CHAPTER 2.X. -- FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS._Life and Letters of Charles Darwin

[In the letters already given we have had occasion to notice the general

bearing of a number of botanical problems on the wider question of

Evolution. The detailed work in botany which my father accomplished by

the guidance of the light cast on the study of natural history by his

own work on Evolution remains to be noticed. In a letter to Mr. Murray,

September 24th, 1861, speaking of his book on the 'Fertilisation of

Orchids,' he says: "It will perhaps serve to illustrate how Natural

History may be worked under the belief of the modification of species."

This remark gives a suggestion as to the value and interest of his

botanical work, and it might be expressed in far more emphatic language

without danger of exaggeration.

In the same letter to Mr. Murray, he says: "I think this little volume

will do good to the 'Origin,' as it will show that I have worked hard

at details." It is true that his botanical work added a mass of

corroborative detail to the case for Evolution, but the chief support

to his doctrines given by these researches was of another kind. They

supplied an argument against those critics who have so freely dogmatised

as to the uselessness of particular structures, and as to the consequent

impossibility of their having been developed by means of natural

selection. His observations on Orchids enabled him to say: "I can show

the meaning of some of the apparently meaningless ridges, horns, who

will now venture to say that this or that structure is useless?" A

kindred point is expressed in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (May 14th,

1862:)--

"When many parts of structure, as in the woodpecker, show distinct

adaptation to external bodies, it is preposterous to attribute them to

the effects of climate, etc., but when a single point alone, as a hooked

seed, it is conceivable it may thus have arisen. I have found the study

of Orchids eminently useful in showing me how nearly all parts of the

flower are co-adapted for fertilization by insects, and therefore

the results of natural selection--even the most trifling details of

structure."

One of the greatest services rendered by my father to the study of

Natural History is the revival of Teleology. The evolutionist studies

the purpose or meaning of organs with the zeal of the older Teleology,

but with far wider and more coherent purpose. He has the invigorating

knowledge that he is gaining not isolated conceptions of the economy

of the present, but a coherent view of both past and present. And even

where he fails to discover the use of any part, he may, by a knowledge

of its structure, unravel the history of the past vicissitudes in the

life of the species. In this way a vigour and unity is given to the

study of the forms of organised beings, which before it lacked.

This point has already been discussed in Mr. Huxley's chapter on the

'Reception of the "Origin of Species",' and need not be here considered.

It does, however, concern us to recognize that this "great service to

natural science," as Dr. Gray describes it, was effected almost as much

by his special botanical work as by the 'Origin of Species.'

For a statement of the scope and influence of my father's botanical

work, I may refer to Mr. Thiselton Dyer's article in 'Charles Darwin,'

one of the "Nature Series". Mr. Dyer's wide knowledge, his friendship

with my father, and especially his power of sympathising with the work

of others, combine to give this essay a permanent value. The following

passage (page 43) gives a true picture:--

"Notwithstanding the extent and variety of his botanical work, Mr.

Darwin always disclaimed any right to be regarded as a professed

botanist. He turned his attention to plants, doubtless because they

were convenient objects for studying organic phenomena in their least

complicated forms; and this point of view, which, if one may use the

expression without disrespect, had something of the amateur about it,

was in itself of the greatest importance. For, from not being, till he

took up any point, familiar with the literature bearing on it, his mind

was absolutely free from any prepossession. He was never afraid of his

facts, or of framing any hypothesis, however startling, which seemed to

explain them... In any one else such an attitude would have produced

much work that was crude and rash. But Mr. Darwin--if one may venture

on language which will strike no one who had conversed with him as

over-strained--seemed by gentle persuasion to have penetrated that

reserve of nature which baffles smaller men. In other words, his long

experience had given him a kind of instinctive insight into the method

of attack of any biological problem, however unfamiliar to him, while

he rigidly controlled the fertility of his mind in hypothetical

explanations by the no less fertility of ingeniously devised

experiment."

To form any just idea of the greatness of the revolution worked by my

father's researches in the study of the fertilisation of flowers, it

is necessary to know from what a condition this branch of knowledge has

emerged. It should be remembered that it was only during the early

years of the present century that the idea of sex, as applied to plants,

became at all firmly established. Sachs, in his 'History of Botany'

(1875), has given some striking illustrations of the remarkable slowness

with which its acceptance gained ground. He remarks that when we

consider the experimental proofs given by Camerarius (1694), and by

Kolreuter (1761-66), it appears incredible that doubts should afterwards

have been raised as to the sexuality of plants. Yet he shows that such

doubts did actually repeatedly crop up. These adverse criticisms rested

for the most part on careless experiments, but in many cases on a priori

arguments. Even as late as 1820, a book of this kind, which would now

rank with circle squaring, or flat-earth philosophy, was seriously

noticed in a botanical journal.

