Chapter VIII., page 224.--Mixture of Cretaceous and Oolitic forms (page

226)--great subsidence. I think (page 232) there is some novelty in

discussion on axes of eruption and injection. (page 247) Continuous

volcanic action in the Cordillera. I think the concluding summary (page

237) would show what are the most salient features in the book.

LETTER 557. TO C. LYELL. Shrewsbury [August 10th, 1846].

I was delighted to receive your letter, which was forwarded here to

me. I am very glad to hear about the new edition of the "Principles,"

(557/1. The seventh edition of the "Principles of Geology" was published

in 1847.), and I most heartily hope you may live to bring out half a

dozen more editions. There would not have been such books as d'Orbigny's

S. American Geology (557/2. "Voyage dans l'Amerique meridionale execute

pendant les Annees 1826-37." 6 volumes, Paris, 1835-43.) published, if

there had been seven editions of the "Principles" distributed in France.

I am rather sorry about the small type; but the first edition, my old

true love, which I never deserted for the later editions, was also in

small type. I much fear I shall not be able to give any assistance to

Book III. (557/3. This refers to Book III. of the "Principles"--"Changes

of the Organic World now in Progress.") I think I formerly gave my

few criticisms, but I will read it over again very soon (though I

am striving to finish my S. American Geology (557/4. "Geological

Observations on South America" was published in 1846.)) and see whether

I can give you any references. I have been thinking over the subject,

and can remember no one book of consequence, as all my materials (which

are in an absolute chaos on separate bits of paper) have been picked out

of books not directly treating of the subjects you have discussed, and

which I hope some day to attempt; thus Hooker's "Antarctic Flora" I have

found eminently useful (557/5. "Botany of the Antarctic Voyage of H.M.S.

'Erebus' and 'Terror' in the Years 1839-43." I., "Flora Antarctica." 2

volumes, London, 1844-47.), and yet I declare I do not know what

precise facts I could refer you to. Bronn's "Geschichte" (557/6.

"Naturgeschichte der drei Reiche." H.E. Bronn, Stuttgart, 1834-49.)

which you once borrowed) is the only systematic book I have met with on

such subjects; and there are no general views in such parts as I have

read, but an immense accumulation of references, very useful to follow

up, but not credible in themselves: thus he gives hybrids from ducks and

fowls just as readily as between fowls and pheasants! You can have it

again if you like. I have no doubt Forbes' essay, which is, I suppose,

now fairly out, will be very good under geographical head. (557/7. "On

the Connection between the Distribution of the existing Fauna and Flora

of the British Isles, and the Geological Changes which have affected

their Area, especially during the Epoch of the Northern Drift," by E.

Forbes. "Memoirs of Geological Survey," Volume I., page 336, 1846.)

Kolreuter's German book is excellent on hybrids, but it will cost you a

good deal of time to work out any conclusion from his numerous details.

(557/8. Joseph Gottlieb Kolreuter's "Vorlaufige Nachricht von eininigen

das Geschlecht der Pflanzen betreffenden Versuchen und Beobachtungen."

Leipzig, 1761.) With respect to variation I have found nothing--but

minute details scattered over scores of volumes. But I will look over

Book III. again. What a quantity of work you have in hand! I almost wish

you could have finished America, and thus have allowed yourself rather

more time for the old "Principles"; and I am quite surprised that you

could possibly have worked your own new matter in within six weeks. Your

intention of being in Southampton will much strengthen mine, and I shall

be very glad to hear some of your American Geology news.

LETTER 558. TO L. HORNER. Down, Sunday [January 1847].

Your most agreeable praise of my book is enough to turn my head; I am

really surprised at it, but shall swallow it with very much gusto...

(558/1. "Geological Observations in S. America," London, 1846.)

E. de Beaumont measured the inclination with a sextant and artificial

horizon, just as you take the height of the sun for latitude.

With respect to my Journal, I think the sketches in the second edition

(558/2. "Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of

the Countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle.'" Edition II.

London, 1845.) are pretty accurate; but in the first they are not so,

for I foolishly trusted to my memory, and was much annoyed to find how

hasty and inaccurate many of my remarks were, when I went over my huge

pile of descriptions of each locality.

