Чарльз Дарвин
More Letters of Charles Darwin — Volume 2
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, God 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. God 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 passed. I assure 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 circumstances, 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 illustrates 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-masses; 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. 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 sexual 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 sexual 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 publishing, 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-masses 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, Saturday, 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 astonishing 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 accumulate; 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 sexes 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 sexual 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 assumption 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, God 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 "Bastarderzeugung"; it contains more valuable matter than all other writers put together, and would do great service if better known. (664/2. "Versuche uber die Bastarderzeugung 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."
You will blush with pleasure to hear that you are of some use to the master.
LETTER 666. TO J.D. HOOKER. {February, 1864?}
I shall write again. I write now merely to ask, if you have Naravelia (666/1. Ranunculaceae.) (the Clematis-like plant told me by Oliver), to try and propagate me a plant at once. Have you Clematis cirrhosa? It will amuse me to tell you why Clematis interests me, and why I should so very much like to have Naravelia. The leaves of Clematis have no spontaneous movement, nor have the internodes; but when by growth the peduncles of leaves are brought into contact with any object, they bend and catch hold. The slightest stimulus suffices, even a bit of cotton thread a few inches long; but the stimulus must be applied during six or twelve hours, and when the peduncles once bend, though the touching object be removed, they never get straight again. Now mark the difference in another leaf-climber — viz., Tropaeolum: here the young internodes revolve day and night, and the peduncles of the leaves are thus brought into contact with an object, and the slightest momentary touch causes them to bend in any direction and catch the object, but as the axis revolves they must be often dragged away without catching, and then the peduncles straighten themselves again, and are again ready to catch. So that the nervous system of Clematis feels only a prolonged touch — that of Tropaeolum a momentary touch: the peduncles of the latter recover their original position, but Clematis, as it comes into contact by growth with fixed objects, has no occasion to recover its position, and cannot do so. You did send me Flagellaria, but most unfortunately young plants do not have tendrils, and I fear my plant will not get them for another year, and this I much regret, as these leaf-tendrils seem very curious, and in Gloriosa I could not make out the action, but I have now a young plant of Gloriosa growing up (as yet with simple leaves) which I hope to make out. Thank Oliver for decisive answer about tendrils of vines. It is very strange that tendrils formed of modified leaves and branches should agree in all their four highly remarkable properties. I can show a beautiful gradation by which LEAVES produce tendrils, but how the axis passes into a tendril utterly puzzles me. I would give a guinea if vine-tednrils could be found to be leaves.
(666/2. It is an interesting fact that Darwin's work on climbing plants was well advanced before he discovered the existence of the works of Palm, Mohl, and Dutrochet on this subject. On March 22nd, 1864, he wrote to Hooker: — "You quite overrate my tendril work, and there is no occasion to plague myself about priority." In June he speaks of having read "two German books, and all, I believe, that has been written on climbers, and it has stirred me up to find that I have a good deal of new matter.")
LETTER 667. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 2nd {1864}.
You once offered me a Combretum. (667/1. The two forms of shoot in C. argenteum are described in "Climbing Plants," page 41.) I having C. purpureum, out of modesty like an ass refused. Can you now send me a plant? I have a sudden access of furor about climbers. Do you grow Adlumia cirrhosa? Your seed did not germinate with me. Could you have a seedling dug up and potted? I want it fearfully, for it is a leaf-climber, and therefore sacred.
I have some hopes of getting Adlumia, for I used to grow the plant, and seedlings have often come up, and we are now potting all minute reddish-coloured weeds. (667/2. We believe that the Adlumia which came up year by year in flower boxes in the Down verandah grew from seed supplied by Asa Gray.) I have just got a plant with sensitive axis, quite a new case; and tell Oliver I now do not care at all how many tendrils he makes axial, which at one time was a cruel torture to me.
LETTER 668. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 3rd {1864}.
Many thanks for your splendid long letter. But first for business. Please look carefully at the enclosed specimen of Dicentra thalictriformis, and throw away. (668/1. Dicentra thalictrifolia, a Himalayan species of Fumariaceae, with leaf-tendrils.) When the plant was young I concluded certainly that the tendrils were axial, or modified branches, which Mohl says is the case with some Fumariaceae. (668/2. "Ueber den Bau und das Winden der Ranken und Schlingpflanzen. Eine gekronte Preisschrift," 4to, Tubingen, 1827. At page 43 Mohl describes the tips of the branches of Fumaria {Corydalis} clavicualta as being developed into tendrils, as well as the leaves. For this reason Darwin placed the plant among the tendril-bearers rather than among the true leaf-climbers: see "Climbing Plants," Edition II., 1875, page 121.) You looked at them here and agreed. But now the plant is old, what I thought was a branch with two leaves and ending in a tendril looks like a gigantic leaf with two compound leaflets, and the terminal part converted into a tendril. For I see buds in the fork between supposed branch and main stem. Pray look carefully — you know I am profoundly ignorant — and save me from a horrid mistake.
LETTER 669. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(669/1. The following is interesting, as containing a foreshadowing of the chemotaxis of antherozoids which was shown to exist by Pfeffer in 1881: see "Untersuchungen aus dem botanischen Institut zu Tubingen," Volume I., page 363. There are several papers by H.J. Carter on the reproduction of the lower organisms in the "Annals and Magazine of Natural History" between 1855 and 1865.)
Down, Sunday, 22nd, and Saturday, 28th {October, 1865}.
I have been wading through the "Annals and Mag. of N. History." for last ten years, and have been interested by several papers, chiefly, however, translations; but none have interested me more than Carter's on lower vegetables, infusoria, and protozoa. Is he as good a workman as he appears? for if so he would deserve a Royal medal. I know it is not new; but how wonderful his account of the spermatozoa of some dioecious alga or conferva, swimming and finding the minute micropyle in a distinct plant, and forcing its way in! Why, these zoospores must possess some sort of organ of sense to guide their locomotive powers to the small micropyle; and does not this necessarily imply something like a nervous system, in the same way as complemental male cirripedes have organs of sense and locomotion, and nothing else but a sack of spermatozoa?
LETTER 670. TO F. HILDEBRAND. May 16th, 1866.
Since writing to you before, I have read your admirable memoir on Salvia (670/1. "Pringsheim's Jahrbucher," Volume IV., 1866.), and it has interested me almost as much as when I first investigated the structure of orchids. Your paper illustrates several points in my "Origin of Species," especially the transition of organs. Knowing only two or three species in the genus, I had often marvelled how one cell of the anther could have been transformed into the moveable plate or spoon; and how well you show the gradations. But I am surprised that you did not more strongly insist on this point.
I shall be still more surprised if you do not ultimately come to the same belief with me, as shown by so many beautiful contrivances, — that all plants require, from some unknown cause, to be occasionally fertilised by pollen from a distinct individual.
