1877, 502 n.2, 564 n.2

758

Index

— Insectivorous plants, German ed. (trans. J.V. Carus), 245 & n.6; copyright registration, 314 & n.1; cost of stereotypes, 236, 249 & n.4 CD sends proofs to J.V. Carus, 230–1 & 231 n.3, 236 & 237 n.2, 240 & 241 n.1; first volume of botanical section of collected works, 240 & 241 n.1; published 1876, 51 n.4, 231 n.3, 237 n.2, 241 n.7, 249 & nn.5–6 — Insectivorous plants, Russian ed.: published 1876, 249 & n.6 — Insectivorous plants, US ed.: D. Appleton publish, 319 & n.2.; large sales expected, 242 & n.2; stereotypes, 198–9 & 199 n.2, 199 & n.3, 241 & 242 & n.2, 242 & n.2, 248 & n.3, 308 & 310 n.1 — Journal of researches, 139 n.4; birds of the Galápagos archipelago, 331–2 & 332 n.2; J.V. Carus translates into German for collected works, 50 & 51 nn.2–3, 147–8 & 148 nn.2–3, 151 & n.2, 240 & 241 n.2, 398 n.3; eruption of volcano of Osorno, 122 & n.2; excerpts published in Polish newspaper, 413 & 414 n.3; first published by H. Colburn, then by J. Murray, 487 n.3; stereotyped, and unchanged since 1845, 52 & 53 n.6; untouched since first printed by J. Murray, 486 & 487 n.3 — Living Cirripedia: possible connection of ovarian tubules and cement ducts, 101 n.2 — Movement in plants: experiments with syringing plants, 179 n.6; mechanism by which leaves of sensitive plants fold up, 400 n.5; Mimosa pudica, 377–8 n.4, 402 n.6; Schrankia aculeata, 377–8 n.4 — Orchids: Acropera mistakenly described as dioecious, 289 & n.3; J.V. Carus proposes new German translation for collected works, 50 & 51 n.5; R.F. Cooke agrees to new edition (desirable and quick to produce), 418 & n.3; CD plans new edition, 412 & 413 n.7, 418 & n.3, 506 & 507 n.8; F. Delpino pays tribute to, 356 & n.5, 551 & 552 n.5; out of print and new edition needed, 52 & n.5, 398 & n.4, 412 & 413 n.7 — Orchids 2d ed.: Caladenia, fertilisation, 365 n.3; Cypripedium, 277 n.8; R.D. Fitzgerald cited, 365 nn.3 & 5; Ophideres fullonica, 333 n.2; published 1877, 52 n.5, 398 & n.4, 453 n.2; Spiranthes australis, self-pollination, 365 n.5 — Origin: G. Bentham praises for enabling ascent of ‘higher summits’ of systematic botany, 34 & n.3; denudation of the Weald estimated at over 300 million years (period halved in 2d ed.), 127 & n.4; frequently cited in E. Haeckel’s History of creation, 463 & 464 n.3; hybridism, R. Riemann’s experiments substantiate CD’s account, 259–61 & 261–2 nn.2–4, 260–1, 543–4 & 544 nn.2–4; link between seemingly unrelated variations, 346 n.2; St G.J. Mivart accuses CD of keeping back his

views on bestiality of origins of man, 35 n.4; no further editions in CD’s lifetime, 290 n.4; sales total 16,250 copies, 461 & 462 n.2, 462; A. Sedgwick’s letter to CD, 202 & n.9; Serbian translation (M. Radovanović), 67 n.2; S. Wilberforce condemns in Quarterly Review, 13 n.3 — Origin 5th ed.: ‘survival of the fittest’ used several times, 452 n.1 — Origin 6th ed.: H.G. Bronn’s objections to natural selection answered, 221 n.4, 224 & 225 nn.2–3; cheap edition, 70 n.5; CD’s profit on sales £130, 456 & n.1, 460 & 460–1 nn.2–3; A. Günther cited, 224 & 225 n.6; hare/rabbit cross, 353 & 354 n.3; J.S. Henslow cited on mice, 224 & 225 n.6; influence of climate, 174 & 175 n.3; no corrections for German edition, 240 & 241 n.3, 245 & n.5; reprints, 446 & n.4, 482 & n.1; revised ed. (1876), 187 n.9; J. Schöbel’s work on mice mentioned, 224 & 225 n.6 — Origin, German ed. (trans. H.G. Bronn): additional chapter by H.G. Bronn sneers at natural selection, 221 n.4, 224 & 225 nn.2–3; new edition needed for collected works, 240 & 241 n.3 — Origin, 2d Italian ed. (trans. G. Canestrini): published by Unione Tipografico-Editrice, Turin (1875), 303 & 304 n.6, 410 & n.4, 547 & 548 n.6, 557 & n.4; translation of 6th ed., with notes from Italian Darwinists, 410 & n.4, 557 & n.4 — Origin, 3d US edition: sales and royalties, 47 & n.1 — Origin, Serbian ed. (trans. M. Radovanović), 67 n.2 — South America: Smith, Elder publish new edition, 497 n.14, 506 & n.5 — Variation: W. Bell cited on Hibiscus tricuspis, 406 n.3; E. Blyth cited on Pegu ponies, 352 n.5; C.E. Brown-Séquard cited on inherited injuries, 431 n.5; bud variation in Chrysanthemum, 293 n.9; Chamaerops humilis hybridised with date palm, 268 n.2; changes between first and second printing, 112 & nn.1–2; chickens, deformity of the sternum, 432 & n.5; Cistus tricuspis, 401 & 402 n.5, 406; colour in rabbits, 184 n.1; Crataegus graft, 257 n.3; Cytisus adami, 251 n.2, 377 n.2; CD plans new edition, 46–7 n.1, 68, 71 & 72 n.2; errata (W.T. Thiselton-Dyer), 289, 291–3 & 293–4 nn.1–19; gooseberries bearing two kinds of berries, 263 & n.3; inherited polydactylism, 296 n.2, 299 & n.1; interbreeding of Chillingham cattle, 381 & 382 nn.2–3; Japanese masked pig, 73 n.4; J. Le Couteur credited with discovery that each grain of wheat has its own character, 190 n.2, 191 n.3; link between seemingly unrelated variations, 346 n.2; W. Masters cited on reversion

Index in peas, 367 n.4; monstrosities as a cause of sterility, 475 & 476 n.6; J. Murray will publish new edition as soon as CD is ready, 70 & nn.2–3; W. Ogle cited on twins with crooked fingers, 366 & n.1; out of print, 46 & 46–7 n.1; pangenesis hypothesis, 29 n.2, 111 n.3, 371 n.3, 379 n.4, 379 n.4, 431 n.4; Paritium tricuspis mistakenly referred to as Cistus tricuspis, 401 & 402 n.5; Pavo nigripennis, 475 & 476 n.5; peloric flowers, 358 & 359 n.9; Polish translation, 68 & n.2; pollen, direct action on female parts of plant, 292 & 293 n.10; potato varieties, 293 n.6; regrowth of amputated extra digits, 49–50 & 50 n.2, 256 n.4, 296 n.2, 299 & 300 n.7, 311 n.2, 320 n.3, 523–4 & 524 n.2; relative size of white and dark cattle in medieval Wales, 29 & 29–30 nn.1–4, 31 & n.2; reprints, 412 & 413 n.8; reversion in peas, 367 & n.4; sterility of moths hatched out of season, 475 & n.3; strawberry crosses, 292 & 293 n.4; striped horses, 352 n.5, 379 n.5; wheat, each grain has its own character, 191 n.3; white animals more susceptible to attack, 182 n.1; yaks, white tails sold as fly-flappers, 103 n.4 — Variation 2d ed.: C.E. Brown-Séquard cited on inherited injuries, 433 n.5; Chamaerops humilis hybrids, reference deleted, 268 n.2; chickens, malformation of the sternum, 434 & n.7; Chrysanthemum ‘Cedo nulli’, 293 n.9; W. Clowes print, 316 & 317 n.1, 384 & 385 n.2, 385 & n.1, 387 & 388 n.3; W. Clowes to correct index, 385; cost of sterotypes for foreign editions, 423 & n.2; cover price, 411 & n.2; crossing favours reversion, 175 n.6; CD checks proofs, 337 & 338 n.3, 340 & 342 n.2, 385, 465 & 466 n.2; CD works on, 241 & n.8, 242 & 243 n.4, 251 & 252 n.3, 252 n.3, 245 & n.4, 256 n.4, 256 & n.1, 258–9 & n.4, 266–7 & 267 nn.2–4, 271 & n.8, 281–2 & 282 nn.1–2, 289 & n.1, 318 & n.4, 324–5 & 325 n.2, 325 & n.2, 328 & n.6, 366 & n.3, 417 n.2, 565–6; F. Darwin cites in Encyclopaedia Brittanica article on breeding, 258 n.3; F. Darwin reads proofs, 340 & 342 n.2, 343 & 344 n.3, 345 & n.2; effects of inbreeding in rabbits, 324 n.2, 548 n.2; electrotypes of woodcuts, 453 & n.1; extent, 423 & n.2; fancy pigeons, 487–8 n.2; K.F. Gärtner cited on hybrids, 379 n.2; D.A. Godron cited on Corydalis, 476 n.7; J. Goss cited on influence of pollen on colour of seeds, 293 n.10; F.F. Hallett’s experiments with cereals correctly attributed, 190 n.2, 191 & n.2, 196 n.9; (Hibiscus) Paritium tricuspis, 401 & 402 n.5; inherited effects of acquired injuries, 433 n.5; interbreeding of Chillingham cattle, 382 nn.2 & 4; G. King cited on Paritium tricuspis, 402 n.5,

759

407 n.3; laws of variation and fruiting time of potatoes, passage removed, 294 n.19; J.B. Legrain’s discredited experiments on interbreeding rabbits, 328 n.3; list of CD’s publications on title page, 461 & 462 n.2; Lilium davuricum (L. dauricum) and L. bulbiferum, offspring, 289 & n.2; P.W. Magnus cited, 23 n.2; F. Müller crosses Cattleya and Epidendron, 292 & 293 n.5; J. Murray’s trade sale dinner, made-up copy, 385 & n.1, 387 & 388 n.3; J. Paget, unlikelihood of regrowth of an amputated extra finger, 308 n.10, 317 n.3; pangenesis, revised account, 371 & 372 n.6, 379 n.4, 433 & n.4, 450 & n.6, 488 & 488–9 n.3, 491 n.3; pangenesis, graft hybrid potatoes, 267 n.4; Paritium tricuspis, 402 n.5, 407 n.3; potato hybrids, 267 nn.3–4; presentations, 259 & n.5; published 1876 with 1875 publication date, 70 n.2, 229 n.1, 241 n.8, 259 n.5, 267 n.5, 317 n.1, 325 n.2, 372 n.6, 385 n.2, 388 n.3, 410 n.2, 557 n.2, 433 n.4; regrowth of amputated extra fingers, CD withdraws support for evidence, 296 n.2, 300 n.7, 308 n.10, 317 n.3, 319–20 & 320 n.3; regrowth of nail on amputated stump, 297 n.4; G. Romanes cited on malformation of sternum in chickens, 434 & n.7; J. Sabine cited on wild potato, 293 n.6; sample pages and paper size, 306 & 307 n.1, 310 & n.3, 312 & n.3, 315 & n.2, 338 & 338–9 n.2; J.Y. Simpson on regrowth of amputated limbs, reference removed, 317 n.3; speed of racehorses, 314 n.2; stereotyped, 411 & n.1, 412 & 413 n.6, 453 & n.2; sterility of peloric flowers, 475 & 476 n.7; strawberry crosses, 292 & 293 n.4; twins with crooked finger, 366 n.3; woodcuts, 423 & n.2 — Variation, German ed. (trans. J.V. Carus), 50 n.2, 524 n.2 — Variation, 2d German ed. (trans. J.V. Carus): published 1876, 398 n.5 — Variation, 3d German ed. (trans. J.V. Carus): published 1878, 325 n.2, 398 n.5 — Variation, Italian ed. (trans. G. Canestrini): payment for electrotypes of illustrations still outstanding, 204 & 204–5 nn.1–2, 384 & 385 n.4, 385 & n.2, 387 & n.1; C. Vincenzi began printing in 1870 but never published, 189 n.1, 385 n.4; N. Zanichelli failed to publish, 303 & n.2, 487 n.2, 547 n.2 — Variation, 2d Italian ed. (trans. G. Canestrini): G. Chiantore seeks stereotypes of illustrations, 189 & n.1, 204 & 205 n.3, 385 & n.2; Unione Tipografico-Editrice publish (1876), 205 n.3, 303 & nn.2–3, 385 n.4, 410 & n.2, 547 & nn.2–3, 557 & n.2 — Variation, Russian ed. (trans. V.O. Kovalevsky), 375 n.3

760

Index

— Variation, US ed.: published by Orange Judd, 319 & n.5, 343–4 & 344 n.5, 353 n.1, 388 n.5, 391 & 391–2 nn.1–3; sales slow, 391 & 391–2 n.3 — Variation, 2d US ed.: D. Appleton & Co. publish (1876), 388 n.5 2d US ed.; D. Appleton negotiate with Orange Judd to publish, 319 & n.5, 343–4 & 344 n.5, 353 n.1, 387 & 388 n.5, 391 & 391–2 nn.1–2; CD will lose money unless it has a low price, 454 & 455 n.2; stereotypes, 335, 338 & 339 n.3, 461 & n.1. — Volcanic islands: Smith, Elder publish new edition, 497 n.14, 506 & n.5 — ‘Biographical sketch of an infant’: Mind, 1877, 72 n.3 — ‘Climbing plants’: Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany), 2 & n.2, 134 n.2 — ‘Dimorphic condition in Primula’: revised for Forms of flowers, 52 n.4, 209 n.2, 506 & 507 n.7 — ‘Distribution of erratic boulders’: German translation in CD’s collected works, 497 n.15, 506 — ‘Fertilisation of orchids’: Acropera, sexes not separate, 289 n.3 — ‘Geology’: chapter in J. Herschel, ed., Manual of scientific enquiry (1849), 36–7 n.1 — ‘Illegitimate offspring of dimorphic and trimorphic plants’: A.W. Bennett questions CD’s findings on size of pollen grains, 101 & n.2; revised for Forms of flowers, 52 n.4, 209 n.2, 506 & 507 n.7 — ‘Parallel roads of Glen Roy’: CD does not want to include in German edition of collected works, 496 & 497 n.17, 506 & 507 n.6 — ‘Recollections’: inspired by E. von Hesse-Wartegg’s request for profile, 365 n.1; J.B. Legrain’s discredited experiments on interbreeding rabbits, 328 n.3 — ‘Three forms of Lythrum salicaria’: revised for Forms of flowers, 52 n.4, 209 n.2, 506 & 507 n.7 — ‘Volcanic phenomena and the formation of mountain chains’: German translation in CD’s collected works, 497 n.15 reading: Arbeiten des botanischen Instituts in Würzburg, 250 n.3, 540 n.3; Athenaeum review of J.W. Draper, History of the conflict between religion and science, 12 & n.2; É-G. Balbiani, reproduction of aphids, 428 n.3; J.M. Bechstein, interbreeding of canaries and finches, 262 n.5; G. Bentham, ‘Recent progress and present state of systematic botany’, Nature, 34 & n.2; G.G. Bianconi, La teoria Darwiniana, 48 n.2, 523 n.2; T.F. Cheeseman, ‘Fertilization of New Zealand species of Pterostylis’, 276 & 277 n.4; F.J. Cohn, ‘Aldrovanda and Utricularia’, 16 & n.5, 483 n.1; F.J. Cohn, essay review of Insectivorous plants, 21 n.12, 522 n.12; W.B. Dawkins,

Cave hunting, 104 & 105 n.1; W.B. Dawkins, ‘The northern range of the Basques’, 105 n.6; E.S. Delamer [E.S. Dixon], Pigeons and rabbits, 361 n.3; F. Delpino, observations on dichogamy, 132 n.2, 533 n.2; F. Delpino, illegitimate relations between insects and nectaries, 356 n.3, 552 n.3; F. Delpino, pitcher plants, 142 & n.5; A. Dohrn, origin of vertebrates, 200 & n.1; J. Fiske, Outlines of cosmic philosophy, 106 & n.2; R.D. Fitzgerald, Australian orchids, 267 & 268 n.2, 364–5 n.2; T.G. Gentry, ‘Fertilisation of certain flowers through insect agency’, 403 n.1; A. Gilbert, autobiography, 316 & n.3; F.B. Goodacre, Hemerozoology, 6–7 & 7 n.2, 72 & 73 n.1; E. Haeckel, developmental history of siphonophores, 510 n.3; E. Haeckel, Evolution of man, 441 n.9, 559 n.9; E. Haeckel, gastrula and the egg-cleavage of animals, 440–1 n.3, 449 & n.2, 463 & 464 n.4, 558–9 n.3; E. Haeckel, History of creation, 441 n.9, 463 & n.1, 559 n.9; E. Haeckel, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, 463 & n.2; F. Hildebrand, crosses of maize, 281 & 282 n.2; F. Hildebrand, means of propagation of plants, 282 & n.3; J.D. Hooker, ‘The present condition of the Royal Society’, 4 & n.6; T.H. Huxley, review of E. Haeckel’s Anthropogenie, 12 & n.5; T.H. Huxley, ‘Species’, American cyclopaedia, 415 & n.2, 426 & n.4; T.H. Huxley and H.N. Martin, Course in elementary biology, 449 & n.2; G. Jäger, In Sachen Darwin’s insebesondere contra Wigand, 49 n.1–2; K.H.E. Koch, hybrid aroids, 383 & 384 n.7; J.G. Kölreuter, sexuality of plants, 422 n.1; J.B. Lawes and J.H. Gilbert, experiments on meadow land, 294 n.3; J. Lubbock, British wild flowers, 12 & n.4; P. Lucas on heredity, 262 n.4, 544 n.4; P.W. Magnus, graft-hybrid potatoes, 23 & n.2; F. Max Müller, ‘In self-defence’, 402 & n.2; F. Müller, part 4 of study of termites, 360 n.12; F. Müller, pollination of Abutilon, 313 n.1; J. Paget, Clinical lectures and essays, 177 n.1; M-A. Puvis, extinction of varieties of vegetables, 373 n.3; C.V. Riley, annual report on insects of Missouri, 209 & n.3, 238 & 239 n.3; N. Rüdinger, regeneration of lost limbs in lower vertebrates, 50 n.3, 524 n.3; J. Sachs, Lehrbuch der Botanik, 95 & n.4, 250 n.4, 529 n.5, 540 n.4; O. Salvin, birds of the Galápagos archipelago, 331–2 & 332 n.1; G. von Seidlitz, Die Darwin’sche Theorie, 283 n.1; J. Sully, Sensation and intuition, 503 & n.1; L. Tait, ‘Anatomy of the umbilical cord’, 123 n.3; L. Tait, Pathology and treatment of diseases of the ovaries, 111 n.2, 114 & n.2; W.B. Tegetmeier, Pheasants, 319 n.5; W.T. Thiselton-Dyer, sexual reproduction of thallophytes, 423 & n.6; H. de Vries, articles

Index on climbing plants, 250 n.3, 443 n.3, 540 n.3, 560 n.3; E. Warming, Genlisea and Utricularia, 4 & n.7; H. Watts, Dictionary of chemistry, 409–10 n.6; A. Weismann, seasonal dimorphism in butterflies, 174 & 175 n.1; A. Weismann, transformation of axolotl into Amblystoma, 475 n.1; B.G. Wilder, cerebral variation in domestic dogs, 37 & n.2; C. Wright, note in Nation on books about evolution, 104 n.6; O. Zacharias, critical review of A. Wigand’s Darwinismus, 219 n.7, 537 n.7 scientific views: animals do not perceive any qualities not perceived by humans, though they may do so in a higher degree, 163; ascidian origin of vertebrates, 54 n.6, 57 & n.7; benefits of intercrossing, 382; climbing plants, cause of curvature movement is not longitudinal growth, 442 & 443 n.6, 442–3, 559–60 & 560 n.6; consanguineous marriage, consequences will come to be recognised, 120–1 n.4; crossing increases likelihood of reversion, 174 & 175 n.6; Drosera, reactions parallel animal nervous systems, 106 n.6; inheritance of acquired conditions, 437 & n.8; motor impulses of Drosera resemble a reflex action, 286 & n.2, 336 & 337 n.4; origin of language, 58 n.1; pangenesis, 29 n.2; pangenesis, revised view, 488 & 488–9 nn.2–4; physiology can only progress by experiments on living animals, 23–4 & 24 nn.2–5, 424–5 & 425 n.2; presence of coadaptations in Arctic plants and animals argues against sudden inexplicable change, 97 n.3; reversion may entail sterility, 475 & 475–6 nn.3–7; sexual selection the principal cause of morphological differences, 175 n.5; sterility in peloric flowers linked to reversion, 475 & 476 n.6; vivisection essential for progress of physiology, 5–6 & 6 nn.3–6, 590–1 scientific work: Aldrovanda, experiments on, 30 & n.7, 232 & n.3; Apocynaceae, fly-trapping, 116 n.4; bees, observes sucking flowers of the same species, 373 & n.6; birds of the Galápagos archipelago, 331–2 & 332 n.2; Cassia, experiments with water and glycerine, 401 & 402 n.8; Climbing plants 2d ed., 2 & 2–3 nn.2–3, 30 & n.6, 52 & n.2, 245 & n.4, 324–5 & 325 n.2, 343; Climbing plants 2d ed., finishes recorrecting, 123 & 124 n.2, 134 & n.2, 135 & n.2, 242 & 243 n.4, 304 n.1, 565; cross and self-fertilisation, experiments on fertility of outcomes, 450 & n.5; Cross and self fertilisation, begins work on, 382 & 383 n.4, 566 & n.5; Cross and self fertilisation, expects to take a year, 398 & n.4; Cross and self fertilisation, intends to include papers on dimorphic plants, 506 & 507 n.7; Cross and self fertilisation, H. Müller anticipates, 416 & 417 n.2;

761 Cytisus hybrids, 251 & n.2, 254 & nn.1–2, 257 & nn.2–3, 258–9 & nn.3–4, 262 & n.2, 263–4 & 264 nn.1–5, 271 & n.1; decline of native populations, 350 & 351 n.3; Dionaea muscipula, experiments with leaf sensitivity, 220 & n.3, 222 & n.2; Drosera, experiments on, 42 n.1, 60 & n.1, 63 & n.2, 220 & 220–1 n.3, 228 & n.5, 252 & 253 n.3, 265 & 265–6 nn.2–3, 330 n.3, 347–8 & 348 n.3, 401 & 402 n.6, 541 & 542 n.3, 579; Drosera, experiments on leaf sensitivity, 220 & 220–1 n.3; Drosera, experiments to show curdling of milk, 228 & n.5; Drosera, experiments with carbonate of ammonia, 347–8 & 348 n.3; Drosera, experiments with extract of hyoscyamus, 42 n.1; Drosera, experiments with glycerine, 401 & 402 n.6; Drosera, experiments with phosphates, 60 & n.1, 63 & n.2; Drosera rotundifolia, aggregation of matter in tentacles, 329 & 330 n.3, 334 & n.2, 336–7 & 337 nn.1–5, 347–8 & 348 nn.1–4; Drosera rotundifolia, glandular secretions, 228 & n.2; Echinocystis lobata, experiments on, 443 n.6, 560 n.6, 449 & n.2, 456 n.3; expression conveyed through action of the iris, 58 & n.1; fertilisation of orchids, 276 & 277 nn.3 & 7–9; fertility/sterility of crosses in maize, 281 & 282 nn.1–2, 300, 302; Genlisea, bladders, 12 & 13 n.7, 13–14 & 14 n.3; Genlisea, experiments on, 16 & n.5, 30 & 31 n.8; geological tour of north Wales with A. Sedgwick (1831), 201–2 & 202 nn.1–7; Imantophyllum, experiments on, 400 & n.6, 401 & 402 n.8, 403 & 403–4 n.2, 412 & n.3; Insectivorous plants, completes proofs, 233, 565; Insectivorous plants, corrects proofs, 67 & n.2, 123 & 124 n.3, 151, 184 & n.3, 185 & n.7, 208 & n.1, 211 & 212 n.5, 220 & 221 n.5; Insectivorous plants, glad he will be spared labour of preparing a new edition, 457–8; Insectivorous plants, revises for press, 30 & n.6, 57 & n.8, 123 & 124 n.2, 565 & 566 n.2; Insectivorous plants, revising text makes CD feel suicidal and will take another two months, xx, 61 & n.6; Insectivorous plants, revision delays visit to London, 67 & 68 n.1; Insectivorous plants, revision is half killing him, 103 & 104 n.2; Melastomaceae, experiments on, 400 n.6, 401 & 402 n.4, 409 & n.4, 411; Mimosa, experiments with glycerine, 401 & 402 n.6; Monochaetum eurifolium, crossing experiments, 383 & 384 nn.5–6; movement in plants, experiments with syringing, 178 & 179 n.6; Nesaea verticillata, experiments to establish whether offspring are fertile, 209 & n.2; Orchids, plans new edition, 398 & n.4; Orchids 2d ed., 506 & 507 n.8; overworked on new editions of old books, 318 & n.4; pangenesis, rewrites for Variation 2d ed., 371 & 372 n.6, 379 n.4, 450 &

762

Index

n.6, 488 & 488–9 n.3, 491 n.3; Papaver spp., experiments with crossing, 211 & 212 n.4; papers on dimorphic plants, reworks for Forms of flowers, 209 n.2; Passiflora gracilis, twining of tendrils, 456 n.3; peacocks’ feathers, colour of, 494 & 494–5 nn.2–3; Phaseolus, 342–3 & 343 nn.2–6; Pinguicula makes milk curdle, 228 & n.5; rabbits, breeds for F. Galton’s experiments, 360 & 361 n.4; rabbits, extensive work on skeletons, 361 n.4; regeneration of tissue and appendages, 255 & 256 n.4; regrowth of amputated extra digits, xx–xxi, 296 & n.2, 299 & 299–300 nn.1–7, 301 n.4, 307–8 & nn.2 & 4–12, 311 & n.2, 315 & 316 nn.3–4, 319–20 & 320 nn.2–3; Saxifraga, absorption of carbonate of ammonia, 403 & 404 n.5; sensitivity of plants, 106 & n.6; ‘slaving over the sickening work of preparing new editions’, 324–5 & 325 n.2; speed of racehorses, 314 & n.2, 318 & n.2; sweetpeas, grows for F. Galton, 141 & n.2, 212 & nn.1–3, 366 & n.6, 367 & n.3, 437 & n.8, 464 & 465 n.1; Utricularia, experiments on, 30 & 31 n.8; Utricularia montana, bladders, 13 & 14 n.3; Utricularia, corrects chapter on, 46 & nn.1–2; Variation 2d ed. will be a heavy grind, 242 & 243 n.4; Variation, proposes 2d ed., 68 & n.2, 70 & n.2, 71 & 72 n.2; Variation 2d ed., 71 & 72 n.2, 245 & n.4, 251 & 252 n.3, 252 n.3, 256 n.4, 256 & n.1, 258–9 & n.4, 266–7 & 267 nn.2–4, 271 & n.8, 281–2 & 282 nn.1–2, 289 & n.1, 318 & n.4, 324–5 & 325 n.2, 325 & n.2, 328 & n.6, 366 & n.3, 417 n.2, 565–6 & 566 n.4; Variation 2d ed., corrects proofs, 337 & 338 n.3, 340 & 342 n.2, 465 & 466 n.2; Variation 2d ed., revises passage on pangenesis, 371 & 372 n.6, 379 n.4, 450 & n.6, 488 & 488–9 n.3, 491 n.3; wiser and safer to keep to easier and special subjects rather than large and general ones, 415; with advancing years, avoids general and large subjects, 450 support for theories: G. Bentham, 34 & n.2; G.G. Bianconi, 47–8 & 48 nn.2–5, 73 & n.2, 523 & nn.2–5, 524–5 & 525 n.2; F.J. Cohn, 329 & 330 n.3, 337 & n.5, 348 & n.4; F. Delpino, 150 & 151 n.5, 355–6, 534 & n.5, 551; A. Dodel, 252–3 & nn.3–6, 541–2 & 542 nn.3–6; J.W. Draper, 12 n.2; J. Fiske, 106; Germany and Italy, 356 & 357 n.7, 551 & 552 n.7; F.B. Goodacre, 6–7 & 7 n.2, 72 & 73 n.1; E. Haeckel, 222–3, 437, 440, 537–8, 557– 8; E. von Hesse-Wartegg, 320 & 320–1 nn.1–2; G. Jäger, 48 & nn.1–2; A.H. Malm, 44; A.W. Malm, 44–5; M.T. Masters, 96 & n.1; Russian scientists, 162 & 162–3 nn.3–7; J. Sachs, 249 & 250 n.5, 539 & 540 n.5; F. Schultze, 226, 538–9; G. von Seidlitz, 282 & 283 n.1; L. Tait, 111 &

111–12 nn.3–4, 114 & n.2, 123, 274, 468 & n.4; M. Traube, 93–4, 94, 528–9; O. Zacharias, 216–17 & 219 nn. 2–7, 217–19, 326–7, 536–7 & 537 nn.2–7, 548–9 trips and visits, 1 n.4; Abinger Hall (3 June–5 July), 211 & 212 n.5, 219 & 220 n.5, 220 & 221 n.5, 231 & n.4, 232, 233 & n.3, 235 & n.2, 236 & 237 n.8, 238 & 239 n.3, 239, 240, 242 & 243 n.4, 245 & 246 n.8, 254 & 255 n.3, 263 & n.2, 265 & 266 n.4, 266 & n.2, 267 & n.8, 283 & n.3, 566 & 567 n.16; London (31 March–12 April), 68 n.1, 106 & n.3, 121 & n.2, 123 & 124 n.5, 124 & n.1, 125 n.1, 129 n.2, 129 & n.4, 135 & n.2, 135 & 136 n.1, 154 & 155 n.2, 566; visit postponed due to work on Insectivorous plants, 67 & 68 n.1, n.1; London (December), 273 & n.3,472 & n.2, 473–4 & n.2, 476 & n.2, 477 n.4, 478 & n.2, 478–9 & 479 nn.2–3, 484, 484 & 485 nn.2–3, 485–6, 486 & n.2, 487 & n.4, 487 & 488 n.4, 491–2 & nn.2–14 & 16, 512 & n.2; Southampton (28 August–11 September), 318 n.4, 325 & n.5, 337 & 338 n.3, 344 &345 n.2, 345 & n.5, 346 & 347 n.4, 347 & n.1, 354 & 355 n.1, 566 & 567 n.20 Darwin, Elizabeth: CD begs G.J. Romanes not to mention vivisection before her, 131 & n.5; F. Darwin sends love to, 476 & 477 n.5; hopes duke of Teck’s visit will be indefinitely postponed, 177 n.3; A. Hyatt presents compliments to, 17 & 19 n.4; joins her parents on December trip to London, 488 n.4 Darwin, Emma: advises CD to travel to London and appear before Royal Commission on the same day, 427; T. Allen calls on in London, 139 & 140 n.1; I.L. Bird ‘a romancer’, 171 & 171 & 173 n.7; A.J. Cupples sends regards to, 87 & n.10; A. Darwin thanks for plants, 171 & n.5; CD begs G.J. Romanes not to mention vivisection before her, 131 & n.5; CD unable to sign F.P. Cobbe’s petition, 24–5 & 25 nn.2–5, 580; CD works on vivisection during London visit, 197 n.1; E.A. Darwin reports C.S. Wedgwood’s illness, 344 & 345 n.2; diary, 67 n.3, 97 n.6, 123 n.2, 124 n.5, 131 n.4, 149 n.1, 152 n.4, 156 n.8, 171 n.4, 197 n.1, 246 n.4, 268 n.1, 387 n.5, 418 n.4, 481 n.4, 504 n.3, 488 n.4, 566 n.6, 567 nn.8, 12–14, 18, 21, 24–5 & 30; A. Dohrn sends regards to, 210; G.S. Ffinden formally informed that CD was mistaken, 133 & n.5; W.D. and E.S. Fox send regards to, 278; A. Günther sends regards to, 51; A. Hyatt presents compliments to, 17 & 19 n.4; J.B. Innes sends seeds of Aquilegia, 181 & 182 n.3, 185 & n.9; updates J.B. Innes, with local and family news, 504–5 & 505–6 nn.3–12; invites J. Tyndall to

