(653/2. The following is an abstract of the paper which was enclosed in the letter to Asa Gray.)
Pages 106-8. Red cowslip by variation has become non-dimorphic, and with this change of structure has become much more productive of seed than even the heteromorphic union of the common cowslip. Pages 91-2, similar case with Auricula; on the other hand a non-dimorphic variety of P.
farinosa (page 115) is less fertile. These changes, or variations, in the generative system seem to me very remarkable. But far more remarkable is the fact that the red cowslip (pages 106-8) is very sterile when fertilising, or fertilised by the common cowslip. Here we have a new "physiological species." a.n.a.logous facts given (page 98) on the crossing of red and white primroses with common primroses. It is very curious that the two forms of the same species (pages 93, 94, 95, and 117) hybridise with extremely different degrees of facility with distinct species.
He shows (page 94) that sometimes a cross with a quite distinct species yields more seed than a h.o.m.omorphic union with own pollen. He shows (page 111) that of the two h.o.m.omorphic unions possible with each dimorphic species the short-styled (as I stated) is the most sterile, and that my explanation is probably true. There is a good summary to the paper.
LETTER 654. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(654/1. The following letters to Hooker, April 1st, April 5th and May 22nd, refer to Darwin"s scheme of employing Scott as an a.s.sistant at Down, and to Scott"s appointment to the Botanic Garden at Calcutta.)
Down, April 1st, 1864.
I shall not at present allude to your very interesting letter (which as yet has been read to me only twice!), for I am full of a project which I much want you to consider.
You will have seen Scott"s note. He tells me he has no plans for the future. Thinking over all his letters, I believe he is a truly remarkable man. He is willing to follow suggestions, but has much originality in varying his experiments. I believe years may pa.s.s before another man appears fitted to investigate certain difficult and tedious points--viz. relative fertility of varieties of plants, including peloric and other monsters (already Scott has done excellent work on this head); and, secondly, whether a plant"s own pollen is less effective than that of another individual. Now, if Scott is moderate in his wishes, I would pay him for a year or two to work and publish on these or other such subjects which might arise. But I dare not have him here, for it would quite overwork me. There would not be plants sufficient for his work, and it would probably be an injury to himself, as it would put him out of the way of getting a good situation. Now, I believe you have gardeners at Kew who work and learn there without pay.
What do you think of having Scott there for a year or two to work and experiment? I can see enormous difficulties. In the first place you will not perhaps think the points indicated so highly important as I do.
Secondly, he would require ground in some out-of-the-way place where the plants could be covered by a net, which would be unsightly. On the other hand, I presume you would like a series of memoirs published on work done at Kew, which I am fully convinced would have permanent value. It would, of course I conceive, be absolutely necessary that Scott should be under the regular orders of the superintendent. The only way I can fancy that it could be done would be to explain to the superintendent that I temporarily supported Scott solely for the sake of science, and appeal to his kindness to a.s.sist him. If you approved of having him (which I can see is improbable), and you simply ordered the superintendent to a.s.sist him, I believe everything would go to loggerheads. As for Scott himself, it would be of course an advantage to him to study the cultivation at Kew. You would get to know him, and if he really is a good man you could perhaps be able to recommend him to some situation at home or abroad. Pray turn this [over] in your mind. I have no idea whether Scott would like the place, but I can see that he has a burning zeal for science. He told me that his parents were in better circ.u.mstances, and that he chose a gardener"s life solely as the best way of following science. I may just add that in his last letter he gives me the results of many experiments on different individuals of the same species of orchid, showing the most remarkable diversity in their s.e.xual condition. It seems to me a grievous loss that such a man should have all his work cut short. Please remember that I know nothing of him excepting from his letters: these show remarkable talent, astonishing perseverance, much modesty, and what I admire, determined difference from me on many points.
What will Sir William say?
LETTER 655. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 5th [1864].
I see my scheme for Scott has invincible difficulties, and I am very much obliged to you for explaining them at such length. If ever I get decently well, and Scott is free and willing, I will have him here for a couple of years to work out several problems, which otherwise would never be done. I cannot see what will become of the poor fellow. I enclose a little pamphlet from him, which I suppose is not of much scientific value, but is surprising as the work of a gardener. If you have time do just glance over it. I never heard anything so extraordinary as what you say about poisoning plants, etc.
...The post has just come in. Your interest about Scott is extraordinarily kind, and I thank you cordially. It seems absurd to say so, but I suspect that X is prejudiced against Scott because he partially supports my views. (655/1. In a letter to Scott (dated June 11th) Darwin warns him to keep his views "pretty quiet," and quotes Hooker"s opinion that "if it is known that you agree at all with my views on species it is enough to make you unpopular in Edinburgh.")
