Volume Ii Part 39 (1/2)

With respect to the men who have recently written on the crossing of plants, I can at present remember only Hildebrand, Fritz Muller, Delpino, and G. Henslow; but I think there are others. I feel sure that Hildebrand is a very good observer, for I have read all his papers, and during the last twenty years I have made unpublished observations on many of the plants which he describes. [Most of the criticisms which I sometimes meet with in French works against the frequency of crossing I am certain are the result of mere ignorance. I have never hitherto found the rule to fail that when an author describes the structure of a flower as specially adapted for self-fertilisation, it is really adapted for crossing. The Fumariaceae offer a good instance of this, and Trevira.n.u.s threw this order in my teeth; but in Corydalis Hildebrand shows how utterly false the idea of self-fertilisation is. This author's paper on Salvia (694/1. Hildebrand, ”Pringsheim's Jahrbucher,” IV.) is really worth reading, and I have observed some species, and know that he is accurate]. (694/2. The pa.s.sage within [] was published in the ”Life and Letters,” III., page 279.) Judging from a long review in the ”Bot.

Zeitung”, and from what I know of some the plants, I believe Delpino's article especially on the Apocynaea, is excellent; but I cannot read Italian. (694/3. Hildebrand's paper in the ”Bot. Zeitung,” 1867, refers to Delpino's work on the Asclepiads, Apocyneae and other Orders.) Perhaps you would like just to glance at such pamphlets as I can lay my hands on, and therefore I will send them, as if you do not care to see them you can return them at once; and this will cause you less trouble than writing to say you do not care to see them. With respect to Primula, and one point about which I feel positive is that the Bardfield and common oxlips are fundamentally distinct plants, and that the common oxlip is a sterile hybrid. (694/4. For a general account of the Bardfield oxlip (Primula elatior) see Miller Christy, ”Linn. Soc.

Journ.” Volume x.x.xIII., page 172, 1897.) I have never heard of the common oxlip being found in great abundance anywhere, and some amount of difference in number might depend on so small a circ.u.mstance as the presence of some moth which habitually sucked the primrose and cowslip.

To return to the subject of crossing: I am experimenting on a very large scale on the difference in power and growth between plants raised from self-fertilised and crossed seeds, and it is no exaggeration to say that the difference in growth and vigour is sometimes truly wonderful. Lyell, Huxley, and Hooker have seen some of my plants, and been astonished; and I should much like to show them to you. I always supposed until lately that no evil effects would be visible until after several generations of self-fertilisation, but now I see that one generation sometimes suffices, and the existence of dimorphic plants and all the wonderful contrivances of orchids are quite intelligible to me.

LETTER 695. TO T.H. FARRER (Lord Farrer). Down, June 5th, 1868.

I must write a line to cry peccavi. I have seen the action in Ophrys exactly as you describe, and am thoroughly ashamed of my inaccuracy.

(695/1. See ”Fertilisation of Orchids,” Edition II., page 46, where Lord Farrer's observations on the movement of the pollinia in Ophrys muscifera are given.) I find that the pollinia do not move if kept in a very damp atmosphere under a gla.s.s; so that it is just possible, though very improbable, that I may have observed them during a very damp day.

I am not much surprised that I overlooked the movement in Habenaria, as it takes so long. (695/2. This refers to Peristylus viridis, sometimes known as Habenaria viridis. Lord Farrer's observations are given in ”Fertilisation of Orchids,” Edition II., page 63.)

I am glad you have seen Listera; it requires to be seen to believe in the co-ordination in the position of the parts, the irritability, and the chemical nature of the viscid fluid. This reminds me that I carefully described to Huxley the shooting out of the pollinia in Catasetum, and received for an answer, ”Do you really think that I can believe all that!” (695/3. See Letter 665.)

LETTER 696. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 2nd, 1868.

It is a splendid scheme, and if you make only a beginning on a ”Flora,”

which shall serve as an index to all papers on curious points in the life-history of plants, you will do an inestimable good service. Quite recently I was asked by a man how he could find out what was known on various biological points in our plants, and I answered that I knew of no such book, and that he might ask half a dozen botanists before one would chance to remember what had been published on this or that point.