Index Down, 385–6 & 362 n.2; joined CD in campaign against steel vermin-traps, 24 n.4, 580, 580–1; St G.J. Mivart, advises CD against writing to, 16; St G.J. Mivart, advises CD to send a formal letter rather than a savage one, 33; D.F. Nevill hopes to visit again, 246 & n.4, 269 & n.4; D.F. Nevill’s visit a strain on CD, 178 & 179 n.4; W.R.S. Ralston sends regards to, 472; G.J. Romanes sends regards to, 155; S. Sulivan sends regards to, 517 & n.8; L. Tait sends regards to, 214; visits T.H. Huxley with CD, 479 & n.3, 482 n.6; W.D. Whitney, explains that CD is unable to see him, 184 & nn.2–4 Darwin, Erasmus Alvey: apothecaries’ measurements, 459–60 & 460 nn.2–3; attends séance hosted by H. Wedgwood, 125 & n.6; CD stays with before giving evidence to Royal Commission, 427 & n.4; CD stays with in London, 121 & n.2, 123 & 124 n.5, 124 & n.1, 125 n.1, 125, 129 n.2, 427 & n.4, 478 & n.2, 566 & 567 nn.9 & 28; G.H. Darwin stays with, 478 n.2; W.E. Darwin’s application to join Athenaeum, 128 & n.1; donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43; reports C.S. Wedgwood’s illness to E. Darwin, 344 & 345 n.2; signs F.P. Cobbe’s petition against vivisection, 28 n.4 Darwin, Francis: Anemone, experiments on seeds, 377 & n.3, 398 & 400 nn.1 & 4, 401, 403 & 404 n.3; assists CD with experiments on movement of plants, 178 & 179 n.6; Band of Hope, 219 & 220 n.3; botanical observations during honeymoon in Switzerland, 404 n.4; Byblis, hopes he might obtain a scrap from Kew, 470 & n.7, 471 & 471–2 n.4; cuts and sorts CD’s pamphlets, 1; CD asks to clarify H. Hoffmann’s remarks on Phaseolus, 342–3 & 343 n.2; CD nominates for fellowship of Linnean Society, 480 & 481 n.8; CD will accompany to Linnean Society to vote for E.R. Lankester, 481; CD’s secretary, xxii, 46, 101 n.2, 222 & n.4, 225 n.2, 366 & n.6, 505 & n.8; donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43; Drosera rotundifolia, process of aggregation, 1 & n.2; edited Insectivorous plants 2d ed. (1888), 177 n.2, 332 n.1, 455 n.3; Encyclopaedia Brittanica, article on breeding, 258 n.3; experiments with frogs to observe vascular dilation, 1 & n.3; finds nest of a golden-crested wren, 178 & 179 n.5; M. Foster suggests he works on histology of the snail’s heart, 345 & n.3; has not mislaid CD’s notes on Utricularia, 46; J.D. Hooker sends grass seeds for experiments, 423 & n.4; hopes CD will not overwork in London, 476 & 477 n.4; hygroscopic powers of awned seeds, experiments, 377 & n.3,

763

384 n.3, 396 & n.6, 398 & 400 nn.1 & 4, 400 & nn.1 & 4, 401, 403 & 404 n.3, 409 n.5, 420 & 421 n.4, 473 n.4; Insectivorous plants, corrects proofs, xxii, 168 & 169 n.2, 171 & nn.1–3 & 6, 172, 178 & nn.1–2, 219 & 220 n.2, 220; Insectivorous plants, drawings, 2 n.4; lent A. Möller originals of F. Müller’s letters to CD, 359 n.1, 553 n.1; Lepidoptera collection, 333 & n.3, 333 & 334 n.3; Linnean Society, application for membership, 295 & nn.1–3, 300 & 301 n.8, 302 & nn.1–2, 480 & 481 n.8; Linnean Society, elected fellow, 371 & 372 n.2, 472 & 473 n.2, 476 & 476–7 n.2, 481 n.8, 481 & 482 n.3; lives at Down Lodge, 171 n.5, 302 & 303 n.4; met E.E. Klein when studying medicine, 6 & n.6; N. Moore a friend of, 483 & n.5; Nature, CD passes on copies to, 473 & n.3; Ophideres fullonica, article on proboscis, xxii, 333 n.3, 345 & n.4; plays the flute at Down school concert, 181 & 182 n.4; stays with Ruck family in Wales, 473 & n.6, 476 & 477 n.4; L. Tait assumes he has a good knowledge of Greek, 436 & n.3; L. Tait praises in Spectator, 317 & 318 n.2; L. Tait, writes severe letter to on CD’s behalf, 290; W.T. Thiselton-Dyer sends erineum, 473 & n.4; translates parts of P.P.C. Hoek’s book on cirripedia from Dutch, 100 & 101 n.2; will help J. Tyndall with experiments, 420 & n.3; Variation 2d ed., reads proofs, 340 & 342 n.2, 343 & 344 n.3, 345 & n.2; visits G.H. Darwin in Cambridge, 420 & n.2, 420 & 421 nn.4 & 7; visits W.E. Darwin, 345 & n.6 Darwin, George Howard: advises CD against writing to St G.J. Mivart, 16; F.M. Balfour ensures that animals used in experiments are anaesthetised, 6 & n.4; cousin marriage, article in Fortnightly Review, 120–1 n.4, 395 & n.5, 393 & 394 nn.1–2, 395 & n.3, 416 & 417 n.6, 418 & 419 n.1, 420 & 421 n.2; CD advises A.H. Huth on breeding rabbits for experimentation, 360 & 361 nn. 2–5; CD asks to send a copy of his paper on cousin marriage to H. Müller, 418 & 419 n.1, 420 & 421 n.2; CD attends séance hosted by H. Wedgwood, 124–5 & 125 nn.2–6; CD encourages to continue experiments on pitch and remember success of his articles, 395 & n.5; CD reports J.D. Hooker’s outburst to J. Murray, 33 & 34 n.7; CD severs communication with St G.J. Mivart over malicious accusations, 22 & nn.1–3; CD sympathises with feeling of life being objectless, xxii, 60; CD will assist F. Galton by growing sweetpeas, 141 & n.2; F. Darwin visits in Cambridge, 420 & n.2, 420 & 421 nn.4 & 7; defends CD’s account of origins of speech, 58 n.1; dines late in

764

Index

college to avoid waiting, 393 & 394 n.5; donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43; experiments on flow of pitch, xxii, 393–4 & 394 n.12, 395 & n.5, 420 & 421 n.3; F. Galton’s interest in inheritance, 428 & n.2; F. Galton explains theory of heredity, 488 & n.2, 499–500 & 500–501 nn.1–6; meets D.C. Gilman, 393 & 394 nn.6–7; health poor, xxii, 212 n.4, 328, 393 & 394 nn.3 & 11, 395; health, ‘an invalid for some years’, 505 & n.8; health, unwell during stay in London, 478 n.2; health, wonderfully well and plays tennis, 420; A.H. Huth, Marriage of near kin, reviews in Academy, 326 & n.1, 327–8 & 328 n.2, 361 n.2; T.H. Huxley uses review of E. Haeckel’s Anthropogenie to condemn anonymous slurs in Quarterly Review, 4 & 5 n.3, 12 & n.5, 13 & n.1; T.H. Huxley writes to St G. J. Mivart in GHD’s defence, 7 n.1; Insectivorous plants, drawings, 2 n.4; Insectivorous plants, errata, 280 & n.3; Insectivorous plants, sends errata to W. Clowes, 264–5 & 265 nn.1–2, 280–1 & 281 nn.1–3; W.S. Jevons’s letter greatly encouraging, 393 & 394 n.3; J.F. McClennan praises article on cousin marriage, 419 & n.1; ‘Maps of the world’, Philosophical Magazine, 393 & 394 n.4; ‘Marriages between first cousins in England and their effects’, Fortnightly Review, 120–1 n.4, 395 & n.5, 393 & 394 nn.1–2, 395 & n.3, 416 & 417 n.6, 419 & n.1, 420 & 421 n.2; ‘Marriages between first cousins in England and their effects’, German translation, 327 & n.7, 549 & n.7; F. Max Müller, criticisms of are those of W.D. Whitney, xxii, 8 & n.3, 498 & 499 n.4; F. Max Müller’s self defence, 498 & 499 nn.2–6; T. Meehan cites on healthy offspring of cousin marriage, 416 & 417 n.6d; St G.J. Mivart’s slurs against in Quarterly Review, 3 & 4 n.2, 4–5 nn.2–3, 22 n.2, 40 & n.2, 395 & n.5; organises CD’s correspondence, 511 & 512 n.3; ‘Professor Whitney on the origin of language’, Contemporary Review, xxii–xxiii, 7–8 & 8 nn.1 & 3, 15 & n.4, 57 & 58 n.1, 396–7 & 397 n.3, 498 & 499 nn.3–4; refers T.M. Hughes to CD for his recollections of A. Sedgwick, 201 & 202 n.1; Savile Club, member, 321 n.3; W.R. Scott supplied information on cousin marriage, 451 n.2; ‘The theory of exchange value’, CD will order Fortnightly Review, 61 & n.7; ‘The theory of exchange value’, D.F. Nevill finds abstruse, 66 & 67 n.2; visited B.J. Sulivan in Bournemouth, 516 & 517 n.1; visits L. Darwin in Malta, 505 & n.8, 511 & 512 n.3; W.D. Whitney, injustice of F. Max Müller’s self-defence, 498 & 499 nn.2–6; W.D. Whitney’s reply to F. Max Müller, asks J.T. Knowles to publish, 57–8 & 58 nn.1–2, 59

& 59–60 nn.1–3, 60 & 61 nn.2–4; writes CD’s letter to W.D. Whitney, 347 & n.1; O. Zacharias plans German translation of article on cousin marriage, 327 & n.7, 393 & 394 nn.1–2, 395 & n.3, 549 & n.7 Darwin, Horace: contemporary of G.H. Rendall, 393 & 394 n.8; donation to Naples Zoological Station, 44; makes a hygrometer out of Stipa, xxii, 409 & n.5; shows CD note in The Engineer on germination of ancient seeds, 61–2 & 62 n.7 Darwin, Leonard, 476 & 477 n.3; W.E. Darwin unable to see G.B. Airy, 483 & n.4; D.C. Gilman met in San Francisco, 393 & 394 n.7; H.E. Litchfield tells that CD has severed relations with St G.J. Mivart, 34 n.5; posted to Malta, 321 & 323 n.5, 325 & n.5, 386 & 387 n.6, 505 & n.8, 512 n.3; Savile Club, member, 321 n.3; transit of Venus expedition to New Zealand, 144 n.8, 182 & n.7, 321 & 323 n.5; travels home via US, 144 & n.8, 239 n.2, 387 n.6, 394 n.7; visited Norton family in Boston, 387 n.6 Darwin, Robert Waring: W.D. Fox remembers, 278 & n.7; thought A. Sedgwick was a hypochondriac, 201 & 202 n.3 Darwin, Susan Elizabeth: W.D. Fox remembers, 278 & n.7 Darwin, William Erasmus: Athenaeum, would like to renew application, 127 & 128 n.4, 128 & n.1; CD and E. Darwin visit, 318 n.4, 325 & n.5, 337 & 338 n.3, 344 &345 n.2, 345 & n.5, 346 & 347 n.4, 347 & n.1, 354 & 355 n.1, 566 & 567 n.20; CD seconds S.W. Strickland’s application to Athenaeum, 125 & 126 n.1, 127 & 128 n.2; Descent 2d ed., asks for a copy, 403 & n.4; donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43; enjoys reading T. Belt’s Naturalist in Nicaragua, 127 & 128 n.5; Index, further donation, 482–3 & 483 nn.2–3, 493 & n.2; met N. Moore at Embley Park, 483 & n.5; note on H.G. Bronn’s critique of natural selection for L. Tait, 224 & 225 n.4; recommends CD have J. Morley’s article on Diderot read to him, 403 & n.3; Savile Club, member, 321 n.3; sends T.G. Gentry a copy of Orchids, 403 & n.1; visited CD at Abinger Hall, 266 & n.2; visits J.D. Hooker, 300 & n.7 Darwinia: E. Haeckel believes proposed journal shows extent of Darwinism in Germany, 440 & 441 n.10, 558 & 559 n.10; Kosmos shares aims of, xxiv, 327 n.3, 549 n.3; publication delayed while O. Zacharias recruits sufficient contributors, 326 & 327 n.3, 548–9 & 549 n.3; O. Zacharias plans new popular monthly and asks for CD’s endorsement, xxiv, 216–17 & 219 nn.2–6, 217–19, 327 n.4, 536–7 & 537 nn.2–6, 549 n.4

Index Daubeny, Charles Giles Bridle: exudation of carbonic acid from plant rootlets, 349 & 350 n.6 Daucus carota (wild carrot): CD intrigued by central floret, 409 & n.3, 414 & 415 n.5 Davenport, Salusbury Pryce, 138 & 139 n.3 Dawkins, William Boyd: asks CD to nominate W.B. Clarke as fellow of Royal Society, 468–9 & 469 n.1; F.B. Goodacre’s proposed museum of interest to, 72 & 73 n.2; gratified that CD likes his Cave hunting, which has been translated into German, 104 & 105 nn.1–2; ‘The northern range of the Basques’, debate at Anthropological Institute, 104–5 & 105 nn.6–9; J. Storer’s comments on Chillingham cattle, 381–2 & 382 nn.2–5; Variation, seeks authority for CD’s remarks on relative size of white and dark cattle in medieval Wales, 29 & 29–30 nn.1–4, 31 & n.2, 104 Decodon verticillatus. See Nesaea verticillata Delamer, Eugene Sebastian [Edmund Saul Dixon]: Pigeons and Rabbits, 360 & 361 n.3 Delpino, Federico: adaptation of plants to living pollinators, 131 & 132 nn.3–9, 533 & 533–4 nn.3–9; annoyed by G. Bentham’s criticism of his classification of Artemesiaceae, 143 & 144 n.6; CD sends T. Belt’s Naturalist in Nicaragua, 344 & n.6, 355 & 356 n.2, 551 & 552 n.2; CD suggests F. Hildebrand ask him for maize seed, 302 & n.3; debt to CD, 130–1 & 131 n.2, 532–3 & 533 n.2; dichogomy, Ulteriori osservazioni, 130–1 & 131 n.2, 151 n.6, 532–3 & 533 n.2, 534 n.6; illegitimate relations between insects and nectaries, 355–6 & 356 n.3, 551 & 552 n.3; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 150 & n.3, 355–6 & 356 n.2, 534 & n.3, 551 & 552 n.2; Insectivorous plants, reviews in Annuario Scientifico ed Industriale, 150 & n.3, 534 & n.3; Marcgraviaceae, T. Belt confirms views on fertilisation, 356 & n.4, 551 & 552 n.4; pitcher plants, pamphlet on, 142 & n.5, 150 & n.4, 534 & n.4; sends CD the final part of his treatise on dichogamy, 130–1 & 131 n.2, 532–3 & 533 n.2 Dendrobium: D. hillii (D. speciosum var. hillii), causes of barrenness, 276 & 277 n.6, 364 & 364–5 n.2 Derby, countess of. See Stanley, Mary Catherine, countess of Derby Derby, earl of. See Stanley, Edward Henry, earl of Derby Deutsche Rundsschau: F.J. Cohn, essay review of Insectivorous plants, 20 & 21 n.12, 337 n.1, 522 & n.12 Dew-Smith, Albert George: CD agrees that A. Dohrn’s letter should be circulated as drafted, 32 & 33 n.1, 35 & n.2; donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43; Naples Zoological Station, progress, 32–3 & 33 nn.1–2, 42

765

Dicotyledoneae: Arctic fossils, 88 & 92 nn.6–7, 89, 90, 91, 525 & 527 nn.6–7, 526 Diderot, Denis: W.E. Darwin recommends J. Morley’s article on, 403 & n.3 Difflugia: Arctic fossils, 19–20 & 20–1 n.6, 521 & 522 n.6 Dionaea muscipula (Venus fly trap): J.S. Burdon Sanderson, electrical phenomena associated with leaf contraction, 214 & 216 n.2; W.M. Canby provided CD with information, 380 n.1; CD experiments with leaf sensitivity, 220 & n.3, 222 & n.2; CD urges L. Tait to publish on, 220 & 221 n.6; plants under glass in Berlin grow vigorously in absence of insects, 20 & 21 n.11, 522 & n.11; L. Tait’s experiments, 231 & 232 n.4, 288 & n.3 Diospyros: Arctic fossils, 88 & 92 n.8, 90, 525 & 527 n.8, 526 Dischidia rafflesiana (D. major), 399; J.D. Hooker collected in Bengal, 148 & 149 n.2; pitchers, 142 & n.5, 147 & n.3, 148 & 149 n.1; L. Tait interested in, 453 & 454 n.2 Disraeli, Benjamin, 33 & n.3; approves J.D. Hooker’s application for an assistant, 25 & 26 n.3; sends J.D. Hooker a private note asking him to confirm his choice of assistant, 110 & 111 n.7, 123 & 124 n.7 Dixon, Edmund Saul. See under Delamer, Eugene Sebastian Dobbs, Arthur: methods of bees, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 373 & n.5 Dodel, Arnold: Insectivorous plants, presentation, 252 & 253 n.2, 253, 541 & 542 n.2; observes Drosera in Katzensee, xx, 252, 541; Schöpfungsgesichte, 253 & n.4, 542 & n.4; Ulothrix zonata, sexual and asexual reproduction, 253 & 253–4 n.6, 542 & 542–3 n.6 Dohrn, Anton: annelid origin of vertebrates, will send CD his pamphlet even though he will not like it, 53–4 & 54 n.6, 57 & n.7; believes his principle of Functionswechsel counters St G.J. Mivart’s theories, 200 n.4; congratulates CD on his birthday, 53 & 54 n.1; CD hopes G.J. Romanes will go to Zoological Station, 56–7 & 57 n.5; CD rejoices at success of Zoological Station, 56 & 57 n.2; CD thanks for paper on origin of vertebrates and is surprised at his findings, 200 & nn.1–5; Darwinia, promises monthly report from Zoological Station’s acquarium, 216 & 219 n.5, 218, 536 & 537 n.5; defends degradation theory and belief in annelid origin of vertebrates, 210 & 210–11 nn.2–5; enjoys seclusion of mountainside palazzo in Naples, 54 & 55 n.8; enlightened CD as to what an Uhlan was, 57 & n.6; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 305 & n.4; Naples

766

Index

Zoological Station flourishing despite economic recession in Germany, 210 & 211 n.6; Naples Zoological Station flourishing due to generosity of supporters, 53 & 54 nn.2–5; Naples Zoological Station, formal inauguration, 54 & 55 n.9; Naples Zoological Station, grant from German government, 32 & n.3; Naples Zoological Station, thanks donors to appeal, 32–3 & 33 nn.1–3, 35 & n.2, 42–4 & 44 nn.1–6; plans to visit England to attend BAAS meeting and hopes to visit CD, 53 & 54 n.5; regrets John Anderson School of Natural History is in difficulties, 210 & 211 n.6, 200 & nn.2–4, 210 & 210–11 nn.2–5; visit to Down House deferred, 304–5 Dohrn, Maria, 57 & n.6, 304 & 305 n.1 Douglas, John Christie: comments on Expression and Descent, 65–6 nn.6; Manual of telegraph construction, 66 & n.6 Dowie, Annie: calls at Down House, 566 & 567 n.21; CD seeks confirmation of regrowth of amputated extra digit, xx–xxi, 299 & 299–300 nn.1–7, 307–8 & 308 nn.2 & 5–12, 311 & n.2, 315 & 316 nn.3–4, 319–20 & 320 n.2; CD sends Insectivorous plants, 307 & 308 n.3; J. Paget convinces CD to change his view, xxi, 319–20 & 320 n.3; sends CD extracts from R. Chambers’s diary, 301 & nn.2–3, 307–8 & 308 n.2, 311 & n.2 Dowie, James Muir: member of BAAS, 308 n.4 Down: Band of Hope, 219 & 220 n.3, 504–5 & 505 n.6; reading room opened by W. Nash, xxiv, 504 & 505 n.5 Down Friendly Society: C. Pearson elected trustee, 185 & n.5 Down House, visitors: F.M. Balfour, 566 & 567 n.8; T.F. Burgers, 188 & n.1, 188 & n.2, 208 n.2; T. Carlyle, 362 n.2; A. Dowie, 566 & 567 n.21; H.E. Dresser, 354–5 & 355 n.2, 361 n.1, 375 n.2, 566 & 567 n.22; T.H. and K.E. Farrer, 184 n.2, 184 n.4; F. Galton, 371; J.D. Hooker, 300 & n.5, 306 & n.1, 306 & n.3, 400 n.1, 566 & 567 nn.19 & 24; H.A. Huxley, 385–6 & 386 n.2, 566 & 567 nn.13 & 25; T.H. Huxley, 130 & 131 n.4, 134 n.3, 151 & 152 n.4, 385–6 & 386 n.2, 388 & 388–9 n.1, 396 & n.5, 428 n.2, 566 & 567 nn.13 & 25; A. Hyatt, 17 & 19 n.4, 36 & n.4; E.E. Klein, 427 n.2; E.R. Lankester, 256 & n.2, 268 & n.1, 480 & 481 n.4, 504 & n.3, 566 & 567 n.18; H.E. and R.B. Litchfield, 171 n.4, 184 n.2, 184 n.4, 566 & 567 n.13; J. and E.F. Lubbock, 566 & n.6; J.F. McClennan, 419 & n.3; J.F. McLennan, 566 & 567 n.26; D.F. Nevill, 178 & 179 n.4, 246 & n.4, 269 & n.4, 566 & 567 n.14; G.J. Romanes, 130 & 131 n.4, 134 n.3, 155 & 156 n.8, 566 & 567 n.13; N.A. Severtsov,

354 & 355 n.2, 361 n.6, 361 n.1, 375 n.2, 566 & 567 n.22; J.J. Sylvester, 566 & 567 n.24; L. Tait, 123 n.2, 130 & 131 n.4, 133–4 & 134 n.2, 214 & 216 n.5, 401, 566 & 567 n.13; Francis duke of Teck, 177 & n.3, 313 & n.2; W.T. Thiselton-Dyer, 256 & n.2, 268 & n.1, 566 & 567 n.18; A. Tylor, 179 & 180 n.1, 566 & 567 n.15; J. Tyndall, 385–6 & 386 n.2, 408 n.2, 417 & 418 n.4, 566 & 567 n.25; C. Wright (1872), 368 & 369 n.8; G. Young, 179 & 180 n.1, 566 & 567 n.15 Down National School: CD and J.B. Innes involved in running of, 182 n.6; CD wrote to Privy Council as member of school board, 129, 132–3 & 133 n.2; F. Darwin plays the flute at school concert, 181 & 182 n.4; C. Pearson, schoolmaster, 185 n.5; repairs to infant school, xxiii, 129 & n.3, 133 & nn.3–4; winter reading room, dispute with G.S. Ffinden over use of Down schoolroom, 129 n.3, 133 & n.1, 185 n.5, 505 n.7 Doyer [Doijer], Dirk, 569 & n.1 Draper, John William: History of the conflict between religion and science, 12 n.2; N. Jovanovitch wants to translate CD’s works into Serbian, 67 & n.2; paper on Darwinian view of development of western civilisation gave rise to Bishop Wilberforce’s attack on CD, 12 n.2 Dresser, Henry Eeles: Birds of Europe, Turdus spp., 374 & 375 n.5; visits Down House, xxv, 354–5 & 355 n.2, 375 n.2, 566 & 567 n.23 Dromaius novohollandiae (emu): relation of feathers to ostrich, 213 n.3, 535 n.3 Drosera: A.W. Bennett’s experiments, 485 & 486 n.3, 486 n.2; J.S. Burdon Sanderson investigates ingestion of globulin, 275 & n.7; J.W. Clark’s experiments on, 362 & n.3; F.J. Cohn gathers in Jizera moutains, 329 & 330 n.2; F.J. Cohn questions CD’s finding that aggregations of matter are protoplasm, 329–30 & 330 n.3, 334 & n.2, 336–7 & 337 nn.1–4, 347–8 & 348 nn.1–3; cobra poison, effect of, 11 n.2; CD likens motor impulses to a reflex action, 286 & n.2, 337 n.2; CD’s account of aggregation the most important discovery in biology in our time (F.J. Cohn), 329 & 330 n.3, 337 & n.5, 348 & n.4; CD’s experiments, 42 n.1, 60 & n.1, 220 & 220–1 n.3, 252 & 253 n.3, 265 & 265–6 nn.2–3, 330 n.3, 347–8 & 348 n.3, 401 & 402 n.6, 541 & 542 n.3, 579; T.H. Farrer experiments with and CD advises, 265, 266; globulin, ingestion of, 275 & n.7; J.D. Hooker eagerly awaits CD’s findings, 55 & 56 n.4; Insectivorous plants discusses at length, 1 n.4, 21 n.14, 51 n.5, 56 n.4, 228 n.2, 246 n.3, 247 n.2, 290 n.2, 370 n.3; E.F. Lubbock’s poem ‘From the

Index Insects …’, 247 & n.2; T. Nitschke’s experiments, 329 & 330 n.4; Sally Norton gathers specimens for C. Wright, 367 & 368 n.3; W. Ogle tries to grow in London, 369; potassium phosphate is probably present in leaves, 63 & n.2; reactions parallel animal nervous systems, 106 n.6, 336 & 337 n.4; J. Sachs praises CD’s exposition of its digestive powers, 250 & 251 n.10, 540 & 541 n.10; L. Tait’s experiments on, 220 & n.2, 221 n.6; L. Tait’s isolates ‘droserin’ in digestive fluids, 226 & 227 nn.2–3, 228 & n.3, 230 n.4, 273 & 274 n.5; D. binata (D. dichotoma) allied to Drosophyllum, 228 & n.4; D. binata (D. dichotoma), CD received from D.F. Nevill, 283 & n.4; D. binata (D. dichotoma), glandular secretions, 226 & 227 nn.2–3; D. binata (D. dichotoma), L. Tait isolates ‘droserin’, 230 n.4, 232 & n.4, 287 & n.3, 288 & 289 n.7; D. binata (D. dichotoma), L. Tait unable to obtain, 273 & 274 n.5, 283 & n.4; D. communis, 357 & 359 n.3, 552 & 553 n.3; D. filiformis, impulse causing blades to bend, 380 & 381 n.3; D. intermedia discussed by J. Gerard, 227 n.4; D. lusitanicum. See Drosophyllum lusitanicum; D. rotundifolia, aggregation of matter in tentacles, 329 & 330 n.3, 334 & n.2, 336–7 & 337 nn.1–5, 347–8 & 348 nn.1–4; D. rotundifolia, F. Darwin observes process of aggregation, 1 & n.2; D. rotundifolia, experiments with carbonate of ammonia, 347–8 & 348 n.3; D. rotundifolia, experiments with extract of hyoscyamus, 42 n.1; D. rotundifolia, experiments with glycerine, 401 & 402 n.6; D. rotundifolia, experiments with phosphates, 60 & n.1, 63 & n.2; D. rotundifolia, J. Gerard’s description of, 227 & n.4; D. rotundifolia, most of CD’s experiments performed on, 251 n.10; D. rotundifolia, H. Müller observes near Lippstadt, 312 & 313 n.2; D. rotundifolia, reflex action, 220 & n.3; D. rotundifolia, secretions curdle milk, 228 & n.5; D. rotundifolia, spiral vessels of tentacles, 419 & n.2 Droseraceae: development of, 289–90 & 290 n.3, 291 & n.3 Drosophyllum lusitanicum: CD’s experiments, 204 n.7; Drosera binata (D. dichotoma) close to, 228 & n.4; J.D. Hooker obtains plant for CD from Edinburgh, 4 & 5 n.4, 12 & n.6, 14 & n.1, 16 & n.4; plant from Edinburgh has died, 61 & 62 n.5, 69 & n.2 Dryospiza canaria (Serinus canaria): R. Riemann crosses with Serinus hortulanus, 259–6 & 261–2 n.3, 260–1, 543 & 544 n.3 Duck, George: death of, 185 & n.4 Duncan, Andrew, 460 & n.3 Duncan, Peter Martin: continues Monograph of British fossil corals, 186 & 187 n.2

767

Dyke, William Hart: supports vivisection bill based on F.P. Cobbe’s petition, 135–6 & 136–7 n.3 Echinocystis lobata (wild cucumber): CD’s experiments on, 443 n.6, 560 n.6, 449 & n.2; CD suggests H. de Vries experiment with, 449 & n.2, 455 & 456 n.3, 560 & 561 n.3 Edward Albert, prince of Wales: J. Fayrer accompanies to India, 258 & n.2, 342 & n.2, 343, 347 & n.3 Edwards, Henry: sends CD account of Darlingtonia californica, with colour photographs, 511 & n.1, 514 Edwards’s Botanical Register: Physianthus albens, 203 & 204 n.2 Elliot, Margaret: discusses vivisection bill with L. Playfair, 153 & 154 n.1 Elliot, Thomas Frederick: drafts vivisection bill based on F.P. Cobbe’s petition, 135–6 & 136–7 n.3 embauba, imbauba. See Cecropia peltata Emery, Woodward: sudden death of C. Wright, 362–3 & 363 nn.1–4, 386 n.2 emu. See Dromaius novohollandiae Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 9th ed.: T.S. Baynes asks CD to contribute, 257–8 & 258 nn.1 & 3; F. Darwin, ‘Breeds and breeding’, 258 n.3 Endlicher, Stephan Ladislaus: Genera plantarum, apetalous Gunnera, 358 & 360 n.10 The Engineer: note on germination of ancient seeds, 61–2 & 62 n.7 Entomological Society of London: CD communicated M.E. Barber’s paper on Papilio nireus, 110 n.1 Equisetaceae: Arctic fossils, 89 & 92 n.12, 91, 526 & 528 n.12 Erichsen, John: member, Royal Commission on vivisection, 583 erineum: W.T. Thiselton-Dyer sends to F. Darwin, 473 & n.4 Eristalis, 45 & 46 n.7 Ernest Augustus, duke of Cumberland and king of Hanover, 323 n.3 Eudocima phalonia. See Ophideres fullonica Euphorbia peplus: CD’s experiments with carbonate of ammonia, 348 n.3 Evans, Henry James, 310–11 & 311 n.2 Evans, John: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 44; Royal Society polar expedition, glacial observations, 39 n.2 Evening Transcript (Boston): summary of A. Hyatt’s paper on evolution of ammonites, 17–18 & 19 n.5