A distinct conception of sex as applied to plants, had not long emerged

from the mists of profitless discussion and feeble experiment, at the

time when my father began botany by attending Henslow's lectures at

Cambridge.

When the belief in the sexuality of plants had become established as an

incontrovertible piece of knowledge, a weight of misconception remained,

weighing down any rational view of the subject. Camerarius (Sachs,

'Geschichte,' page 419.) believed (naturally enough in his day) that

hermaphrodite flowers are necessarily self-fertilised. He had the wit to

be astonished at this, a degree of intelligence which, as Sachs points

out, the majority of his successors did not attain to.

The following extracts from a note-book show that this point occurred to

my father as early as 1837:--

"Do not plants which have male and female organs together [i.e. in the

same flower] yet receive influence from other plants? Does not Lyell

give some argument about varieties being difficult to keep [true] on

account of pollen from other plants? Because this may be applied to show

all plants do receive intermixture."

Sprengel (Christian Conrad Sprengel, 1750-1816.), indeed, understood

that the hermaphrodite structure of flowers by no means necessarily

leads to self-fertilisation. But although he discovered that in many

cases pollen is of necessity carried to the stigma of another FLOWER, he

did not understand that in the advantage gained by the intercrossing of

distinct PLANTS lies the key to the whole question. Hermann Muller has

well remarked that this "omission was for several generations fatal to

Sprengel's work... For both at the time and subsequently, botanists felt

above all the weakness of his theory, and they set aside, along with his

defective ideas, his rich store of patient and acute observations and

his comprehensive and accurate interpretations." It remained for my

father to convince the world that the meaning hidden in the structure of

flowers was to be found by seeking light in the same direction in which

Sprengel, seventy years before, had laboured. Robert Brown was the

connecting link between them, for it was at his recommendation that

my father in 1841 read Sprengel's now celebrated 'Secret of Nature

Displayed.' ('Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur im Baue und in der

Befruchtung der Blumen.' Berlin, 1793.) The book impressed him as being

"full of truth," although "with some little nonsense." It not only

encouraged him in kindred speculation, but guided him in his work,

for in 1844 he speaks of verifying Sprengel's observations. It may be

doubted whether Robert Brown ever planted a more beautiful seed than in

putting such a book into such hands.

A passage in the 'Autobiography' (volume i.) shows how it was that my

father was attracted to the subject of fertilisation: "During the summer

of 1839, and I believe during the previous summer, I was led to attend

to the cross-fertilisation of flowers by the aid of insects, from having

come to the conclusion in my speculations on the origin of species, that

crossing played an important part in keeping specific forms constant."

The original connection between the study of flowers and the problem of

evolution is curious, and could hardly have been predicted. Moreover, it

was not a permanent bond. As soon as the idea arose that the offspring

of cross-fertilisation is, in the struggle for life, likely to conquer

the seedlings of self-fertilised parentage, a far more vigorous belief

in the potency of natural selection in moulding the structure of flowers

is attained. A central idea is gained towards which experiment and

observation may be directed.

Dr. Gray has well remarked with regard to this central idea ('Nature,'

June 4, 1874):--"The aphorism, 'Nature abhors a vacuum,' is a

characteristic specimen of the science of the middle ages. The aphorism,

Nature abhors close fertilisation,' and the demonstration of the

principle, belong to our age and to Mr. Darwin. To have originated this,

and also the principle of Natural Selection... and to have applied these

principles to the system of nature, in such a manner as to make, within

a dozen years, a deeper impression upon natural history than has been

made since Linnaeus, is ample title for one man's fame."

The flowers of the Papilionaceae attracted his attention early, and

were the subject of his first paper on fertilisation. ("Gardeners'

Chronicle", 1857, page 725. It appears that this paper was a piece of

"over-time" work. He wrote to a friend, "that confounded leguminous

paper was done in the afternoon, and the consequence was I had to go to

Moor Park for a week.") The following extract from an undated letter to

Dr. Asa Gray seems to have been written before the publication of this

paper, probably in 1856 or 1857:--

"... What you say on Papilionaceous flowers is very true; and I have no

facts to show that varieties are crossed; but yet (and the same remark

is applicable in a beautiful way to Fumaria and Dielytra, as I noticed

many years ago), I must believe that the flowers are constructed partly

in direct relation to the visits of insects; and how insects can avoid

bringing pollen from other individuals I cannot understand. It is really

pretty to watch the action of a Humble-bee on the scarlet kidney bean,

and in this genus (and in Lathyrus grandiflorus) the honey is so placed

that the bee invariably alights on that ONE side of the flower towards

which the spiral pistil is protruded (bringing out with it pollen), and

by the depression of the wing-petal is forced against the bee's side all

dusted with pollen. (If you will look at a bed of scarlet kidney beans

you will find that the wing-petals on the LEFT side alone are all

scratched by the tarsi of the bees. [Note in the original letter by C.

