Volume Ii Part 27 (2/2)

I should suppose they would crawl in by depressing the terminal portion of the labellum; and that when within the flower this terminal portion would resume its former position; and lastly, that the insect in crawling out would not depress the labellum, but would crawl out at back of flower. (595/1. The observations of Mr. William Darwin on Epipactis pal.u.s.tris given in the ”Fertilisation of Orchids,” Edition II., 1877, page 99, bear on this point. The chief fertilisers are hive-bees, which are too big to crawl into the flower. They cling to the labellum, and by depressing it open up the entrance to the flower. Owing to the elasticity of the labellum and its consequent tendency to spring up when released, the bees, ”as they left the flower, seemed to fly rather upwards.” This agrees with Darwin's conception of the mechanism of the flower as given in the first edition of the Orchid book, 1862, page 100, although at that time he imagined that the fertilising insect crawled into the flower. The extreme flexibility and elasticity of the labellum was first observed by Mr. More (see first edition, page 99). The description of the flower given in the above letter to Mr. More is not quite clear; the reader is referred to the ”Fertilisation of Orchids,”

loc. cit.) An insect crawling out of a recently opened flower would, I believe, have parts of the pollen-ma.s.ses adhering to the back or shoulder. I have seen this in Listera. How I should like to watch the Epipactis.

If you can it any time send me Spiranthes or Aceras or O. ustulata, you would complete your work of kindness.

P.S.--If you should visit the Epipactis again, would you gather a few of the lower flowers which have been opened for some time and have begun to wither a little, and observe whether pollen is well cleared out of anther-case. I have been struck with surprise that in nearly all the lower flowers sent by you, though much of the pollen has been removed, yet a good deal of pollen is left wasted within the anthers. I observed something of this kind in Cephalanthera grandiflora. But I fear that you will think me an intolerable bore.

LETTER 596. TO A.G. MORE. Down, August 5th, 1860.

I am infinitely obliged for your most clearly stated observations on the bee-orchis. It is now perfectly clear that something removes the pollen-ma.s.ses far more with you than in this neighbourhood. But I am utterly puzzled about the foot-stalk being so often cut through. I should suspect snails. I yesterday found thirty-nine flowers, and of them only one pollen-ma.s.s in three flowers had been removed, and as these were extremely much-withered flowers I am not quite sure of the truth of this. The wind again is a new element of doubt. Your observations will aid me extremely in coming to some conclusion. (596/1.

Mr. More's observations on the percentage of flowers in which the pollinia were absent are quoted in ”Fertilisation of Orchids,” Edition I., page 68.) I hope in a day or two to receive some day-moths, on the probosces of which I am a.s.sured the pollen-ma.s.ses of the bee-orchis still adhere (596/2. He was doomed to disappointment. On July 17th, 1861, he wrote to Mr. More:--”I found the other day a lot of bee-Ophrys with the glands of the pollinia all in their pouches. All facts point clearly to eternal self-fertilisation in this species; yet I cannot swallow the bitter pill. Have you looked at any this year?”)...

I wrote yesterday to thank you for the Epipactis. For the chance of your liking to look at what I have found: take a recently opened flower, drag gently up the stigmatic surface almost any object (the side of a hooked needle), and you will find the cap of the hemispherical rostellum comes off with a touch, and being viscid on under-surface, clings to needle, and as pollen-ma.s.ses are already attached to the back of rostellum, the needle drags out much pollen. But to do this, the curiously projecting and fleshy summits of anther-cases must at some time be pushed back slightly. Now when an insect's head gets into the flower, when the flap of the labellum has closed by its elasticity, the insect would naturally creep out by the back-side of the flower. And mark when the insect flies to another flower with the pollen-ma.s.ses adhering to it, if the flap of labellum did not easily open and allow free ingress to the insect, it would surely rub off the pollen on the upper petals, and so not leave it on stigma. It is to know whether I have rightly interpreted the structure of this whole flower that I am so curious to see how insects act. Small insects, I daresay, would crawl in and out and do nothing. I hope that I shall not have wearied you with these details.

If you would like to see a pretty and curious little sight, look to Orchis pyramidalis, and you will see that the sticky glands are congenitally united into a saddle-shaped organ. Remove this under microscope by pincers applied to foot-stalk of pollen-ma.s.s, and look quickly at the spontaneous movement of the saddle-shaped organs and see how beautifully adapted to seize proboscis of moth.

LETTER 597. TO J.D. HOOKER December 4th [1860].

Many thanks about Apocynum and Meyen.

The latter I want about some strange movements in cells of Drosera, which Meyen alone seems to have observed. (597/1. No observations of Meyen are mentioned in ”Insectivorous Plants.”) It is very curious, but Trecul disbelieves that Drosera really clasps flies! I should very much wish to talk over Drosera with you. I did chloroform it, and the leaves which were already expanded did not recover thirty seconds of exposure for three days. I used the expression weight for the bit of hair which caused movement and weighed 1/78000 of a grain; but I do not believe it is weight, and what it is, I cannot after many experiments conjecture.