768

Index

Exyra semicrocea, 142 n.6 eyebrows: function of, 80–1 & 84 n.5, 103 Eyre, Edward John: Jamaica Committee supported prosecution, 452 n.2 Eys, Willem Jan van, 104–5 & 105 n.8 fairy rings: CD postulates analogy with sheep-pox, 274 & 275 n.6; J.H. Gilbert’s observations, 268–9 & 269 n.2, 518 & 519 nn.2–6; J. Paget speculates on, 255 & nn.2–3 Falconer, Charles, 78 & 79 n.9 Falconer, Hugh: memorial fund, 76 & n.2, 78 & 79 n.9; sent CD his notes on yaks and cattle hybrids, 103 & n.5 Faraday, Michael, 78 & 79 n.8 Farrer, Emma Cecilia (Ida): returns home with K.E. Farrer, 265 & 266 n.5 Farrer, Katherine Euphemia (Effie), 263 n.2; H. Grote admires her skill as a hostess, 127 & n.5; in poor health, visits German baths, 233 & n.5; returns to Abinger Hall, 265 & 266 n.5; visits Down, 184 n.2, 184 n.4 Farrer, Noel Maitland: misses the Darwins at Abinger Hall, 265 & 266 n.5 Farrer, Thomas Henry: at CD’s behest, informs S. Northcote of J.D. Hooker’s urgent need for an assistant, 25 & 26 n.3, 30 & n.4, 233 & 234 n.2; T. Belt appreciates information about greensand near Abinger, 126 & n.2; CD advises on experiments with Drosera, 265, 266; CD recuperates at Abinger Hall, 211 & 212 n.5, 231 & n.4, 233 & n.3, 235 n.2, 239 n.3, 246 n.8, 263 n.2, 283 n.3; CD sees to canvass support for E.R. Lankester, 484 & 485 n.2, 489 & 490 n.6; CD thanks for his stay at Abinger Hall, 266; CD’s grafting experiments, sends vine plants to G.J. Romanes, 127 & n.2, 267 & n.8, 130 & 131 n.2–3; entertains T. Belt and T.H. Huxley, 127 & n.3; H. Grote lunches with, 127 & n.5; visits Down, 184 n.2, 184 n.4 Fayrer, Joseph: accompanies prince of Wales to India, 258 & n.2, 342 & n.2, 343, 347 & n.3; cited in Insectivorous plants, xix, 11 n.2; CD suggested experiments on vegetable protoplasm, 8 & 11 n.1; effect of cobra poison on ciliary action, xix, 8–11 & 11–12 nn.1–6; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 258 & n.1; sends CD his Royal tiger of Bengal, 342 & n.1, 345–6 & 346 n.1 Feilden, Henry Wemyss: Royal Society polar expedition, naturalist, 39 n.3 Fergusson, William: signs F.P. Cobbe’s petition against vivisection, 27 & 28 n.2 Ffinden, George Sketchley, xxiii–xxiv; CD maintains his complaints are groundless, 132–3 &

133 nn.1–5; dispute with Darwins and Lubbocks over use of schoolroom as a winter reading room, 129 n.3, 133 & n.1, 185 n.5, 505 n.7; formally informed E. Darwin that CD was mistaken, 133 & n.5; J. Lubbock attempts to resolve his complaints against CD, 129 & nn.2–3, 132–3 & nn.1–5; C. Pearson makes peace with, 185 & n.5 Ficedula hypoleuca. See Muscicapa atricapilla Fichte, Johann Gotlieb, 226 & n.2, 538 & 539 n.2 Ficus: Arctic fossils, 88 & 92 n.8, 89, 90, 525 & 527 n.8, 526 Field: Insectivorous plants, review [?W.B. Tegetmeier], 314 & n.3; W.B. Tegetmeier, editor, 318 n.4 Fiske, John: CD asks to send C. Wright’s ‘German Darwinism’, 408 & n.2; Descent 2d ed., presentation, 106 & n.1; enjoyed meeting CD and T.H. Huxley, 106 & nn.3–4; interested in CD’s study of sensitiveness of plants, 106 & n.6; Outlines of cosmic philosophy praised by CD, 106 & n.2; sends CD C. Wright’s obituary in the Nation, 408 & n.1 Fitzgerald, Robert David: Australian orchids, sends to CD, 239 & n.2, 267 & 268 n.2, 276 & 277 n.1; Caladenia fertilised by large flies, 276 & 277 n.2, 364 & 365 n.3; cited in Orchids 2d ed., 365 n.3; CD thanks for Australian orchids, 276 & 277 nn.2–9; Dendrobium hillii, 276 & 277 n.6, 364 & 364–5 n.2; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 364 & n.1; role of insects in fertilisation of orchids, questions some of CD’s findings, 276 & 277 n.7; Thelymitra, 276 & 277 n.5 FitzRoy, Robert, 121 & 122 n.1 Flower, William Henry: CD canvasses to support E.R. Lankester at second Linnean Society ballot, 484 & 485 n.8, 491 & 492 n.9; mistaken in thinking vivisection controversy will blow over, 136 & 137 n.4; vivisection, signed BAAS report, 27 & 28 n.6 Fol, Hermann: criticises E.R. Lankester’s observations on embryonic development of cephalopods, 56 & 57 n.4 Foraminifera, 20 & 21 n.7, 251 & 252 n.7 Forbes, Edward: memorial fund, 76 & n.2 Forster, Laura May, 55 & 56 n.14 Forster, William Edward: Royal Commission on vivisection, commissioner, 425 & 426 n.3 Fortnightly Review: J.H. Bridges criticises British promotion of opium trade, 452 n.1; G.H. Darwin, ‘Marriages between first cousins in England and their effects’, 120–1 n.4, 395 & n.5, 393 & 394 nn.1–2, 395 & n.3, 416 & 417 n.6, 419 & n.1, 420 & 421 n.2; G.H. Darwin, ‘The theory of exchange value’, 61 & n.7, 67 n.2, 394 n.3; W.B. Dawkins, ‘The northern range of the Basques’,

Index 105 n.6; J. Morley, ‘Diderot’, 403 & n.3; W. Webster, ‘The Basque and the Kelt’, 105 n.6 Foster, Michael: Naples Zoological Station, circulates A. Dohrn’s letter to thanks to donors, 32 & 33 n.1, 35 & n.2, 42–4 & 44 nn.1–6; makes extensive use of vivisection, 579; signs scientists’ petition for vivisection bill, 141 & 142 n.2, 144–5 & 145 n.2, 146 & 147 n.8; suggests F. Darwin works on histology of snail’s heart, 345 & n.3 Fox, Ellen Sophia: sends regards to CD and E. Darwin, 278 & n.8 Fox, Emma, 278 & n.6 Fox, Julia, 278 & n.6 Fox, William Darwin: hopes to see CD once again, 278; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 277 & 278 n.2; new house on Isle of Wight, 277 & 278 nn.3 &5 Francis, duke of Teck, xxv; J. Lubbock reinstates invitation to High Elms, 254 & 255 n.5; visits Down House, 177 & n.3, 269 & n.3, 313 & n.2 François de Chaumont, Francis Stephen Bennet: CD thanks for Lectures on state medicine, 503 & n.1 Frankland, Edward, 457 & n.4 Franklin, John: expeditions to search for remains of, 225 nn.7–8; memorial at Westminster Abbey unveiled, 306 & n.2 Fraser’s Magazine: F. Galton, ‘The history of twins’, 366 n.2, 436 & 437 n.6, 444 & 445 n.4, 447 & 448 n.2 Fraxinus: Arctic flora, 89 & 92 n.16, 91, 526 & 528 n.16 Freeman, Edward Augustus, 104 & 105 n.4 Fremden-Blatt (Vienna): Insectivorous plants, review [E.v. Hesse-Wartegg], 320 & 320–1 n.1 freshwater mussels: effect of cobra poison on ciliary action, 10–11 Fringilla serinus, 261 & 262 n.5 Fritsche, Gustavus: CD will be happy to see for half an hour, 64 & n.2; Journal of researches, excerpts translated into Polish, 413 & 414 n.3; requests photograph of Down House for Polish magazine, 413, 423 & 424 n.3; seeks confirmation that the author John Lubbock and CD’s neighbour are the same, 414 & n.6, 423 & 424 n.4; Variation 2d ed., possibility of Polish translation, 413 & 414 n.2, 423 & nn.1–2; visits Down House, 566 & n.7 frogs: F. Darwin conducts experiments on, 1 and n.3; effect of cobra poison on ciliary action, 8–10 Gaea, 216 & 219 n.3, 218, 536 & 537 n.3 Galton, Douglas Strutt: conflict with J.D. Hooker, 25–6 & 26 nn.2 & 5, 30 & n.2; curiously, asks for J.D. Hooker’s support in opposing authority of

769

A.B. Mitford, 110 & 111 n.8; CD congratulates J.D. Hooker on his victory over, 33 & n.2; director of works and buildings, Office of Works, 26 n.2, 40 n.2, 79 n.14; forced to leave Office of Works, tries to join Ordnance Survey, 31 & 32 nn.1–2, 33 & n.1; resigns from Office of Works, 321 & 323 nn.1–2 Galton, Francis: C.E. Brown-Séquard’s experiments to show inheritance of injuries, 430 & 431 n.3, 433 & n.5, 435 & n.3, 444 & 445 n.2; CD assumes he has considered parthenogenesis in Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera, 433 & n.6, 435 & n.2; CD attends Royal Commission, 432 & 433 n.2; CD challenges theory of heredity, 488 & 488–9 nn.2–4, 490–1, 490–1 & 491 nn.1–4, 499–500 & 500–1 nn.1–6; CD finds ‘A theory of heredity’ hard to understand, xxi, 436–7 & 437 nn.3–7, 444 & n.1, 447 & 448 n.4; CD confused by differences over pangenesis, 513; CD finds article on twins curious, 447 & 448 n.2; CD grows sweetpeas for his experiments, 141 & n.2, 212 & nn.1–3, 366 & n.6, 367 & n.3, 437 & n.8, 447; CD hopes to consult about averages when he is in London, 447; CD lends G.J. Romanes’s letters to Nature, 370 & 371 n.2; CD notes that T.H. Huxley rejects E-G. Balbiani’s views on inheritance, 428 & n.3, 429 & 431 n.1; CD recommends C.E. Brown-Séquard’s article in the Lancet, 433 & n.5, 435 & n.3, 444 & 445 n.2; CD sends W. Wedderburn’s sermon on ‘scientific selection’, 428 & n.4, 431 & n.5; G.H. Darwin hopes to see, 420 & 421 n.5; G.H. Darwin may join in France, 212 & n.4; donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43; enjoys Insectivorous plants, 366 & n.7; Hereditary genius cited in Descent, 279 n.3; Imperial Academy of Science of Vienna, CD’s election raises standing of academy, 212 & n.6; inherited characteristics, whether limited by sex, 278–9 & 279 nn.2–3; Linnean Society, believes voting at second Lankester ballot will be close, 491 & 492 n.6; pangenesis, experiments to prove by transfusing rabbits prove inconclusive, 370–1 & 371 n.3, 371 & 372 n.7, 431 n.4; plant size and statistics of growth, 499 & 500 n.7; praises G.J. Romanes’s work on medusae, 464 & 465 n.3; sends CD C. Bernard’s lectures on physiology, 370 & 371 n.1; sweetpeas, CD grows for experiments, 141 & n.2, 212 & nn.1–3, 366 & n.6, 367 & n.3, 437 & n.8, 447; sweetpeas, loss of produce of those grown at Kew, 141; sweetpeas, size of plants and seeds, 212 & n.2, 500 & n.7; sweetpeas, thanks CD for his care of, 464 & 465 n.1; theory of heredity, differences with CD’s theory of pangenesis, 430

770

Index

& 431 n.4, 499–500 & 500–501 nn.1–6; theory of heredity, CD’s comments on, xxi, 433 & n.3, 436–7 & 437 nn.3–7, 444 & n.1, 447 & 448 n.4, 488 & 488–9 nn.2–4, 490–1, 490–1 & 491 nn.1–4; theory of heredity, explains differences with CD’s theory of pangenesis to G.H. Darwin, 499–500 & 500–501 nn.1–6; ‘A theory of heredity’, sends CD proofs from Contemporary Review, 434 & n.1, 436 & 437 n.2; ‘A theory of heredity’, summarises paper for CD, 429–30 & 431 nn.2–5; twin studies, 436 & 437 n.6, 444 & 445 nn.4–7, 447 & 448 n.2; twin studies, critical review in Spectator angers CD, 447 & 448 n.3; twin studies, errors in Fraser’s Magazine article, 444 & 445 n.4; twin studies, may have been sent same case as CD, 366 & n.3, 369 & n.1, 372 & 372–3 n.2; visits Down House, 371 Galton, Louisa Jane, 366 & n.5, 367 n.5; ill health, 212 & n.5 Galwey, James, 87 n.7 Gardeners’ Chronicle: apples, orange pearmain produces russet-like fruit, 291 & 293 n.2; Climbing plants 2d ed., notice, 413 n.2; Insectivorous plants, advertisement, 199 n.5, 236 & 237 n.6; Insectivorous plants, review (M.T. Masters), 263 & n.2; K.H.E. Koch, hybrid aroids, 377 & n.2, 379 & n.1, 383 & 384 n.7; Macartney rose’s failure to flower, letter from CD’s correspondent, 280 nn.1–2; S. Newington, exudation of carbonic acid from rootlets, 349 & 350 n.6; tribute to CD, 96 & n.1; vines, graft hybrids show stock affected by scion, 28 & 29 n.3; vines, graft vine may only be a bud variation, 267 & n.6 Gärtner, Karl Friedrich von: experiments on hybrids, 379 & n.2; Verbascum, sterility of crosses, 281 & 282 n.2 Gassiott, John Peter: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 44 Gastrophysema: E. Haeckel on development of, 440 & 441 n.4, 558 & 559 n.4 Gegenbaur, Carl: dismisses A. Dohrn’s theory of annelid origin of vertebrates, 210 & 211 n.3; plumage of ratites closest to ancestral form of feathers, 330 & 331 n.3, 550 & n.3 Geikie, Archibald: CD happy to nominate J. Croll for fellowship of Royal Society, 478 & n.2 Genlisea: 5-lobed calyx (cf. Utricularia), 3 & n.1; CD finds bladders of two kinds, 13–14 & 14 n.3; CD finds ‘a wonderful creature’, 12 & 13 n.7, 30 & 31 n.8; D. Oliver sends CD dried specimens, 16 & n.5 Gentry, Thomas George: CD sends copy of Orchids, 403 & n.1; sends CD his article on fertilisation of flowers by insects, 403 & n.1

Geological Society of London: CD served on Council, 492 n.14; fellows sign petition for C. Lyell’s burial in Westminster Abbey, 77 & 79 n.3; rift over E. Charlesworth’s appointment (1842) cured by putting complainants on the council, 492 & n.14 Gerard, John: described sundews and the plants used in cheese-making, 227 & n.4 Geum: CD attempts to grow from seed collected by W.T. Thiselton-Dyer in Switzerland, 377 & n.3, 379, 383 & 384 n.3 Gibb, James: observes shake of the head meaning ‘no’ in his infant son, 74, 76 & n.1 Gibson, John: nests of Muscipapa, 120 & n.2 Gilbert, Ann: CD enjoys her autobiography, 316 & n.3, 519 & n.9 Gilbert, Joseph Henry: delighted CD was interested in his mother’s autobiography, 519 & n.9; fairy rings, 269 & n.2, 518 & 519 nn.2–6; Insectivorous plants, would be delighted to receive, 518 & 519 n.7; Rothamsted Agricultural Station, reports and tables, 294 & 294–5 nn.2–4, 316 & nn.1–2, 518 & 519 n.1 Gilbert, Josiah: edited his mother’s autobiography, 519 & n.9 Gilchrist, James, 366 & n.4 Gilman, Daniel Coit: G.H. Darwin enjoys meeting, 393 & 394 nn.6–7; L. Darwin met in San Francisco, 393 & 394 n.7 Gingko: O. Heer studies fossil flora, 376 & nn.4–7, 554 & nn.4–7 Glaucium: A. de Candolle reports new variety from ancient seeds, 69 & 70 n.5; unknown form produced from germination of ancient seeds, 62 & n.7 Globigerina: T.H. Huxley intrigued by, 55 & 56 n.8 Godron, Dominique Alexandre: studies of Corydalis, 475 & 476 n.7 Goeppert, Heinrich Robert: golden jubilee, 19 & 20 n.3, 521 & 522 n.3 Goette, Alexander Wilhelm von: rejects mechanism of natural selection in study of Bombinator igneus, 326 & 327 n.5, 549 & n.5 golden-crested wren. See Regulus regulus Goodacre, Francis Burges: dedicates his Hemerozoology to CD, 6–7 & 7 n.2, 72 & 73 n.1; proposes museum of domestic animals, 72 & 73 n.3 Gordon, Richard: Climbing plants 2d ed., employed by C.F. Martins to translate into French, 459 n.4 Gordon-Lennox, Charles Henry, duke of Richmond: leader of the House of Lords, declines to support his brother, 69 & 70 n.7; lord president of the council, 137 & n.4, 145 & n.4

Index Gordon-Lennox, Henry, 322; first commissioner, Office of Works, has jurisdiction over Royal Botanic Gardens, 26 n.2, 32 n.1, 56 n.5, 70 n.7, 79 n.11, 85 n.4, 111 n.7, 323 n.1, 323 n.2; opposes J.D. Hooker’s plans for new herbarium, 321 & 323 n.3, 324 & 325 n.2; plans to receive deputation to open Royal Botanic Gardens in the mornings without consulting J.D. Hooker, 78 & 79 n.11, 85 & 86 n.8; rejects J.D. Hooker’s request for an assistant and fails to inform Treasury of his application, 25 & 26 n.2, 78 & 79 nn.11–14, 85 & n.4 & 86 n.8; Treasury intervenes to secure appointment of assistant for J.D. Hooker, 31 & 32 n.1, 55 & 56 n.5, 61 & 62 n.4, 69 & 70 n.7, 110 & 111 n.7 Gorup-Besanez, Eugen Franz von: cited in Insectivorous plants, 348 n.2; ferment of vetch seed dissolves albuminous substances, 347 & 348 n.2 Goss, John: cited in Variation 2d ed., 293 n.10; influence of pollen on seed colour of peas, 292 & 293 n.10 Gould, John: too ill to attend Linnean Society ballot, 491 & 492 n.4 Gramineae: Arctic fossils, 89 & 92 n.13, 91, 526 & 528 n.13; V.O. Kovalevsky views on importance in development of Anthracotherium, 89 & 92 n.17, 91, 527 & 528 n.17 Gratiolet, Louis Pierre: cited in Expression, 362 & n.2 Gray, Asa: Antirrhinum, twining species, 515 & 516 nn.5–7; classifies and describes Californian plants, 305 & 306 n.1; Climbing plants 2d ed., presentation, 515 & 516 n.1; CD asks for seeds of Nesaea verticillata, 209 & n.2; described CD’s work on insectivorous plants to W.M. Canby, 380 & 381 n.2; forwards CD’s letter to C. Wright, 40 & n.2, 80 & 84 n.1; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 305 & 306 n.2; Maurandia, twining peduncles, 515 & 516 n.4; mistook Passiflora sycyoides for P. acerifolia, 497 & 498 n.3; reviews Insectivorous plants and Climbing plants 2d ed., 515 & 516 nn.2–3; tells J. Fiske that CD is working on insectivorous plants, 106 & n.5; Variation, US ed. not very nicely printed, 391–2 n.3 Gray, Jane Loring: sends regards to CD, 515 & 516 n.8 Gray, John Edward: identifies Japanese masked pig at Regent’s Park as a new species, 72 & 73 n.4; A.W. Malm sends brochure for CD, 44 Green, John Richard, 104 & 105 n.4 Greg, William Rathbone: intellectual and moral qualities of animals, 100 & n.7; O. Turner fond of reading, 110 & n.4 Grenier, Louis: Insectivorous plants, seeks permission

771

to summarise first chapters for Lyons Botanical Society, 501 & 502 n.3, 563 & 564 n.3 Griffith, John William and Arthur Henfrey: Micrographical dictionary, 473 & n.4 Griffith, William: drawings of Dischidia, 147 & n.3, 148 & 149 n.1 Grote, George, 127 n.5 Grote, Harriet: lunches with T.H. Farrer, 127 & n.5 Gunnera: G. manicata, F. Müller describes apetalous lateral flowers, 358 & 360 nn.9–11, 409 & n.2, 414 & 415 n.1 & 5, 414 & 415 nn.1 & 5 Günther, Albert: appointed keeper of zoology at British Museum, 51 & 52 n.2; cited in Origin 6th ed., 224 & 225 n.6; confirms J. Henslow’s observations on mice, 224 & 225 n.6; CD congratulates on appointment as keeper of zoology, 59 & n.2 Haeckel, Ernst: Anthropogenie, 3d ed., 223 & n.4, 538 & n.4; Anthropogenie, 3d ed. to be translated into English, 440 & 441 n.9, 558 & 559 n.9; Anthropogenie, T.H. Huxley reviews in Academy, 4 & 5 n.3, 12 & n.5, 13 & n.1; Arabische Korallen, 438–9, 440 & 441 n.5, 450 & n.4, 463 & 464 n.5, 558 & 559 n.5; Climbing plants 2d ed., presentation, 437–8 & 440 n.2, 557–8 & 558 n.2; corals of Arabia, 440 & 441 n.5, 450 & n.4, 463 & 464 n.5, 558 & 559 n.5; CD much admires History of creation, 463 & n.1; CD thanks for letter and reports on health and current project, 450 & n.5; CD thanks for present of F. von Hellwald’s Culturgeschichte, 21 & 21–2 n.2; Darwinia, O. Zacharias’s plans for, 216–17 & 219 nn.2 & 4, 218–19, 440 & 441 n.10, 536 & nn.2 & 4, 558 & 559 n.10; English translations of works, 223 & n.5, 538 & n.5; gastrea theory, 223 & n.3, 538 & n.3, 440 & 440–1 n.3, 558 & 558–9 n.3; Gastrophysema, germination of, 440 & 441 n.4, 558 & 559 n.4; History of creation, arranges for copy to be sent to CD, 440 & 441 n.8, 449–50 & 450 n.3, 558 & 559 n.8; History of creation, CD admires, 463 & n.2; History of creation, praise for CD’s works, 463 & 464 n.3; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 437–8 & 440 n.2, 557–8 & 558 n.2; medusae, study of, 510 & n.2, 513 & n.1; F. Michaelis, satirical refutation of Anthropogenie, 326 & 327 n.6, 549 & n.6; Monoxenia darwinii, identifies and names, 440 & 441 n.5, 558 & 559 n.5, 450; Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, 6th ed., 223 & n.4, 538 & n.4; Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, 6th ed. translated into English, 440 & 441 n.8, 558 & 559 n.8; postulates Protista as intermediate kingdom, 394 & 395 n.2; ridicules A. Dohrn’s theory of annelid origin of vertebrates,

772

Index

210 & 211 n.3; sends CD F. Schultze’s Kant und Darwin, xxiv, 222–3 &223 n.2, 226 n.4, 229 & n.4, 537–8 & 538 n.2; sends CD his article on gastrula and the egg-cleavage of animals, 440 & 440–1 n.3, 449 & n.2, 463 & 464 n.4, 558 & 558–9 n.3; sent CD F. Müller’s paper on termites, 359 & 360 n.12; siphonophores, developmental history, 510 & n.3, 513 & n.1 Haime, Jules: Monograph of British fossil corals, 186 & 187 n.2 Hallett, Frederic Francis: discovery of different powers of grains of the same ear of corn is his alone, 190 & nn.1–4, 191 & nn.2–4, 192–3 & 196 nn.2–9, 194–5; ‘On the law of development of cereals’, BAAS, 190 n.2; ‘On “pedigree” in wheat’, Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, 190 & n.3, 196 nn.5–6 & 9 Halliwell-Phillipps, John Orchard, 277 & 278 n.4 Hamond, Robert Nicholas: B.J. Sulivan has news of, 517 & n.3 Hancock, Albany: Linnean Society, remission of fees, 471 & 472 n.6 Hardwick’s Science Journal: L. Tait, ‘The uses of tails in animals’, 102–3 n.5, 109 n.2, 111 & 112 n.5 Harris, George: CD’s views on animal perception, 163 & 163–4 n.1; Philosophical treatise on nature and constitution of man cites CD’s letter, 163–4 n.1 Harrowby, earl of. See Ryder, Dudley, earl of Harrowby Hart, Henry Chichester: Royal Society polar expedition, naturalist, 39 n.3 Hartea, 440 & 441 n.6, 558 & 559 n.6 Hartismere, Lord. See Henniker-Major, John Major, Lord Hartismere Haughton, Samuel: with L. Tait, observes tails of civet cats, 102 & n.4 hawk moths: caught by Araujia sericofera, 107 & 109 n.4, 116 & n.3 Hawkshaw, Ann, 66 & 67 n.3 Hawkshaw, Clarke, 67 n.3 Hawkshaw, Mary Ann, 67 n.3 Heckel, Édouard Marie: plants’ ability to absorb animal matter, 403 & 404 n.5 Hedera: H. helix, variation through propinquity with variegated form, 257 & n.4 Heer, Oswald: Arctic fossil flora, sends CD volume 3 of his Flora fossilis arctica and summarises conclusions, 88–9 & 92 nn.6–16, 90–1, 117–18 & 118–19 nn.3–4, 525–7 & 527–8 nn.6–16, 530–1 & 532 nn.3–4; CD concerned for his health, 96 & 97 n.6; CD greatly interested in findings though he differs in his view of coadaptations, 96 & 97 n.2; CD’s annotations for reply, 90; fossil plants

of Sumatra, 117 & 118 n.5, 531 & 532 n.5; Insectivorous plants, originality and importance of, 375–6, 554; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 96 & 97 n.7, 375 & 376 n.2, 553–4 & 554 n.2; Jurassic flora of East Siberia, 376 & nn.3–7, 554 & 554–5 nn.3–7; laments death of C. Lyell, 89 & 93 n.18, 91, 527 & 528 n.18; requests CD’s photograph, 90, 92, 118, 527, 532 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 226 & n.2, 538 & 539 n.2 Heldreich, Theodor von: germination of ancient seeds of Glaucium, 62 n.7 Hellwald, Friedrich von: Culturgeschichte, E. Haeckel presents to CD, 21 & 21–2 n.2 Henderson, John Andrew, 422 & 423 n.3 Henniker-Major, John Major, Lord Hartismere: introduces vivisection bill based on F.P. Cobbe’s proposals to House of Lords, 183 & n.3, 197 n.3, 198 n.2, 583 Henslow, John Stevens: asked A. Sedgwick to allow CD to accompany him on geological tour of Wales, 201 & 202 n.2; observations on mice cited in Origin 6th ed., 134, 224 & 225 n.6; work on animals’ tails, 134 & n.5 Heraclitus, 226, 539 Herder, Johann Gotfried: lecture on origin of language, 115 & 116 n.4, 530 & n.4 Herschel, John Frederick William: letter to S. Newington, 349 & 350 n.4, 363 & 364 n.3 Hertwig, Oskar: supports Darwinia, 219 n.4, 537 n.4 Hertwig, Richard: supports Darwinia, 219 n.4, 537 n.4 Hesse-Wartegg, Ernst von: Insectivorous plants, reviews in Fremden-Blatt and Der Pionier, 320 & 320–1 nn.1–2; profile of CD for Der Pionier, 365 & n.1; work on undersea tunnels, 320 & 321 n.5 Hewitson, William Chapman, 120 & n.2 Hexactinellida: W. Marshall studies, 331 & n.6, 550 & 551 n.6 Heynsius, Adriaan, 569 Hibiscus: H. tiliaceus (Talipariti hastatum) indigenous to India, 407 & n.3. See also Paritium tiliaceum; H. tricuspis, W. Bell reports sport of, 406 & n.3, 407 n.3; H. tricuspis introduced to India from Pacific islands, 407 & n.2; H. tricuspis, W.T. Thiselton-Dyer confirms sport is identical with H. tiliaceus, 407 & nn.1–3. See also Paritium tricuspis Hildebrand, Friedrich: Acropera is not dioecious, 289 & n.3; CD admires work on propagation of plants, 282 & n.3; CD seeks any new information on sterility of crosses of maize, 281 & 282 nn.1–2, 298 & 299 n.2; F. Delpino could send him maize seed, 302 & n.3; Insectivorous plants,

Index presentation, 282 & n.4, 299, 302 & n.4; no recent research on maize, 298 & 299 n.2, 302 Hilgendorf, Franz: phylogeny of Steinheim fossil snails, 175 & 176 n.12 Hirst, Thomas Archer: advises J.D. Hooker against writing to St G.J. Mivart, 14 & n.2, 16 & n.2 Hoare, John Newenham: CD admires sermon on caring for animals, 283 & 284 n.2 Hodgson, Brian Houghton: stays with J.D. Hooker, 234 & n.5 Hodgson, Susan: stays with J.D. Hooker, 234 & n.5 Hoek, Paulus Peronius Cato: CD thanks for his work on cirripedia, 100 & n.1 Hoffman, Hermann: fertilisation of Phaseolus, 342– 3 & 343 nn.2–6 Hofmann, August Wilhelm: awarded Copley Medal and speaks at Royal Society dinner, 470 & 471 n.1 Hogg, Robert, 291 & 293 n.3 Hole, Frederick, 351 & 352 n.4 Hooker, Brian Harvey Hodgson, 110 & n.5; in Boulogne, 300 & n.6 Hooker, Charles Paget, 110 & n.5; studies medicine at London University, 26 & n.8 Hooker, Frances Harriet: death of, 85 & n.4, 110 & 111 n.6 Hooker, Harriet Anne: badly in need of a holiday, visits Playfairs in Algiers, 26 & n.7, 69 & 70 n.6, 78 & 79 n.9, 85 & n.5, 110 & 110–11 nn.2 & 6; calls on K.M. Lyell with her father, 55; CD invites to Abinger Hall, 233 & n.3; J.D. Hooker meets in France en route to Algiers, 26 & n.7, 55, 61 & 62 n.2, 143 & 144 n.3, 234 & n.4; in Boulogne, 300 & n.6; may accompany H. Jardine to Cannes, 55 & 56 n.12; E.E. Turner a great friend of, 234 & n.5 Hooker, Joseph Dalton: Anemone, seeds of A. alpina and A. montana are indistinguishable, 398 & 400 n.1; Avena fatua, recalls hygrometer made of, 414 & 415 n.2; Ayrton dispute, 26 n.2, 30 & n.3, 69 & 70 n.8; BAAS address, mentions CD’s work on insectivorous plants, 118 & 119 n.8, 532 & n.8; badly needs a holiday, finding committee work difficult, 143 & 144 n.4; M.E. Barber’s whereabouts, 110 & n.1; British Arctic expedition, asks if CD has any botanical questions, 144 & n.7; British Arctic expedition, wrote introduction to botany appendix, 144 & n.7; Chamaerops, C.V. Naudin gave up experiments with hybrids, 268 & n.2; collected Dischidia in Bengal, 148 & 149 n.2; Darlingtonia californica, L. Tait presumes he grows at Kew, 511 & n.3; CD advises on experiments on Nepenthes, 283 & n.5, 287 & n.5; CD commends E.H. Stanley’s Edinburgh address,