If ever you meet anyone circumstanced as I was, advise him not, on any

account, to give any sketches until his materials are fully worked out.

What labour you must be undergoing now; I have wondered at your patience

in having written to me two such long notes. How glad Mrs. Horner will

be when your address is completed. (558/3. Anniversary Address of the

President ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume III., page xxii, 1847).) I

must say that I am much pleased that you will notice my volume in your

address, for former Presidents took no notice of my two former volumes.

I am exceedingly glad that Bunbury is going on well.

LETTER 559. TO C. LYELL. Down, July 3rd [1849].

I don't know when I have read a book so interesting (559/1. "A Second

Visit to the United States of North America." 2 volumes, London, 1849.);

some of your stories are very rich. You ought to be made Minister of

Public Education--not but what I should think even that beneath the

author of the old "Principles." Your book must, I should think, do

a great deal of good and set people thinking. I quite agree with the

"Athenaeum" that you have shown how a man of science can bring his

powers of observation to social subjects. (559/2. "Sir Charles Lyell,

besides the feelings of a gentleman, seems to carry with him the best

habits of scientific observation into other strata than those of clay,

into other 'formations' than those of rock or river-margin." "The

Athenaeum," June 23rd, 1849, page 640.) You have made H. Wedgwood, heart

and soul, an American; he wishes the States would annex us, and was all

day marvelling how anyone who could pay his passage money was so foolish

as to remain here.

LETTER 560. TO C. LYELL. Down, [December, 1849].

(560/1. In this letter Darwin criticises Dana's statements in his volume

on "Geology," forming Volume X. of the "Wilkes Exploring Expedition,"

1849.)

...Dana is dreadfully hypothetical in many parts, and often as "d--d

cocked sure" as Macaulay. He writes however so lucidly that he is very

persuasive. I am more struck with his remarks on denudation than you

seem to be. I came to exactly the same conclusion in Tahiti, that the

wonderful valleys there (on the opposite extreme of the scale of wonder

[to] the valleys of New South Wales) were formed exclusively by fresh

water. He underrates the power of sea, no doubt, but read his remarks

on valleys in the Sandwich group. I came to the conclusion in S. America

(page 67) that the main effect of fresh water is to deepen valleys, and

sea to widen them; I now rather doubt whether in a valley or fiord...the

sea would deepen the rock at its head during the elevation of the land.

I should like to tour on the W. coast of Scotland, and attend to this.

I forget how far generally the shores of fiords (not straits) are

cliff-formed. It is a most interesting subject.

I return once again to Coral. I find he does not differ so much in

detail with me regarding areas of subsidence; his map is coloured on

some quite unintelligible principle, and he deduces subsidence from the

vaguest grounds, such as that the N. Marianne Islands must have subsided

because they are small, though long in volcanic action: and that the

Marquesas subsided because they are penetrated by deep bays, etc., etc.

I utterly disbelieve his statements that most of the atolls have

been lately raised a foot or two. He does not condescend to notice

my explanation for such appearances. He misrepresents me also when he

states that I deduce, without restriction, elevation from all fringing

reefs, and even from islands without any reefs! If his facts are true,

it is very curious that the atolls decrease in size in approaching the

vast open ocean S. of the Sandwich Islands. Dana puts me in a passion

several times by disputing my conclusions without condescending to

allude to my reasons; thus, regarding S. Lorenzo elevation, he is

pleased to speak of my "characteristic accuracy" (560/2. Dana's

"Geology" (Wilkes expedition), page 590.), and then gives difficulties

(as if his own) when they are stated by me, and I believe explained

by me--whereas he only alludes to a few of the facts. So in Australian

valleys, he does not allude to my several reasons. But I am forgetting

myself and running on about what can only interest myself. He strikes me

as a very clever fellow; I wish he was not quite so grand a generaliser.

I see little of interest except on volcanic action and denudation, and

here and there scattered remarks; some of the later chapters are very

bald.

LETTER 561. TO J.D. DANA. Down, December 5th, 1849.