(597/2. The doubt here expressed as to whether the result is due to actual weight is interesting in connection with Pfeffer's remarkable discovery that a smooth object in contact with the gland produces no effect if the plant is protected from all vibration; on an ordinary table the slight shaking which reaches the plant is sufficient to make the body resting on the gland tremble, and thus produce a series of varying pressures--under these circ.u.mstances the gland is irritated, and the tentacle moves. See Pfeffer, ”Untersuchungen aus d. bot. Inst.i.tut zu Tubingen,” Volume I., 1885, page 483; also ”Insectivorous Plants,”

Edition II., page 22.) The movement in this case does not depend on the chemical nature of substance. Latterly I have tried experiments on single glands, and a microscopical atom of raw meat causes such rapid movement that I could see it move like hand of clock. In this case it is the nature of the object. It is wonderful the rapidity of the absorption: in ten seconds weak solution of carbonate of ammonia changes not the colour, but the state of contents within the glands. In two minutes thirty seconds juice of meat has been absorbed by gland and pa.s.sed from cell to cell all down the pedicel (or hair) of the gland, and caused the sap to pa.s.s from the cells on the upper side of the pedicel to the lower side, and this causes the curvature of the pedicel.

I shall work away next summer when Drosera opens again, for I am much interested in subject. After the glandular hairs have curved, the oddest changes take place--viz., a segregation of the h.o.m.ogeneous pink fluid and necessary slow movements in the thicker matter. By Jove, I sometimes think Drosera is a disguised animal! You know that I always so like telling you what I do, that you must forgive me scribbling on my beloved Drosera. Farewell. I am so very glad that you are going to reform your ways; I am sure that you would have injured your health seriously. There is poor Dana has done actually nothing--cannot even write a letter--for a year, and it is hoped that in another YEAR he may quite recover.

After this homily, good night, my dear friend. Good heavens, I ought not to scold you, but thank you, for writing so long and interesting a letter.

LETTER 598. TO E. CRESY. Down, December 12th [1860?].

After writing out the greater part of my paper on Drosera, I thought of so many points to try, and I wished to re-test the basis of one large set of experiments, namely, to feel still more sure than I am, that a drop of plain water never produces any effect, that I have resolved to publish nothing this year. For I found in the record of my daily experiments one suspicious case. I must wait till next summer. It will be difficult to try any solid substances containing nitrogen, such as ivory; for two quite distinct causes excite the movement, namely, mechanical irritation and presence of nitrogen. When a solid substance is placed on leaf it becomes clasped, but is released sooner than when a nitrogenous solid is clasped; yet it is difficult (except with raw meat and flies) to be sure of the result, owing to differences in vigour of different plants. The last experiments which I tried before my plants became too languid are very curious, and were tried by putting microscopical atoms on the gland itself of single hairs; and it is perfectly evident that an atom of human hair, 1/76000 of a grain (as ascertained by weighing a length of hair) in weight, causes conspicuous movement. I do not believe (for atoms of cotton thread acted) it is the chemical nature; and some reasons make me doubt whether it is actual weight; it is not the shadow; and I am at present, after many experiments, confounded to know what the cause is. That these atoms did really act and alter the state of the contents of all the cells in the glandular hair, which moved, was perfectly clear. But I hope next summer to make out a good deal more...

LETTER 599. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 14th [1861].

I have been putting off writing from day to day, as I did not wish to trouble you, till my wish for a little news will not let me rest...

I have no news to tell you, for I have had no interesting letters for some time, and have not seen a soul. I have been going through the ”Cottage Gardener” of last year, on account chiefly of Beaton's articles (599/1. Beaton was a regular contributor to the ”Cottage Gardener,” and wrote various articles on cross breeding, etc., in 1861. One of these was in reply to a letter published in the ”Cottage Gardener,” May 14th, 1861, page 112, in which Darwin asked for information as to the Compositae and the hollyhock being crossed by insect visitors. In the number for June 8th, 1861, page 211, Darwin wrote on the variability of the central flower of the carrot and the peloria of the central flower in Pelargonium. An extract from a letter by Darwin on Leschenaultia, ”Cottage Gardener,” May 28th, 1861, page 151, is given in Letter 590, note.); he strikes me as a clever but d--d c.o.c.k-sure man (as Lord Melbourne said), and I have some doubts whether to be much trusted. I suspect he has never recorded his experiment at the time with care. He has made me indignant by the way he speaks of Gartner, evidently knowing nothing of his work. I mean to try and pump him in the ”Cottage Gardener,” and shall perhaps defend Gartner. He alludes to me occasionally, and I cannot tell with what spirit. He speaks of ”this Mr.

Darwin” in one place as if I were a very noxious animal.

Let me have a line about poor Henslow pretty soon.

(599/2. In a letter of May 18th, 1861, Darwin wrote again:--)

<script>