You must not trust my former letter about Clematis. I worked on too old a plant, and blundered. I have now gone over the work again. It is really curious that the stiff peduncles are acted upon by a bit of thread weighing .062 of a grain.
Clematis glandulosa was a valuable present to me. My gardener showed it to me and said, "This is what they call a Clematis," evidently disbelieving it. So I put a little twig to the peduncle, and the next day my gardener said, "You see it is a Clematis, for it feels." That"s the way we make out plants at Down.
My dear old friend, G.o.d bless you!
LETTER 656. TO J.D. HOOKER. [May 22nd, 1864].
What a good kind heart you have got. You cannot tell how your letter has pleased me. I will write to Scott and ask him if he chooses to go out and risk engagement. If he will not he must want all energy. He says himself he wants stoicism, and is too sensitive. I hope he may not want courage. I feel sure he is a remarkable man, with much good in him, but no doubt many errors and blemishes. I can vouch for his high intellect (in my judgment he is the best observer I ever came across); for his modesty, at least in correspondence; and there is something high-minded in his determination not to receive money from me. I shall ask him whether he can get a good character for probity and sobriety, and whether he can get aid from his relations for his voyage out. I will help, and, if necessary, pay the whole voyage, and give him enough to support him for some weeks at Calcutta. I will write when I hear from him. G.o.d bless you; you, who are so overworked, are most generous to take so much trouble about a man you have had nothing to do with.
(656/1. Scott had left the Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh in March 1864, chagrined at what, justly or unjustly, he considered discouragement and slight. The Indian offer was most gladly and gratefully accepted.)
LETTER 657. TO J. SCOTT. Down, November 1st, 1871.
Dr. Hooker has forwarded to me your letter as the best and simplest plan of explaining affairs. I am sincerely grieved to hear of the pecuniary problem which you have undergone, but now fortunately pa.s.sed. I a.s.sure you that I have never entertained any feelings in regard to you which you suppose. Please to remember that I distinctly stated that I did not consider the sum which I advanced as a loan, but as a gift; and surely there is nothing discreditable to you, under the circ.u.mstances, in receiving a gift from a rich man, as I am. Therefore I earnestly beg you to banish the whole subject from your mind, and begin laying up something for yourself in the future. I really cannot break my word and accept payment. Pray do not rob me of my small share in the credit of aiding to put the right man in the right place. You have done good work, and I am sure will do more; so let us never mention the subject again.
I am, after many interruptions, at work again on my essay on Expression, which was written out once many months ago. I have found your remarks the best of all which have been sent me, and so I state.
CHAPTER 2.XI.--BOTANY, 1863-1881.
2.XI.I. Miscellaneous, 1863-1866.--2.XI.II. Correspondence with Fritz Muller, 1865-1881.--2.XI.III. Miscellaneous, 1868-1881.
2.XI.I. MISCELLANEOUS, 1863-1866.
LETTER 658. TO D. OLIVER. Down [April, 1863].
(658/1. The following letter ill.u.s.trates the truth of Sir W.
Thiselton-Dyer"s remark that Darwin was never "afraid of his facts."
(658/2. "Charles Darwin" (Nature Series), 1882, page 43.) The entrance of pollen-tubes into the nucellus by the chalaza, instead of through the micropyle, was first fully demonstrated by Treub in his paper "Sur les Casuarinees et leur place dans le Systeme naturel," published in the "Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg," X., 1891. Two years later Miss Benson gave an account of a similar phenomenon in certain Amentiferae ("Trans. Linn.
Soc." 1888-94, page 409). This chalazogamic method of fertilisation has since been recognised in other flowering plants, but not, so far as we are aware, in the genus Primula.)
It is a shame to trouble [you], but will you tell me whether the ovule of Primula is "anatropal," nearly as figured by Gray, page 123, "Lessons in Botany," or rather more tending to "amphitropal"? I never looked at such a point before. Why I am curious to know is because I put pollen into the ovarium of monstrous primroses, and now, after sixteen days, and not before (the length of time agrees with slowness of natural impregnation), I find abundance of pollen-tubes emitted, which cling firmly to the ovules, and, I think I may confidently state, penetrate the ovule. But here is an odd thing: they never once enter at (what I suppose to be) the "orifice," but generally at the chalaza...Do you know how pollen-tubes go naturally in Primula? Do they run down walls of ovarium, and then turn up the placenta, and so debouch near the "orifices" of the ovules?