773 492 & 492–3 n.15; CD congratulates on victory over D.S. Galton, 33 & n.2; CD experiments with effects of glycerine on sensitive plants, 401 & 402 n.6; CD dismayed by L. Tait’s request to present his paper on Nepenthes to Royal Society but agrees to do so, 396 & nn. 2–4, 399–400 & n.3, 401 & 401–2 n.2; CD furious at E.R. Lankester’s being blackballed by Linnean Society, 481 & 481–2 nn.2–6; CD has finally finished Insectivorous plants and Climbing plants, 123 & 124 n.2; CD hopes he will not be asked to adjudicate L. Tait’s paper on Nepenthes, 469 & 470 n.4, 471 & n.3; CD hopes to see in London, 478 & n.2; CD instrumental in securing appointment of W.T. Thiselton-Dyer, 233 & 234 n.2; CD invites to lunch in London, 124; CD reflects on death of C. Lyell, 85 & n.2; CD sends F. Müller’s observations on Gunnera, 409 & n.2, 414 & 415 nn.1 & 5; CD severs relations with St G.J. Mivart, 33 & 34 n.5; CD supports his campaign for an assistant director and sympathises over delay, 4 & n.5, 30 & n.2, 61 & 62 nn.3–4; CD thanks for Athenaeum review, 12 & n.2; CD thanks for support in Mivart affair, 3; CD thanks for speaking his mind to J. Murray, 33 & n.4; CD urges to take a holiday, 85 & n.5; CD welcomes return and invites to Abinger Hall, 233 & n.3, 233 & 234 n.3, 235 & n.2; CD wishes to dispose of L. Pfeiffer’s Nomenclator botanicus, 409 & 410 n.7, 414 & 415 n.4; CD writes to for pleasure, 408; CD’s mixed feelings about L. Tait, 469 & 470 n.4–5; F. Darwin’s application to Linnean Society, 295 & nn.1–3, 300 & 301 n.8; F. Darwin’s experiments on awned seeds, suggests he tries Mimosa spp., 400 & n.5; sends F. Darwin grass seeds for experiments, 423 & n.4; W.E. Darwin visits, 300 & n.7; Dischidia rafflesiana, pitchers, 147 & n.3, 148 & 149 n.1, 454 n.2; Drosera, eagerly awaits CD’s observations, 55 & 56 n.4; Drosophyllum lusitanicum, obtains plant for CD from Edinburgh, 4 & 5 n.4, 12 & n.6, 14 & n.1, 16 & n.4; Drosophyllum sent from Edinburgh has died, 61 & 62 n.5, 69 & n.2; enjoys watching trapdoor spider, 234 & n.8; family news, 26 & nn.7–8; T.H. Farrer instrumental in securing appointment of assistant, 25 & 26 n.3, 30 & n.4, 233 & 234 n.2; J. Franklin’s memorial, attends unveiling at Westminster Abbey, 306 & n.2; Genera plantarum, second part of vol.2 printing, 234 & 235 n.10; Genera plantarum, works on with G. Bentham, 55 & 56 n.13; Glaucium, A. de Candolle’s report of new variety from ancient seeds, 69 & 70 n.5; Gunnera, F. Müller’s observations, 414 & 415 nn.1 & 5; health, minor problems, 110;

774

Index

health, suffers from dyspepsia, 78; O. Heer sends book on Arctic fossil flora for CD, 88 & 92 n.3, 90, 96 & 97 n.2, 525 & 527 n.3; H.A. Hooker, holiday planned with, 26 & n.7, 55, 61 & 62 n.2, 69 & 70 n.6; H.A. Hooker, meets in France en route to Algiers, 143 & 144 n.3, 234 & n.4; T.H. Huxley looks overworked and smokes too much, 55 & 56 n.6; T.H. Huxley looks worn and unwell, 69 & n.4; T.H. Huxley persuades that presidency of Royal Society prevents his writing to St G.J. Mivart, 7 & n.1; Imantophyllum, advises on cultivation, 406 & n.1; Imantophyllum, makes inquiries for CD, 400 & n.6, 401 & 402 n.4; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 233 & n.4; Insectivorous plants is splendid, 300 & nn.1 & 3; Jodrell Laboratory, plans completed, 400 & n.7; E.R. Lankester blackballed by Linnean Society, 481 & n.2; H.E. Litchfield meets at Royal College of Surgeons, 233 & n.2; C. Lyell too ill to see him, 69 & n.1, 97 n.5; C. Lyell, CD suggests memorial, 76 & n.1, 78 & 79 nn.7–9; C. Lyell, laments his loss and arranges burial at Westminster Abbey, 77–8 & 79 nn.2–6, 85 & n.6; H. Lyell, death of, 55 & 56 n.1; Melastomaceae, CD’s experiments, 409 & n.4; Mivart affair, consults G. Bentham, who has legal training, 7 & n.3; Mivart affair, CD severs relations with St G.J. Mivart, 12, 33 & 34 n.5; Mivart affair, empties his spleen on J. Murray for attacks on CD and G.H. Darwin in Quarterly Review, xviii, 31–2 & 32 n.3, 33 & n.4, 40 & n.3; Mivart affair, has not seen St G.J. Mivart and wishes he were in Jehanum (hell), 69 & n.3; Mivart affair, T.H. Huxley and others advise against his writing to Mivart as unbefitting to president of Royal Society, 7 & n.1, 14 & n.2, 16 & n.2; Mivart affair, suggests St G.J. Mivart’s removal from position as secretary of Linnean Society, 3 & 4 n.3; F. Müller, single sheet of letter to CD, 359 n.1, 553 n.1; Nepenthes, CD advises on experiments, 283 & n.5, 287 & n.5, 396 n.3; Nepenthes, experiments cited in Insectivorous plants, 272 n.4, 545 n.4; Nepenthes, investigates digestive powers, 234 & n.7, 283 & n.5, 287 & n.5, 288 & 289 n.8, 300 & n.4; New Zealand plants tend to produce heteromorphic leaves, 407 & 408 n.5; Office of Works, T.H. Farrer instrumental in ensuring intervention of Treasury, 25 & 26 n.3, 30 & n.4, 233 & 234 n.2; Office of Works, D.S. Galton to resign, 321 & 323 nn.1–2, 324 & 325 n.2; Office of Works, H. Gordon-Lennox blocks application for an assistant, 25–6 & 26 nn.2–5, 30 & n.2, 31 & 32 n.1, 69 & 70 nn.6–7, 78 & 79 nn.11–14, 85 & n.4; Office of Works, H. Gordon-Lennox

fails to consult over receiving deputation to open RBG Kew in the mornings, 78 & 79 n.11, 85 & 86 n.8; Office of Works, H. Gordon-Lennox opposes plants for new herbarium, 321 & 323 n.3, 324 & 325 n.2; opposed prosecution of E.J. Eyre, 452 n.4; Paritium is a section of Hibiscus, 406 & nn.2–3; Paritium, CD mistakenly names as Cistus in Variation, 402 n.5, 406; L. Pfeiffer’s Nomenclator botanicus, CD wishes to dispose of, 409 & 410 n.7, 414 & 415 n.4; Phaseolus, taxonomy, 343 n.5; plans visit to Algeria, 55 & 56 n.10, 85 & n.5, 123 & 124 n.6; L. Playfair will represent his interests when Kew estimates come before House of Commons, 143 & 144 n.5; ‘The present condition of the Royal Society’, 4 & n.6; primer on botany for Macmillan, 110 & 111 n.9, 123 & 124 n.8; G.J. Romanes, receives warmly and advises on graft-hybrids, 29 & n.4, 33 & 34 n.6; G.J. Romanes, application to Linnean Society, 371 & 372 n.4, 378 & 379 n.2, 383 & 384 n.4, 388–9 n.1, 396 & n.5; Royal Botanic Gardens, plans of Jodrell Laboratory completed, 400 & n.7; Royal Botanic gardens, plans for new herbarium, 321 & 323 n.3, 324 & 325 n.2; Royal Society committees provide him with relaxation, 26 & n.9; Royal Society polar expedition, scientific manual, 39 n.4; Royal Society, president, 4 & n.6, 4 & 5 n.5, 7 & n.1, 26 & n.9, 69 n.3, 78 & 79 n.15, 141 & 142 n.4, 143 & 144 n.1, 144–5 & 145 n.2, 146 & n.3, 170 n.2, 396 n.4; Royal Society, presidential addresses, 4 & n.6, 4 & 5 n.5, 463 & n.2, 469 & 470 n.2, 470–1 & 471 n.1; Royal Society presidency is his great consolation, 78 & 79 n.15; Sarracenia, work on, 149 n.1; sends CD pamphlets, 25 & 26 n.1, 30 & n.5, 30 & 31 n.9; Stipa, H. Darwin’s hygrometer, 409 & n.5, 414 & 415 n.2; R. Strachey travels with in Pyrenees, 234 & n.4; L. Tait asks CD to present his paper on Nepenthes to Royal Society, 396 & n.2, 400 & n.3, 401 & 401–2 nn.2–3; L. Tait would submit paper on pitcher plants to if he knew him, 392 & n.2, 398, 400 & n.3; telegraphs L. Tait’s address, 401 & 402 n.3, 406 & 407 n.4; W.T. Thiselton-Dyer’s appointment finally confirmed, 233 & 234 n.2, 235 & n.3; travels to France en route to Algeria, 143, 149 & n.4; O. Turner and E.E. Turner live with, 234 & n.5; J. Tyndall’s experiments, assists with, 408 n.2; Utricularia, admires CD’s account, 300; visits Down House, 300 & n.5, 306 & n.1, 306 & n.3, 400 n.1, 566 & 567 nn.19 & 24; vivisection, approves draft bill, 130 & n.1, 147 & n.1, 170 n.2; vivisection, signs scientists’ petition as president of Royal Society, 141 & 142 n.4, 143, 144–5 & 145 n.2, 146 & n.3, 581

Index Hooker, Reginald Hawthorn, 110 & n.5; in Boulogne, 300 & n.6; sent to Miss Palmer’s school, 26 & n.8 Hooker, William Henslow, 321 & 323 n.4; visits Playfairs in Algiers, 110 & n.2 horned beetles: whether horns are ornamental, 97 & 100 n.1 horses: J.C. Douglas thinks that horses’ showing their teeth is a sexual gesture, 65 & 66 n.2; G.J. Romanes reports remarkable striped horse, 378–9 & 379 n.5, 388; speed of Eclipse, whether exceeded, 314 & n.2, 318 & n.2; A.J. Stuart reports unusual striped horse in southern India, 351–2 & 352 n.5 Horsman, Samuel James O’Hara: has a curacy in Kent and talks of his ‘friends the Lubbocks’, 505 & 505–6 n.10 hoverflies: A.W. Malm’s study of, 45 & 46 nn.6–7 Hudson, Robert: vice president, Zoological Society, CD canvasses to support E.R. Lankester, 484 & 485 n.6 Huet, G.D.L., 569 Hughes, Thomas McKenny: CD recollects geological tour of Wales with A. Sedgwick in 1831, 201–2 & 202 nn.1–9 Humphry, George Murray: vivisection, signed BAAS report, 27 & 28 n.6 Huth, Alfred Henry: critical of J-C-M. Boudin’s findings about ill-health of offspring of consanguineous marriage, 328 n.4; CD sends G.H. Darwin his advice on experimenting with rabbits, 360 & 361 nn.2–5; Marriage of near kin reports J.B. Legrain’s findings on interbreeding rabbits, 326 & n.1, 327–8 & 328 nn.2 & 4, 360 & 361 n.2; Marriage of near kin, G.H. Darwin reviews in Academy, 326 n.1, 327–8 & 328 n.2, 361 n.2 Huxley, Ethel Gladys, 302 & 303 n.5 Huxley, Harriet Anne, 69 & 70 n.4; F. Darwin sends application to Linnean Society for T.H. Huxley’s signature, 302 & n.2; visits Down House, 385–6 & 386 n.2, 418 n.4, 566 & 567 n.13 Huxley, Henry, 302 & 303 n.5 Huxley, Jessie Oriana, 302 & 303 n.5 Huxley, Leonard, 302 & 303 n.5 Huxley, Marian, 302 & 303 n.5 Huxley, Nettie, 302 & 303 n.5 Huxley, Rachel, 302 & 303 n.5 Huxley, Thomas Henry: É-G. Balbiani, rejects evidence on inheritance, 428 & n.3; Challenger expedition, writes up and lectures on, 55 & 56 nn.6 & 9; Climbing plants 2d ed., presentation, 415 & n.3; A. Comte, criticism of, 452–3 n.5; CD admires

775 his powers of expression, 12 & n.5, 13 & n.1; CD congratulates on attack on St G.J. Mivart in review of E. Haeckel’s Anthropogenie, xviii, 13 & n.1; CD congratulates on Course in elementary biology, 449 & n.2; CD praises article on species for American cyclopaedia, 415 & n.2, 426 & n.4; CD severs communication with St G.J. Mivart, 22 & n.2; CD urges to mobilise scientists to petition for controls on vivisection as recommended by BAAS, xix, 27 & 28 n.6, 34–5 & 35 nn.1–2, 579; CD visits in London (‘my greatest lark’), 478–9 & 479 n.3, 481 & 482 n.6, 566 & 567 nn.11 & 30; CD will keep to easier and special subjects, 415; F. Darwin’s application to Linnean Society, 295 & n.2, 302 & nn.1–2; Encyclopaedia Brittanica, advises T.S. Baynes on natural history, 257–8 & n.2; T.H. Farrer entertains with T. Belt, 127 & n.3; J. Fiske enjoyed talks with, 106 & n.4; E. Haeckel’s Anthropogenie, uses review in Academy to condemn slanders against G.H. Darwin, xviii, 4 & 5 n.3, 12 & n.5, 13 & n.1; E. Haeckel’s work on medusae, lends to G.J. Romanes, 510 & n.2; J.D. Hooker praises his running of Royal Society committees, 26 & 27 n.10; J.D. Hooker reports that he looks overworked and smokes too much, 55; J.D. Hooker finds him looking worn and unwell, 69 & n.4; identified Bathybius haeckelii, 20 n.5; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 415 & n.3, 426 & n.5; intrigued by Globigerina, 55 & 56 n.8; Jamaica Committee, member, 452 n.4; E.R. Lankester, proposes he be nominated for Linnean Society a second time, 481 n.6, 482 n.3, 489 & 490 n.5; lectures at Edinburgh, 53 n.8, 151 & 152 n.4, 191 & 192 n.4, 205, 221 & n.4, 258 n.4; Linnean Society, remission of fees, 471 & 472 n.6; Litchfields dine with, 35 & n.5; metaphysics a source of relaxation, 26 & 27 n.10; St G.J. Mivart acknowledges that he was anonymous reviewer in Quarterly Review, 3 & 4 nn.2 & 4, 4 & 4–5 nn.2–3; St G.J. Mivart, advises CD against writing to St G.J. Mivart, 13 & n.2, 16; St G.J. Mivart, dissuades J.D. Hooker from writing to, 7 & n.1; St G.J. Mivart, uses review of E. Haeckel’s Anthropogenie to attack anonymous insinuations, 4 & 5 n.3, 12 & n.5, 13 & n.1, 35 & n.4, 40; , St G.J. Mivart, writes to in defence of G.H. Darwin, 7 & n. 2, 16 & n.3; ostrich closely related to reptiles, 330 & 331 n.3, 550 & n.3; E.F.W. Plüger’s paper on physical combustion, thinks highly of, 154 & nn.3–4; Polar Committee of the Royal Society asks CD for suggestions for naturalists, 36 & 36–7 n.1, 38–9 & 39 nn.2–5; praises J.D. Hooker’s observations on Diatomaceae, 55 & 56 n.9; G. Rolleston supports

776

Index

in ‘hippocampus controversy’, 340 n.3; G.J. Romanes, signs application to Linnean Society, 388 & 388–9 n.1, 396 & n.5; Royal Commission on vivisection, agrees to join, 221 & n.3; Royal Commission on vivisection, dismayed by E.E. Klein’s testimony, xix, 425 & 426 n.2, 427 & n.2; Royal Commission on vivisection, invitation to CD to attend, 425 & 426 n.1, 426 & n.6, 427 & nn.3–4, 428 & nn.1–2; Royal Institution lectures on Challenger expedition, 55 & 56 n.9; secretary, Royal Society, 7 & n.1, 26 & 27 n.10, 36 n.1, 425 & 426 n.2, 465 n.1; teaches at Royal School of Mines, 449 n.2; visits Down House, 151 & 152 n.4, 385–6 & 386 n.2, 388 & 388–9 n.1, 396 & n.5, 418 n.4, 428 n.2, 566 & 567 n.13; vivisection, believes F.P. Cobbe’s petition will fail through influence of hunting MPs, 34; vivisection, CD urges to mobilise scientists to petition for controls on vivisection as recommended by BAAS, 27 & 28 nn.1–5, 34–5 & 35 nn.1–2, 60; vivisection, discusses draft bill with L. Playfair, 153–4 & 154 n.1, 156 & n.3, 158 n.2, 165 & n.2; vivisection, helps draft bill embodying scientists’ views, 34 & 35 nn.1–2, 60, 63 & 64 n.3, 128 & n.2, 130 & n.2, 136 & n.2, 137 & n.3, 141 n.5, 141 & 142 n.2, 146 & n.3, 147 & n.2, 170 n.2, 445 n.2; vivisection, L. Playfair’s bill unacceptable as it prohibits demonstration, 191–2 & 192 nn.1–3, 196–7, 198, 205 & n.3, 221 & n.2, 583; vivisection, signs scientists’ petition for bill, 145 & n.1–2 Hyatt, Alpheus: evolution of ammonites, 16–18 & 19 nn.2–10, 36 & n.3; Steinheim fossils, 19 n.2, 175 & 176 n.12 Hydnum repandum: forms large rings, 269 & n.3 Hymenoptera: parthenogenesis, 433 & n.6, 435 & n.2 hyoscyamus: CD tests Drosera rotundifolia with extract of, 42 n.1 Hyoscyamus niger: G. Brownen thinks it may be insectivorous, 41–2 & 42 n.1 Hywel Dda: laws of, 104 & 105 n.4 Imantophyllum (Clivia): D. Beaton, effect of crossing on appearance of pods, 403–4 n.2; CD’s experiments, 400 & n.6, 401 & 402 n.4, 403 & 403–4 n.2, 412 & n.3; J.D. Hooker advises on cultivation, 406 & n.1; I. cyrtanthiflorum (Clivia � cyrtanthiflora) is a hybrid of I. miniatum and I. aitoni (Clivia nobilis), 404 & 404–5 n.2, 412 & n.3, 422 & 423 n.3; I. cyrtanthiflorum sent to CD from Kew, 400 n.6, 401 & 402 n.7, 404 & 404–5 n.2 Imperial Academy of Science, Vienna. See Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna Imperial Academy of Sciences of St Petersburg:

supplies O. Heer with Jurassic fossil flora, 376 & n.3, 554 & n.3 Imperial University of Kazan, Society of Naturalists: elects CD as honorary member, 159 & n.3, 160, 162 & n.3, 570 Isabella, countess of Angoulême, 30 n.2 Independent (New York): review of Insectivorous plants, 382 & 383 n.1 Index: W.E. Darwin wonders whether a further donation will help keep it alive, 482–3 & 483 nn.2–3; W.E. Darwin describes as ‘a weekly pleasure’, 493 Innes, Eliza Mary Brodie: E. Darwin sends kind love, 505 & n.9; has her niece to stay, 182 & 183 n.8; unable to walk much, watches white rabbit, 181 & 182 n.1, 185 & n.1 Innes, John Brodie: absentee vicar of Down, 129 n.3; CD regrets his move from Down to Scotland, 185 & n.8; E. Darwin updates with local and family news, xxiv, 504–5 & 505–6 nn.3–12; Education Act will treble cost and diminish efficacy, 181–2 & 182 n.6; fierce blackbird, 181 & 182 n.2; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 504 & 505 n.3; white rabbit develops fawn patches, 181 & 182 n.1, 184–5 & 185 n.1 Innes, John William Brodie: at St John’s College, Cambridge, 505 & n.9 Jäger, Gustav: CD thanks for his work ‘contra Wigand’, which he admires, 48–9 & 49 nn.1–4; supports Darwinia, 217 & 219 n.4, 218, 536 & 537 n.4 James, Henry: resigned from Ordnance Survey due to ill health, 31 & 32 n.2 James, William: suffered from irritated eyes during Amazon expedition, 81 & 84 n.6, 104 n.5 Jameson, James: animal sounds made by boy undergoing surgery, 421–2 Japanese masked pig, 72 & 73 n.4 Jardine, Hyacinth: H.A. Hooker may accompany to Cannes, 55 & 56 n.12 Jarejars: female infanticide, 157–8 & 158 n.2 Jeanpaulia, 376 & n.7, 554 & 555 n.7 Jevons, William Stanley: sends G.H. Darwin information about railways, 395 & n.2; writes to G.H. Darwin after letter of support to Fortnightly Review, 393 & 394 n.3, 395 & n.3 John, king of England, 29 & 30 n.2 John Anderson School of Natural History, Penikese Island, Mass.: financial difficulties, 211 n.6 Johnson, Caroline, 372 n.3, 373 n.1 Johnston, Edwin John: Araujia sericofera and Apocynum androsaemifolium are insectivorous, 107–8 &

Index 108–9 nn.1–7; Araujia sericofera, offers help from friends in Portugal, 108, 116 & n.2; Araujia sericofera, sends CD plants and seeds from Oporto, 202–3 & 204 n.1; sends CD seeds of Drosophyllum lusitanicum, 203 & 204 n.7 Jones, Thomas Rupert: editor, Royal Society’s manual for polar expedition, 36–7 n.1, 39 nn.2–3 Journal of Anatomy and Physiology: F. Darwin, ‘Primary vascular dilation in acute inflammation’, 1 n.3 Journal of the Anthropological Institute: F. Galton, ‘A theory of heredity’, 431 n.2 Journal of the Linnean Society: G. King, a sport of Paritium tricuspe, 402 n.5, 412 n.1 Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany): ‘Climbing plants’ (1865), 2 & n.2, 134 n.2 Jovanovitch, N.: hopes to translate CD’s works into Serbian, 67 & n.2 Judd, John Wesley: CD asked to support application to Royal Society, 513–14 & 514 nn.1–3 Orange Judd & Co.: published Variation in US, 319 & n.5, 343–4 & 344 n.5, 353 n.1, 388 n.5, 391 & 391–2 nn.1–3; sell stereotypes of Variation to D. Appleton & Co., 455 n.2, 461 n.1 Juglans regia: dimorphism, 131 & 132 n.3, 533 & n.3 Jussieu, Antoine Laurent de: classification of flowering plants, 203 & 204 n.3 Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna: awards CD honorary membership, 212 & n.6, 285–6 & 286 nn. 2–5, 287, 545 & nn.2–5, 570–1 Kane, Elisha Kent: eskimo use fox tails as a respirator, 225 & nn.7–8 Kant, Immanuel: ‘a Darwinist before Darwin’ (F. Schultze), xxiv, 226, 229, 539; CD interested in his views on selection, 229 & n.3; essay on race, 222–3 & 223 n.2, 229, 537–8 & 538 n.2 Kazan university. See Imperial University of Kazan, Society of Naturalists Kegan Paul, Charles, 441 n.9, 559 n.9 Kerner von Marilaun, Anton: asyngamy, 253 & n.5, 542 & n.5 King, Elizabeth, 517 & n.4 King, George: cited in Variation 2d ed., 402 n.5; Paritium tricuspis, branch resembling P. tiliaceum, 401 & 402 n.5, 407 & n.1, 411 & 412 n.1; sends CD dried specimen of Aldrovanda, 30 & n.7; superintendent, Royal Botanic Gardens, Calcutta, 30 n.7; W.T. Thiselton-Dyer sends note on Paritium to Linnean Society, 422 & 423 n.2 King, Henry Samuel: publisher of E. Haeckel’s History of creation, 440 & 441 nn.8–9, 558 & 559 nn.8–9

777

King, Philip Gidley: B.J. Sulivan has news of, 517 & n.4 Kirby, William and William Spence: Introduction to entomology, 495 & 496 n.7; parental affection in earwigs and starfish, 355 & nn.2–3 Kiwisch, Franz von Rotterau: fusion of membranes in twins, 444 & 445 n.6 Klein, Edward Emanuel, 219 & 220 n.4; CD criticises for not routinely anaesthetising frogs used in experiments, 6 & n.6; helped CD with insectivorous plants and visited Down House, 427 n.2; Royal Commission on vivisection, testimony dismays T.H. Huxley (‘a cynical brute’), xix, 425 & 426 n.2, 427 & n.2; Royal Commission on vivisection, CD disgusted by evidence to Royal Commission and glad he is a foreigner, xix, 427 & n.2 Kleinwächter, Ludwig: twins born in one chorion, 444 & 445 n.5 Knapp, John Leonard: described Apocynum androsaemifolium, 107–8 & 109 n.5, 116 n.4, 203 & 204 nn.4–5 Knight, Thomas Andrew: early flowering potatoes, 292 & 293 nn.7; influence of pollen on seed colour of peas, 292 & 293 n.10 Kniphofia. See Tritonia Knowles, James Thomas: asks if CD will write introductory note to W.D. Whitney’s article, 59 & 60 n.3; CD and G.H. Darwin ask him to publish W.D. Whitney’s reply to F. Max Müller, 57–8 & 58 nn.1–3, 59 & 59–60 nn.1–3, 60 & 61 nn.2–4 Koch, Edouard: Insectivorous plants, R.F. Cooke to inform of cost of stereotypes, 249 & n.5; Insectivorous plants, CD thinks J.V. Carus may need help with translating, 398 & n.3; Insectivorous plants, will publish as part of CD’s collected works, 240 & 241 n.1; needs copies of CD’s geological publications for collected edition, 495–6 & 497 n.14, 506 & n.5; presentation copy of G. Jäger’s book on Darwinism, 48 & 49 n.1 Koch, Karl Heinrich Emil: hybrid aroids, paper in Gardener’s Chronicle, 377 & n.2, 383 & 384 n.7, 379 Kolbe, Adolf Wilhelm Hermann: J.V. Carus consults, 457 & n.4 Kölreuter, Johann Gottlieb: views disputed for fifty years, 422 & n.1 Kosmos: shares aims of Darwinia, xxiv, 327 n.3, 549 n.3 Kovalevsky, Alexander Onufrievich: R.F. Cooke seeks payment for plates for Expression, 112 & n.3 Kovalevsky, Vladimir Onufrievich: Anthracotherium, O. Heer’s reservations about findings, 89 &

778

Index

92–3 n.17, 91, 527 & 528 n.17; R.F. Cooke seeks payment for plates for Expression, 112 & n.3; Expression, pays for heliotypes, 153 & n.2; translated Expression into Russian, 112 n.3 +Laburnocytisus adamii. See Cytisus adami Laburnum: L. alpinum. See Cytisus alpinus; L. anagyroides. See Cytisus laburnum Lancet: C.E. Brown-Séquard, inherited effects of injuries to nervous system, 433 & n.5, 436 & 437 n.7, 444 & 445 n.2 Lane Fox, Alexander Edward: amputation of extra digit and regrowth of nail, 295–6 & 297 n.3, 310 & 311 n.1 Lane Fox, Alice Margaret: amputation of her son’s extra digit and subsequent regrowth of nail, 295–6 & 296–7 nn.2–5, 310–11 & 311 nn.1–3, 313–14 n.3; A.H. Lane Fox takes part in Cissbury excavations, 296 & nn.6–7 Lane Fox, Augustus Henry: CD endorses application to Royal Society, 39 & 40 n.1; leads excavations of Neolithic site at Cissbury, 296 & 297 n.6 Lane Fox, William Augustus, 310–11 & 311 n.2 Langham Magazine, 406 n.1 Langton, Charles: takes care of grandchildren, 517 & n.5 Langton, Edmund: death of, 517 & n.5 Langton, Emily Caroline (Lena): in Cannes, 517 & n.5 Lankester, Edwin Ray xxvi–xxvii: arranges for E. Haeckel’s History of creation to be sent to CD, 440, 558; CD impressed by papers on embryology, 480 & 481 n.5; CD invites to Down House, 256 & n.2, 268 & n.1; fellow of Exeter College, Oxford and professor of zoology at University College, London, 471 & 472 n.7; fellow, Royal Society, 472 n.7, 492 & n.13; Linnean Society blackballs over Council’s decision to remit his fees, 471 & 472 n.5, 480 & 481 nn.3–8, 481 & 481–2 nn.2–6; Linnean Society, CD canvasses support for second ballot, 484 & 485 nn.2–10, 489 & 489–90 nn.2–6, 491–2 & 492–3 nn.2–14 & 16, 503–4 & 504 n.1, 516 & n.1; Linnean Society, CD drafts letter protesting against his treatment, 480 & 481 nn.3–8; Linnean Society, CD furious at his being blackballed, 481 & 481–2 nn.2–6; Linnean Society, CD harangues Zoological Society to gain support for, 484 & n.6; Linnean Society, CD pleased with results of canvassing, 487 & 488 n.3; Linnean Society, CD seconds T.H. Huxley’s proposal that he be nominated a second time, 480 & 481 n.6, 482 n.3, 504; Linnean Society, elected on second ballot, 482 n.3, 504

n.4; studies embryonic development of cephalopods at Naples Zoological Station, 56 & 57 n.3; visits Down House, 480 & 481 n.4, 504 & n.3, 566 & 567 n.18 Lawes, John Bennet: collaborates with J.H. Gilbert, 518 & 519 n.3; reports of Rothamsted experimental station, 294 & 294–5 nn.3–4, 316 & nn.1–2 Layton, Charles: D. Appleton’s agent, 248 & 249 n.3; stereotypes of Climbing plants sent to, 418 & n.1 Le Couteur, John: development of most productive wheat, 190 & n.2, 191 & nn.2–4, 192–3 & 196 nn.2, 4 & 7–8 Lee, George, 291 & 293 n.2 Legrain, Jean Baptiste: bogus experiments to show inbreeding has no ill effects, 324 & n.2, 326 & n.1, 327–8 & 328 nn.2–3 & 5, 548 & n.2; experiments designed to disprove theory that inbreeding produces albinism, 361 n.5 Leguminosiae: Arctic fossils, 88, 90, 525 Lepidoptera: F. Darwin’s collection, 333 & n.3, 333 & 334 n.3; importance to fertilisation of flowers in alpine regions, 312–13 & 313 n.3–4; parthenogenesis, 433 & n.6, 435 n.2 Lepista nuda. See Agaricus nudus Leslie, Thomas Edward Cliffe, 61 & n.6 Leslie-Melville, Sophia, 55 & 56 n.15 Lestrimelitta limao. See Trigona limao Lettington, Henry: CD’s gardener, 464 & 465 n.2 Lilium: L. davuricum (L. dauricum) and L. bulbiferum, offspring, 289 & n.2; L. martagon and L. croceum (L. bulbiferum), adaptations to sphinx moth, 131 & 132 n.5, 533 & n.5 Lindley, John: Asclepiadaceae and Apocynaceae, 204 n.3; exudation of carbonic acid from plant rootlets, 349 & 350 n.6 Link, Heinrich Friedrich, 389 & 391 n.4, 555 & 556 n.4 Linnean Society: G.J. Allman, president, 3 & 4 n.3, 4–5 n.2, 481 n.1; F. Brotero described Araujia sericofera, 107 & 108 n.2; A.G. Butler voted for blackballing E.R. Lankester to show disapproval of Council, 484 & 485 n.3; Council said to be a ‘Kew clique’ with too few zoologists, 491–2 & 492 n.6; CD cannot recommend printing T. Powell’s paper on South Pacific atolls, 235–6 & 236 nn.1–5; CD gifts L. Pfeiffer’s Nomenclator botanicus, 410 n.8, 414 & 415 n.4, 423 & n.5; CD seeks permission to correct and republish Climbing plants, 2 & n.2, 37 & n.2; F. Darwin applies to join, 295 & nn.2–3, 302 & nn.1–2, 371 & 372 n.2; F. Darwin elected as fellow, 295 n.1, 472 & 473 n.2, 476 &