I have not for some years been so much pleased as I have just been

by reading your most able discussion on coral reefs. I thank you most

sincerely for the very honourable mention you make of me. (561/1.

"United States Exploring Expedition during the Years 1839-42 under the

Command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N." Volume X., "Geology," by J.D. Dana,

1849.) This day I heard that the atlas has arrived, and this completes

your munificent present to me. I have not yet come to the chapter

on subsidence, and in that I fancy we shall disagree, but in the

descriptive part our agreement has been eminently satisfactory to me,

and far more than I ever ventured to anticipate. I consider that now

the subsidence theory is established. I have read about half through

the descriptive part of the "Volcanic Geology" (561/2. Part of Dana's

"Geology" is devoted to volcanic action.) (last night I ascended the

peaks of Tahiti with you, and what I saw in my short excursion was most

vividly brought before me by your descriptions), and have been most

deeply interested by it. Your observations on the Sandwich craters

strike me as the most important and original of any that I have read

for a long time. Now that I have read yours, I believe I saw at the

Galapagos, at a distance, instances of those most curious fissures of

eruption. There are many points of resemblance between the Galapagos and

Sandwich Islands (even to the shape of the mound-like hills)--viz., in

the liquidity of the lavas, absence of scoriae, and tuff-craters. Many

of your scattered remarks on denudation have particularly interested me;

but I see that you attribute less to sea and more to running water than

I have been accustomed to do. After your remarks in your last very kind

letter I could not help skipping on to the Australian valleys (561/3.

Ibid., pages 526 et seq.: "The Formation of Valleys, etc., in New South

Wales."), on which your remarks strike me as exceedingly ingenious and

novel, but they have not converted me. I cannot conceive how the great

lateral bays could have been scooped out, and their sides rendered

precipitous by running water. I shall go on and read every word of your

excellent volume.

If you look over my "Geological Instructions" you will be amused to

see that I urge attention to several points which you have elaborately

discussed. (561/4. "A Manual of Scientific Enquiry, prepared for the use

of Her Majesty's Navy, and adapted for Travellers in General." Edited by

Sir John F.W. Herschel, Bart. London, 1849 (Section VI., "Geology." By

Charles Darwin).) I lately read a paper of yours on Chambers' book, and

was interested by it. I really believe the facts of the order described

by Chambers, in S. America, which I have described in my Geolog. volume.

This leads me to ask you (as I cannot doubt that you will have much

geological weight in N. America) to look to a discussion at page 135

in that volume on the importance of subsidence to the formation of

deposits, which are to last to a distant age. This view strikes me as of

some importance.

When I meet a very good-natured man I have that degree of badness of

disposition in me that I always endeavour to take advantage of him;

therefore I am going to mention some desiderata, which if you can supply

I shall be very grateful, but if not no answer will be required.

Thank you for your "Conspectus Crust.," but I am sorry to say I am not

worthy of it, though I have always thought the Crustacea a beautiful

subject. (561/5. "Conspectus Crustaceorum in orbis terrarum

circumnavigatione, C. Wilkes duce, collectorum." Cambridge (U.S.A.),

1847.)

LETTER 562. TO C. LYELL. [Down, March 9th, 1850.]

I am uncommonly much obliged to you for your address, which I had not

expected to see so soon, and which I have read with great interest.

(562/1. Anniversary Address of the President, "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc."

Volume VI., page 32, 1850.) I do not know whether you spent much time

over it, but it strikes me as extra well arranged and written--done

in the most artistic manner, to use an expression which I particularly

hate. Though I am necessarily pretty well familiar with your ideas from

your conversation and books, yet the whole had an original freshness

to me. I am glad that you broke through the routine of the President's

addresses, but I should be sorry if others did. Your criticisms on

Murchison were to me, and I think would be to many, particularly

acceptable. (562/2. In a paper "On the Geological Structure of the Alps,

etc." ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume V., page 157, 1849) Murchison

expressed his belief that the apparent inversion of certain Tertiary

strata along the flanks of the Alps afforded "a clear demonstration of

a sudden operation or catastrophe." It is this view of paroxysmal energy

that Lyell criticises in the address.) Capital, that metaphor of the

clock. (562/3. "In a word, the movement of the inorganic world is

obvious and palpable, and might be likened to the minute-hand of

a clock, the progress of which can be seen and heard, whereas the

fluctuations of the living creation are nearly invisible, and resemble

the motion of the hour-hand of a timepiece" (loc. cit., page xlvi).) I

shall next February be much interested by seeing your hour-hand of the

organic world going.