Darwin.]) In the broom the pistil is rubbed on the centre of the back

of the bee. I suspect there is something to be made out about the

Leguminosae, which will bring the case within OUR theory; though I have

failed to do so. Our theory will explain why in the vegetable and animal

kingdom the act of fertilisation even in hermaphrodites usually takes

place sub-jove, though thus exposed to GREAT injury from damp and rain.

In animals which cannot be [fertilised] by insects or wind, there is NO

CASE of LAND-animals being hermaphrodite without the concourse of two

individuals."

A letter to Dr. Asa Gray (September 5th, 1857) gives the substance of

the paper in the "Gardeners' Chronicle":--

"Lately I was led to examine buds of kidney bean with the pollen shed;

but I was led to believe that the pollen could HARDLY get on the stigma

by wind or otherwise, except by bees visiting [the flower] and moving

the wing petals: hence I included a small bunch of flowers in two

bottles in every way treated the same: the flowers in one I daily just

momentarily moved, as if by a bee; these set three fine pods, the other

NOT ONE. Of course this little experiment must be tried again, and this

year in England it is too late, as the flowers seem now seldom to set.

If bees are necessary to this flower's self-fertilisation, bees must

almost cross them, as their dusted right-side of head and right legs

constantly touch the stigma.

"I have, also, lately been re-observing daily Lobelia fulgens--this in

my garden is never visited by insects, and never sets seeds, without

pollen be put on the stigma (whereas the small blue Lobelia is visited

by bees and does set seed); I mention this because there are such

beautiful contrivances to prevent the stigma ever getting its own

pollen; which seems only explicable on the doctrine of the advantage of

crosses."

The paper was supplemented by a second in 1858. ("Gardeners' Chronicle",

1858, page 828. In 1861 another paper on Fertilisation appeared in the

"Gardeners' Chronicle", page 552, in which he explained the action of

insects on Vinca major. He was attracted to the periwinkle by the fact

that it is not visited by insects and never set seeds.) The chief object

of these publications seems to have been to obtain information as to the

possibility of growing varieties of leguminous plants near each other,

and yet keeping them true. It is curious that the Papilionaceae should

not only have been the first flowers which attracted his attention by

their obvious adaptation to the visits of insects, but should also have

constituted one of his sorest puzzles. The common pea and the sweet pea

gave him much difficulty, because, although they are as obviously fitted

for insect-visits as the rest of the order, yet their varieties keep

true. The fact is that neither of these plants being indigenous, they

are not perfectly adapted for fertilisation by British insects. He could

not, at this stage of his observations, know that the co-ordination

between a flower and the particular insect which fertilises it may be

as delicate as that between a lock and its key, so that this explanation

was not likely to occur to him. (He was of course alive to variety in

the habits of insects. He published a short note in the "Entomologists

Weekly Intelligencer", 1860, asking whether the Tineina and other small

moths suck flowers.)

Besides observing the Leguminosae, he had already begun, as shown in

the foregoing extracts, to attend to the structure of other flowers in

relation to insects. At the beginning of 1860 he worked at Leschenaultia

(He published a short paper on the manner of fertilisation of this

flower, in the "Gardeners' Chronicle", 1871, page 1166.), which at first

puzzled him, but was ultimately made out. A passage in a letter chiefly

relating to Leschenaultia seems to show that it was only in the spring

of 1860 that he began widely to apply his knowledge to the relation of

insects to other flowers. This is somewhat surprising, when we remember

that he had read Sprengel many years before. He wrote (May 14):--

"I should look at this curious contrivance as specially related to

visits of insects; as I begin to think is almost universally the case."

Even in July 1862 he wrote to Dr. Asa Gray:--

"There is no end to the adaptations. Ought not these cases to make

one very cautious when one doubts about the use of all parts? I fully

believe that the structure of all irregular flowers is governed in

relation to insects. Insects are the Lords of the floral (to quote the

witty "Athenaeum") world."

He was probably attracted to the study of Orchids by the fact that

several kinds are common near Down. The letters of 1860 show that these

plants occupied a good deal of his attention; and in 1861 he gave part

of the summer and all the autumn to the subject. He evidently considered

himself idle for wasting time on Orchids, which ought to have been given

to 'Variation under Domestication.' Thus he wrote:--

"There is to me incomparably more interest in observing than in writing;

but I feel quite guilty in trespassing on these subjects, and not

sticking to varieties of the confounded cocks, hens and ducks. I hear

that Lyell is savage at me. I shall never resist Linum next summer."