Not long ago another man, who had been experimenting on the quasi-bulbs on the leaves of Cardamine, wrote to me to complain that he could not find out what was known on the subject. It is almost certain that some early or even advanced students, if they found in their ”Flora” a line or two on various curious points, with references for further investigation, would be led to make further observations. For instance, a reference to the viscid threads emitted by the seeds of Compositae, to the apparatus (if it has been described) by which Oxalis spurts out its seeds, to the sensitiveness of the young leaves of Oxalis acetosella with reference to O. sensitiva. Under Lathyrus nissolia it would [be]

better to refer to my hypothetical explanation of the gra.s.s-like leaves than to nothing. (696/1. No doubt the view given in ”Climbing Plants,”

page 201, that L. nissolia has been evolved from a form like L. aphaca.) Under a twining plant you might say that the upper part of the shoot steadily revolves with or against the sun, and so, when it strikes against any object it turns to the right or left, as the case may be.

If, again, references were given to the parasitism of Euphrasia, etc., how likely it would be that some young man would go on with the investigation; and so with endless other facts. I am quite enthusiastic about your idea; it is a grand idea to make a ”Flora” a guide for knowledge already acquired and to be acquired. I have amused myself by speculating what an enormous number of subjects ought to be introduced into a Eutopian (696/2. A mis-spelling of Utopian.) Flora, on the quickness of the germination of the seeds, on their means of dispersal; on the fertilisation of the flower, and on a score of other points, about almost all of which we are profoundly ignorant. I am glad to read what you say about Bentham, for my inner consciousness tells me that he has run too many forms together. Should you care to see an elaborate German pamphlet by Hermann Muller on the gradation and distinction of the forms of Epipactis and of Platanthera? (696/3. ”Verhand. d. Nat.

Ver. f. Pr. Rh. u. Wesfal.” Jahrg. XXV.: see ”Fertilisation of Orchids,”

Edition II., pages 74, 102.) It may be absurd in me to suggest, but I think you would find curious facts and references in Lecoq's enormous book (696/4. ”Geographie Botanique,” 9 volumes, 1854-58.), in Vaucher's four volumes (696/5. ”Plantes d'Europe,” 4 volumes, 1841.), in Hildebrand's ”Geschlechter Vertheilung” (696/6 ”Geschlechter Vertheilung bei den Pflanzen,” 1 volume, Leipzig, 1867.), and perhaps in Fournier's ”De la Fecondation.” (696/7. ”De la Fecondation dans les Phanerogames,”

par Eugene Fournier: thesis published in Paris in 1863. The facts noted in Darwin's copy are the explosive stamens of Parietaria, the submerged flowers of Alisma containing air, the manner of fertilisation of Lopezia, etc.) I wish you all success in your gigantic undertaking; but what a pity you did not think of it ten years ago, so as to have acc.u.mulated references on all sorts of subjects. Depend upon it, you will have started a new era in the floras of various countries. I can well believe that Mrs. Hooker will be of the greatest possible use to you in lightening your labours and arranging your materials.

LETTER 697. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 5th, 1868.

...Now I want to beg for a.s.sistance for the new edition of ”Origin.”

Nageli himself urges that plants offer many morphological differences, which from being of no service cannot have been selected, and which he accounts for by an innate principle of progressive development. (697/1.

Nageli's ”Enstehung und Begriff der Naturhistorischen Art.” An address delivered at the public session of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Munich, March 28th, 1865; published by the Academy. Darwin's copy is the 2nd edition; it bears signs, in the pencilled notes on the margins, of having been read with interest. Much of it was translated for him by a German lady, whose version lies with the original among his pamphlets.