Index 476–7 n.2, 482 n.3; F. Darwin, paper on hygrosopic mechanisms of awned seeds, 377 n.3; J.H. Gilbert, ‘Occurrence of fairy rings’, 269 & n.2, 518 & 519 n.2; G. King’s note on Paritium sent by W.T. Thiselton-Dyer, 422 & 423 n.3; E.R. Lankester blackballed over Council’s decision to remit his fees, 471 & 472 n.5, 480 & 481 n.3; E.R. Lankester, CD canvasses support for second ballot, 484 & 485 nn.2–9, 489 & 489–90 nn.2–6, 491–2 & 492–3 nn.2–14 & 16, 503–4 & 504 n.1, 516 & n.1; E.R. Lankester, CD drafts letter protesting against his being blackballed, 480 & 481 nn.3–8; E.R. Lankester, CD seconds T.H. Huxley’s nomination for second ballot, 480 & 481 n.6, 482 n.3, 489 & 490 n.5, 504; E.R. Lankester elected fellow on second ballot, 482 n.3, 504 n.4; E.R. Lankester, J. Murie firmly opposed to application, 491–2 & 492 nn.10–12; C. Lyell’s burial in Westminster Abbey, fellows sign petition, 77 & 79 n.3; St G.J. Mivart, secretary, 4 n.3, 493 n.16; remission of fellows’ fees where payment would cause serious inconvenience, 471 & 472 n.6; G.J. Romanes applies to join, 371 & 372 n.2, 378, 383 & 384 n.4, 388 & 388–9 n.1; G.J. Romanes elected fellow, 482 n.3; G.J. Romanes, paper on medusae, 378 & 379 n.3; slow in publishing zoological papers, 473 & n.3 Lister, Joseph: germ theory of disease, 274 & 275 n.3 Litchfield, Henrietta Emma: CD and E. Darwin stay with in London, 106 & n.3, 121 n.2, 123 & 124 n.5, 129 n.2, 135 & n.1, 135 & 136 n.1, 197 n.1, 472 & n.2, 478 & n.2, 484, 479 n.2, 566 & 567 nn.10, 12 & 29; CD explains his position on vivisection, xviii, 5–6 & 6 nn.3–6; CD met J. Fiske at her home, 106 & n.3; dines with the Huxleys, 35 & n.5; H.E. Dresser and N.A. Severtsov’s visit to Down, xxv, 355 n.2, 361 n.1; gives G.C. Robertson CD’s address, 71 & n.1; meets J.D. Hooker at Royal College of Surgeons party, 233 & n.2; Mivart affair, advises CD to send a formal letter rather than a savage one, 33; Mivart affair, CD wrote formal letter to explain why he would cut him should they meet, 34 n.5; Mivart affair, helps draft CD’s letter to St G.J. Mivart, 34 n.5; W.R.S. Ralston hopes to meet CD at home of, 159 & n.2, 472 & n.2; signs F.P. Cobbe’s petition against vivisection, 28 n.4; visits Down House, 171 n.4, 184 n.2, 184 n.4, 566 & 567 n.13 Litchfield, Richard Buckley: CD asks to send draft vivisection bill to J.D. Hooker, 141 & 142 n.2; dines with the Huxleys, 35 & n.5; friend of W.R.S. Ralston, 159 & n.2, 472 & n.2; signs F.P.

779

Cobbe’s petition against vivisection, 28 n.4; visits Down House, 171 n.4, 184 n.2, 184 n.4, 566 & 567 n.13; vivisection, drafts bill embodying scientists’ proposals, 136 & 137 n.5, 137–8 & 138 n.2, 140 n.1, 141 & 142 n.2, 156 & n.6, 157, 158 & n.2, 159 & n.3, 170 & 171 n.4, 191–2 & 192 n.2, 196–7, 198 & n.6, 205 n.3, 581, 585; vivisection, favours deputation to home secretary, 146 & n.5 Livingstone, David, 84 n.7 Llewellyn, John Dillwyne: CD sees his daughter, T.M. Story-Maskelyne, to canvass support for E.R. Lankester, 484 & 485 n.5 Lockyer, Joseph Norman: editor, Nature, 237, 285 & n.3 London Heliotype Company: Expression, illustrations, 486 & 487 n.2 Longman: published first edition of Climbing plants, 2 n.2, 37 n.2, 134 n.2, 572 Longman, Green & Co.: order 25 more copies of Climbing plants 2d ed., 482 & n.2 Loudon, John Claudius: Cytisus purpureus, 263 & 264 nn.3–4 Lowell, James Russell: head movements in southern Italy, 80 & 84 n.3 Lowne, Benjamin Thompson: CD canvasses to support E.R. Lankester, 484 & 485 n.9, 491 & 492 n.5 Lubbock, Ellen Frances: ‘From the Insects to their friend, Charles Darwin’, xx, 246–7 & 247 n.2; invitation to duke of Teck, 254 & 255 n.2; A. Lane Fox describes her son’s operation to remove extra finger, 295–6 & 296–7 nn.2–5, 310 & 311 n.1, 313–14 n.3; reviews Insectivorous plants in Academy, xx; visits Down House, 566 & n.6 Lubbock, John: arranges visit from duke of Teck, 177 & n.3, 254 & 255 n.4, 313 & n.2; CD seconds A.H. Lane Fox’s application to Royal Society, 39 & 40 n.1; CD likes On British wild flowers … in relation to insects, 12 & n.4; CD suggests arrangements for meeting duke of Teck, 177 & n.3; endeavours to resolve misunderstandings between G.S. Ffinden and CD, 129 & nn.2–3, 132–3 & nn.1–5; G. Fritsche seeks to confirm author and CD’s neighbour are the same, 414 & n.6, 423 & 424 n.4; S.J.O’H. Horsman pretends to friendship with, 505 & 505–6 n.10; grains of long- and short-styled primulas, 101 & n.3; importance of insects in fertilisation of plants, 382 & 383 n.3; visits Down House, 566 & n.6; vivisection bill needs a more humanitarian preamble, 157 & n.2, 159 & n.3, 170 & 171 n.3, 582; vivisection bill, believes nothing will be done this session, 146 & n.4, 153 & 154 n.2;

780

Index

vivisection bill, R.B. Litchfield suggests asking him to present scientists’ petition, 158 & n.3, 159 & n.2, 582; whether involved in Cissbury excavations, 296 & 297 n.6 Lucas, Charles Duncan, 120 & n.4 Lucas, Margaret Bright, 120 & n.4 Lucas, Margaret Elizabeth, 120 & n.4 Lucas, Prosper: laws of resemblance cited in Origin, 259 & 262 n.4, 260, 543 & 544 n.4 Lucas, Samuel, 120 & n.4 Lucas, Samuel Bright, 120 & n.4 Lucina, 507 & 509 n.3 Lucretius, 495 & n.1 Lushington, Godfrey: helps draft of vivisection bill, 136 & 137 n.5, 581 Lushington, Vernon: friend of the Litchfields, 137 n.5 Luther, Martin, 226 & n.3, 539 & n.3; believed animals could go to heaven, 100 & n.7 Lycopodiaceae, 89 & 92 n.12, 91, 526 & 528 n.12 Lyell, Charles, 75; bears his brother’s death calmly, 55 & n.3, 61 & 62 n.8; becomes weaker and mentally confused, 69 & n.1; burial in Westminster Abbey arranged by J.D. Hooker, 77–8 & 79 nn.2–6, 85 & n.6; CD diverges from on volcanic origin of atolls, 235 & 236 n.2; CD on loss to science, 96 & 97 n.5; CD owes everything he has done in science to study of Lyell’s great works, xxvii, 74 & nn.2–3; CD recalls breakfasts with, 74 & n.1; CD reflects on death of, 85 & nn.2–3; CD sends his letters to K.M. Lyell, 511–12 & nn.2–3; CD’s first meeting with, 74 & n.2, 85 & n.3; CD’s last meeting with, 96 & 97 n.6; CD suggests memorial to his revolutionising geology, 76 & 76–7 n.2; CD unable to be a pall bearer at his funeral, 85 & 86 n.7; death of, 73–4 & 74 n.1, 76 & n.1; donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43; enjoyed improving a sentence, 325 & n.4; enthusiasm for Coral reefs, 74 & n.2; friend of W.B. Clarke, 468–9 & n.2; O. Heer laments death of, 89 & 93 n.18, 91, 527 & 528 n.18; J.D. Hooker reflects on, 78 & n.7; member of Jamaica Committee, 452 & n.3; Principles of geology an enduring monument, 78 & 79 n.7; Principles of geology 10th ed., length of geological periods, 92 n.10, 527–8 n.10; Principles of geology 12th ed. published posthumously, 79 n.7; Principles of geology, possible Italian edition, 385 & n.3, 387 & 388 n.4 Lyell, Henry: death of, 55 Lyell, Katharine Murray, 55 & 56 n.2; asks CD to be a pall-bearer at C. Lyell’s funeral, 85 & 86 n.7; CD sends his letters from C. Lyell, 511–12 & nn.2–3

Lyell, Marianne, 55 & 56 n.3, 69 n.1; CD sends kindest remembrance to, 74 & n.5 Lyell, Mary Elizabeth, 56 n.3; CD recalls breakfasts with, 74 & n.1; hinted that C. Lyell would like to be buried at Westminster Abbey, 78 & 79 n.5 Lythrum salicaria: illegitimate offspring, 209 & n.2 Macartney rose (Rosa bracteata): failure to flower, 280 & 281 n.2 Macaulay, Thomas Babington, 402 n.3; invited to stand as parliamentary candidate for Edinburgh, 86 & 87 n.5 McClennan, John Ferguson: admires G.H. Darwin’s article on cousin marriage, 419, 420 & 421 n.6; cited in Descent, 419 n.3; visits Down, 419 & n.3, 566 & 567 n.26 McClintock, Francis Leopold: led Arctic expedition to search for remains of Franklin expedition, 225 & n.8 Mackintosh, James: female infanticide among Jarejars, 157–8 & 158 n.2 McRae, Alexandrina Cornfute and Elizabeth Anne: twins with crooked fingers, 366 & n.3, 369 n.1, 372–3 n.2 Magahan, Mr: fails to reply to G. Cupples, 86 & 87 n.7 Magnoliaceae: Arctic fossils, 88 & 92 n.8, 90, 525 & 527 n.8 Magnus, Paul Wilhelm: graft-hybrid potatoes created by insertion of eye into tuber, 23 & n.2 Malan, Solomon Caesar: translates letter in Georgian for CD, 473 & 474 n.1, 493 & 494 nn.1–2 Maliev, Nikolai Mikhailovich, 160 & 162 n.3, 570 Malm, August Hugo: doctoral dissertation on Sygnanthus, 45 & 46 n.4; Scaeva, resolves taxonomy, 44 & 46 n.6 Malm, August Wilhelm: Stone-Age finds in Sweden show early use of tools, 44–5 & 46 nn.2–3; thanks CD for testimonial, 44 & 45 n.1 Malthus, Thomas Robert: now and then foolish authors try to disprove his conclusions, 225 & n.2 mangold wurzel (mangel-wurzel): report of grafted roots, 155 & 156 n.7; G. Romanes experiments with grafting, 432 Mantegazza, Paolo: ridiculed F. Delpino’s views on pitcher plants and dubious about CD’s theory of sexual selection, 150 & 151 n.5, 534 & n.5 Marcgravia: M. umbellata, J.D. Hooker hopes to persuade to flower, 149 & n.3; M. umbellata and M. dubia (Monstera dubia) discussed in Climbing plants, 149 n.3

Index Marcgraviaceae: fertilisation, 356 & n.4, 551 & 552 n.4 Marsh-Caldwell, Anne: Two old men’s tales, 231 & 232 n.3 Marshall, William: armadillo embryos, seeks to acquire, 331, 550; atavism under domestication, 213 & n.4, 535 & n.4; believes Ratitae to be degenerate form of Carinatae, 330 & 331 n.3, 550 & n.3; CD sends ostrich feather received from T.F. Burgers, 208 & n.2, 213 & 213–14 nn.2 & 7, 535 & nn.2 & 7; early plumage of ostriches, paper in Zoologische Garten, 208 & n.1, 213 n.3, 535 n.3; researches Hexactinellida, 213 & 214 n.5, 331 & n.6, 535 & n.5, 550 & 551 n.6; Steganopodes and Urinatores are birds closest to reptiles, 330 & 331 n.4, 550 & n.4 Martins, Charles Frédéric: Climbing plants 2d ed., employs R. Gordon to help with translation into French, 459 & n.4 Martin, H.N.: with T.H. Huxley, Course in elementary biology, 449 & n.2 Masłowski, Ludwik: R.F. Cooke sends Descent 2d ed., 312 & n.1; Descent, Polish translation, 413 & 414 n.5; Descent, position of illustrations, 297–8 & 298 nn.2–4, 312 & n.1, 545–6 & 546–7 nn.2–4 Masters, Maxwell Tylden, 270 & 271 n.4; CD thanks for review of Insectivorous plants, 263 & n.2; CD thanks for tribute in Gardener’s Chronicle, 96 & n.1; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 245 & nn.2– 3; variation in chrysanthemum, 292 & 293 n.8 Masters, William: reversion in peas, 367 n.4 Maurandia (Maurandya): M. antirrhiniflora, twining peduncles, 515 & 516 n.4; M. semperflorens (M. scandens), revolving peduncles, 516 n.4; M. stricta (Antirrhinum strictum, Neogaerrhinum strictum), coiling peduncles, 515 & 516 n.5 Max Müller, Friedrich, xxii–xxiii; CD assures that neither he nor G.H. Darwin thought he was author of anonymous article in Quarterly Review, 7–8 & 8 n.1, 14–15 & 15 n.2; CD thanks for his self-defence despite its stinging remarks about him, 402 & nn.2–3; G.H. Darwin, replies to in Contemporary Review, 7–8 & 8 n.1, 15 & n.3, 58 & n.1, 397 n.3; ‘In self-defence’, answer to W.D. Whitney, 396–7 & 397 nn.2–3, 402 & nn.2–3, 498 & 499 nn.2–6; origins of language, shares views of St G.J. Mivart, 58 n.1; W.D. Whitney answers in Contemporary Review, 57–8 & 58 nn.1– 2, 59 & 59–60 nn.1–2, 397 n.3; W.D. Whitney, long-running public feud with, 15 & n.5, 498 & 499 nn.2–6 Maximovicz, Carl Johann: visits J.D. Hooker, 234 & n.6

781

Maxwell, James Clerk: equations for modelling viscoelasticity, 420 & 421 n.3 Mayo, Thomas, 125 & 126 n.1 medusae: CD congratulates G.J. Romanes on his work, 267 & n.7, 372 & n.8, 434 & n.5; E. Haeckel’s study of, 510 & n.2, 513 & n.1; G.J. Romanes gives Croonian lecture to Royal Society on locomotive system, 487 & 488 n.5; G.J. Romanes prepares article on new species, varieties and monstrosities, 510 & nn.2–3; G.J. Romanes, work on nervous system, 267 & n.7, 270 & 271 n.5, 286 & 286–7 nn.3–4, 372 & n.8, 378 & 379 n.3, 464 & 465 n.3 Meehan, Thomas: ‘Are insects any material aid to plants in fertilisation?’, sends CD paper given to AAAS, 382 & 383 nn.2–3; cites G.H. Darwin on healthy offspring of cousin marriage, 416 & 417 n.6; CD begins work on effects of crossing, 382 & 383 n.4; H. Müller concerned at denigration of role of insects, 416 & 417 nn.4–5, 422 & n.1 Mel’nikov, Nikolai Mikhailovich, 570 Melampus, 507 & 509 n.6 Melastomaceae (Melastomataceae): CD works on, 400 & n.6, 401 & 402 n.4, 409 & n.4, 411 Melipona: F. Müller concludes they are not parasitical, 357 & 359 n.5, 552–3 & 553 n.5 mice: function of tails, 214, 220 & 221 n.4, 222 & n.4, 224 & 225 n.6; J.S. Henslow’s observations confirmed by A. Günther, 224 & 225 n.6 Michelis, Friedrich: E. Haeckel’s Anthropogenie, satirical refutation, 326 & 327 n.6, 549 & n.6 Micromys minutus. See Mus messorius Miller, Annabella, 366 & n.8, 369 n.1 Millipora, 186 & 187 n.4 Milne-Edwards, Henri: Monograph of British fossil corals, 186 & 187 n.2; natural history of crustaceans, 359–60 n.8 Mimosa: CD experiments with glycerine and water, 400 & n.5, 401 & 402 n.6; M. pudica, 377 & 377–8 n.4; M. pudica, action of pulvini of leaflets, 402 n.6; M. quadrivalvis var. latidens. See Schrankia aculeata; M. sensitiva, 400 & n.5 Mind: CD, ‘Biographical sketch of an infant’ (1877), 72 n.3; G.C. Robertson sends prospectus and asks for CD’s support, 71 & n.2, 72 & n.2 Mitford, Algernon Bertram: first secretary, Office of Works, 32 n.1, 70 n.7, 79 n.13, 110 & 111 n.8; D.S. Galton attempts to block Treasury’s enlargement of his authority, 110 & 111 n.8, 321 & 323 n.2; H. Gordon-Lennox refuses to speak to, 69 & 70 n.7, 78, 321; supports J.D. Hooker in his dispute with H. Gordon-Lennox, 78 & 79 n.13, 321 & 323 n.2

782

Index

Mivart, St George Jackson, xvii–xviii; anonymous review in Quarterly Review accuses G.H. Darwin of encouraging vice, 3 & 4 n.2, 4–5 nn.2–3, 7–8 & 8 nn.1–2, 14–15 & 15 nn.2 & 4, 22 n.1, 40 & n.2; attack on G.H. Darwin ‘as base as it was baseless’ (J.D. Hooker), 40 & n.3; CD accuses of malicious misrepresentation and severs all communication, xviii, 13 & n.2, 16, 22 & nn.1–3, 33 & 34 n.5, 493 n.16; CD names to E.B. Tylor as author of malicious Quarterly Review article, 40 & n.2; G.H. Darwin’s refutation of accusations published in Quarterly Review alongside Mivart’s unsigned reply, 22 n.2; A. Dohrn opposes views on rudimentary organs, 200 n.4; J.D. Hooker berates J. Murray for publishing insults to CD and G.H. Darwin, xviii, 31–2 & 32 n.3, 40 & n.3; J.D. Hooker considers seeking his removal from post of secretary to Linnean Society, 3 & 4 n.3, 4 & 4–5 n.2; J.D. Hooker has not seen and will behave coldly if they meet, 62 & n.9, 69 & n.3; T.H. Huxley uses review E. Haeckel’s Anthropogenie to condemn anonymous insinuations against G.H. Darwin, xviii, 4 & 5 n.3, 12 & n.5, 13 & n.1; T.H. Huxley writes to in defence of G.H. Darwin, 7 & nn.1–2; responds to T.H. Huxley in Academy, 35 & n.4; Linnean Society, not involved in opposition to E.R. Lankester, 492 & 493 n.16; Linnean Society, secretary, 4 n.3, 4–5 n.2, 493 n.16; in Origin, CD suppressed his views on bestiality of origins of man, 35 n.4; origin of language, views shared by F. Max Müller, 58 n.1 Modderman, Antony Ewoud Jan, 569 Moggridge, John Traherne: Moggridgea named to honour work on trapdoor spiders, 234 n.8 Moggridgea: named by O. Pickard-Cambridge, 234 n.8 Möller, Alfred: translated F. Müller’s letters to CD into German and originals lost, 359 n.1, 553 n.1 Moltke, Helmuth von: suggested German government take over Naples Zoological Station, 54 n.4 Monochaetum eurifolium: CD’s experiments, 383 & 384 nn.5–6 Monoxenia darwinii: E. Haeckel describes and names, 439, 440 & 441 n.5, 450 & n.4, 558 & 559 n.5 Monstera dubia. See Marcgravia dubia Monti, Luigi: teaches Italian at Harvard, 80 & 84 n.4 Moore, Norman: friend of F. Darwin, W.E. Darwin meets at Embley, 483 & n.5 Moore, Samuel William: experiments on globulin, 275 & n.8 Morehouse, George Wilkinson: Drosera, spiral fibres of tentacles, 419 & n.2

Morley, John: ‘Diderot’, W.E. Darwin recommends Fortnightly Review article to CD, 403 & n.3 Morphy, Ferdinand Jamison: Mexican cuino is offspring of a ram and a sow, 353 & 354 n.2 Morren, Charles François Antoine: early ripening of potatoes, 292 & 293 n.7 Mozley, Amelia, 372 n.3, 373 n.1 Mudie’s Select Library: takes 150 copies of Insectivorous plants, 276 & n.2 Müller, Fritz: Abutilon, pollination experiments published in Jenaische Zeitschrift, 312 & 313 n.1; Aeglea, discovers a new species (A. odebrechtii), 358 & 359–60 n.8, 509 & 509–10 nn.16–17; Cattleya, experiments with cross-fertilisation, 292 & 293 n.5; CD suggested in 1866 that he investigate fly-catching in Apocynaceae, 116 n.4; embauba tree and the ants that inhabit it, 508 & 509 nn.8–15; Facts and arguments for Darwin, 450 copies unsold, 153 & n.3; Facts and arguments for Darwin, CD sends profits of £8.2s.9d. to H. Müller, 415 & 416 n.1; fertilisation of orchids, 276 & 277 n.6; finds Utricularia and Drosera in Santa Caterina, 357 & 359 n.3, 552 & 553 n.3; forced to abandon natural history through loss of monthly stipend, 359 & 360 n.13; Gunnera manicata, terminal flower, 409 & n.2, 414 & 415 nn.1 & 5; Gunnera with apetalous lateral flowers, 358, 358 & 360 nn.9– 11, 414 & 415 n.1; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 357 & 359 n.2, 552 & 553 n.2; paper on termites sent to CD by E. Haeckel, 359 & 360 n.12; sambaquis (middens) of Santa Caterina, 507–8 & 509 nn.1–7; stingless bees, 357–8 & 359 nn.5–6, 552–3 & 553 nn.5–6 Müller, Hermann: alpine excursions to observe fertilisation of flowers by insects, 312–13 & 313 nn.4–5; CD admires and frequently uses his books, 422 & n.2; CD sends cheque for F. Müller, 415 & 416 n.1; ‘Fertilisation of flowers by insects’, Nature, 312–13 & 313 n.3; importance of insects in fertilisation of plants, 382 & 383 n.3, 422 n.2; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 312 & 313 n.2; interested in G.H. Darwin’s paper on cousin marriage, 416 & 417 n.6, 418 & 419 n.1, 420 & 421 n.2; looks forward to CD’s book on cross- and self-fertilisation, 416 & 417 n.2; T. Meehan denigrates role of insects in fertilisation of flowers, 416 & 417 nn.4–5, 422 & n.1; F. Müller’s experiments on Abutilon published in Jenaische Zeitschrift, 312 & 313 n.1; stingless bees, identifies specimens sent by F. Müller, 357 & 359 n.5, 552 & 553 n.5; supports Darwinia, 217 & 219 n.4, 218, 536 & 537 n.4 Munich Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory: A. Bachmaier, lecture on language,

Index 115 & n.3, 530 & n.3; CD’s account in Variation of regrowth of amputated finger discussed, 49–50 & 50 n.2, 299, 523–4 & 524 n.2; CD’s letter on regrowth of tissue read to, 115 n.2, 530 & n.2 Murchison, Finlay, 366 & n.4 Murchison, Roderick Impey: friend of W.B. Clarke, 468 & 469 n.2 Murie, James: CD will canvass to support E.R. Lankester, 484 & 485 n.9; firmly opposed to E.R. Lankester’s application to Linnean Society, 491–2 & 492 nn.10–12 Murray, Andrew: trapdoor spider, 234 & n.8 Murray, H. et al.: Historical … account of British India, 238 & n.3 Murray, John: annual trade sale dinner, xx, 306 & 307 nn.2–3, 353 n.3, 384 & n.1, 385 & n.1, 388 n.3; D. Appleton & Co., cost of stereotypes, 198– 9 & 199 nn.2–3, 248 & n.3, 308 & 310 n.1, 391 & n.2; Climbing plants 2d ed. to be published as a separate little book, xx, 3 n.3, 151 & n.3, 134, 135 & n.2, 243 n.4; Climbing plants 2d ed. ‘a very curious book’, which he will publish at his own risk, 134, 135 & n.2; Climbing plants 2d ed., CD’s profit on sales, 456 & n.1, 460 & n.2; Climbing plants 2d ed., returns ms. for revision, 134, 135 & n.2; CD ask for total sales of Origin, 461 & 462 n.2, 462; CD asks to send Descent 2d ed. to G. Cupples, 84 & n.2; CD delivers Insectivorous plants and Climbing plants 2d ed., 123; CD proposes new edition of Variation, 68 & n.2, 70 & n.2, 71 & 72 n.2, 112 n.1; CD sends a cheque for presentations, 458 & n.4, 461 & 462 n.3, 462; CD trusts he is pleased with sales, 446 & n.2; CD’s profits on sales, 456 & n.1, 457 & 458 n.1, 460 & n.2, 461; Descent, 1300 copies sold, 70 & n.4; Descent 2d ed., CD inquires about sales, 68 & n.3; Descent 2d ed., sends CD 63 guineas, 119 & n.2; Descent 2d ed., sends stereotypes to D. Appleton & Co. for US edition, 70 & n.4; Descent, L. Maslowski seeks clarification on position of illustrations, 297–8 & 298 nn.2–4, 312 & n.1, 545–6 & 546–7 nn.2–4; Expression, cost of stereotypes for foreign editions, 303 & 304 n.5, 487 n.2, 547 & 548 n.5; Expression, Italian ed., cost of stereotypes, 410 & n.3, 557 & n.3; Expression 2d ed. (1890), 453 n.2; L. Grenier writes to CD care of, 501, 563; J.D. Hooker upbraids for publishing insults to CD and G.H. Darwin in Quarterly Review, 31–2 & 32 n.3, 40 & n.3; Insectivorous plants, agrees to increase print run by 250 copies, 179 & n.2, 180, 248 & 249 n.3; Insectivorous plants, CD expects sales to be slow, xx, 166 & 167 n.2, 177 & n.1, 248 & n.1; Insectivorous plants, CD thinks 1250 copies will last for all eternity, 248 &

783

249 n.2, 280 & n.4; Insectivorous plants, CD’s profit on sales, 456 & n.1, 457, 460 & n.2; Insectivorous plants, presentations, 166 & 167 n.3; Insectivorous plants, price of stereotypes for US ed., 199, 199 & n.3, 242 & n.2; Insectivorous plants, prints 1000 copies at first with possibility of reprint, 173 & nn.2–3, 177 & n.1; Insectivorous plants, reduces price to 14s., 240 & n.2; Insectivorous plants, will break up type after reprint, 456 & n.2, 457–8, 460; Journal of researches, 486 & 487 n.3; F. Müller, Facts and arguments for Darwin, profits, 416 n.1; Orchids 2d ed. (1877), 453 n.2; Origin, total sales from the first, 461 & 462 n.2, 462; Origin 6th ed., CD’s profit on sales, 456 & n.1, 457 & 458 nn.1–2, 460 & 460–1 n.2, 461; prefers not to publish in mid-summer, 61 & 62 n.6; publishes Quarterly Review, 32 n.3, 40 n.3; Savile Club, honorary secretary, 321 n.3; stereotypes CD’s later publications, 411 & n.1; stereotypes, prepayment required for foreign editions, 423 & n.2; Variation, Italian ed., G. Chiantore seeks stereotypes of illustrations, 189 & n.1, 229 & n.1; Variation, CD wonders if he would consider new edition, 68 & n.2; Variation, will publish new edition as soon as CD is ready, 70 & n.2, 71 & 72 n.2, 112 n.1. See also Cooke, Robert Francis Murray, John (2): naturalist, Challenger expedition, describes Globigerina ooze, 55 & 56 nn.7–8 Murton, Henry James: appointed gardener to Straits settlements, 147 & n.4 Mus messorius (Micromys minutus, harvest mouse): tail used as prehensile organ, 224 & 225 n.6 Muscicapa: M. atricapilla (Ficedula hypoleuca), 120 & n.1; M. grisola (M. striata) and M. luctosa, J.P. Thomasson distinguishes nests and eggs, 119–20 & 120 nn.1–3; Descent, similarity of M. grisola and M. luctosa, 119–20 & 120 n.1 Mutilla: females sometimes winged, 475 & 476 n.4 Myrica: Arctic fossils, 88 & 92 n.8, 90, 525 & 527 n.8 Myrtaceae: Arctic fossils, 88, 90, 525 Nägeli, Carl von: A. Dodel differs from concept of species, 252 & 253 n.4, 541–2 & 542 n.4; experiments with dissolution of pigment, 329–30 & 330 n.8 Napoleon I, 397 n.4 Nares, George Strong: J.D. Hooker impressed with, 55 & 56 n.6; leader, Royal Society’s Challenger and Arctic expeditions, 56 n.6 Nash, Louisa A’hmuty: runs Band of Hope in Down, 504–5 & 505 n.6 Nash, Wallis: opens reading room in Down, 504 & 505 n.5