It was in the summer of 1860 that he made out one of the most striking

and familiar facts in the book, namely, the manner in which the pollen

masses in Orchis are adapted for removal by insects. He wrote to Sir

J.D. Hooker July 12:--

"I have been examining Orchis pyramidalis, and it almost equals, perhaps

even beats, your Listera case; the sticky glands are congenitally united

into a saddle-shaped organ, which has great power of movement, and

seizes hold of a bristle (or proboscis) in an admirable manner, and then

another movement takes place in the pollen masses, by which they

are beautifully adapted to leave pollen on the two LATERAL stigmatic

surfaces. I never saw anything so beautiful."

In June of the same year he wrote:--

"You speak of adaptation being rarely VISIBLE, though present in plants.

I have just recently been looking at the common Orchis, and I declare I

think its adaptations in every part of the flower quite as beautiful and

plain, or even more beautiful than in the Woodpecker. I have written and

sent a notice for the "Gardeners' Chronicle" (June 9, 1860. This seems

to have attracted some attention, especially among entomologists, as it

was reprinted in the "Entomologists Weekly Intelligencer", 1860.), on a

curious difficulty in the Bee Orchis, and should much like to hear what

you think of the case. In this article I have incidentally touched on

adaptation to visits of insects; but the contrivance to keep the sticky

glands fresh and sticky beats almost everything in nature. I never

remember having seen it described, but it must have been, and, as I

ought not in my book to give the observation as my own, I should be very

glad to know where this beautiful contrivance is described."

He wrote also to Dr. Gray, June 8, 1860:--

"Talking of adaptation, I have lately been looking at our common

orchids, and I dare say the facts are as old and well-known as the

hills, but I have been so struck with admiration at the contrivances,

that I have sent a notice to the "Gardeners' Chronicle". The Ophrys

apifera, offers, as you will see, a curious contradiction in structure."

Besides attending to the fertilisation of the flowers he was already, in

1860, busy with the homologies of the parts, a subject of which he made

good use in the Orchid book. He wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (July):--

"It is a real good joke my discussing homologies of Orchids with you,

after examining only three or four genera; and this very fact makes me

feel positive I am right! I do not quite understand some of your

terms; but sometime I must get you to explain the homologies; for I am

intensely interested on the subject, just as at a game of chess."

This work was valuable from a systematic point of view. In 1880 he wrote

to Mr. Bentham:--

"It was very kind in you to write to me about the Orchideae, for it has

pleased me to an extreme degree that I could have been of the LEAST use

to you about the nature of the parts."

The pleasure which his early observations on Orchids gave him is shown

in such extracts as the following from a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (July

27, 1861):--

"You cannot conceive how the Orchids have delighted me. They came safe,

but box rather smashed; cylindrical old cocoa- or snuff-canister much

safer. I enclose postage. As an account of the movement, I shall allude

to what I suppose is Oncidium, to make CERTAIN,--is the enclosed flower

with crumpled petals this genus? Also I most specially want to know what

the enclosed little globular brown Orchid is. I have only seen pollen

of a Cattleya on a bee, but surely have you not unintentionally sent

me what I wanted most (after Catasetum or Mormodes), viz. one of the

Epidendreae?! I PARTICULARLY want (and will presently tell you why)

another spike of this little Orchid, with older flowers, some even

almost withered."

His delight in observation is again shown in a letter to Dr. Gray

(1863). referring to Cruger's letters from Trinidad, he wrote:--"Happy

man, he has actually seen crowds of bees flying round Catasetum, with

the pollinia sticking to their backs!"

The following extracts of letters to Sir J.D. Hooker illustrate further

the interest which his work excited in him:--

"Veitch sent me a grand lot this morning. What wonderful structures!

"I have now seen enough, and you must not send me more, for though I

enjoy looking at them MUCH, and it has been very useful to me, seeing

so many different forms, it is idleness. For my object each species

requires studying for days. I wish you had time to take up the group.

I would give a good deal to know what the rostellum is, of which I have

traced so many curious modifications. I suppose it cannot be one of the

stigmas (It is a modification of the upper stigma.), there seems a great

tendency for two lateral stigmas to appear. My paper, though touching

on only subordinate points will run, I fear, to 100 MS. folio pages!

The beauty of the adaptation of parts seems to me unparalleled. I should

think or guess waxy pollen was most differentiated. In Cypripedium which

seems least modified, and a much exterminated group, the grains are

single. In ALL OTHERS, as far as I have seen, they are in packets of

four; and these packets cohere into many wedge-formed masses in Orchis;

into eight, four, and finally two. It seems curious that a flower should

exist, which could AT MOST fertilise only two other flowers, seeing

how abundant pollen generally is; this fact I look at as explaining the

perfection of the contrivance by which the pollen, so important from its

fewness, is carried from flower to flower" (1861).