At page 27 Nageli writes: ”It is remarkable that the useful adaptations which Darwin brings forward in the case of animals, and which may be discovered in numbers among plants, are exclusively of a physiological kind, that they always show the formation or transformation of an organ to a special function. I do not know among plants a morphological modification which can be explained on utilitarian principles.” Opposite this pa.s.sage Darwin has written ”a very good objection”: but Nageli's sentence seems to us to be of the nature of a truism, for it is clear that any structure whose evolution can be believed to have come about by Natural Selection must have a function, and the case falls into the physiological category. The various meanings given to the term morphological makes another difficulty. Nageli cannot use it in the sense of ”structural”--in which sense it is often applied, since that would mean that no plant structures have a utilitarian origin. The essence of morphology (in the better and more precise sense) is descent; thus we say that a pollen-grain is morphologically a microspore. And this very example serves to show the falseness of Nageli's view, since a pollen-grain is an adaptation to aerial as opposed to aquatic fertilisation. In the 5th edition of the ”Origin,” 1869, page 151, Darwin discusses Nageli's essay, confining himself to the simpler statement that there are many structural characters in plants to which we cannot a.s.sign uses. See Volume I., Letter 207.) I find old notes about this difficulty; but I have hitherto slurred it over. Nageli gives as instances the alternate and spiral arrangement of leaves, and the arrangement of the cells in the tissues. Would you not consider as a morphological difference the trimerous, tetramerous, etc., divisions of flowers, the ovules being erect or suspended, their attachment being parietal or placental, and even the shape of the seed when of no service to the plant.

Now, I have thought, and want to show, that such differences follow in some unexplained manner from the growth or development of plants which have pa.s.sed through a long series of adaptive changes. Anyhow, I want to show that these differences do not support the idea of progressive development. Ca.s.sini states that the ovaria on the circ.u.mference and centre of Compos. flowers differ in essential characters, and so do the seeds in sculpture. The seeds of Umbelliferae in the same relative positions are coelospermous and orthospermous. There is a case given by Augt. St. Hilaire of an erect and suspended ovule in the same ovarium, but perhaps this hardly bears on the point. The summit flower, in Adoxa and rue differ from the lower flowers. What is the difference in flowers of the rue? how is the ovarium, especially in the rue? As Augt. St.

Hilaire insists on the locularity of the ovarium varying on the same plant in some of the Rutaceae, such differences do not speak, as it seems to me, in favour of progressive development. Will you turn the subject in your mind, and tell me any more facts. Difference in structure in flowers in different parts of the same plant seems best to show that they are the result of growth or position or amount of nutriment.

I have got your photograph (697/2. A photograph by Mrs. Cameron.) over my chimneypiece, and like it much; but you look down so sharp on me that I shall never be bold enough to wriggle myself out of any contradiction.

Owen pitches into me and Lyell in grand style in the last chapter of volume 3 of ”Anat. of Vertebrates.” He is a cool hand. He puts words from me in inverted commas and alters them. (697/3. The pa.s.sage referred to seems to be in Owen's ”Anatomy of Vertebrata,” III., pages 798, 799, note. ”I deeply regretted, therefore, to see in a 'Historical Sketch'

of the Progress of Enquiry into the origin of species, prefixed to the fourth edition of that work (1866), that Mr. Darwin, after affirming inaccurately and without evidence, that I admitted Natural Selection to have done something toward that end, to wit, the 'origin of species,'

proceeds to remark: 'It is surprising that this admission should not have been made earlier, as Prof. Owen now believes that he promulgated the theory of Natural Selection in a pa.s.sage read before the Zoological Society in February, 1850, (”Trans.” Volume IV., page 15).'” The first of the two pa.s.sages quoted by Owen from the fourth edition of the ”Origin” runs: ”Yet he [Prof. Owen] at the same time admits that Natural Selection MAY [our italics] have done something towards this end.” In the sixth edition of the ”Origin,” page xviii., Darwin, after referring to a correspondence in the ”London Review” between the Editor of that Journal and Owen, goes on: ”It appeared manifest to the editor, as well as to myself, that Prof. Owen claimed to have promulgated the theory of Natural Selection before I had done so;...but as far as it is possible to understand certain recently published pa.s.sages (Ibid. [”Anat. of Vert.”], Volume III., page 798), I have either partly or wholly again fallen into error. It is consolatory to me that others find Prof. Owen's controversial writings as difficult to understand and to reconcile with each other, as I do. As far as the mere enunciation of the principle of Natural Selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or no Prof. Owen preceded me, for both of us, as shown in this historical sketch, were long ago preceded by Dr. Wells and Mr. Matthews.”)