[The letters given in the following chapters illustrate the occupations and interests of the years 1860 to 1863, apart from the struggle over the species question. One of the most important and most engrossing was the launching of a scientific quarterly to do more systematically and thoroughly what had been done since 1858 in the fortnightly scientific column of the "Saturday Review." Its genesis is explained in the following letter:--] July 17, 1860. My dear Hooker, Some time ago Dr. Wright of Dublin talked to me about the "Natural History Review," which I believe to a great extent belongs to him, and wanted me to join in the editorship, provided certain alterations were made. I promised to consider the matter, and yesterday he and Greene dined with me, and I learned that Haughton and Galbraith were out of the review--that Harvey was likely to go--that a new series was to begin in January, with Williams and Norgate for publishers over here--that it was to become an English and not a Hibernian concern in fact--and finally, that if I chose to join as one of the editors, the effectual control would be pretty much in my own hands. Now, considering the state of the times, and the low condition of natural history journalisation (always excepting quarterly "Mic. Journal") in this country this seems to me to be a fine opening for a plastically minded young man, and I am decidedly inclined to close with the offer, though I shall get nothing but extra work by it. To limit the amount of this extra work, however, I must get co-editors, and I have written to Lubbock and to Rolleston (also plastically minded young men) to see if they will join. Now up to this point you have been in a horrid state of disgust, because you thought I was going to ask you next. But I am not, for rejoiced as I should be to have you, I know you have heaps of better work to do, and hate journalism. But can you tell me of any plastic young botanist who would come in all there glory and no pay, though I think pay may be got if the concern is properly worked. How about Oliver? And though you can't and won't be an editor yourself, won't you help us and pat us on the back? The tone of the "Review" will be mildly episcopophagous, and you and Darwin and Lyell will have a fine opportunity if you wish it of slaying your adversaries. Ever yours faithfully, T.H. Huxley. [Several of his elder friends tried to dissuade him from an undertaking which would inevitably distract him from his proper work. Sir Charles Lyell prophesied that all the work would drift to the most energetic member of the staff, and Huxley writes to Hooker, August 2, 1860:--] Darwin wrote me a very kind expostulation about it, telling me I ought not to waste myself on other than original work. In reply, however, I assured him that I MUST waste myself willy-nilly, and that the "Review" was only a save-all.