"I was thinking of writing to you to-day, when your note with the

Orchids came. What frightful trouble you have taken about Vanilla; you

really must not take an atom more; for the Orchids are more play than

real work. I have been much interested by Epidendrum, and have worked

all morning at them; for heaven's sake, do not corrupt me by any more"

(August 30, 1861).

He originally intended to publish his notes on Orchids as a paper in the

Linnean Society's Journal, but it soon became evident that a separate

volume would be a more suitable form of publication. In a letter to Sir

J.D. Hooker, September 24, 1861, he writes:--

"I have been acting, I fear that you will think, like a goose; and

perhaps in truth I have. When I finished a few days ago my Orchis

paper, which turns out 140 folio pages!! and thought of the expense of

woodcuts, I said to myself, I will offer the Linnean Society to withdraw

it, and publish it in a pamphlet. It then flashed on me that perhaps

Murray would publish it, so I gave him a cautious description, and

offered to share risks and profits. This morning he writes that he

will publish and take all risks, and share profits and pay for all

illustrations. It is a risk, and heaven knows whether it will not be a

dead failure, but I have not deceived Murray, and [have] told him that

it would interest those alone who cared much for natural history. I hope

I do not exaggerate the curiosity of the many special contrivances."

He wrote the two following letters to Mr. Murray about the publication

of the book:]

Down, September 21 [1861].

My dear Sir,

Will you have the kindness to give me your opinion, which I shall

implicitly follow. I have just finished a very long paper intended for

Linnean Society (the title is enclosed), and yesterday for the first

time it occurred to me that POSSIBLY it might be worth publishing

separately which would save me trouble and delay. The facts are new, and

have been collected during twenty years and strike me as curious. Like a

Bridgewater treatise, the chief object is to show the perfection of the

many contrivances in Orchids. The subject of propagation is interesting

to most people, and is treated in my paper so that any woman could read

it. Parts are dry and purely scientific; but I think my paper would

interest a good many of such persons who care for Natural History, but

no others.

... It would be a very little book, and I believe you think very little

books objectionable. I have myself GREAT doubts on the subject. I am

very apt to think that my geese are swans; but the subject seems to me

curious and interesting.

I beg you not to be guided in the least in order to oblige me, but as

far as you can judge, please give me your opinion. If I were to publish

separately, I would agree to any terms, such as half risk and half

profit, or what you liked; but I would not publish on my sole risk, for

to be frank, I have been told that no publisher whatever, under such

circumstances, cares for the success of a book.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J. MURRAY. Down, September 24 [1861].

My dear Sir,

I am very much obliged for your note and very liberal offer. I have

had some qualms and fears. All that I can feel sure of is that the MS.

contains many new and curious facts, and I am sure the Essay would have

interested me, and will interest those who feel lively interest in the

wonders of nature; but how far the public will care for such minute

details, I cannot at all tell. It is a bold experiment; and at worst,

cannot entail much loss; as a certain amount of sale will, I think, be

pretty certain. A large sale is out of the question. As far as I can

judge, generally the points which interest me I find interest others;

but I make the experiment with fear and trembling,--not for my own sake,

but for yours...

[On September 28th he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:--

"What a good soul you are not to sneer at me, but to pat me on the back.

I have the greatest doubt whether I am not going to do, in publishing

my paper, a most ridiculous thing. It would annoy me much, but only for

Murray's sake, if the publication were a dead failure."

There was still much work to be done, and in October he was still

receiving Orchids from Kew, and wrote to Hooker:--

"It is impossible to thank you enough. I was almost mad at the wealth of

Orchids." And again--

"Mr. Veitch most generously has sent me two splendid buds of Mormodes,

which will be capital for dissection, but I fear will never be

irritable; so for the sake of charity and love of heaven do, I beseech

you, observe what movement takes place in Cychnoches, and what part must

be touched. Mr. V. has also sent me one splendid flower of Catasetum,

the most wonderful Orchid I have seen."

On October 13th he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker:--

"It seems that I cannot exhaust your good nature. I have had the hardest

day's work at Catasetum and buds of Mormodes, and believe I understand

at last the mechanism of movements and the functions. Catasetum is

a beautiful case of slight modification of structure leading to new

functions. I never was more interested in any subject in my life than in

this of Orchids. I owe very much to you."

Again to the same friend, November 1, 1861:--

"If you really can spare another Catasetum, when nearly ready, I shall

be most grateful; had I not better send for it? The case is truly

marvellous; the (so-called) sensation, or stimulus from a light touch

is certainly transmitted through the antennae for more than one inch

INSTANTANEOUSLY... A cursed insect or something let my last flower off

last night."