784

Index

Nation: A. Gray, review of Insectivorous plants and Climbing plants 2d ed., 515 & 516 n.3; C. Wright, ‘German Darwinism’, 368 & n.4, 386 & 387 n.3, 408 & n.2; C. Wright, note on books about evolution, 83 & 84 n.11, 104 & n.6; C. Wright, obituary, 408 & n.1 Die Natur, 216 & 219 n.3, 218, 536 & 537 n.3 Nature: advertisement for Insectivorous plants, 199 n.5, 236 & 237 n.6; Climbing plants 2d ed., review, 413 n.2; CD, letter on birds destroying primroses, 514 n.4; CD passes copies to F. Darwin, 473 & n.3; J.D. Hooker, address to BAAS Department of Botany and Zoology, 119 n.8, 532 n.8; J.D. Hooker, ‘The present condition of the Royal Society’, 4 & n.6, 4 & 5 n.5; Insectivorous plants, review (A.W. Bennett), 280 & n.2, 286 & n.2; J.N. Lockyer, editor, 237, 285 & n.3; mangold wurzel, grafted roots, 155 & 156 n.7; H. Müller, ‘Fertilisation of flowers by insects’, 312–13 & 313 n.3; Naples Zoological Station, highlights of A. Dohrn’s inaugural address, 55 n.9; G.J. Romanes’s letters to, 370 & 371 n.2, 371 & 372 n.3, 434 & n.6; L. Tait, experiments on insectivorous plants, 221 n.6, 222 n.3, 237 & n.4, 285 & n.3, 287 & n.2, 318 n.3, 323 & n.2, 462 n.3 Der Naturforscher, 216 & 219 n.3, 218, 536 & 537 n.3 Naudin, Charles Victor: gives up experiments on Chamaerops hybrids, 268 & n.2 Neogaerrhinum: N. filipes. See Antirrhinum cooperi; N. strictum. See Maurandia stricta Neottia: roots secrete fluid capable of detaching organic substances, 250 & 251 n.9, 540 & 541 n.9; N. nidus-avis. See Ophrys nidus Nepenthes: CD doubts L. Tait’s conclusions without testing with albumen, 290 & n.3; CD questions L. Tait’s discovery of droserin in virgin pitchers, 317 & 318 n.3; J.D. Hooker investigates digestive processes, 142, 283 & n.5, 287 & n.5, 288 & 289 n.8, 396 & n.2, 470 n.6; L. Tait experiments on, 273 & 274 n.5, 283 & n.5, 285 & n.2, 287 & n.5, 288 & n.2, 290 & n.3, 323 & n.2, 396 & n.2, 469 & 470 n.5; L. Tait isolates droserin, 288 & 289 n.7, 323 & n.2, 469 & 470 n.5; L. Tait’s paper submitted to Royal Society. See under Tait, Lawson Nesaea verticillata (Decodon verticillatus): CD asks A. Gray for seeds so that he can continue experiments, 209 & n.2 Nevill, Dorothy Fanny, xxv; CD sends his autograph, 269, 273 & n.2; finds G.H. Darwin’s article on exchange control abstruse, 66 & 67 n.2; possibility of meeting CD in London, 66 & 67 nn.2–3, 67 & 68 n.1, 149 & n.1, 273 & n.1, 512 &

n.2; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 246 & n.2, 269 & n.2; sent CD Drosera binata and D. montana, 246 n.3, 283 & n.4; Utricularia, gift acknowledged in Insectivorous plants, 67 & 68 n.2; visit a strain on CD, 179 n.4; visits Down House, 178 & 179 n.4, 246 & n.4, 566 & 567 n.14 New York Times: Insectivorous plants, review, 319 & n.3, 419 & n.1 Newall, Robert Stirling: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 44 Newington, Samuel: apparent duck/fowl hybrid, 339 & n.1, 346 & n.2, 349 & 350 n.3, 479 & n.1; experiments with potatoes, 349 & 350 n.5; exudation of carbonic acid from plant rootlets, 349 & 350 n.6, 363 & 364 n.2; grafted vines, 479 & 479–80 n.2; mites in dried egg yolk, 479 & 480 n.3; orange scale, 479 & 480 n.4; pulse synchronises with step, 349 & 350 n.4, 363 & 364 n.3; vine hybrids, 339 & n.2, 346 & 347 n.3, 348–9 & 350 nn.1–2, 350 & n.8, 363 Newton, Alfred: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43 & 44 n.2; vice-president, Zoological Society, CD canvasses to support E.R. Lankester, 484 & 485 n.6 Newton, Thomas William: catalogues CD’s library, 219 & 220 n.6, 373 n.3 Nicol, James: marine origins of Glen Roy roads, 507 n.6 Nicols, Arthur: cats, experiments on sense of smell, 477 & 477–8 nn.2–3; disappointed in hopes of doing higher work, 446, 448; rats gnaw lead pipes, 446–7 & 447 n.2, 448, 477; thanks CD for sympathetic response, 477 & n.1; writes articles on Tertiary animals, 448 & n.3 Nightingale, William Shore: W.E. Darwin visits Embley Park, 483 & n.5 Nitschke, Theodor: doctoral dissertation on Drosera rotundifolia, Insectivorous plants, 329 & 330 n.4 Noeggerathia, 376 & n.7, 554 & 555 n.7 Nordenskiöld, Adolf Erik: discoveries in Greenland and Spitzbergen, 88 & 92 n.4, 90, 525 & 527 n.4 North American Review: W.D. Whitney, ‘Darwinism and language’, 8 n.3, 15 & n.4, 397 n.3 Northcote, Stafford: sanctions appointment of assistant for J.D. Hooker as soon as Treasury is informed of his application, 25 & 26 n.3; supports J.D. Hooker in his dispute with Office of Works, 79 n.12 Norton, Charles Eliot: D.C. Gilman knows, 393 & 394 n.7; stay at Keston, near Down, 386 & 387 n.5, 394 n.7; C. Wright’s sudden death, 367–8 & 368–9 nn.2–7, 386 & 386–7 nn.2–4

Index Norton, Sara (Sally): gathers bunch of Drosera for C. Wright, 367–8 & 386 n.3 Norton, Susan Ridley Sedgwick, 387 nn.5 & 6 Nullipora, 186 & 187 nn.4 & 8 Octactinia (Octocorallia), 440 & 441 nn.6–7, 558 & 559 nn.6–7 Odebrecht, Emil: F. Müller names Aegla odebrechtii for, 359–60 n.8 Oecodoma (Atta), 508 & 509 n.10 Offley, Isabella, 98 & 100 n.3 Ogle, William: bees, quotes Aristotle on their limiting themselves to a single kind of flower, 369 & 370 n.2, 370; expression of negative and affirmative in Greek, 369 & 370 n.4; inherited bicuspid tooth, 373 & n.1; Phaseolus multiflorus fertilised by insects, 342 & 343 n.3; twins with crooked fingers, cited in Variation, 366 & n.1, 367, 369 & n.1, 372 & 372–3 n.2, 373 & n.1; tries to grow Drosera in London, 369 Oldham, Thomas: awarded Royal Society’s Royal Medal, 471 n.1 Oliver, Daniel: commends F.J. Cohn’s paper on Aldrovanda and Utricularia, 16 & n.5, 483 & n.1; CD corresponds with on Genlisea and Utricularia, 31 n.8; F. Darwin’s application to Linnean Society, 295 & n.2; examines sport of Hibiscus tricuspis, 407 & n.1; Genlisea, CD finds bladders of two kinds, 13–14 & 14 n.3; Genlisea, sends CD specimens, 3 & n.1, 13–14 & 14 nn.2–3, 16 & n.5; keeper of the herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 407 n.1; sends CD Aldrovanda vesiculosa var. australis, 21 n.15; E. Warming’s paper on Genlisea and Utricularia, 3 & n.2, 4 & n.7 Ophideres fullonica (Eudocima phalonia): proboscis, 332–3 & 333 nn.1–3, 333 & 333–4 nn.1–5, 345 & n.4; proboscis, F. Darwin’s article on, 333 n.3, 345 & n.4 Ophideridae, 333 & 333–4 n.1 Ophiusidae, 333 & n.4 Ophrys: O. apifera, 276 & 277 n.5; O. nidus (Neottia nidus-avis), fertilisation by insects, 131 & 132 n.7, 533 & n.7 orang-utan: direction of growth of hair, 81 & 84 n.7 Orchis: absence of nectar, 131 & 132 n.6, 533 & n.6 Orpington: station closest to Down, 64 & n.3, 123 & n.4, 130, 134 & n.5, 183 & 184 n.1, 188 & n.3, 306 n.1, 355 Ostrea, 507 & 509 n.3 ostriches: atavism under domestication, 213 & n.4, 535 & n.4; T.F. Burgers gives CD an ostrich feather, which he sends to W. Marshall, 208 &

785

n.2, 213 & n.2, 535 n.2; W. Marshall, early plumage of ostriches, 208 & n.1 Ouless, Walter William: portrait of CD (‘a very venerable, acute melancholy old dog’), 123 & 124 n.3 Owen, Richard: approves draft vivisection bill, 170 n.2; ‘hippocampus controversy’, 340 n.3; Linnean Society, remission of fees, 471 & 472 n.6; signs scientists’ petition for vivisection bill, 144–5 & 145 n.2 Paget, James: advises that H.A. Hooker needs a holiday, 110 & 111 n.6; CD thanks for Clinical lectures and essays, 177 & n.1; fairy rings, 255 & nn.2–3; fairy rings, CD postulates analogy with sheeppox, 274 & 275 n.6; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 255 & n.1; introduces T.F. Burgers to CD, 187 & n.1, 188 & n.1; president, Royal College of Surgeons, 137 n.5, 145 n.2; regrowth of amputated digits unlikely, 255 & 256 n.4, 299 & 300 n.3, 307– 8 & 308 n.10, 317 & nn.2–3, 319–20 & 320 n.3; vivisection, approves draft bill, 141 & 142 n.2, 144 & 145 n.1, 168 n.4; vivisection, E. Cardwell desires to meet wishes of scientific men, 168; vivisection, collaborates with T.H. Huxley and J.S. Burdon Sanderson, 128 & n.2, 130 & n.2, 145 nn.1–2, 146 & n.3,; vivisection, meets CD to discuss draft bill, 136 & 137 n.7; vivisection, signs scientists’ petition, 144–5 & 145 n.2 Pall Mall Gazette: students at St Andrews University propose to elect CD as rector, 86 & 87 n.4 Palmer, Elizabeth, 26 & n.8 Panax: Arctic fossils, 88 & 92 n.9, 90, 525 & 527 n.9 pangenesis hypothesis: CD revises for Variation 2d ed., 371 & 372 n.6, 379 n.4, 433 & n.4, 450 & n.6, 488 & 488–9 n.3, 491 n.3; CD suggests G.J. Romanes uses pigeons for experiments to prove, 487 & 487–8 n.2; CD’s challenges F. Galton’s theory of heredity, 488 & 488–9 nn.2–4, 490–1 & 491 nn.1–4, 513; explains why crossing leads to reversion, 174 & 175 n.6; F. Galton’s experiments with transfusing rabbits, results inconclusive, 370–1 & 371 n.3, 371 & 372 n.7, 431 n.4; F. Galton’s theory of heredity differs from, 430 & 431 n.4, 433 & nn.3–4, 499–500 & 500–501 nn.1–6; G.J. Romanes considers using animal experiments to prove, 131 & n.5, 284 & n.2, 487 & 487–8 n.2; G.J. Romanes endeavours to prove by producing graft hybrids, 28 & 29 n.2, 127 n.2, 155 n.3, 267 & n.4, 269–71 & 271 n.1, 371 & 372 n.5, 378 & 379 n.4, 388 & 389 n.2, 431–2 & 432 n.2, 433–4, 434, 510 & n.4; E.L. Sturtevant’s paper on inheritance only makes sense if

786

Index

hypothesis is accepted, 154 & 155 nn.4 & 6; L. Tait believes development of ovarian cysts can only be accounted for by pangenesis, xxv, 111 & 111–12 nn.3–4, 114 & n.2, 155 & n.5 Panum, Peter Ludwig: double monstrosities in birds, 444 & 445 n.3 Papaver: CD’s experiments on crosses, 211 & 212 n.4 Papaveraceae: CD’s experiments on crossing, 211 & 212 n.4 Papé, Charlotte: sends CD her paper on whether heredity is limited by sex, xxiv, 278–9 & 279 nn.2–3 Paramecium: effect of cobra poison on ciliary action, 12 n.5 Paramphistomum cervi. See Amphistoma conicum Paridigitata, 89 & 92 n.14, 91, 526 & 528 n.14 Paritium: CD sends G. King’s note to W.T. Thiselton-Dyer, who passes it to Linnean Society, 411 & 412 n.1, 422 & 423 n.3; J.D. Hooker pronounces a section of Hibiscus, 406 & n.2; G. King sends CD a sport of, 398 & 400 n.2, 401 & 402 n.5; W.T. Thiselton-Dyer and D. Oliver examine G. King’s specimen at Kew, 407 & n.1; P. tiliaceum (Hibiscus tiliaceus), 402 n.5, 406; P. tricuspis (P. tricuspe, Hibiscus tricuspis, Talipariti hastatum) discussed in Variation, 401 & 402 n.5, 407 n.3. See also under Hibiscus Parker, William Kitchen: Linnean Society, remission of fees, 471 & 472 n.6 Parnassia palustris: ability to absorb animal matter, 404 n.5 Pascal, Blaise: Pascal’s triangle, 491 & n.4 Passiflora: P. gracilis, CD and H. de Vries experiment on, 455 & 456 n.3, 560–1 & 561 n.3; P. sycyoides confused with P. acerifolia (P. adenopoda), 497 & 498 n.3 Paul, Charles Kegan, 441 n.9 Pavo nigripennis, 475 & 476 n.5 Payne, George: gardener at Abinger Hall, will prepare vine plants for CD’s experiments, 126 & 127 n.1, 130 & 131 n.2 Pearson, Charles: Down schoolmaster, elected trustee of Down Friendly Society and reconciled with G.S. Ffinden, 185 & n.5 Pedicino, Nicola Antonio: self-fertilisation of flowers, 416 & 417 n.3 pelargonium: sterility of peloric flowers, 475 & 476 n.7 Penny, Edward Lewton: chaplain, HMS London, 517 & nn.6–7 Pfeiffer, Ludwig: Nomenclator botanicus, CD finds of no use and gifts to Linnean Society, 409 & 410 n.8, 414 & 415 n.4, 423 & n.5

Pflüger, Eduard Friedrich Wilhelm: sends CD paper on physiological combustion in living organisms, 142 & n.1, 143 Phaseolus: P. multiflorus (P. coccineus), fertilisation by insects, 342–3 & 343 nn.2–6 Phillips, John: friend of W.B. Clarke, 468–9 & 469 n.2; presented T.C. Brown’s fossil corals to Oxford Natural History Museum, 187 n.7 Phillips-Jodrell, Thomas Jodrell: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43 & 44 n.3 Philodendron: hybrids, 384 n.7 Philosophical Magazine: G.H. Darwin, ‘Maps of the world’, 393 & 394 n.4; A. Tylor, pluvial period, 180 n.3 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: A. Dobbs, methods of bees, 373 & n.5 photography: T. Burgess requests CD’s photograph and notes resemblance to his younger self, 138–9 & 139 n.1, 152 & 153 n.3; Darlingtonia californica, colour photographs, 511 & n.2; CD and A. Weismann exchange photographs, 174 & 176 n.11; L. Darwin joined expedition to observe transit of Venus as a photographer, 182 n.7; Down House, G. Fritsche requests photograph for Polish magazine, 413, 423 & 424 n.3; O. Heer requests CD’s photograph, 90, 92, 97, 118, 527, 532 Phryganeidae, 20 & 21 n.8, 251 & 252 n.8 Physianthus albens. See Araujia sericofera Pickard-Cambridge, Octavius: named Moggridgea, 234 n.8 Pieris: P. brassicae caught by Araujia sericofera, 107 & 109 n.4; P. napi, A. Weismann believes dimorphism caused by temperature change, 175 n.6 pigeons: CD suggests G.J. Romanes uses for experiments to prove pangenesis, 487 & 487–8 n.2 Piggot, Horatio: recommends drawings of coralproducing zoophytes in any future edition of Coral reefs, 113 & 114 n.1, 114 & n.2 Pinguicula: causes milk to curdle, 228 & n.5; W.T. Thiselton-Dyer communicates CD’s work to Royal Horticultural Society’s Scientific Committee, 518–19 & 519 n.8 Der Pionier (Leipzig): E. von Hesse-Wartegg, profile of CD, 365 & n.1; Insectivorous plants, review [E.v. Hesse-Wartegg], 320 & 321 n.2 Plato, 226, 539 Playfair, Lyon: agrees to introduce vivisection bill in House of Commons, 153–4 & 154 n.1, 156 & n.3, 157 & n.2, 158 & n.2, 159 & n.2, 164 & n.2–3, 165 & nn.2–3, 167 & n.2, 167–8 & 168 n.2, 181 & nn.2 & 4, 183 & n.2, 188 & 189 n.2, 192 n.1, 196 & 197 n.2, 197 & nn.3 & 4, 198 & n.2, 581; E. Cardwell should be asked to introduce bill in

Index House of Lords, 167, 167 & 168 n.2; CD sends scientists’ draft bill, 165 & nn.2–3, 167 & n.2; CD thanks for copy of bill introduced to House of Commons, 188–9 & 189 n.2; CD thinks registration of unanaesthetised experiments will cause difficulties, 188–9 & 189 n.3, 196 & 197 n.5; CD threatens to repudiate bill because of exclusion of demonstration, 205 & n.3, 206 & nn.1–4, 206–7 & 207 nn.2–3; discusses draft bill with J.S. Burdon Sanderson, 156 & n.3, 164 & n.2, 167 n.2, 167–8 & 168 n.2, 181 & nn.2 & 4, 183 & n.2, 206 & n.3; discusses draft bill with T.H. Huxley, 153–4 & 154 n.1, 156 n.3, 221 & n.2; disclaims making changes to substance of bill, 206 & nn.1–2; will support J.D. Hooker when Kew estimates come before House of Commons, 143 & 144 n.5; introduces vivisection bill to House of Commons, 188 & 189 n.2, 192 n.1, 196–7 & 197 n.2, 197 & nn.3 & 4, 198 & n.2; Royal Commission on vivisection announced, 197 & n.3, 198 n.3, 206 & n.4; vivisection bill needs a more humanitarian preamble, 170 & 171 n.3; vivisection bill introduced to House of Commons unacceptable to scientists as it prohibits demonstration, 191–2 & 192 nn.1–3, 196–7 & 197 n.3, 198 & nn.2 & 4, 205 & n.3, 206 & nn.1–2, 206–7 & 207 nn.2–3, 445 & n.2 Playfair, Robert Lambert and Agnes: J.D. Hooker and H.A. Hooker plan to visit in Algeria, 55 & 56 n.10, 79 n.10, 110 & 111 n.6; W.H. Hooker visits in Algiers, 110 & n.2 Plotus (Anhinga), 330–1 & 331 n.5, 550 & n.5 Plüger, Eduard: T.H. Huxley thinks highly of paper on physical combustion, 154 & nn.3–4 Polack, Joel Samuel: infanticide among Maori, 158 & n.3 Polano, Machiel, 569 Polyzoa, 112 & 113 n.3 Pöppig, Eduard Friedrich: predicts extinction of Native Americans, 339 & 340 n.1 Populus euphratica: Arctic fossils, 88 & 92 n.6, 90, 525 & 527 n.6 potatoes: early ripening, 292 & 293 n.7; graft hybrids, CD updates information for Variation 2d ed., 267 & n.2; P.W. Magnus, graft-hybrid potatoes created by insertion of eye into a tuber, 23 & n.2; S. Newington’s crop from leaf and rootlets, 349 & 350 n.5; A. Reuter, graft-hybrid potatoes created by insertion of bud into tuber of another kind, 23 n.2; G.J. Romanes believes successful grafts from buds or pips would strengthen pangenesis hypothesis, 28 & 29 n.2; G.J. Romanes, experiments with grafting, 270 & 271 n.1, 378 &

787

379 n.4, 388 & 389 n.2, 432 & n.4; J. Sabine, wild potato, 292 & 293 n.6; variation in fruiting time, 292–3 & 293–4 n.7 & 17–19 Powell, Thomas: CD cannot recommend printing his paper on South Pacific atolls, 235–6 & 236 nn.1–5 Prestwich, Joseph: T.C. Brown suggests he publish scientific account of fossil coral reef, 186 & 187 n.6 Primula: grains of long- and short-styled forms, 101 & nn.1–3 Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: T. Meehan, ‘Are insects any material aid to plants in fertilisation?’, 417 n.5 Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London: F. Darwin elected FLS, 473 n.2, 482 n.3; G.J. Romanes elected FLS, 481 n.8, 482 n.5 Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: J. Fayrer and T.L. Brunton, physiological action of snake poison, 8 & 12 n.4 Pryor, Elizabeth Caroline: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43 Pryor, Marlborough Robert: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43 Pterostylis, 276 & 277 nn.2 & 4 Purpura (Bolinus), 507 & 509 n.3 Puvis, Marc-Antoine: extinction of varieties of vegetables, 372 & 373 n.3 Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science: F. Darwin, ‘Process of aggregation in the tentacles of Drosera rotundifolia’, 1 n.2 Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London: abstract of A. Tylor’s article removes references to pluvial period, 180 n.3 Quarterly Journal of the Microscopical Society: F. Darwin, proboscis of Ophideres fullonica, 333 n.3, 345 n.4 Quarterly Review: J.D. Hooker condemns for publishing anonymous insults to CD and G.H. Darwin, 31–2 & 32 n.3; St G.J. Mivart, in anonymous review, accuses G.H. Darwin of encouraging vice, 3 & 4 n.2, 7–8 & 8 nn.1–2, 22 n.1; J. Murray publishes, 32 n.3, 40 n.3; Origin, review [S. Wilberforce], 13 n.3; publishes G.H. Darwin’s letter refuting St G.J. Mivart’s accusations alongside unsigned reply by Mivart, 22 n.2; W. Smith, editor, 32 n.3, 33 & n.4 Quercus: Arctic fossils, 89 & 92 n.16, 91, 526 & 528 n.16 rabbits: CD bred for F. Galton’s experiments, 360 & 361 n.4; CD worked extensively on skeletons, 361 n.4; CD’s advice to A. Huth on experiments

788

Index

with interbreeding, 360 & 361 nn. 2–5; F. Galton’s experiments with transfusions to prove pangenesis, results inconclusive, 370–1 & 371 n.3, 371 & 372 n.7, 431 n.4; A. Huth reports J.B. Legrain’s findings, 326 & n.1, 327–8 & 328 nn.2 & 4, 360 & 361 n.2; J.B. Legrain’s experiments with interbreeding discredited by J. Crocq, 324 & n.2, 326 & nn.1–2, 327 & 328 nn.2–3, 328 & nn.2–3 & 5, 548 & n.2; J.B. Legrain sought to disprove theory that inbreeding produces albinism, 361 n.5; Variation 2d ed., effects of inbreeding, 324 n.2, 548 n.2 Radovanović, Milan: translates Origin into Serbian, 67 n.2 Rakić, Mita: translates J.W. Draper’s History of intellectual development into Serbian, 67 & n.2 Ralston, William Ralston Shedden-: CD asks to translate Russian diploma, 159 & n.3; CD’s trip to London delayed by snow, 476 & n.2; hopes to see CD in London, 472 & n.2, 473–4 & 474 n.2; identifies CD’s correspondent as Georgian, 472 & n.1, 473–4 & 474 n.1, 493 & 494 nn.1–2 Ramsay, Andrew Crombie: CD canvasses to support E.R. Lankester at second Linnean Society ballot, 484 & 485 n.8, 491 & 492 n.3; Royal Society polar expedition, glacial observations, 39 n.2; speaks at Royal Society dinner, 470 & 471 n.1 Ramsay, Edward Pierson, 485 n.8 Ratitae: W. Marshall believes to be degenerate form of Carinatae, 330 & 331 n.3, 550 & n.3; relation of feathers to Carinatae, 213 n.3, 535 n.3 Rayner, Frederick: greyhound breeding, 86–7 & 87 n.8 Reade, William Winwood, 161; death of, 152 n.2, 160 & n.2, 163; stayed with H. Sandwith while convalescing, 152 & n.2 Reale Accademia de’Lincei, Rome: elects CD foreign member, 466–7 & 467 nn.2–8, 561–2 & 562–3 nn.2–8 Regulus regulus (golden-crested wren): F. Darwin finds nest of, 178 & 179 n.5 Reichenbach, Karl von: ‘od force’, 86 & 87 n.2 Reinwald, Charles-Ferdinand: Insectivorous plants, cost of stereotypes, 249 & n.4; Insectivorous plants, CD sends J.V. Carus’s errata, 512 & 513 n.1; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 249 n.4 Rendall, Gerald Henry: fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, 393 & 394 n.8 Renshaw, Thomas Charles: dead bees found in flowers of Tritonia (Kniphofia), 405 & n.1 Retzius, Gustaf: CD thanks for his Anatomische Untersuchungen, 64 & n.1

Reuter, Alfred: graft-hybrid potatoes created by insertion of bud into tuber of another kind, 23 n.2 Revue scientifique: C. Bernard, lectures on physiology, 370 & 371 n.1 Rhododendron viscosum. See Azalea viscosa Rhŷs, John, 104–5 & 105 n.8 Riccardi, Paolo, 571 Richmond, duke of. See Gordon-Lennox, Charles Henry, duke of Richmond Riedel, Johan Gerard Friedrich: Minahasa people of north Celebes, unusual pigment, 243–4 & 244 nn.1–2; wonders whether practice of circumcision influences length of foreskin, 243 & 244 n.3 Riemann, Rudolph: experiments with crossing serin and canary substantiate CD’s account in Origin, 259–61 & 261–2 nn.2–4, 260–1, 543–4 & 544 nn.2–4 Riley, Charles Valentine: birds avoid brightly coloured caterpillars, 173 & 174 n.3, 174 & 175 n.8; cited in Descent 2d ed., 174 & 175 n.8; CD thanks for annual report on insects of Missouri, 209 & nn.2–3, 238 & 239 n.3; CD unable to see as at Abinger, 238 & 239 n.2; Insectivorous plants, expects large sales in US, 242 & n.2; travelled from US with L. Darwin, 239 n.2 Ritchie, Emily Marion, 127 & n.5 Robertson, George Croom: Mind, sends CD prospectus, 71 & n.2, 72 & nn.2–3 Robinia: Arctic fossils, 89 & 92 n.16, 91, 526 & 528 n.16 Rogers, Henry Darwin: marine origins of Glen Roy roads, 507 n.6 Rokitansky, Karl Freiherr von: president, Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, 286 & n.4, 545 & n.4, 570, 571 Rolfe, Robert Monsey, Lord Cranworth, 362 n.3 Rolleston, George: BAAS, address to anthropology section, 339–40 & 340 nn.1–2, 350 & 351 n.2; cites C. Wright on size of human brain, 350 & 351 n.5, 386 & 387 n.4; decline of native populations after conquest, xxii, 350 & 351 n.3; endorses CD’s view of similarity of human and simian brains, 339–40 & 340 n.3; hopes CD will not misconstrue his criticism of W. Bagehot, 339–40 & 340 nn.1–2, 350 & 351 nn.2–3; signs scientists’ petition for vivisection bill, 144–5 & 145 n.2, 146 & 147 n.8 Romanes, George John: carrots, sends CD ‘a beautifully successful’ graft carrot, xxi, 378, 431–2 & 432 n.2, 433–4, 434; cited in Variation 2d ed. on malformation of sternum in chickens, 434 & n.7; considers animal experiments to prove pangenesis, 131 & n.5, 284 & n.2, 487 & 487–8 n.2; CD

Index begs him not to mention vivisection before his ladies, 131 & n.5; CD confused by debate with F. Galton over pangenesis, 513; CD congratulates on work on medusae, 267 & n.7, 372 & n.8, 434 & n.5; CD enjoys letter to Nature about ferrets, 434 & n.6; CD hopes he will spend time at Naples Zoological Station, 56 & 57 n.5; CD invites to Down, 130 & 131 n.4; CD needs information on grafting for Variation 2d ed., 266–7 & 267 nn.2–4, 270 & 271 n.2; CD offers to send Insectivorous plants, 284 & n.3, 286; CD offers to send papers on graft-hybrid potatoes, 23 & n.2, 28 & 29 n.1; CD pleased with results of canvassing for E.R. Lankester, 487 & 488 n.3; CD proposes to Linnean Society, 371 & 372 nn.2 & 4, 378 & 379 n.2, 388 & 388–9 n.1; CD sends cutting from Nature on grafting of mangel-wurzels, 155 & 156 n.7; CD suggests he start animal experiments with pigeons, 487 & 487–8 n.2; CD will speed up his election to Linnean Society so that he can vote for E.R. Lankester, 481 & 482 n.5; experiments with graft hybrids to prove pangenesis, xxi, 28 & 29 nn.2–3, 127 & n.2, 130 & 131 nn.2–3, 155 n.3, 267 & nn.4 & 8, 269–71 & 271 n.1, 371 & 372 n.5, 378 & 379 n.4, 388 & 389 n.2, 431–2 & 432 n.2, 433–4, 434, 510 & n.4; J.D. Hooker receives warmly, 29 & n.4, 33 & 34 n.6, 270 & 271 n.3; hopes to borrow E. Haeckel’s work on medusae from CD, 510 & n.2, 513 & n.1; letters to Nature, 370 & 371 n.2, 371 & 372 n.3, 434 & n.6; Linnean Society, application proposed by CD, seconded by T.H. Huxley, 371 & 372 n.2, 378 & 379 n.2, 383 & 384 n.4, 388 & 388–9 n.1, 396 & n.5, 480, 481 & 482 n.5; Linnean Society, elected fellow, 481 n.8, 481 & 482 n.5; medusae, Croonian lecture to Royal Society on locomotive system, 487 & 488 n.5, 510 n.2; medusae, F. Galton praises his work, 464 & 465 n.3; medusae, paper read to Linnean Society, 378 & 379 n.3; medusae, papers given to Royal Society and Royal Institution, 372 & n.8; medusae, prepares article on new species, varieties and monstrosities, 510 & nn.2–3, 513; medusae, work on nervous system, 267 & n.7, 270 & 271 n.5, 286 & 286–7 nn.3–4, 372 & n.8, 378 & 379 n.3, 464 & 465 n.3; pangenesis, work on medusae has not led to neglect of grafting experiments, 510 & n.4, 513; potatoes, experiments with grafting, 378, 388 & 389 n.2, 432 & n.4; remarkable striped horse, 378–9 & 379 n.5, 388; E.L. Sturtevant’s paper on inheritance destitute of intelligible meaning, 154 & 155 nn.1, 4 & 6; L. Tait’s views on pangenesis, 155 & n.5; Variation, suggests change to passage about deformity of