Many thanks for your kindness in taking the trouble to tell me of the

anniversary dinner. What a compliment that was which Lord Mahon paid me!

I never had so great a one. He must be as charming a man as his wife is

a woman, though I was formerly blind to his merit. Bunsen's speech must

have been very interesting and very useful, if any orthodox clergyman

were present. Your metaphor of the pebbles of pre-existing languages

reminds me that I heard Sir J. Herschel at the Cape say how he wished

some one would treat language as you had Geology, and study the existing

causes of change, and apply the deduction to old languages.

We are all pretty flourishing here, though I have been retrograding a

little, and I think I stand excitement and fatigue hardly better than in

old days, and this keeps me from coming to London. My cirripedial task

is an eternal one; I make no perceptible progress. I am sure that they

belong to the hour-hand, and I groan under my task.

LETTER 563. C. LYELL TO CHARLES DARWIN. April 23rd, 1855.

I have seen a good deal of French geologists and palaeontologists

lately, and there are many whom I should like to put on the R.S. Foreign

List, such as D'Archiac, Prevost, and others. But the man who has made

the greatest sacrifices and produced the greatest results, who has, in

fact, added a new period to the calendar, is Barrande.

The importance of his discoveries as they stand before the public fully

justify your choice of him; but what is unpublished, and which I

have seen, is, if possible, still more surprising. Thirty genera of

gasteropods (150 species) and 150 species of lamellibranchiate bivalves

in the Silurian! All obtained by quarries opened solely by him for

fossils. A man of very moderate fortune spending nearly all his capital

on geology, and with success.

E. Forbes' polarity doctrines are nearly overturned by the unpublished

discoveries of Barrande. (563/1. See note, Letter 41, Volume I.)

I have called Barrande's new period Cambrian (see "Manual," 5th

edition), and you will see why. I could not name it Protozoic, but had

Barrande called it Bohemian, I must have adopted that name. All the

French will rejoice if you confer an honour on Barrande. Dana is well

worthy of being a foreign member.

Should you succeed in making Barrande F.R.S., send me word.

LETTER 564. TO J.D. HOOKER. June 5th [1857].

(564/1. The following, which bears on the subject of medals, forms part

of the long letter printed in the "Life and Letters," II., page 100.)

I do not quite agree with your estimate of Richardson's merits. Do, I

beg you (whenever you quietly see), talk with Lyell on Prestwich: if

he agrees with Hopkins, I am silenced; but as yet I must look at the

correlation of the Tertiaries as one of the highest and most frightfully

difficult tasks a man could set himself, and excellent work, as I

believe, P. has done. (564/2. Prof. Prestwich had published numerous

papers dealing with Tertiary Geology before 1857. The contributions

referred to are probably those "On the Correlation of the Lower

Tertiaries of England with those of France and Belgium," "Quart. Journ.

Geol. Soc." Volume X., 1854, page 454; and "On the Correlation of the

Middle Eocene Tertiaries of England, France, and Belgium," ibid., XII.,

1856, page 390.) I confess I do not value Hopkins' opinion on such a

point. I confess I have never thought, as you show ought to be done, on

the future. I quite agree, under all circumstances, with the propriety

of Lindley. How strange no new geologists are coming forward! Are there

not lots of good young chemists and astronomers or physicists? Fitton

is the only old geologist left who has done good work, except Sedgwick.

Have you thought of him? He would be a brilliant companion for Lindley.

Only it would never do to give Lyell a Copley and Sedgwick a Royal in

the same year. It seems wrong that there should be three Natural Science

medals in the same year. Lindley, Sedgwick, and Bunsen sounds well,

and Lyell next year for the Copley. (564/3. In 1857 a Royal medal was

awarded to John Lindley; Lyell received the Copley in 1858, and Bunsen

in 1860.) You will see that I am speculating as a mere idle amateur.

