Volume Ii Part 35 (1/2)

Scott remarks, as the plant is in our hot-houses, it is quite incredible it ever could be fertilised in its native land. The whole case is an utter enigma to me. Probably you are aware that there are cases (and it is one of the oddest facts in Physiology) of plants which, under culture, have their s.e.xual functions in so strange a condition, that though their pollen and ovules are in a sound state and can fertilise and be fertilised by distinct but allied species, they cannot fertilise themselves. Now, Mr. Scott has found this the case with certain orchids, which again shows s.e.xual disturbance. He had read a paper at the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, and I daresay an abstract which I have seen will appear in the ”Gardeners' Chronicle”; but blunders have crept in in copying, and parts are barely intelligible. How insects act with your Stanhopea I will not pretend to conjecture. In many cases I believe the acutest man could not conjecture without seeing the insect at work. I could name common English plants in this predicament. But the musk-orchis [Herminium monorchis] is a case in point. Since publis.h.i.+ng, my son and myself have watched the plant and seen the pollinia removed, and where do you think they invariably adhere in dozens of specimens?--always to the joint of the femur with the trochanter of the first pair of legs, and nowhere else. When one sees such adaptation as this, it would be hopeless to conjecture on the Stanhopea till we know what insect visits it. I have fully proved that my strong suspicion was correct that with many of our English orchids no nectar is excreted, but that insects penetrate the tissues for it. So I expect it must be with many foreign species. I forgot to say that if you find that you cannot fertilise any of your exotics, take pollen from some allied form, and it is quite probable that will succeed. Will you have the kindness to look occasionally at your bee-Ophrys near Torquay, and see whether pollinia are ever removed? It is my greatest puzzle. Please read what I have said on it, and on O. arachnites. I have since proved that the account of the latter is correct. I wish I could have given you better information.

P.S.--If the Flowers of the Stanhopea are not too old, remove pollen-ma.s.ses from their pedicels, and stick them with a little liquid pure gum to the stigmatic cavity. After the case of the Acropera, no one can dare positively say that they would not act.

LETTER 662. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Sat.u.r.day, 5th [December 1863].

I am very glad that this will reach you at Kew. You will then get rest, and I do hope some lull in anxiety and fear. Nothing is so dreadful in this life as fear; it still sickens me when I cannot help remembering some of the many illnesses our children have endured. My father, who was a sceptical man, was convinced that he had distinctly traced several cases of scarlet fever to handling letters from convalescents.

The vases (662/1. Probably Wedgwood ware.) did come from my sister Susan. She is recovering, and was much pleased to hear that you liked them; I have now sent one of your notes to her, in which you speak of them as ”enchanting,” etc. I have had a bad spell--vomiting, every day for eleven days, and some days many times after every meal. It is astonis.h.i.+ng the degree to which I keep up some strength. Dr. Brinton was here two days ago, and says he sees no reason [why] I may not recover my former degree of health. I should like to live to do a little more work, and often I feel sure I shall, and then again I feel that my tether is run out.

Your Hastings note, my dear old fellow, was a Copley Medal to me and more than a Copley Medal: not but what I know well that you overrate what I have been able to do. (662/2. The proposal to give the medal to Darwin failed in 1863, but his friends were successful in 1864: see ”Life and Letters,” III., page 28.) Now that I am disabled, I feel more than ever what a pleasure observing and making out little difficulties is. By the way, here is a very little fact which may interest you. A partridge foot is described in ”Proc. Zoolog. Soc.” with a huge ball of earth attached to it as hard as rock. (662/3. ”Proc. Zool. Soc.” 1863, page 127, by Prof. Newton, who sent the foot to Darwin: see ”Origin,”

Edition VI., page 328.) Bird killed in 1860. Leg has been sent me, and I find it diseased, and no doubt the exudation caused earth to acc.u.mulate; now already thirty-two plants have come up from this ball of earth.

By Jove! I must write no more. Good-bye, my best of friends.

There is an Italian edition of the ”Origin” preparing. This makes the fifth foreign edition--i.e. in five foreign countries. Owen will not be right in telling Longmans that the book would be utterly forgotten in ten years. Hurrah!

LETTER 663. TO D. OLIVER. Down, February 17th [1864].

Many thanks for the Epacrids, which I have kept, as they will interest me when able to look through the microscope.

Dr. Cruger has sent me the enclosed paper, with power to do what I think fit with it. He would evidently prefer it to appear in the ”Nat. Hist.

Review.” Please read it, and let me have your decision pretty soon. Some germanisms must be corrected; whether woodcuts are necessary I have not been able to pay attention enough to decide. If you refuse, please send it to the Linnean Society as communicated by me. (663/1. H. Cruger's ”A Few Notes on the Fecundation of Orchids, etc.” [Read March, 1864.]

”Linn. Soc. Journ.” VIII., 1864-5, page 127.) The paper has interested me extremely, and I shall have no peace till I have a good boast. The s.e.xes are separate in Catasetum, which is a wonderful relief to me, as I have had two or three letters saying that the male C. tridentatum seeds.

