Con'fHpon(frnt'r trit/f Alplioiitte df ('aiulotlc 'HM 



lidunt, and mo oil TIio r<!Miilt w tlntt it ih ((iiit*! fn»i«il)lo to do ho, with fair approximation, on the 

 (latii of rt'){ii*teri'd days' niaxiiiia and inininui, and accepting; any arbitrary IwiHc-line aliovc which 

 tht' acc.uiiiulativi) tenipcraturt' i« U) Im r(*ckoned. W« can eaxily give 2 or more dicen of the 

 diurnal curve; that xn to say the ciiniuhitivo vulunt Iwtwwn 3 or more arbitrary tenipcmtureii. 



My coUeaKues ask me to impiiro of you whether you liap|>cii lately to have again attended 

 to the subject or whether you have any suggestions to make that might help us, in luldition to 

 what you have alreiuly published and which we find to be thoroughly appreciate*! by some of 

 our c<)rres[Mmdent»? 



It is rather out of our line to do ho, but we might perliapii, if it were thought essential, get 

 exjHM-inients made on the c\imulative eflW-ts of tenij^rature on some forms of vegetation — say 

 the certNils — but probably suthcient information for our |iurpt>se alren<ly exists. We can 

 measure cumulutivi- elFects of siinahiiif, rnin, and Umiu-nttiirf and could mejisure that of 

 rvnfwraliim under any one definite condition, but it is a question whether the latter limitation 

 would not render the ri-sults of little general service. I should l>e grtmtly oblige<l for a reply 

 to the above question. Believe me, my dear Sir, very faithfully yours, Francis Oalton. 

 To M. Alpiionsk i>k Candoli.k. 



(Sk.nkvk, 14 Jiiinier 1884. 



MoN CHKR MoNsiKUR, Je pri''|)are une si'conde edition de mon volume de I'l/utoire (Im 

 sciencM el (its navnntu qui est e|>uist> dt'puis longtompa et que les libraires me demandent. Pour 

 cela je fais grand usage dtr vos Ktiglinlimttn of Science et du volume recent des Inquiries into 

 Human Fncultiea qui contient Ixviucoup d'articles curieux. Nous suivons la m^me m«?thode, 

 celle d'observer, et quatid on le peut, de compter pour comparer, par consequent nous devons 

 nous iippuyer Tun I'autre et nous risquons bien peu d'etre en o|>position. Permettezmoi de 

 vous demander quehjues iiifornmtions ,sur des savants anglais. 



Pourriez vous me diiv <|uelles etaient les {)ositions ou professions des peres du cel^bre 

 Zdologiste Oicen nouveileiueiit cn'-e K.C. H., de Sir George Airy et de Sir George VVheatstonet 

 Jo n'ai pa.s jiu le sjivoir d'apnXs les dictionnaires biographiques a ma portee. 



Jo presume que Sir William Thomson, ne a Belfast, fils d'un professor de niathematiques, 

 ^tait un protestant, d'une famille 6cossaise ou anglaisc etablie en Irlande. Est-ce exact! 



Ije cnnictf>i-e de votre illustre cousin Charles Darwin est si honorable, si dminent sous 

 plusieurs rapports, que j'aimerais cimnaStrc sur lui certains details d'une valeur nieme secondaire. 

 Par excuiple, uvait-il une disposition naturelle aux arts du rlexsinl et k la iinisi/]uft Rien ne 

 I'indique dans ses ouvragea. 



Je ne sais |>as s'il faut lui attribuer une imagination forte. Beaucoup de personnel le lui 

 rcprochaient, piirce (|u'elles ne comprenaient pas la valeur de ses observations et dtkiuctions, et 

 qu'il leur plaisait de dire qu'il se livniit a de pures hypotlnXses. Pour nioi qui ai reconnu tres 

 vite la sagesse de son e-sprit et de sa prudence, je ne sais pas si ces <|ualites a% aient occup*' la place 

 entiere de I'imagination, ou s'il faut a<linettre que mfime avec l)eaucoup de vigueur de raisonntv 

 ment il avait Ijeaucoup d'imnginHtioii. 



L'aint^ de mes jH'tits-fils, Hayniond de Candolle, ne Anglais, elev^ 4 Rugby et qui vient 

 d'entrer i Trinity (college, Cambridge, voit les chiffres disposes en series, et certains chiffrcs 

 plus apparent.s (jue d'autres dans son esprit. C'eat le seul cas de ce genre dans ma famille. 

 Toujours, mon cher Monsieur, votre trte d^vou^, Alph. dk Candollr. 



42, Rutland Gate, London. Jan. 27/84. 



My i>kar Sir, I dela3'ed answering until 1 had an opportunity of talking over the questions 

 you put alniut Darwin, with his very intelligent daughter. 



He did not draw, he had not a good ear for music, but wa.s much affected by it, sometimes 

 to tears. He had naturally, (excus*- the word which I know you det^-st! but I mean 'innately') 

 a very emotional disposition, which was repressed by his hitbit.s of hard thinking, but always 

 ready to burst out. Thus his delight in the scenery of a tour alxnit the English Lakes a few 

 years ago, had all the freshne,><s and eagerness of that of a boy. However his nature could not 

 lx> calle<l aesthetic. As reganls imagination I hardly know whether I understand the won! in 

 your sense, nor iudee<l if I have any definition of my own. I know that his faculty of mental 

 imagery was once vivid and had become diminishe<l, lx)th from what he distinctly told me and 

 fnmi corroborative evidence. But that he ever was deceived by imagination I shotfid think 

 most unlikely, as he was so rtnnarkably veracious. 