LETTER 565. TO S.P. WOODWARD. Down, May 27th [1856].

I am very much obliged to you for having taken the trouble to answer

my query so fully. I can now be at rest, for from what you say and from

what little I remember Forbes said, my point is unanswerable. The case

of Terebratula is to the point as far as it goes, and is negative.

I have already attempted to get a solution through geographical

distribution by Dr. Hooker's means, and he finds that the same genera

which have very variable species in Europe have other very variable

species elsewhere. This seems the general rule, but with some few

exceptions. I see from the several reasons which you assign, that there

is no hope of comparing the same genus at two different periods, and

seeing whether the tendency to vary is greater at one period in such

genus than at another period. The variability of certain genera or

groups of species strikes me as a very odd fact. (565/1. The late Dr.

Neumayr has dealt, to some extent, with this subject in "Die Stamme des

Thierreichs," Volume I., Wien, 1889.)

I shall have no points, as far as I can remember, to suggest for your

reconsideration, but only some on which I shall have to beg for a little

further information. However, I feel inclined very much to dispute your

doctrine of islands being generally ancient in comparison, I presume,

with continents. I imagine you think that islands are generally remnants

of old continents, a doctrine which I feel strongly disposed to doubt. I

believe them generally rising points; you, it seems, think them sinking

points.

LETTER 566. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 14th [1860].

Many thanks for your kind and pleasant letter. I have been much

interested by "Deep-sea Soundings,", and will return it by this post, or

as soon as I have copied a few sentences. (566/1. Specimens of the mud

dredged by H.M.S. "Cyclops" were sent to Huxley for examination, who

gave a brief account of them in Appendix A of Capt. Dayman's Report,

1858, under the title "Deep-sea Soundings in the North Atlantic.")

I think you said that some one was investigating the soundings. I

earnestly hope that you will ask the some one to carefully observe

whether any considerable number of the calcareous organisms are more or

less friable, or corroded, or scaling; so that one might form some crude

notion whether the deposition is so rapid that the foraminifera are

preserved from decay and thus are forming strata at this profound depth.

This is a subject which seems to me to have been much neglected in

examining soundings.

Bronn has sent me two copies of his Morphologische Studien uber die

Gestaltungsgesetze." (H.G. Bronn, "Morphologische Studien uber die

Gestaltungsgesetze der Naturkorper uberhaupt und der organischen

insbesondere": Leipzig, 1858.) It looks elementary. If you will write

you shall have the copy; if not I will give it to the Linnean Library.

I quite agree with the letter from Lyell that your extinguished

theologians lying about the cradle of each new science, etc., etc., is

splendid. (566/2. "Darwiniana, Collected Essays," Volume II., page 52.)

LETTER 567. TO T.H. HUXLEY. May 10th [1862 or later].

I have been in London, which has prevented my writing sooner. I am very

sorry to hear that you have been ill: if influenza, I can believe in any

degree of prostration of strength; if from over-work, for God's sake do

not be rash and foolish. You ask for criticisms; I have none to give,

only impressions. I fully agree with your "skimming-of-pot theory," and

very well you have put it. With respect [to] contemporaneity I nearly

agree with you, and if you will look to the d--d book, 3rd edition, page

349 you will find nearly similar remarks. (567/1. "When the marine forms

are spoken of as having changed simultaneously throughout the world, it

must not be supposed that this expression relates to the same year, or

to the same century, or even that it has a very strict geological sense;

for if all the marine animals now living in Europe, and all those that

lived in Europe during the Pleistocene period (a very remote period as

measured by years, including the whole Glacial epoch), were compared

with those now existing in South America or in Australia, the most

skilful naturalist would hardly be able to say whether the present or

the Pleistocene inhabitants of Europe resembled most closely those of

the Southern hemisphere." "Origin," Edition VI., page 298. The passage

in Edition III., page 350, is substantially the same.) But at page 22

of your Address, in my opinion you put your ideas too far. (567/2.