(663/2. See footnote Letter 608 on the s.e.xual relation between the three forms known as Catasetum tridentatum, Monacanthus viridis, and Myanthus barbatus. For further details see Darwin, ”Linn. Soc. Journ.” VI., 1862, page 151, and ”Fertilisation of Orchids,” Edition II., page 196.) It is pretty clear to me that two or three forms are confounded under this name. Observe how curiously nearly perfect the pollen of the female is, according to Cruger,--certainly more perfect than the pollen from the Guyana species described by me. I was right in the manner in which the pollen adheres to the hairy back of the humble-bee, and hence the force of the ejection of the pollina. (663/3. This view was given in ”Fertilisation of Orchids,” Edition I., 1862, page 230.) I am still more pleased that I was right about insects gnawing the fleshy labellum.

This is important, as it explains all the astounding projections on the labellum of Oncidium, Phalaenopsis, etc.

Excuse all my boasting. It is the best medicine for my stomach. Tell me whether you mean to take up orchids, as Hooker said you were thinking of doing. Do you know Coryanthes, with its wonderful basket of water? See what Cruger says about it. It beats everything in orchids. (663/4. For Coryanthes see ”Fertilisation of Orchids,” Edition II., page 173.)

LETTER 664. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [September 13th, 1864].

Thanks for your note of the 5th. You think much and greatly too much of me and my doings; but this is pleasant, for you have represented for many years the whole great public to me.

I have read with interest Bentham's address on hybridism. I am glad that he is cautious about Naudin's view, for I cannot think that it will hold. (664/1. C. Naudin's ”Nouvelles Recherches sur l'Hydridite dans les Vegetaux.” The complete paper, with coloured plates, was presented to the Academy in 1861, and published in full in the ”Nouvelles Archives de Museum d'Hist. Nat.” Volume I., 1865, page 25. The second part only appeared in the ”Ann. Sci. Nat.” XIX., 1863. Mr. Bentham's address dealing with hybridism is in ”Proc. Linn. Soc.” VIII., 1864, page ix.

A review of Naudin is given in the ”Natural History Review,” 1864, page 50. Naudin's paper is of much interest, as containing a mechanical theory of reproduction of the same general character as that of pangenesis. In the ”Variation of Animals and Plants,” Edition II., Volume II., page 395, Darwin states that in his treatment of hybridism in terms of gemmules he is practically following Naudin's treatment of the same theme in terms of ”essences.” Naudin, however, does not clearly distinguish between hybrid and pure gemmules, and makes the a.s.sumption that the hybrid or mixed essences tend constantly to dissociate into pure parental essences, and thus lead to reversion. It is to this view that Darwin refers when he says that Naudin's view throws no light on the reversion to long-lost characters. His own attempt at explaining this fact occurs in ”Variation under Domestication,” II., Edition II., page 395. Mr. Bateson (”Mendel's Principle of Heredity,” Cambridge, 1902, page 38) says: ”Naudin clearly enuntiated what we shall henceforth know as the Mendelian conception of the dissociation of characters of cross-breds in the formation of the germ-cells, though apparently he never developed this conception.” It is remarkable that, as far as we know, Darwin never in any way came across Mendel's work. One of Darwin's correspondents, however, the late Mr. T. Laxton, of Stamford, was close on the trail of Mendelian principle. Mr. Bateson writes (op. cit., page 181): ”Had he [Laxton] with his other gifts combined this penetration which detects a great principle hidden in the thin mist of 'exceptions,'

we should have been able to claim for him that honour which must ever be Mendel's in the history of discovery.”) The tendency of hybrids to revert to either parent is part of a wider law (which I am fully convinced that I can show experimentally), namely, that crossing races as well as species tends to bring back characters which existed in progenitors hundreds and thousands of generations ago. Why this should be so, G.o.d knows. But Naudin's view throws no light, that I can see, on this reversion of long-lost characters. I wish the Ray Society would translate Gartner's ”b.a.s.t.a.r.derzeugung”; it contains more valuable matter than all other writers put together, and would do great service if better known. (664/2. ”Versuche uber die b.a.s.t.a.r.derzeugung im Pflanzenreich”: Stuttgart, 1849.)

LETTER 665. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(665/1. Mr. Huxley had doubted the accuracy of observations on Catasetum published in the ”Fertilisation of Orchids.” In what formed the postscript to the following letter, Darwin wrote: ”I have had more Catasetums,--all right, you audacious 'caviller.'”)

Down, October 31st [1862].

In a little book, just published, called the ”Three Barriers” (a theological hash of old abuse of me), Owen gives to the author a new resume of his brain doctrine; and I thought you would like to hear of this. He ends with a delightful sentence. ”No science affords more scope or easier ground for the caviller and controversialist; and these do good by preventing scholars from giving more force to generalisations than the master propounding them does, or meant his readers or hearers to give.”