789

sternum in chickens, 432 & n.5, 434 & n.7; Variation 2d ed., presentation, 371; visits Down House, xxi, 130 & 131 n.4, 155 & 156 n.8, 566 & 567 n.13 Rosa bracteata (Macartney rose): failure to flower, 280 & 281 n.2 Rosenstein, Siegmund, 569 Ross-Lewin, Robert O’Donelan: chaplain, HMS London, 517 n.7 Rost, Reinhold, 473 & 474 n.1 Rothery, Henry Cadogan: T.H. Farrer stays with, 265 & n.1 Roxburgh, William: Aldrovanda verticillata, 30 & n.7; Hibiscus tricuspis introduced to India from seeds sent to missionaries, 407 & n.2 Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh: Drosophyllum lusitanicum, J.D. Hooker arranges for plant to be sent to CD, 4 & 5 n.4, 12 & n.6, 14 & n.1, 16 & n.4; Drosophyllum has died due to damage in transit, 61 & 62 n.5, 69 & n.2 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Commissioner of Works has jurisdiction over, 26 n.2, 32 n.1, 56 n.5, 70 n.7, 79 n.11, 85 n.4, 111 n.7, 323 n.1, 323 n.2; CD receives plants of Cassia, 401 & 402 n.8; CD receives plants of Imantophyllum, 401 & 402 n.7; J.D. Hooker will resign if petition to open garden in the mornings is accepted, 78; Jodrell Laboratory, plans completed, 400 & n.7; location of herbarium, H. Gordon-Lennox obstructs J.D. Hooker’s plans, 321 & 323 n.3, 324 & 325 n.2; D. Oliver, keeper of the herbarium, 407 n.1; sends CD Clivia nobilis, 423 n.3; sends CD Imantophyllum cyrtanthiflorum and I. miniatum, 401 & 402 n.7, 404–5 n.2, 423 n.3; J. Smith, curator, 69 & n.2, 471 & 471–2 n.4; W.T. Thiselton-Dyer appointed assistant director, 233 & 234 n.2, 235 & n.3, 471 & 471–2 n.4, 492 n.15 Royal Commission on vivisection: appointment of, 197 & n.3, 198 n.3, 584; N. Baker, secretary, 428 & n.1, 445 & n.1; E. Cardwell, chairman, 424 n.1, 425 & 426 n.3, 583; CD gives evidence to, 424 & n.2, 425 n.2, 426 n.7, 427 n.4, 428 & nn.1–2, 432 & 433 n.2, 433 & 434 n.2, 445 & n.1, 566 & 567 n.27, 583–4, 590–1; CD invited to attend, 424 & nn.1–2, 424–5 & 425 nn.1–2, 425–6 & 426 nn.1 & 3, 427 & nn.3–4; CD sends scientists’ draft bill, 445 & nn.1–2; CD warns that doctors know little of physiology as a science, 205 & n.4; T.H. Huxley dismayed by E.E. Klein’s testimony, 425 & 426 n.2, 427 & n.2; T.H. Huxley, arrangements for CD’s appearance, 428 & nn.1–2 Royal Horticultural Society: W.T. Thiselton-Dyer communicates CD’s work on Pinguicula to Scientific Committee, 518 & 519 n.8

790

Index

Royal Institution of Great Britain: J.S. Burdon Sanderson, electrical phenomena associated with leaf contraction in Dionaea muscipula, 214 & 216 n.2; T.H. Huxley, ‘Some results of the Challenger expedition’, 55 & 56 n.9; G.J. Romanes, nervous system of the medusae, 287 n.4, 372 n.8 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA): T. Allen outlines possible collaboration with scientists on vivisection, 139–40 & 140 nn.1–4, 145 & nn.3 & 5; A. Ashley-Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, vice-president, 167 n.3; E. Cardwell, vice-president, 154 n.1, 167 n.3; F.P. Cobbe petitions to restrict vivisection, 6 n.3, 27 & 28 nn.1–5, 579; J. Colam, secretary, 169 & n.3; CD’s health prevents him from attending meeting to discuss vivisection, 178; decides not to support F.P. Cobbe’s proposals, 166 n.3, 168 n.3, 169 n.1; headquarters in Jermyn Street, 165 & 166 n.1; invites medical men to discuss society’s vivisection bill, 169 & n.1, 178; D. Ryder, earl of Harrowby, president, 169 & n.2; W. Shaen visits CD to discuss society’s position on vivisection, 135 & 136 n.2; willing to cooperate with scientists on vivisection bill, 167–8 & 168 n.3, 169 & n.1 Royal Society of London: anniversary dinner, 463 n.2, 470 n.2, 470–1 & 471 n.1; Challenger expedition, 56 nn.6–8; W.B. Clarke, CD asked to nominate as fellow, 468–9 & 469 n.1; J. Croll, CD nominates for fellowship, 478 & n.2; CD agrees to present L. Tait’s paper on Nepenthes, 401, 401 & 401–2 n.2, 417 & n.2, 458 & n.2, 462 & n.2, 464 & n.2, 465 & n.1, 465 & 466 n.2, 468 & n.2, 470 & n.1; CD hopes not to be asked to adjudicate L. Tait’s paper, 469 & 470 n.4, 471 & n.3; CD sends G. Jäger’s book on Darwinian theory, 48; donates £100 to Naples Zoological Station, 44; F. Galton borrows Revue scientifique, 370, 372; A. Hofmann awarded Copley Medal, 471 n.1; J.D. Hooker attends 13 committees, 26 & n.9; J.D. Hooker delays holiday until after election of fellows, 78; J.D. Hooker, president, 4 & n.6, 4 & 5 n.5, 7 & n.1, 26 & n.9, 69 n.3, 78 & 79 n.15, 141 & 142 n.4, 143 & 144 n.1, 144–5 & 145 n.2, 146 & n.3, 170 n.2, 396 n.4; J.D. Hooker, presidential addresses, 4 & n.6, 4 & 5 n.5, 463 & n.2, 469 & 470 n.2, 470–1 & 471 n.1; T.H. Huxley, secretary, 7 & n.1, 26 & 27 n.10, 36 n.1, 465 n.1, 425 & 426 n.2; J.W. Judd, CD asked to support application, 513–14 & 514 nn.1–3; June reception, 234 & 235 n.11; A.H. Lane Fox, CD endorses application, 39 & 40 n.1; E.R. Lankester, fellow, 471 & 472 n.7, 492 & n.13; C. Lyell’s burial in Westminster Abbey, fellows sign petition, 77 & 79 n.3; T.

Oldham awarded Royal Medal, 471 n.1; Philosophical Club strongly opposed to blackballing, 484 & 485 n.7; Polar Committee, CD suggests glacial phenomena naturalists might investigate, 36 & 36–7 n.1, 38–9 & 39 nn.2–5; G.J. Romanes, Croonian lecture on locomotive system of medusae, 487 & 488 n.5; W. Spottiswoode, treasurer, 27 n.10, 77 & 79 n.3; G.G. Stokes, secretary, 26 & 27 n.10, 465 n.1, 470 & 471 n.1; L. Tait, ‘Anatomy of the umbilical cord’, 122 & 123 n.3, 222 & n.6; L. Tait’s paper on pitcher plants rejected, 392 n.1, 463 n.4; W. White, assistant secretary and librarian, 5 n.5 Ruck family: enjoy reading I.L. Bird’s books about Hawaii, 171 & 171 & 173 n.7 Ruck, Arthur Ashley, 473 & n.6 Ruck, Lawrence: lends F. Darwin skates, 476 & 477 n.3; slate quarry, 473 & n.6 Rüdinger, Nicolaus: regeneration of lost limbs in lower vertebrates, 49–50 & 50 n.3, 524 & n.3 Rugitermes rugosus. See Calotermes rugosus Russell, Mr: sends CD R.D. Fitzgerald’s Australian orchids, 239 & n.2, 267, 276 & 277 n.1 Russell, Arthur: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43 Rütimeyer, Ludwig: CD thanks for his Veränderungen, 282 & n.1; F.B. Goodacre’s proposed museum of domestic animals of interest to, 72 & 73 n.2 Ryder, Dudley, earl of Harrowby: president, RSPCA, chairs meeting of vivisection committee and medical men, 169 & n.2 Sabine, Joseph: wild potato, 292 & 293 n.6 Sachs, Julius: CD sends textbook of botany to W.T. Thiselton-Dyer, 142–3 & 143 n.2; CD’s theory of descent laid foundations for a new era in history of botany, 249 & 250 n.5, 539 & 540 n.5; demonstrated that carbonic acid is secreted by plant roots, 363 & 364 n.2; dissolution of marble by maize roots, 250 & 251 n.8, 540 & n.8; embryo’s powers of absorption, 250 & 251 n.7, 540 & 541 n.7; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 249 & 250 n.2, 539 & 540 n.2; insectivorous plants, repeats CD’s experiments and confirms findings, 441–2 & 443 n.5, 442, 559 & 560 n.5; Lehrbuch der Botanik discusses M. Traube’s research on cell formation, 93 & 95 nn.4–5, 94, 528 & 529 nn.4–5; Neottia, roots secrete fluid capable of detaching organic substances, 250 & 251 n.9, 540 & 541 n.9; sends CD articles from Würzburg Botanical Institute, 249 & 250 nn.3–4, 539 & 540 nn.3–4; works on Lehrbuch and history of botany, 249 & 250 n.4, 539 & 540 n.4

Index Sairocarpus coulterianus. See Antirrhinum coulterianum salamander: regeneration of amputated foreleg, 50 & n.3, 524 & n.3 Salisburia, 376 & n.5, 554 & 554–5 n.5 Sallier de la Tour, Vittorio: hairiness of the Ainu, 107 & n.1 Salmon, John Drew, 120 & n.3 Salvin, Osbert: birds of the Galápagos archipelago, 331–2 & 332 n.1; CD canvasses to support E.R. Lankester in second Linnean Society ballot, 484 & 485 n.6 Sandwith, Humphrey: informs CD of W.W. Reade’s death, 160 & n.1, 163; W.W. Reade stays with during final illness, 152 & n.1 Sandwith, Lucy Anne: W.W. Reade stays with, 152 & n.1 Sarracenia: CD discussed in Insectivorous plants, 149 n.1; J.D. Hooker notes resemblance to Dischidia, 148 & 149 n.1; L. Tait’s sewage theory, 232 & n.6, 469 & 470 n.6; S. drummondii (S. leucophylla) catches moths, 142 & n.6; S. variolaris, scent, 380 & 381 n.4 Sarraceniaceae: A. de Candolle described in Prodromus, 272 & n.4, 544 & 545 n.4 Saturday Review: ‘Mr Dawkins on the Basques’ (unsigned), 104 & 105 n.7 Savile Club, 320 & 321 n.3 Saxifraga: some species can absorb carbonate of ammonia, 403 & 404 n.5 Sayce, Archibald Henry, 104–5 & 105 n.8 Scaeva: A.W. Malm resolves taxonomy of, 45 & 46 nn.6–7 Schacht, Hermann: morphology of plant cells, 390 & 391 n.6, 556 & 556–7 n.6 Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von, 226 & n.2, 538 & 539 n.2 Schiff, Moritz: cited in Insectivorous plants on physiology of digestion, 228 & n.33 Schleiden, Matthias Jacob: plant and animal cells, 389 & 391 n.5, 555 & 556 n.5 Schmidt, Oskar: willing to contribute to Darwinia, 219 n.4, 537 n.4 Schöbel, Josef: mice, sensitivity of hair of ears, 224 & 225 n.6, 228 n.5 Schrankia aculeata (?Mimosa quadrivalvis var. latidens), 377 & 377–8 n.4; new to CD, 379 Schreiner, Carl, 507 Schultze, Fritz: CD regrets his German is not up to reading metaphysics, 228–9 & 229 n.2; Kant und Darwin, E. Haeckel sends to CD, xxiv, 222–3 &223 n.2, 229 & n.4, 537–8 & 538 n.2; sends CD his Kant und Darwin, 226 & n.4, 228–9 & 229 n.2, 538–9 & 539 n.4

791

Schulze, Franz Eilhard: article on rhizopods, 113 & n.5 Schweinfurth, Georg August: fossil seeds of Diospyros, 88 & 92 n.11, 90, 526 & 528 n.11 E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung: CD’s collected works, xxiv, 50 & 51 nn.3 & 5, 68 n.2; Insectivorous plants, German ed., 249 n.5; E. Koch head of, 48 & 49 n.1, 241 n.1, 398 n.3, 497 n.14, 506 n.5 Science Gossip: L. Tait’s lecture on tails, 323 n.4 Sclater, Philip Lutley: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 44; secretary, Zoological Society, CD canvasses to support E.R. Lankester, 484 & 485 n.6; will raise Linnean Society’s blackballing E.R. Lankester at Philosophical Club, 484 & 485 n.7 Scott, William Henry: power of reasoning in dogs, 450–1 & nn.2–3 Scott, William Robson: supplied CD and G.H. Darwin with information, 451 & n.2 Sedgwick, Adam, 469 & n.2; CD recollects accompanying on geological tour of Wales, 201–2 & 202 nn.1–9; wrote to CD on receiving Origin, 202 & n.9 Sedgwick, Sara Price Ashburner: L. Darwin meets, 386 & 387 n.6 Segrave, W.F.: indigenous peoples of Sakhalin (Ainu), hairiness, 207 & 207–8 nn.1–3 Seidlitz, Georg von: supports Darwinia, 219 n.4, 537 n.4; CD thanks for Die Darwin’sche Theorie, 2d ed., 282 & 283 n.1 Sella, Quintino: Reale Accademia de’Lincei elects CD as foreign member, 466–7 & 467 nn.2–8, 474 & n.1, 561–2 & 562–3 nn.2–8 Semper, Carl Gottfried: believes in annelid origins of vertebrates, 54 & n.7, 211 n.4 Serinus: S. hortulanus (S. serinus), R. Riemann crosses with Dryospiza canaria, 259–6 & 261–2 n.3, 260–1, 543 & 544 n.3; S. canaria. See Dryospiza canaria Severtsov, Nikolai Alekseevich: ‘an awful Russian bore’, 361 & n.6; CD attempted to stop visit, 361 n.1; sends CD account of his travels in Tian-shan mountains, 374 & 375 n.2; Turdus, modifications of, 374 & 375 n.5; visits Down House, xxv, 354–5 & 355 n.2, 375 n.2, 566 & 567 n.23; would like CD to include his monograph on wild sheep in new edition of Variation, 374 & 375 n.4 Shaen & Roscoe: solicitors assisting RSPCA on vivisection bill, 139 & 140 n.2 Shaen, William: has records of Jamaica Committee, 452; sees CD to explain RSPCA’s position on vivisection, 135–6 & 136–7 n.3, 140 n.2

792

Index

Shaftesbury, earl of. See Ashley-Cooper, Anthony, earl of Shaftesbury Sharpey, William, 137 & n.5; vivisection bill, L. Playfair says he agreed to his draft, 221 & n.2 Sibson, Francis: J.D. Hooker’s family physician, 110 & 111 n.6 Sidgwick, Henry: attends séance hosted by H. Wedgwood, 125 & n.5; interest in psychic phenomena, 60–1 & 61 n.5, 328 & n.5 Siebold, Karl Theodor Ernst von: differences between plant and animal cells, 389–90 & 391 n.6, 555–6 & 556–7 n.6 Siegel, Heinrich: general secretary, Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, 286 & n.4, 545 & n.4 Simon, John: approves draft vivisection bill, 141 & 142 n.2, 581; medical officer of Privy Council, sends CD report, 274 & 275 n.5; suggests CD sees Lord Derby on vivisection bill, 138 & n.3, 141 & 142 n.2 Simpkin, Marshall & Co.: double their order of Insectivorous plants, 276 & n.3 Simpson, James Young: apparent regrowth of amputated limbs in human foetuses, 317 & n.3 Sipunculus nudus: R.E. Lankester studies histology of, 57 n.3 Siredon mexicanus (axolotl), 474–5 & 475 n.1 Sitzungsbericht der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin: P.W. Magnus, graft-hybrid potatoes created by insertion of eye into a tuber, 23 & n.2 skunks: do not need obscure coloration because they can spray assailants with foetid fluid (T. Belt), 103 & n.3 Smee, Alfred: fertilisation of Angraecum, 364 & 365 n.4 Smith, Elder & Co.: Coral reefs, 2d ed., send CD £2.8s.10d. as profit on sales, 426–7 & 427 nn.1–2; publish Geological observations, 2d ed., 497 n.14 Smith, Frederick: appointed deputy keeper of zoology at British Museum, 51 & 52 n.2; CD congratulates on appointment, 59 & n.3; identified F. Müller’s bees for H. Müller, 359 n.5, 553 n.5 Smith, John: curator, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 69 & n.2, 471 & 471–2 n.4 Smith, Samuel: consanguineous marriage and deaf-mutism, letter to The Times, 120 & 121 n.5 Smith, Timothy, 311 n.2 Smith, Walter Joseph: polydactyl, 310 & 311 n.2 Smith, William: editor of Quarterly Review, J.D. Hooker will give cold shoulder for publishing slanders against G.H. Darwin, 31–2 & 32 n.3 Smith, William Henry: financial secretary to the Treasury, assures J.D. Hooker that his application

for an assistant will be processed soon, 55 & 56 n.5; J.D. Hooker complains about conduct of H. Gordon-Lennox, 79 n.12; Treasury had no knowledge of J.D. Hooker’s formal application for an assistant, 25 & 26 n.3; vivisection bill, believes there will be no action this session, 136 & 137 n.8 Society of Naturalists of Modena: elects CD honorary fellow, 571 Socrates, 226, 539; function of eyelashes, 80, 81 Sorby, Henry Clifton: colour of peacocks’ feathers, 494 & 494–5 nn.2–3; electroscopic analysis of pigment, 329 & 330 n.6 Sowerby, George Brettingham: CD sees to canvass support for E.R. Lankester, 484 & 485 n.2 Spectator: CD dismisses review of F. Galton’s study of twins (‘always muddles if it is possible to muddle’), 447 & 448 n.3; Insectivorous plants, review (L. Tait), 273 & 274 n.3, 288 & n.4, 317 & 318 n.2; L. Tait, ‘Pitcher-plants’, 417 & n.3; uses L. Tait’s paper on insectivorous plants to attack natural selection, 237 & nn.2–3 Spencer, Herbert, 351 & 352 n.3; advises J.D. Hooker against writing to St G.J. Mivart, 14 & n.2, 16 & n.2; cited in first printing of Variation, 112 & n.2; A. Comte, differences with, 452–3 n.5; CD comments on positivists’ hatred of men of science, 452 & 452–3 n.5; defends scientists against slurs of J.H. Bridges, 452 & n.1; definition of biology, 356–7 n.6, 552 n.6; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 256 & n.1; Insectivorous plants, surprised at extent of research, given CD’s health, 256; Jamaica Committee, CD subscribed to, 452 & nn.2 & 4; Principles of biology, 256 & n.2; speculative approach to evolution, 84 n.11; ‘survival of the fittest’ coined by, 452 n.1; O. Turner fond of reading, 110 & n.4 Spiranthes: S. australis (S. sinensis), self-pollination, 364 & 365 n.5 Spottiswoode, William: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43; J.D. Hooker praises work at Royal Society, 26 & 27 n.10; Royal Society, treasurer, 27 n.10, 77 & 79 n.3 Sprengel, Christian Konrad: orchids are ‘false-nectar flowers’ because nectaries contain no fluid, 131 & 132 n.6, 533 & n.6; role in foundation of biology, 356, 551 Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn: dean of Westminster Abbey, 77 & 79 n.3 Stanley, Edward Henry, earl of Derby: acknowledges CD’s letter and forwards to home secretary, 150 & n.1, 169–70 & 170 n.1, 170; CD might call on to promote vivisection bill, 138 & n.3,

Index 141 & 142 n.2; CD praises inaugural address as rector of Edinburgh University calling for endowments for science, 492 & 492–3 n.15; CD sends scientists’ draft vivisection bill, 144–5 & 145 nn.1–5, 146 & n.2, 582; foreign secretary, expected to be sympathetic to scientists’ vivisection bill, 136 & 137 n.6, 138 & n.4 Stanley, John Thomas: polydactyl, 295 & 297 n.5 Stanley, Mary Catherine, countess of Derby: CD discussed J.D. Hooker’s problems at Kew with, 137 n.6; hoped to visit CD, xxv, 361 & n.1; stayed at Holwood House, 361 n.3 Statistical Society of London: G.H. Darwin, paper on consanguineous marriage, 120–1 n.4 Steudel, Ernst Gottlieb: Nomenclator botanicus, 410 n.8 Stipa: H. Darwin makes a hygrometer from, xxii, 409 & n.5; use as a hygrometer, 409 & 409–10 n.6, 414 & 415 Stokes, George Gabriel: colour of peacocks’ feathers, 494 & 494–5 nn.2–3, 502 & n.2; J.D. Hooker praises work at Royal Society, 26 & 27 n.10; secretary, Royal Society, 26 & 27 n.10, 465 n.1; speaks at Royal Society anniversary dinner, 470 & 471 n.1 Storer, John: CD exaggerated interbreeding of Chillingham cattle, 381–2 & 382 nn.2–5 Story-Maskelyne, Nevil: asks CD to support J.W. Judd’s application to Royal Society, 513–14 & 514 nn.1–3 Story-Maskelyne, Thereza Mary: CD asks to ensure J. Dillwyn Llewellyn’s support for E.R. Lankester at second Linnean Society ballot, 484 & 485 n.5, 514 & n.4; sent CD observations on canary and siskin attacking primroses, 514 & n.4 Strachey, Richard: travels to Paris and Pyrenees with J.D. Hooker, 143 & 144 n.2, 234 & n.4 Strahan, Alexander Stuart: publisher, Contemporary Review, 58 n.5 Strickland, Sefton West: CD seconds application to Athenaeum, 125 & 126 n.1, 127 & 128 n.2 Strutt, John William: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43 & 44 n.4 Stuart, Andrew John: unusual striped horse and domestication of wildfowl in southern India, 351–2 & 352 nn.1–6 Stubbs, William, 104 & 105 n.4 Sturtevant, Edward Lewis: Law of inheritance, G.J. Romanes finds his arguments confused, 154 & 155 nn.1, 4 & 6 Sulivan, Bartholomew James: G.S. Nares speaks warmly of, 55 & 56 n.7; retires to a house he has built in Bournemouth, 516–17 & 517 n.2

793

Sulivan, George Lydiard: dismissed from HMS London for objecting to chaplain’s ritualistic practices, 517 & nn.6–7 Sulivan, Sophia: sends regard to E. Darwin, 517 & n.8 Sulivan, Thomas Baker Martin Mason: captain, HMS London, 517 n.7 Sully, James: CD thanks for Sensation and intuition, 503 & n.1 Sunday Lecture Society: L. Tait lectures on insectivorous plants, 273 & 274 n.4 Swan, Isabella Stuart, 183 n.8 Swayne, George, 292 & 293 n.10 Swinhoe, Robert: N.A. Severtsov leaves specimens with, 374 & 375 n.5 Sygnanthus typhle (Syphonostoma typhle): A.H. Malm’s dissertation, 45 & 46 n.4 Sylvester, James Joseph: visits Down House, 566 & 567 n.24 Syme, John: amputated A. Chambers’s extra digit, 299 & 300 n.4, 301 & n.3, 307 & 308 n.6, 315 & 316 n.4, 317 & n.2 Syphonostoma typhle. See Sygnanthus typhle Tait, Lawson, xxv–xxvi, 215; Aldrovanda, seeks information on fly catching, 231–2 & 232 n.5, 232; CD advises on experiments, 220 & 220–1 n.2, 222 n.2, 283 & n.5, 287 & n.4, 288 & n.2, 290 & n.3; CD agrees to present paper on Nepenthes to Royal Society, 392 & nn.1–2, 396 & n.2, 398, 399–400 & 400 n.3, 401 & n.2, 401 & 401–2 n.2, 417 & n.2, 458 & n.2, 462 & n.2, 464 & n.2, 465 & n.1, 465 & 466 n.2, 468 & n.2, 469 & 470 n.4, 470 & n.1; CD approves note for Nature, 285 & n.3, 287 & n.2; CD commends findings on pepsin-like substance in Drosera dichotoma, 232 & n.4; CD considers a ‘coarse, impudent fellow’, though some of his ideas may be valuable, 401; CD doubtful of his chemistry, 469 & 470 n.5; CD hopes he will not have to adjudicate paper on Nepenthes for Royal Society, 469 & 470 n.4, 471 & n.3; CD hopes to meet in London but he would prefer to come to Down, 121 & n.2, 122 & 123 n.2, 123; CD questions whether virgin Nepenthes pitchers could have contained droserin, 317 & 318 n.3, 323 & n.2; CD sends transcript of N. Rüdinger’s talk on regeneration of lost limbs, 50 n.3, 524 n.3; CD suggests sources on function of tails in mice, 220 & 221 n.4, 224 & 225 n.6; F. Darwin writes on CD’s behalf, returning samples of droserin, xxvi, 290 & n.2; development of ovarian cysts can only be accounted for by pangenesis, 111 & 111–12 nn.3–4; Dionaea, experiments, 214 & 216

794

Index

nn.2–3, 220 & 220–1 nn.2 & 6, 222 & n.2, 230 & 231 n.4, 288 & n.3; Dischidia rafflesiana, wonders if CD has seen it, 453 & 454 n.2; Drosera, glandular secretions, 226 & 227 nn.2–3; Drosera, isolates ‘droserin’ in digestive fluid, 232 n.4, 273 & 274 n.5, 469 & 470 n.5; Drosera binata (D. dichotoma), seeks to obtain, 273, 283 & n.4; droserin, properties, 435 & 436 n.2, 454; droserin, seeks Greek term to describe, 435–6 & 436 n.3, 454 & n.3; insectivorous plants, lectures to Sunday Lecture Society, 273 & 274 n.4; insectivorous plants, paper given to Birmingham Natural History Society, 220 & 221 n.6, 221 n.6, 222 & n.3, 230 & n.4, 237 & nn.2–4; insectivorous plants, published papers, 230 & n.5; Insectivorous plants, eagerly awaits, 230 & n.3; Insectivorous plants, reviews in Spectator, 273 & 274 n.3, 317 & 318 n.2, 323 & n.1; lecture includes eulogy to CD, 468 & n.4; meets A.W. Bennett, 468 & n.3; Nature, note on insectivorous plants, 221 n.6, 222 n.3, 237 & n.4, 274 n.5, 285 & n.3, 287 & n.2, 318 n.3, 323 & n.2, 462 n.3; Nepenthes, CD advises on experiments, 283 & n.5, 287 & n.4, 288 & n.2, 290 & n.3, 317 & 318 n.3, 462 & n.3; Nepenthes, claims to have separated ferment of secretion, 285 & n.2, 287 & n.5; Nepenthes, experiments on, 273 & 274 n.5, 283 & n.5, 288 & n.2, 318 n.3, 323 & n.2, 469 & 470 n.5; Nepenthes, isolates droserin from active secretions, 288 & 289 n.7, 318 n.3, 323 & n.2; Nepenthes, paper for Royal Society, 392 & nn.1–2, 396 & nn.1–2, 398, 399–400 & 400 n.3, 401 & n.2, 401 & 401–2 n.2, 417 & n.2, 458 & n.2, 462 & 463 n.4, 464 & nn.3–4, 464 & n.3, 465 & n.1, 465 & 466 nn.2 & 4, 467, 468 & n.2, 470 & n.1; origin and use of tails, 102 & nn.2–5, 103 & nn.1–5, 109 & nn.2–5, 134 & nn.4–5, 214, 220 & 221 n.4, 224 & 225 n.6, 231 & 232 n.3; origin and uses of tails, paper given to Birmingham Natural History Society, 102 & n.5, 109 & n.2, 232 n.3, 323 & n.4; origin and uses of tails, quotes CD’s letter in article in Hardwick’s Science Journal, 111 & 112 n.5, 114 & 115 n.3; origins of parental assistance to the young, 354 & nn.2–3, 355 & nn.1–4; Pathology and treatment of diseases of the ovaries endorses pangenesis, 111 & n.2, 114 & n.2 155 & n.5; performs ovariotomies, 323 & n.3; pitcher plants, article in Spectator, 417 & n.3; Royal Society, CD agrees to submit paper on Nepenthes, 392 & nn.1–2, 396 & n.2, 398, 399–400 & 400 n.3, 401 & n.2, 401 & 401–2 n.2, 417 & n.2, 458 & n.2, 462 & n.2, 464 & n.2, 465 & n.1, 465 & 466 n.2, 468 & n.2, 470 & n.1; Royal Society, paper on umbilical cord may facilitate membersip, 222 & n.6; Royal Society rejects paper on Nepenthes, 392 n.1,

463 n.4, 464 n.4; Sarracenia, sewage theory, 232 & n.6; sends CD newspaper cutting bracketing their names, 231 & 232 n.2; sends CD samples of droserin, 288 & 289 n.7, 290 & n.2; sends CD slide of ferns showing erchitism, 288 & 289 n.6, 290; Spectator, paper on pitcher plants, 417 & n.3; Spectator uses his lecture on insectivorous plants to attack natural selection, 237 & nn.2–3; spiral growth of the umbilical cord, paper given to Royal Society, 122 & 123 n.3; substances required for digestion, 465, 468; visits Down House, 130 & 131 n.4, 133–4 & 134 n.2, 214 & 216 n.5, 401, 566 & 567 n.13; will send CD’s son some of his work on histology, 227 & 228 n.4; yaks’ tails, 103 & nn.4–5, 109 & n.5 Tait, Sybil Anne, 464 & n.4; corrects L. Tait’s proofs and offers help with CD’s, 222 & n.5, 224 & n.4 Talipariti hastatum. See Hibiscus tricuspis Taylor, Isaac: Etruscan researches, review in Athenaeum, 104 & 105 n.7 Teck, duke of. See Francis, duke of Teck Teesdale, Ellen Augusta, 505 & n.4 Teesdale, Frances Maria, 505 & n.4 Teesdale, John Marmaduke: moves into Down Hall with his family, 504 & 505 n.4 Teesdale, Julia, 505 & n.4 Teesdale, Maria, 505 & n.4 Teesdale, Marmaduke John: lunches at Down House with his father, 505 n.4 Tegetmeier, William Bernhard: CD thanks for review of Insectivorous plants, 314 & n.3; CD wonders whether Eclipse’s speed has been exceeded, 314 & n.2, 318 & n.2; editor, Field, 318 n.4; health, 318 & 319 n.6; pheasants, offspring of crosses, 318 & 319 n.5; skull of Mexican cuino was a pig, 354 n.2 thallophytes: CD greatly interested in W.T. Thiselton-Dyer’s paper, 423 & n.6 Thelymitra: closed flowers, 276 & 277 n.5 Thiselton-Dyer, William Turner 270 & 271 n.4: appointed assistant director, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 144 n.5, 233 & 234 n.2, 235 & n.3, 300 & n.4, 471 & 471–2 n.4, 492 n.15; citronorange, sends CD illustrations of, 376; Climbing plants 2d ed., presentation, 383 & 384 n.1; CD asks for assistance in experiments on Monochaetum eurifolium, 383 & 384 n.5; CD invites to Down House, 256 & n.2, 268 & n.1; CD looks forward to future experiments, xviii, 383 & 384 n.5; CD offers seeds collected by his son in Switzerland, 403 & 404 n.4; CD reports progress of gathering support for E.R. Lankester, 491–2 & 492–3 nn.2–114 & 16; CD sends G. King’s note about