Anniversary Address to the Geological Society of London ("Quart. Journ.

Geol. Soc." Volume XVIII., page xl, 1862). As an illustration of the

misleading use of the term "contemporaneous" as employed by geologists,

Huxley gives the following illustration: "Now suppose that, a million

or two of years hence, when Britain has made another dip beneath the sea

and has come up again, some geologist applies this doctrine [i.e.,

the doctrine of the Contemporaneity of the European and of the North

American Silurians: proof of contemporaneity is considered to be

established by the occurrence of 60 per cent. of species in common], in

comparing the strata laid bare by the upheaval of the bottom, say, of

St. George's Channel with what may then remain of the Suffolk Crag.

Reasoning in the same way, he will at once decide the Suffolk Crag and

the St. George's Channel beds to be contemporaneous; although we happen

to know that a vast period...of time...separates the two" (loc. cit.,

page xlv). This address is republished in the "Collected Essays," Volume

VIII.; the above passage is at page 284.) I cannot think that

future geologists would rank the Suffolk and St. George's strata as

contemporaneous, but as successive sub-stages; they rank N. America

and British stages as contemporaneous, notwithstanding a percentage

of different species (which they, I presume, would account for by

geographical difference) owing to the parallel succession of the forms

in both countries. For terrestrial productions I grant that great errors

may creep in (567/3. Darwin supposes that terrestrial productions have

probably not changed to the same extent as marine organisms. "If the

Megatherium, Mylodon...had been brought to Europe from La Plata, without

any information in regard to their geological position, no one would

have suspected that they had co-existed with sea shells all still

living" ("Origin," Edition VI., page 298).); but I should require

strong evidence before believing that, in countries at all well-known,

so-called Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous strata could

be contemporaneous. You seem to me on the third point, viz., on

non-advancement of organisation, to have made a very strong case. I have

not knowledge or presumption enough to criticise what you say. I have

said what I could at page 363 of "Origin." It seems to me that the whole

case may be looked at from several points of view. I can add only

one miserable little special case of advancement in cirripedes. The

suspicion crosses me that if you endeavoured your best you would say

more on the other side. Do you know well Bronn in his last Entwickelung

(or some such word) on this subject? it seemed to me very well done.

(567/4. Probably "Untersuchungen uber die Entwickelungsgesetze der

organischen Welt wahrend der Bildungszeit unserer Erdoberflache,"

Stuttgart, 1858. Translated by W.S. Dallas in the "Ann. and Mag. Nat.

Hist." Volume IV., page 81.) I hope before you publish again you will

read him again, to consider the case as if you were a judge in a court

of appeal; it is a very important subject. I can say nothing against

your side, but I have an "inner consciousness" (a highly philosophical

style of arguing!) that something could be said against you; for I

cannot help hoping that you are not quite as right as you seem to be.

Finally, I cannot tell why, but when I finished your Address I felt

convinced that many would infer that you were dead against change of

species, but I clearly saw that you were not. I am not very well, so

good-night, and excuse this horrid letter.

LETTER 568. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 30th [1866].

I have heard from Sulivan (who, poor fellow, gives a very bad account

of his own health) about the fossils (568/1. In a letter to Huxley (June

4th, 1866) Darwin wrote: "Admiral Sulivan several years ago discovered

an astonishingly rich accumulation of fossil bones not far from the

Straits [of Magellan]...During many years it has seemed to me extremely

desirable that these should be collected; and here is an excellent

opportunity.")... The place is Gallegos, on the S. coast of Patagonia.

Sulivan says that in the course of two or three days all the boats in

the ship could be filled twice over; but to get good specimens out of

the hardish rock two or three weeks would be requisite. It would be a

grand haul for Palaeontology. I have been thinking over your lecture.

(568/2. A lecture on "Insular Floras" given at the British Association

meeting at Nottingham, August 27th, 1866, published in the "Gard.

