It is a comfort to know that possibly when one is seventy years old one's brain may be good for work.

It drives me mad, and I know it does you too, that one has no time for reading anything beyond what must be read: my room is encumbered with unread books.

I agree about Wallace's wonderful cleverness, but he is not cautious enough in my opinion.
I find I must (and I always distrust myself when I differ from him) separate rather widely from him all about birds' nests and protection; he is riding that hobby to death.

I never read anything so miserable as Andrew Murray's criticism on Wallace in the last number of his Journal.
(221/5.

See "Journal of Travel and Natural History," Volume I., No.
3, page 137, London, 1868, for Andrew Murray's "Reply to Mr.Wallace's Theory of Birds' Nests," which appeared in the same volume, page 73.
The "Journal" came to an end after the publication of one volume for 1867-8.) I believe this Journal will die, and I shall not cry: what a contrast with the old "Natural History Review." LETTER 222.