Professor de Candolle has remarked ('Darwin considere, etc.,' 'Archives

des Sciences Physiques et Naturelles,' 3eme periode. Tome vii. 481, 1882

(May).) of my father, "Ce n'est pas lui qui aurait demande de construire

des palais pour y loger des laboratoires." This was singularly true of

his orchid work, or rather it would be nearer the truth to say that

he had no laboratory, for it was only after the publication of the

'Fertilisation of Orchids,' that he built himself a greenhouse. He wrote

to Sir J.D. Hooker (December 24th, 1862):--

"And now I am going to tell you a MOST important piece of news!! I

have almost resolved to build a small hot-house; my neighbour's really

firs-rate gardener has suggested it, and offered to make me plans, and

see that it is well done, and he is really a clever fellow, who wins

lots of prizes, and is very observant. He believes that we should

succeed with a little patience; it will be a grand amusement for me to

experiment with plants."

Again he wrote (February 15th, 1863):--

"I write now because the new hot-house is ready, and I long to stock it,

just like a schoolboy. Could you tell me pretty soon what plants you can

give me; and then I shall know what to order? And do advise me how I had

better get such plants as you can SPARE. Would it do to send my tax-cart

early in the morning, on a day that was not frosty, lining the cart with

mats, and arriving here before night? I have no idea whether this

degree of exposure (and of course the cart would be cold) could injure

stov-plants; they would be about five hours (with bait) on the journey

home."

A week later he wrote:--

"you cannot imagine what pleasure your plants give me (far more than

your dead Wedgwood ware can give you); and I go and gloat over them,

but we privately confessed to each other, that if they were not our own,

perhaps we should not see such transcendent beauty in each leaf."

And in March, when he was extremely unwell he wrote:--

"A few words about the Stove-plants; they do so amuse me. I have crawled

to see them two or three times. Will you correct and answer, and return

enclosed. I have hunted in all my books and cannot find these names

(His difficulty with regard to the names of plants is illustrated, with

regard to a Lupine on which he was at work, in an extract from a letter

(July 21, 1866) to Sir J.D. Hooker: "I sent to the nursery garden,

whence I bought the seed, and could only hear that it was 'the common

blue Lupine,' the man saying 'he was no scholard, and did not know

Latin, and that parties who make experiments ought to find out the

names.'"), and I like much to know the family."

The book was published May 15th, 1862. Of its reception he writes to

Murray, June 13th and 18th:--

"The Botanists praise my Orchid-book to the skies. Some one sent me

(perhaps you) the 'Parthenon,' with a good review. The "Athenaeum" (May

24, 1862.) treats me with very kind pity and contempt; but the reviewer

knew nothing of his subject."

"There is a superb, but I fear exaggerated, review in the 'London

Review,' (June 14, 1862.) But I have not been a fool, as I thought I

was, to publish (Doubts on this point still, however, occurred to him

about this time. He wrote to Prof. Oliver (June 8): "I am glad that

you have read my Orchis-book and seem to approve of it; for I never

published anything which I so much doubted whether it was worth

publishing, and indeed I still doubt. The subject interested me beyond

what, I suppose, it is worth."); for Asa Gray, about the most competent

judge in the world, thinks almost as highly of the book as does the

'London Review.' The "Athenaeum" will hinder the sale greatly."

The Rev. M.J. Berkeley was the author of the notice in the 'London

Review,' as my father learned from Sir J.D. Hooker, who added, 'I

thought it very well done indeed. I have read a good deal of the

Orchid-book, and echo all he says."

To this my father replied (June 30th, 1862):--

"My dear Old Friend,

You speak of my warming the cockles of your heart, but you will never

know how often you have warmed mine. It is not your approbation of my

scientific work (though I care for that more than for any one's): it is

something deeper. To this day I remember keenly a letter you wrote to me

from Oxford, when I was at the Water-cure, and how it cheered me when I

was utterly weary of life. Well, my Orchis-book is a success (but I do

not know whether it sells.)"

In another letter to the same friend, he wrote:--

"You have pleased me much by what you say in regard to Bentham and

Oliver approving of my book; for I had got a sort of nervousness,

and doubted whether I had not made an egregious fool of myself, and

concocted pleasant little stinging remarks for reviews, such as 'Mr.

Darwin's head seems to have been turned by a certain degree of

success, and he thinks that the most trifling observations are worth

publication.'"

Mr. Bentham's approval was given in his Presidential Address to the

Linnean Society, May 24, 1862, and was all the more valuable because

it came from one who was by no means supposed to be favourable to

evolutionary doctrines.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 10 [1862].