Index Paritium, 411 & 412 n.1; CD sends J. Sachs’s textbook of botany, 142–3 & 143 n.2; CD thanks for information about Imantophyllum, 403 & 403–4 n.2; CD thanks for paper on sexual reproduction of thallophytes, 423 & n.6; F. Darwin’s application to Linnean Society, 295 & n.2; F. Darwin’s experiments on hygroscopic powers of awned seeds, 403 & 404 n.3; F. Darwin hopes for scrap of Byblis, 470 & n.7, 471 & 471–2 n.4; erineum, sends F. Darwin samples, 473 & n.4; examines at Cambridge, 473; experiments on movement of plants, 179 n.6; Geum, sends CD seeds collected in Switzerland, 377 & n.3, 379, 383 & 384 n.3; Hibiscus, sport of H. tricuspis is identical with H. tiliaceus, 407 & nn.1–3; J.D. Hooker seeks to appoint as assistant director, 25 & 26 n.3, 61 & 62 n.5, 123 & 124 n.7; J.D. Hooker’s part-time secretary (1872–4), 110 & 111 n.7; Imantophyllum cyrtanthiflorum is a hybrid, 404 & 404–5 n.2, 412; Insectivorous plants persuades that plants digest, 300 & n.2; island plants tend to produce heteromorphic leaves, 407 & 408 n.4, 412 & n.4; G. King’s note on Paritium sent to CD and then to Linnean Society, 402 n.5, 422 & 423 n.3; K.H.E. Koch, hybrid aroids, 377 & n.2, 379 & n.1, 383 & 384 n.7; proposed E.R. Lankester for fellowship of Linnean Society but outvoted by ‘beasts of the British Museum’, xxvi–xxvii, 471 & 472 n.5; life ‘a complete scrimmage’, 473; Nepenthes, researches digestive processes, 396 n.2, 470 n.6; G.J. Romanes, application to Linnean Society, 378 & 379 n.2, 396 & n.5; Royal Horticultural Society’s Scientific Committee, communicates CD’s work on Pinguicula, 518 & 519 n.8; Schrankia aculeata, 377 & 377–8 n.4; sends CD books and references, 289 & n.1; suggests J.H. Gilbert contact CD, 294 & n.1; Variation, notes on, 289, 291–3 & 293–4 nn.1–19; visits Down House, 566 & 567 n.18 Thomasson, Beatrice, 120 & n.4 Thomasson, Franklin, 120 & n.4 Thomasson, John Pennington: Muscicapa grisola and M. luctosa, concealment of nests varies, 119–20 & 120 nn.1–3; offspring of consanguineous marriage have increased likelihood of deaf-mutism, 120 & 120–1 n.4 Thomasson, Katharine, 120 & n.4 Thomasson, Lucas, 120 & n.4 Thompson, Joseph Parrish: sends CD address on Lucretius and St Paul, 495 & n.1 Thomson, Charles Wyville: head of civilian scientists on Challenger expedition, 53 n.8, 152 n.4, 192 n.4; G.S. Nares speaks warmly of, 55 & 56 n.7

795

Thomson, William, archbishop of York: presents F.P. Cobbe’s petition against vivisection to House of Lords, 27 & 28 n.3 Thozet, Anthelme: sent CD Ophideres fullonica, 333 n.1 The Times: S. Smith, letter on link betweeb consanguineous marriage and deaf-mutism, 120 & 121 n.5 Town, Daniel: carpenter in Down, 133 & n.3 Tradescantia: pigment hairs are blue, 329 & 330 n.7 Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh: W. Bell, a sport of Hibiscus tricuspis, 406 n.3 Transactions of the Entomological Society of London: J.J. Weir, caterpillars’ colour and edibility to birds, 173 & n.2, 175 & 176 n.14 Transactions of the Geological Society of London: ‘Distribution of erratic boulders’ and ‘Volcanic phenomena and the formation of mountain chains’, 496 & 497 n.15 Transactions of the Horticultural Society of London: J. Goss, influence of pollen on seed colour of peas, 293 n.10; J. Sabine, wild potato, 292 & 293 n.6 Transactions of the Linnean Society: F. Brotero, Araujia sericofera, 107 & 108–9 n.2; W. Griffith, papers on Dischidia, 147 n.3, 148 & 149 n.1 Traube, Moritz: sends CD his papers on artificial cells, 93–4 & 95 nn.2–5, 94, 95 & n.1, 528–9 & 529 nn.2–5 Treat, Mary: new growth of Utricularia resembles animal vascular system, 62–3 & 63 nn.1–2 Trench, John Power: operated on A.E. Lane Fox’s finger, 295 & 297 n.3 Trigona limao (Lestrimelitta limao), 357 & 359 n.4, 553 n.4 Tritonia (Kniphofia): dead bees found in corolla, 405 & nn.1–2 Tritonium (Buccinum), 507 & 509 n.3 Trochus, 507 & 509 n.3 Turdus, 374 & 375 n.5 Turner, Mr: habitual movements of horned cattle, 381 & n.1 Turner, Dawson Fyers Duckworth: lives with J.D. Hooker, 110 & n.3 Turner, Dawson William: J.D. Hooker’s late uncle, 110 n.3 Turner, Effie Elizabeth: lives with J.D. Hooker, 110 & n.3, 234 & n.5 Turner, Ophelia: lives with J.D. Hooker, 110 & n.3, 234 & n.5 Turner, William: comments on scientists’ draft vivisection bill, 138 & n.5 Turpie, Roger: plan of Funafuti, 236 & n.4

796

Index

Tylor, Alfred: postulates pluvial period, 179–80 & 180 n.3; visits Down House, 179 & 180 n.1, 566 & 567 n.15 Tylor, Anna Rebecca: thinks of translating A.E. Brehm’s Illustrirtes Thierleben, 41 & n.3 Tylor, Edward Burnett: CD endorses A.H. Lane Fox’s application to Royal Society, 39 & 40 n.1; CD names St G.J. Mivart as author of malicious attack in Quarterly Review, xviii, 40 & n.2; his brother would like to bring Lord Young to visit CD, 179 & 180 n.1; St G.J. Mivart’s methods are Jesuitical, 40–1 & 41 n.2 Tyndall, John: advises J.D. Hooker against writing to St G.J. Mivart, 14 & n.2, 16 & n.2; CD helps with experiments on spontaneous generation, 408 & n.2, 417 & 418 n.3, 420 & n.3; E. Darwin invites to Down, 385–6 & 386 n.2; F. Darwin will help with experiments, 420 & nn.2–3; dispute with H.C. Bastian over spontaneous generation, 408 n.2; opposed prosecution of E.J. Eyre, 452 n.4; praises J.D. Hooker’s presidential address to Royal Society, 470–1 & 471 n.2; visits Down House, 408 n.2, 417 & 418 n.4, 566 & 567 n.25 Ulmus: Arctic fossils, 89 & 92 n.16, 91, 526 & 528 n.16 Ulothrix zonata: sexual and asexual reproduction, 253 & 253–4 n.6, 542 & 542–3 n.6 Unio: effect of cobra poison on ciliary action, 11 & 12 n.6 Unione Tipografico-Editrice, Turin: G. Chiantore, director, 387 & 388 n.4; Expression, Italian ed., 303 & 303–4 nn.3–5, 388 n.2, 410 & n.3, 487 n.2, 547 & 547–8 nn.3–5, 557 & n.3; C. Lyell, Principles, possibility of Italian translation, 387 & 388 n.4; Origin, Italian ed., 410 & n.4, 557 & n.4; Variation, 2d Italian ed., 189 & n.1, 303 & 303–4 nn.3–5, 385 n.4, 410 & n.2, 487 n.2, 547 & 547–8 nn.3–5, 557 & n.2 University of Leiden: awards CD honorary doctorate in medicine, 568–9 Unknown correspondent: CD advises on finding a copy of Variation, which is out of print, 46 & 46–7 n.1; CD drafts letter protesting against E.R. Lankester’s treatment by Linnean Society, 480 & 481 nn.3–8; CD sends photograph, 370; CD thanks for letters and admires his enthusiasm for natural science, 211 & 211–12 nn.1–5; CD thanks for note, 71; humorous verse, xxv, 68; Macartney rose fails to flower, 279 & 280 n.2 Utricularia: calyx 2- or 4-lobed (cf. Genlisea), 3 & n.1; CD compares with Genlisea, 13 & 14 n.3; CD works on, 30 & 31 n.8, 46 & n.2; J.D. Hooker

admires CD’s account of, 300; Insectivorous plants, F.J. Cohn cited, 243 & n.3; Insectivorous plants, D.F. Nevill’s gift of U. montana acknowledged, 67 & 68 n.2; M. Treat describes new growth as resembling animal vascular system, 62–3 & 63 n.1; vascular system resembles that of Amphistoma conicum, 63 & n.2; A.R. Wallace interested in implications for natural selection, 289–90 & 290 n.2, 291 & n.3; U. montana (U. alpina), bladders, 13 & 14 n.3; U. praelonga, 359 n.3, 553 n.3; U. reniformis, 359 n.3, 553 n.3 Valisneria: effect of cobra poison on ciliary action, 8 & 11 n.1, 11 Venus: V. flexuosa (Anomalocardui flexuosa), 507 & 509 n.4 Verbascum: sterility of crosses, 282 n.2 Verbeek, Rogier Diederik Marius: sent O. Heer specimens from Sumatra, 117 & 118 nn.5–6, 531 & 532 nn.5–6 Victor Emmanuel II, king of Italy, 466 & 467 n.2, 467, 561 & 562 n.2, 562 Vincenzi, Carlo: took over first Italian ed. of Variation but failed to publish, 204 & 204–5 n.1; Variation, Italian ed., failed to pay for electrotypes of illustrations, 385 n.2, 487 n.2 Virchow, Rudolf Carl: experiments on rabbits condemned by F.P. Cobbe and defended by CD, 6 & n.5, 24 & 25 n.2, 579 vivisection: (Appendix VI), 579–91; BAAS, report of vivisection committee, 23 & n.2, 27 & 28 n.6, 60, 145 & n.3, 582, 585; bill introduced to House of Commons unacceptable to scientists as it prohibits demonstration, 191–2 & 192 nn.1–6, 196–7 & 198 & nn.2– 4, 205 & n.3, 206–7 & 207 nn.2–3, 221 & n.2, 445 & n.2, 582–3; F.P. Cobbe seeks signatures for petition, 5–6 & 6 n.3, 23–4 & 24 nn.2–3 & 5, 24–5 & 25 nn.2–5, 27 & 28 nn.1–3; F.P. Cobbe fails to win support of RSPCA, 166 n.3, 167 & 168 n.3, 168, 169 & n.1, 178; F.P. Cobbe, bill based on her memorial presented to House of Lords, 135–6 & 136–7 n.3, 140 n.4, 164 n.3, 166 n.3, 168 n.3, 169 n.1, 183 & n.3, 583; CD believes physiology can only progress through experiments on living animals, xviii, 5–6 & 6 nn.3–6, 23–4 & 24 nn.2–5, 24–5 & 25 nn.2–5, 424–5, 580; CD urges T.H. Huxley to mobilise scientists to petition for controls as recommended by BAAS, 27 & 28 n.6, 34–5 & 35 nn.1–2, 60, 100 n.6, 579; CD works on draft bill with J.S. Burdon Sanderson, T.H. Huxley and others, xix, 34–5 & 35 nn.1–2, 60, 63 & 64 n.3, 128 & n.2, 130 & n.2, 130 & n.2, 135 & n.1,

Index 135–6 & 136–7 nn.2–8, 137 & nn.2–5, 141 & 142 nn.2–3, 156 & n.5, 165 & 166 n.3, 170 & 170–1 nn.2–3, 177 & 178 n.2, 445 n.2, 581; CD consults scientists on draft bill during visit to London, 131 n.5, 135–6 & 136–7 nn.2–8, 137 & nn.3–5, 137–8 & 138 nn.2–5, 140 & 140–1 n.3, 141 & 142 n.3, 144, 197 n.1; CD sends draft bill to E. Cardwell and L. Playfair, 164 & 165 nn.2–3, 165 & nn.2–3, 166, 167 & nn.2–3; CD sends draft bill to Lord Derby, 144–5 & 145 nn.1–5, 146 & n.2; CD seeks home secretary’s support for bill, 169–70 & 170 nn.1–3; CD thanks L. Playfair for introducing bill, 188–9 & nn.2–3; CD will repudiate bill unless vivisection is allowed for teaching purposes, 205 & n.3, 206–7 & 207 n.2; CD sends Royal Commission scientists’ original draft bill, 445 & nn.1–2, 585–90; CD testifies to Royal Commission, 424 & n.2, 425 n.2, 426 n.7, 427 n.4, 428 & nn.1–2, 432 & 433 n.2, 433 & 434 n.2, 445 & n.1, 583–4, 590–1; draft bill approved by eminent scientists, 130 & n.1, 138 & n.5, 140 & 141 n.6, 141 & 142 n.2, 144 & 145 n.1; Lord Hartisemere introduces bill based on F.P. Cobbe’s proposals, 183 & n.3, 197 n.3, 198 n.2, 583; R.B. Litchfield drafts bill reflecting scientists’ views, 136 & 137 n.5, 137–8 & 138 n.2, 140 n.1, 141 & 142 n.2, 156 & n.6, 157, 158 & n.2, 159 & n.3, 170 & 171 n.4, 191–2 & 192 n.2, 196–7, 198 & n.6, 205 n.3; L. Playfair and E. Cardwell take up draft bill, 153 & 154 n.1, 158 n.2, 164 & nn.2–3, 165 n.2, 167 & nn.2–3, 181 & n.2, 183 & n.2, 581; L. Playfair and J. Lubbock suggest draft bill needs a more humanitarian preamble, 157 & n.2, 159 & n.3, 167, 170 & 171 n.3, 582; L. Playfair presents bill to House of Commons, 156 & n.3, 157 & n.2, 159 & n.2, 164 & nn.2–3, 167 & 168 n.2, 197 & nn.3–4, 581; L. Playfair’s bill unacceptable as it prohibits demonstration, 191–2 & 192 nn.1–6, 196–7 & 197 n.3, 198 & nn.2 & 4, 205 & nn.2–3, 206 & nn.1–2, 206–7 & 207 nn.2–3, 445 & n.2, 583; Royal Commission appointed, 197 & n.3, 198 & n.3, 206 & nn.1 & 3–4, 221 & n.3, 584; Royal Commission, CD invited to attend, 424 & nn.1–2, 424–5 & 425 nn.1–2, 425–6 & 426 nn.1 & 3, 427 & nn.3–4, 428 & nn.1–2; Royal Commission, CD’s testimony, 424 & n.2, 425 n.2, 426 n.7, 427 n.4, 428 & nn.1–2, 432 & 433 n.2, 433 & 434 n.2, 445 & n.1, 583–4, 590–1; Royal Commission, T.H. Huxley dismayed by E.E. Klein’s testimony, 425 & 426 n.2, 427 & n.2; scientists’ draft bill, 582–3, 585– 91; scientists’ draft petition, 584–5 Volpicèlli, Paolo, 467 & n.8, 562 & 563 n.8 Volvox: F.J. Cohn on developmental history, 19 & 20

797

n.4, 521 & 522 n.4; effect of cobra poison on ciliary action, 11–12 & 12 n.5 Voysey, Charles: asks CD’s support for magazine promoting theism, 405–6 & 406 n.1; CD subscribed to fund to assist, 406 n.4 Vries, Hugo de: Climbing plants 2d ed., presentation, 441 & 443 n.2, 442, 559 & 560 n.2; climbing plants, causes of curvature movement, 442 & 443 n.6, 442–3, 559–60 & 560 n.6; CD suggests he experiment with Echinocystis lobata, 449 & n.2, 455 & 456 n.3, 560 & 561 n.3; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 441 & 443 n.4, 442, 559 & 560 n.4; J. Sachs’s experiments on insectivorous plants confirm CD’s findings, 441–2 & 443 n.5, 442, 559 & 560 n.5; sent CD articles from Würzburg Botanical Institute, 250 n.3, 540 n.3 Wächter, Johann Karl: role of insects in fertilisation of Neottia nidus-avis, 131 & 132 n.7, 533 & n.7 Wagner, Moritz: supports Darwinia, 219 n.4, 537 n.4 Wagner, Nikolai Petrovich, 162 n.3 Wallace, Alfred Russel: Climbing plants 2d ed., presentation, 443 & 444 n.1; CD canvasses to support E.R. Lankester at second Linnean Society ballot, 503–4 & 504 nn.1–3, 516 & n.1; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 289–90 & 290 n.1, 291 & n.2; Linnean Society, remission of fees, 471 & 472 n.6; orang-utan, direction of growth of hair, 81 & 84 n.7; proofreads Geographical distribution of animals, 443 & 444 n.3; sphinx moth, proboscis long enough to fertilise Angraecum sesquipedale, 276 & 277 n.9; Utricularia, implications for natural selection, 289–90 & 290 n.2, 291 & n.3 Wallich, Nathaniel: Aldrovanda verticillata, 30 n.7; Dischidia, pitchers contain black ants, 148 & 149 n.1; Dischidia rafflesiana, 399, 453 & 454 n.2 Warming, Eugenius: cited in Insectivorous plants on Genlisea and Utricularia, 3 n.2, 4 n.7 Watson, Robert Boog: marine origins of Glen Roy roads, 507 n.6 Watts, Henry: Dictionary of chemistry, awn of Stipa used as a hygrometer, 409 & 409–10 n.6 Webster, James Clark: secretary, Athenaeum, 128 n.4 Webster, Wentworth: ‘The Basque and the Kelt’, critique of W.B. Dawkins, 104 & 105 n.6 Wedderburn, David, 428 n.4 Wedderburn, William: CD sends sermon on ‘scientific selection’ to F. Galton, 428 & n.4, 431 & n.6 Wedgwood, Caroline Sarah: W.D. Fox thinks of, 278 & n.7; illness, 344 & 345 n.2 Wedgwood, Cicely Mary, 67 n.3

798

Index

Wedgwood, Frances Emma Elizabeth: attends séance hosted by H. Wedgwood, 125 & n.4 Wedgwood, Godfrey, 67 n.3 Wedgwood, Hensleigh: hosts séance on 1 April, 124–5 & 125 n.2; Insectivorous plants, errata, 332 & n.1; writes for Journal of the Society for Psychic Research, 125 n.2 Wedgwood, Hope Elizabeth: attends séance hosted by H. Wedgwood, 124–5 & 125 n.3 Wedgwood, Katherine Elizabeth Sophy: misses the Darwins at Abinger Hall, 265 & 266 n.5 Weir, Harrison William: J.J. Weir describes Cytisus cross in his garden, 254 & n.2, 257, 258 & 259 n.3, 262, 263, 264 Weir, John Jenner: birds avoiding gaudy caterpillars, CD seeks further information for A. Weismann, 173 & nn.1–2, 174 & 175 n.7, 175 & 176 n.14; Crataegus graft in H.W. Weir’s garden, 257 & n.3, 259; cross of Cytisus alpinus with C. purpureus without composite flowers, 251 & n.2, 254, 257, 258–9 & 259 n.4, 262 & n.2, 263–4 & 264 n.2, 271 & n.1; CD canvasses to support E.R. Lankester in second Linnean Society ballot, 489 & 489–90 nn.2–6, 492 & 492 n.6; Hedera helix, variation through propinquity with variegated form, 257 & n.4; Variation 2d ed., presentation, 259 & n.5 Weismann, August: axolotl transformed into sterile Amblystoma, 475 nn.1–2; birds avoiding gaudy caterpillars, interested in J.J. Weir’s findings, 173 & nn.1–2, 174 & 175 n.7; CD praises essay on seasonal dimorphism in butterflies, 174 & 175 nn.1–2; CD profoundly interested by essay on Amblystoma and gives examples of association of reversion and sterility, 474–5 & 475–6 nn.1–7; CD sends Descent 2d ed., 174 & 176 n.9; sends CD his photograph, 174 & 176 n.11; sexual selection cannot explain seasonal variation, 175 nn.5 & 6; suffers periods of blindness, 175 & 176 n.13; supports Darwinia, 217 & 219 n.6, 218, 536 & 537 n.6 Wendland, Lydia: CD thanks for fender stool, 223 & n.2; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 223 Wentworth, John: confirms W.H. Scott’s observations of dog’s reasoning, 451 & n.3 Westwood, John Obadiah: A modern classification of insects, 508 & 509 n.15 White, Walter: assistant secretary and librarian, Royal Society, 4 & 5 n.5 Whitney, William Dwight: ‘Are languages institutions?’, reply to F. Max Müller in Contemporary Review, 57–8 & 58 n. 2, 59 & 59–60 nn.1–2, 60 & 61 n.2, 396–7 & 397 n.3; CD and G.H. Darwin ask

J.T. Knowles to publish reply to F. Max Müller, 57–8 & 58 nn.1 & 3, 59 & 59–60 nn.1–2, 60 & 61 n.2; CD and G.H. Darwin sorry not to have seen, 498 & 499 n.1; CD forwards J.T. Knowles’s letter, 60 & 61 n.2; CD invited to write introductory note for article in Contemporary Review, 59 & 60 n.3; CD invites to Down House but unable to find a date, 183, 184 & n.2, 347 n.1; CD unable to see as he is in Southampton, 347 & n.1; E. Darwin regrets CD is unable to see him, 184 & n.2, 347 n.1; G.H. Darwin met in US, 499 n.1; G.H. Darwin, ‘Professor Whitney on the origin of language’, Contemporary Review, xxii–xxiii, 7–8 & 8 nn.1 & 3, 14–15 & 15 n.4, 57 & 58 n.1, 396–7 & 397 n.3; ‘Darwinism and language’, North American Review, critical review of F. Max Müller’s lectures, 8 n.3, 14 & 15 n.4; Languages and the study of language, 58 n.4; F. Max Müller, long-running public feud with, xxiii, 14–15 & 15 n.5, 498 & 499 n.7; F. Max Müller’s self-defence against his criticism, 396–7 & 397 nn.2–3, 498 & 499 nn.2–6 Whitworth, Joseph: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 43 Wiener, Charles: F. Müller joins in exploring sambaquis of Santa Caterina, 507–8 & 509 n.7 Wigand, Albert: critique of Darwinism, 47 & 48 n.3, 225 & n.2; Darwinismus, critical review by O. Zacharias, 217 & 219 n.7, 219, 537 & n.7 Wilberforce, Samuel: attack on Origin, 12 n.2, 13 & n.3 Wilder, Burt Green: CD impressed by work on dogs’ brains and wishes success in application for Harvard chair, 37 & 37–8 nn.2–3 Williams & Norgate: CD’s bookseller, 409, 450 n.3; published Climbing plants (1865), 2 n.2, 134 n.2, 572 Williams, Arthur Charles Vaughan: death of, 61 & n.8 Williams, Margaret Susan Vaughan, 61 & n.8 Williams, Monier: female infanticide among Jarejars, 157–8 & 158 n.2 Williamson, William Crawford: CD thanks for lecture on dawn of animal life, 244 & n.2 Willis, Frances, 308 n.8 Wilmot, Joseph Pratt, 120 & n.3 Wolfe, Gould Anne: asks CD to use his influence to prevent torture of animals during vivisection, 99–100 & 100 n.6; comments on Descent, 97–100 & 100 nn.1–7; dogs’ emotions and intelligence, 98–9 & 100 nn.4–5; horns of horned beetles may have a function, 97 & 100 n.1 Wood, George: Down reading room opened in his old house, 504 & 505 n.5 Wood, Thomas W.: Descent 2d ed., illustrations, 298 n.3, 546 n.3

Index Woolner, Thomas: CD thanks for telling him about article on Azalea viscosa, 79 & 79–80 n.1 Wright, Chauncey: books about evolution, note in the Nation, 83 & 84 n.11; borrowed Descent 2d ed. from J. Fiske, 106; CD asks A. Gray to forward letter to, 40 & n.2; correspondence with CD, 368 & 369 n.6; CD had his review of St G.J. Mivart’s Genesis of species published in London, 368 n.6; CD pleased G. Rolleston has cited, 350 & n.5; CD responds to on facial expression, 103–4 & 104 nn.3–5; function of eyebrows, 80–1 & 84 nn.3–6, 103 & 104 n.4; ‘German Darwinism’, article in Nation, 368 & n.4, 386 & 387 n.3; head gestures and facial muscles, 80–3 & 84 nn.2–10; interested in Drosera, 367–8 & n.3; left his brain to science, xxvii, 363; C.E. Norton’s tribute to, 367–8 & 368–9 nn.2–4; obituary in the Nation, 408 & n.1; pamphlet reviewing St G.J. Mivart’s On the genesis of species, 400 copies unsold, 153 & n.3; Philosophical discussions posthumously published, 368 n.4; G. Rolleston cites on language being responsible for size of human brains, 350 & 351 n.5, 386 & 387 n.4; sudden death, while writing review of Insectivorous plants, xxvii, 362–3 & 263 nn.1–4, 367–8 & 368–9 & n.2, 386 & 386– 7 nn.2–4; visited Down, 368 & 369 n.7 Wright, Edward Perceval: described Hartea, 440 & 441 n.6, 558 & 559 n.6 Wyman, Jeffries, 38 n.3; death of, 368 & n.5 Wyman, Morrill, 363 & n.2 Xenophon: Memorabilia, 80–1 & 84 n.5 yak. See Bos grunniens Youatt, William: CD knew personally, 31; introduction of red-eared white cattle to Wales in reign of King John, 29 & 30 n.2, 31 & nn.3–4, 104 & 105 n.5

799

Young, George: as lord advocate of Scotland established compulsory elementary schools, 180 n.1, 185 & nn.2–3; visits Down House, 179 & 180 n.1, 185 & n.2, 566 & 567 n.15 Young, J.: donation to Naples Zoological Station, 44 Zaaijer, Teunis, 569 Zacharias, Otto: critical review of A. Wigand’s Darwinismus, 217 & 219 n.7, 219, 537 & n.7; CD likens A. Wigand’s opinions to foolish criticisms of Malthus, 225 & n.2; Darwinia, CD supports aims of, 326 & 327 n.4, 549 & n.4; Darwinia, plans new popular monthly and asks for CD’s endorsement, xxiv, 216–17 & 219 nn.2–6, 217–19, 536–7 & 537 nn.2–6; Darwinia, publication delayed while he recruits sufficient contributors, 326 & 327 n.3, 548–9 & 549 n.3; German translation of G.H. Darwin’s articles on cousin marriage, 327 & n.7, 393 & 394 nn.1–2, 395 & n.3, 549 & n.7; E. Haeckel, plan to publish Darwinia show extent of Darwinism in Germany, 440 & 441 n.10, 558 & 559 n.10; Insectivorous plants, presentation, 326 & 327 n.2, 548 & 549 n.2 Zanichelli, Nicola: electrotypes of woodcuts of Variation never paid for, 204 & n.1; unscrupulous behaviour prevented publication of Italian ed. of Variation, 303 & n.2, 487 n.2, 547 & n.2 Zoological Gardens, Regent’s Park: A.D. Bartlett, superintendent, Zoological Gardens, 346 n.2; neglects varieties in favour of species, 72 & 73 n.3 Zoological Record: CD subscribes to, 220 & n.7 Zoological Society: CD attends and calls for support for E.R. Lankester at second Linnean Society ballot, 484 & 485 n.6; donates £100 to Naples Zoological Station, 44 Zoologische Garten: W. Marshall, early plumage of ostriches, 208 n.1, 213 n.3, 535 n.3

Table, of Relationship Roliert Darwin 1682-1754

=

Efija6etfi Hiff 1702-97

1 William Afvey Darwin - Jane Brown 1726-83 1746-1835 Samuef Vox 1765-1851

Ann 1771-1859

Efiza6etft Cottier 1 Erasmus Darwin L Mary Howard Pok 1731-1802 1740-70 1747-1832 diaries — 1758-78 Erasmus — Rofiert = 1759-99 Waring l/bb-l»4» t.awara Samuef Tertius = = Frances Anne — 1782-1829 Gafton — Emma Vtofetta 1783-1844 1783-1874 1784-1818 —Francis = Jane Harriett Sacfteveref Rvfe 1786-1859 1794-1866 —Jofin 1787-1818 '—Harriot = Tfiomas James 1790-1825 Mafing 1778-1849

— Mary Ann = Samuef 1800-29 Effts Bristowc -Efiza 1800-55 1801-86 — Emma 1803-85 EuenSopfua k — William = Harriet Ffetcfier Woodif Darwin 1799-1842 1820-87 1805-80 — Frances Jane = Jofin Hugftes 6.1806 1794-1873 "Jufia 1809-%

— Ltizabelh Ann (Bessy) 1808-1906 — Lucy Harriot 1809 48 — Milicent Aaele 1810-83 -EmmaSopfiia 1811-1904 — Danvin 1814-1903 — Erasmus

Henry Parker = Marianne— 1788-1856 1798-1858

1815-1909 -Francis = Louisa Jane 1822-1911 Butler £1897

Susan Elkafetft1803-66

Erasmus Afvey— 1804-81 Emify Catfterine-J m ^ 6 6

Josiafi = Sarafi U'edgwoorf I Wedgwood" 1730-95 1734-1815 Susannafi — —JosiflA 11 — 1765-1817 1769-1843

Tfiomas — 1771-1805 Catfierine— (Kitty) 1774-1823 Sarafi— Efkaoelfi (Sarafi) 1778-1856

r ~\

Jofin Bartfett Affen = Efka6etft Hensfeigfi 1738-90 1733-1803

FiivnfiPtfi

(Bessy) 1764-1846

Jnfin =

1766-1844

( atherinc (Kitty) == Sir James 1765-1830' Mackintosh —Carofine = Edward' 1765-1832 1768-1835 Drewe 1756-1810 —Jofin Hensfeigfi F/miai Innr — 1769-1843 (Jane) —Lancelot Baugfi 1771-1836 1774-1845 —Harriet 1776-1847 Octavta — —Jessie = JC. ae 1777-1853 Sismoraft 1779-1800 1773-1842 Frances —' -Emma (Fanny) 1781-1875

1780-1866

Jofin Aden —-Sarafi Efizafietfi 1796-1882 (Efiza) 1795-1857 Carofine = Josiafi 111 —— Sarafi — Tfiomas Josiafi Efizaoetft Sarah 1795-1880 (Efuafietfi) 1797 1860 1800-88 1793-1880 —Carofine Charles = Cftarfotte — 1799-1825 Langton 1797-1862 —Henry = Jessie— -Charts 1801-86 m 20 Alien 1804°Fiuafietfi Frances = Francis — (Harry) 72 ^ Rofiert = Frances Crewe (Bessy) Mosfey (Franfc) 1799-1885 1806-81 it1845 1799-1823 1807-74 1800-88 Hensfeigfi - Irana'.s (funny) , r Charles — Emma 1 ~v Robert-> 7, m3_91 m0_g9 1808 % 1806-32 1806-64 Ro6crt 1809-82