Chron." 1867.) Will it not be possible to give enlarged drawings of

some leading forms of trees? You will, of course, have a large map, and

George tells me that he saw at Sir H. James', at Southampton, a map of

the world on a new principle, as seen from within, so that almost 4/5ths

of the globe was shown at once on a large scale. Would it not be worth

while to borrow one of these from Sir H. James as a curiosity to hang

up?

Remember you are to come here before Nottingham. I have almost finished

the last number of H. Spencer, and am astonished at its prodigality of

original thought. But the reflection constantly recurred to me that each

suggestion, to be of real value to science, would require years of work.

It is also very unsatisfactory, the impossibility of conjecturing where

direct action of external circumstances begins and ends--as he candidly

owns in discussing the production of woody tissue in the trunks of trees

on the one hand, and on the other in spines and the shells of nuts. I

shall like to hear what you think of this number when we meet.

LETTER 569. TO A. GAUDRY. Down, November 17th, 1868.

On my return home after a short absence I found your note of Nov. 9th,

and your magnificent work on the fossil animals of Attica. (569/1. The

"Geologie de l'Attique," 2 volumes 4to, 1862-7, is the only work of

Gaudry's of this date in Mr. Darwin's library.) I assure you that I feel

very grateful for your generosity, and for the honour which you have

thus conferred on me. I know well, from what I have already read of

extracts, that I shall find your work a perfect mine of wealth. One long

passage which Sir C. Lyell quotes from you in the 10th and last edition

of the "Principles of Geology" is one of the most striking which I

have ever read on the affiliation of species. (569/2. The quotation

in Lyell's "Principles," Edition X., Volume II., page 484, is from M.

Gaudry's "Animaux Fossiles de Pikermi," 1866, page 34:--

"In how different a light does the question of the nature of species now

present itself to us from that in which it appeared only twenty years

ago, before we had studied the fossil remains of Greece and the allied

forms of other countries. How clearly do these fossil relics point to

the idea that species, genera, families, and orders now so distinct have

had common ancestors. The more we advance and fill up the gaps, the more

we feel persuaded that the remaining voids exist rather in our knowledge

than in nature. A few blows of the pickaxe at the foot of the Pyrenees,

of the Himalaya, of Mount Pentelicus in Greece, a few diggings in the

sandpits of Eppelsheim, or in the Mauvaises Terres of Nebraska, have

revealed to us the closest connecting links between forms which seemed

before so widely separated. How much closer will these links be drawn

when Palaeontology shall have escaped from its cradle!")

LETTER 570. A. SEDGWICK TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(570/1. In May, 1870, Darwin "went to the Bull Hotel, Cambridge, to see

the boys, and for a little rest and enjoyment." (570/2. See "Life and

Letters," III., 125.) The following letter was received after his return

to Down.)

Trinity College, Cambridge, May 30th, 1870.

My dear Darwin,

Your very kind letter surprised me. Not that I was surprised at the

pleasant and very welcome feeling with which it was written. But I could

not make out what I had done to deserve the praise of "extraordinary

kindness to yourself and family." I would most willingly have done

my best to promote the objects of your visit, but you gave me no

opportunity of doing so. I was truly grieved to find that my joy at

seeing you again was almost too robust for your state of nerves, and

that my society, after a little while, became oppressive to you. But I

do trust that your Cambridge visit has done you no constitutional harm;

nay, rather that it has done you some good. I only speak honest truth

when I say that I was overflowing with joy when I saw you, and saw you

in the midst of a dear family party, and solaced at every turn by

the loving care of a dear wife and daughters. How different from my

position--that of a very old man, living in cheerless solitude! May god

help and cheer you all with the comfort of hopeful hearts--you and your

wife, and your sons and daughters!

You were talking about my style of writing,--I send you my last

specimen, and it will probably continue to be my last. It is the

continuation of a former pamphlet of which I have not one spare copy.

I do not ask you to read it. It is addressed to the old people in my

native Dale of Dent, on the outskirts of Westmorland. While standing

at the door of the old vicarage, I can see down the valley the Lake

mountains--Hill Bell at the head of Windermere, about twenty miles off.

On Thursday next (D.V.) I am to start for Dent, which I have not visited

for full two years. Two years ago I could walk three or four miles with

comfort. Now, alas! I can only hobble about on my stick.