My dear Gray,

Your generous sympathy makes you overestimate what you have read of my

Orchid-book. But your letter of May 18th and 26th has given me an almost

foolish amount of satisfaction. The subject interested me, I knew,

beyond its real value; but I had lately got to think that I had made

myself a complete fool by publishing in a semi-popular form. Now I shall

confidently defy the world. I have heard that Bentham and Oliver approve

of it; but I have heard the opinion of no one else whose opinion is

worth a farthing... No doubt my volume contains much error: how curiously

difficult it is to be accurate, though I try my utmost. Your notes have

interested me beyond measure. I can now afford to d-- my critics with

ineffable complacency of mind. Cordial thanks for this benefit. It

is surprising to me that you should have strength of mind to care for

science, amidst the awful events daily occurring in your country. I

daily look at the "Times" with almost as much interest as an American

could do. When will peace come? it is dreadful to think of the

desolation of large parts of your magnificent country; and all the

speechless misery suffered by many. I hope and think it not unlikely

that we English are wrong in concluding that it will take a long time

for prosperity to return to you. It is an awful subject to reflect on...

[Dr. Asa Gray reviewed the book in 'Silliman's Journal' ('Silliman's

Journal,' volume xxiv. page 138. Here is given an account of the

fertilisation of Platanthera Hookeri. P. hyperborea is discussed in

Dr. Gray's 'Enumeration' in the same volume, page 259; also, with other

species, in a second notice of the Orchid-book at page 420.), where he

speaks, in strong terms, of the fascination which it must have for even

slightly instructed readers. He made, too, some original observations on

an American orchid, and these first-fruits of the subject, sent in MS.

or proof sheet to my father, were welcomed by him in a letter (July

23rd):--

"Last night, after writing the above, I read the great bundle of notes.

Little did I think what I had to read. What admirable observations! You

have distanced me on my own hobby-horse! I have not had for weeks such a

glow of pleasure as your observations gave me."

The next letter refers to the publication of the review:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, July 28 [1862].

My dear Gray,

I hardly know what to thank for first. Your stamps gave infinite

satisfaction. I took him (One of his boys who was ill.) first one lot,

and then an hour afterwards another lot. He actually raised himself on

one elbow to look at them. It was the first animation he showed. He said

only: "You must thank Professor Gray awfully." In the evening after

a long silence, there came out the oracular sentence: "He is awfully

kind." And indeed you are, overworked as you are, to take so much

trouble for our poor dear little man.--And now I must begin the

"awfullys" on my own account: what a capital notice you have published

on the orchids! It could not have been better; but I fear that you

overrate it. I am very sure that I had not the least idea that you or

any one would approve of it so much. I return your last note for the

chance of your publishing any notice on the subject; but after all

perhaps you may not think it worth while; yet in my judgment SEVERAL of

your facts, especially Platanthera hyperborea, are MUCH too good to be

merged in a review. But I have always noticed that you are prodigal in

originality in your reviews...

[Sir Joseph Hooker reviewed the book in the "Gardeners' Chronicle",

writing in a successful imitation of the style of Lindley, the Editor.

My father wrote to Sir Joseph (November 12, 1862):--

"So you did write the review in the "Gardeners' Chronicle". Once or

twice I doubted whether it was Lindley; but when I came to a little slap

at R. Brown, I doubted no longer. You arch-rogue! I do not wonder you

have deceived others also. Perhaps I am a conceited dog; but if so, you

have much to answer for; I never received so much praise, and coming

from you I value it much more than from any other."

With regard to botanical opinion generally, he wrote to Dr. Gray, "I

am fairly astonished at the success of my book with botanists." Among

naturalists who were not botanists, Lyell was pre-eminent in his

appreciation of the book. I have no means of knowing when he read it,

but in later life, as I learn from Professor Judd, he was enthusiastic

in praise of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' which he considered "next

to the 'Origin,' as the most valuable of all Darwin's works." Among the

general public the author did not at first hear of many disciples, thus

he wrote to his cousin Fox in September 1862: "Hardly any one not a

botanist, except yourself, as far as I know, has cared for it."

A favourable notice appeared in the "Saturday Review", October 18th,

1862; the reviewer points out that the book would escape the angry

polemics aroused by the 'Origin.' (Dr. Gray pointed out that if the

Orchid-book (with a few trifling omissions) had appeared before the

'Origin,' the author would have been canonised rather than anathematised

by the natural theologians.) This is illustrated by a review in the

"Literary Churchman", in which only one fault found, namely, that Mr.

Darwin's expression of admiration at the contrivances in orchids is too

indirect a way of saying, "O Lord, how manifold are Thy works!"