If you thought it worth while to examine ovules, I would see if there are more monstrous flowers, and put pollen into the ovarium, and send you the flowers in fourteen or fifteen days afterwards. But it is rather troublesome. I would not do it unless you cared to examine the ovules.
Like a foolish and idle man, I have wasted a whole morning over them...
In two ovules there was an odd appearance, as if the outer coat of ovule at the chalaza end (if I understand the ovule) had naturally opened or withered where most of the pollen-tubes seemed to penetrate, which made me at first think this was a widely open foramen. I wonder whether the ovules could be thus fertilised?
LETTER 659. TO D. OLIVER. Down [April, 1863].
Many thanks about the Primula. I see that I was pretty right about the ovules. I have been thinking that the apparent opening at the chalaza end must have been withering or perhaps gnawing by some very minute insects, as the ovarium is open at the upper end. If I have time I will have another look at pollen-tubes, as, from what you say, they ought to find their way to the micropyle. But ovules to me are far more troublesome to dissect than animal tissue; they are so soft, and muddy the water.
LETTER 660. TO MAXWELL MASTERS. Down, April 6th [1863].
I have been very glad to read your paper on Peloria. (660/1. "On the Existence of Two Forms of Peloria." "Natural History Review," April, 1863, page 258.) For the mere chance of the following case being new I send it. A plant which I purchased as Corydalis tuberosa has, as you know, one nectary--short, white, and without nectar; the pistil is bowed towards the true nectary; and the hood formed by the inner petals slips off towards the opposite side (all adaptations to insect agency, like many other pretty ones in this family). Now on my plants there are several flowers (the fertility of which I will observe) with both nectaries equal and purple and secreting nectar; the pistil is straight, and the hood slips off either way. In short, these flowers have the exact structure of Dielytra and Adlumia. Seeing this, I must look at the case as one of reversion; though it is one of the spreading of irregularity to two sides.
As columbine [Aquilegia] has all petals, etc., irregular, and as monkshood [Aconitum] has two petals irregular, may not the case given by Seringe, and referred to [by] you (660/2. "Seringe describes and figures a flower [of Aconitum] wherein all the sepals were helmet-shaped," and the petals similarly affected. Maxwell Masters, op. cit., page 260.), by you be looked at as reversion to the columbine state? Would it be too bold to suppose that some ancient Linaria, or allied form, and some ancient Viola, had all petals spur-shaped, and that all cases of "irregular peloria" in these genera are reversions to such imaginary ancient form? (660/3. ""Regular or Congenital Peloria" would include those flowers which, contrary to their usual habit, retain throughout the whole of their growth their primordial regularity of form and equality of proportion. "Irregular or Acquired Peloria," on the other hand, would include those flowers in which the irregularity of growth that ordinarily characterises some portions of the corolla is manifested in all of them." Maxwell Masters, loc. cit.)
It seems to me, in my ignorance, that it would be advantageous to consider the two forms of Peloria WHEN OCCURRING IN THE VERY SAME SPECIES as probably due to the same general law--viz., one as reversion to very early state, and the other as reversion to a later state when all the petals were irregularly formed. This seems at least to me a priori a more probable view than to look at one form of Peloria as due to reversion and the other as something distinct. (660/4. See Maxwell Masters, "Vegetable Teratology," 1869, page 235; "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume II., page 33.)
What do you think of this notion?
LETTER 661. TO P.H. GOSSE.
(661/1. The following was written in reply to Mr. Gosse"s letter of May 30th asking for a solution of his difficulties in fertilising Stanhopea.
It is reprinted by the kind permission of Mr. Edmund Gosse from his delightful book, the "Life of Philip Henry Gosse," London, 1890, page 299.)
Down, June 2nd, 1863.
It would give me real pleasure to resolve your doubts, but I cannot.
I can give only suspicions and my grounds for them. I should think the non-viscidity of the stigmatic hollow was due to the plant not living under its natural conditions. Please see what I have said on Acropera.
An excellent observer, Mr. J. Scott, of the Botanical Gardens, Edinburgh, finds all that I say accurate, but, nothing daunted, he with the knife enlarged the orifice and forced in pollen-ma.s.ses; or he simply stuck them into the contracted orifice without coming into contact with the stigmatic surface, which is hardly at all viscid, when, lo and behold, pollen-tubes were emitted and fine seed capsules obtained. This was effected with Acropera Loddigesii; but I have no doubt that I have blundered badly about A. luteola. I mention all this because, as Mr.