A somewhat similar criticism occurs in the 'Edinburgh Review' (October

1862). The writer points out that Mr. Darwin constantly uses phrases,

such as "beautiful contrivance," "the labellum is... IN ORDER TO

attract," "the nectar is PURPOSELY lodged." The Reviewer concludes his

discussion thus: "We know, too that these purposes and ideas are not our

own, but the ideas and purposes of Another."

The 'Edinburgh' reviewer's treatment of this subject was criticised

in the "Saturday Review", November 15th, 1862: With reference to this

article my father wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (December 29th, 1862):--

"Here is an odd chance; my nephew Henry Parker, an Oxford Classic, and

Fellow of Oriel, came here this evening; and I asked him whether he

knew who had written the little article in the "Saturday", smashing the

[Edinburgh reviewer], which we liked; and after a little hesitation he

owned he had. I never knew that he wrote in the "Saturday"; and was it

not an odd chance?"

The 'Edinburgh' article was written by the Duke of Argyll, and has

since been made use of in his 'Reign of Law,' 1867. Mr. Wallace replied

('Quarterly Journal of Science,' October 1867. Republished in 'Natural

Selection,' 1871.) to the Duke's criticisms, making some specially good

remarks on those which refer to orchids. He shows how, by a "beautiful

self-acting adjustment," the nectary of the orchid Angraecum (from 10 to

14 inches in length), and the proboscis of a moth sufficiently long to

reach the nectar, might be developed by natural selection. He goes on to

point out that on any other theory we must suppose that the flower was

created with an enormously long nectary, and that then by a special act,

an insect was created fitted to visit the flower, which would otherwise

remain sterile. With regard to this point my father wrote (October 12 or

13, 1867):--

"I forgot to remark how capitally you turn the tables on the Duke, when

you make him create the Angraecum and Moth by special creation."

If we examine the literature relating to the fertilisation of flowers,

we do not find that this new branch of study showed any great activity

immediately after the publication of the Orchid-book. There are a few

papers by Asa Gray, in 1862 and 1863, by Hildebrand in 1864, and

by Moggridge in 1865, but the great mass of work by Axell, Delpino,

Hildebrand, and the Mullers, did not begin to appear until about 1867.

The period during which the new views were being assimilated, and before

they became thoroughly fruitful, was, however, surprisingly short. The

later activity in this department may be roughly gauged by the fact

that the valuable 'Bibliography,' given by Prof. D'Arcy Thompson in his

translation of Muller's 'Befruchtung' (1883), contains references to 814

papers.

Besides the book on Orchids, my father wrote two or three papers on the

subject, which will be found mentioned in the Appendix. The earliest of

these, on the three sexual forms of Catasetum, was published in 1862; it

is an anticipation of part of the Orchid-book, and was merely published

in the Linnean Society's Journal, in acknowledgment of the use made of

a specimen in the Society's possession. The possibility of apparently

distinct species being merely sexual forms of a single species,

suggested a characteristic experiment, which is alluded to in the

following letter to one of his earliest disciples in the study of the

fertilisation of flowers:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J. TRAHERNE MOGGRIDGE. (The late Mr. Moggridge, author

of 'Harvesting Ants and Trap-door Spiders,' 'Flora of Mentone,' etc.)

Down, October 13 [1865].

My dear Sir,

I am especially obliged to you for your beautiful plates and

letter-press; for no single point in natural history interests and

perplexes me so much as the self-fertilisation (He once remarked to Dr.

Norman Moore that one of the things that made him wish to live a

few thousand years, was his desire to see the extinction of the

Bee-orchis,--an end to which he believed its self-fertilising habit was

leading.) of the Bee-orchis. You have already thrown some light on the

subject, and your present observations promise to throw more.

I formed two conjectures: first, that some insect during certain seasons

might cross the plants, but I have almost given up this; nevertheless,

pray have a look at the flowers next season. Secondly, I conjectured

that the Spider and Bee-orchis might be a crossing and self-fertile

form of the same species. Accordingly I wrote some years ago to an

acquaintance, asking him to mark some Spider-orchids, and observe

whether they retained the same character; but he evidently thought the

request as foolish as if I had asked him to mark one of his cows with a

ribbon, to see if it would turn next spring into a horse. Now will

you be so kind as to tie a string round the stem of a half-a-dozen

Spider-orchids, and when you leave Mentone dig them up, and I would try

and cultivate them and see if they kept constant; but I should require

to know in what sort of soil and situations they grow. It would be

indispensable to mark the plant so that there could be no mistake about

the individual. It is also just possible that the same plant would throw

up, at different seasons different flower-scapes, and the marked plants

would serve as evidence.

With many thanks, my dear sir, Yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

P.S.--I send by this post my paper on climbing plants, parts of which