I remain your true-hearted old friend A. Sedgwick.

LETTER 571. TO C. LYELL. Down, September 3rd [1874].

Many thanks for your very kind and interesting letter. I was glad to

hear at Southampton from Miss Heathcote a good account of your health

and strength.

With respect to the great subject to which you refer in your P.S.,

I always try to banish it from my mind as insoluble; but if I were

circumstanced as you are, no doubt it would recur in the dead of the

night with painful force. Many persons seem to make themselves quite

easy about immortality (571/1. See "Life and Letters," I., page 312.)

and the existence of a personal God, by intuition; and I suppose that I

must differ from such persons, for I do not feel any innate conviction

on any such points.

We returned home about ten days ago from Southampton, and I enjoyed

my holiday, which did me much good. But already I am much fatigued by

microscope and experimental work with insect-eating plants.

When at Southampton I was greatly interested by looking at the odd

gravel deposits near at hand, and speculating about their formation. You

once told me something about them, but I forget what; and I think that

Prestwich has written on the superficial deposits on the south coasts,

and I must find out his paper and read it. (571/2. Prof. Prestwich

contributed several papers to the Geological Society on the Superficial

Deposits of the South of England.)

From what I have seen of Mr. Judd's papers I have thought that he would

rank amongst the few leading British geologists.

LETTER 572. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(572/1. The following letter was written before Mr. Darwin knew that Sir

Charles Lyell was to be buried in Westminster Abbey, a memorial which

thoroughly satisfied him. See "Life and Letters," III., 197.)

Down, February 23rd, 1875.

I have just heard from Miss Buckley of Lyell's death. I have long felt

opposed to the present rage for testimonials; but when I think how

Lyell revolutionised Geology, and aided in the progress of so many other

branches of science, I wish that something could be done in his honour.

On the other hand it seems to me that a poor testimonial would be worse

than none; and testimonials seem to succeed only when a man has been

known and loved by many persons, as in the case of Falconer and Forbes.

Now, I doubt whether of late years any large number of scientific men

did feel much attachment towards Lyell; but on this head I am very ill

fitted to judge. I should like to hear some time what you think, and if

anything is proposed I should particularly wish to join in it. We have

both lost as good and as true a friend as ever lived.

LETTER 573. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(573/1. This letter shows the difficulty which the inscription for Sir

Charles Lyell's memorial gave his friends. The existing inscription is,

"Charles Lyell...Author of 'The Principles of Geology'...Throughout

a long and laborious life he sought the means of deciphering the

fragmentary records of the Earth's history in the patient investigation

of the present order of Nature, enlarging the boundaries of knowledge,

and leaving on Scientific thought an enduring influence..."

Down, June 21st [1876].

I am sorry for you about the inscription, which has almost burst me. We

think there are too many plurals in yours, and when read aloud it hisses

like a goose. I think the omission of some words makes it much stronger.

"World" (573/2. The suggested sentence runs: "he gave to the world the

results of his labour, etc.") is much stronger and truer than "public."

As Lyell wrote various other books and memoirs, I have some little

doubt about the "Principles of Geology." People here do not like your

"enduring value": it sounds almost an anticlimax. They do not much like

my "last (or endure) as long as science lasts." If one reads a sentence

often enough, it always becomes odious.

God help you.

LETTER 574. TO OSWALD HEER. Down, March 8th [1875].

I thank you for your very kind and deeply interesting letter of March

1st, received yesterday, and for the present of your work, which no

doubt I shall soon receive from Dr. Hooker. (574/1. "Flora Fossilis

Arctica," Volume III., 1874, sent by Prof. Heer through Sir Joseph

Hooker.) The sudden appearance of so many Dicotyledons in the Upper

Chalk appears to me a most perplexing phenomenon to all who believe

in any form of evolution, especially to those who believe in extremely

gradual evolution, to which view I know that you are strongly opposed.

(574/2. The volume referred to contains a paper on the Cretaceous

Flora of the Arctic Zone (Spitzbergen and Greenland), in which several

dicotyledonous plants are described. In a letter written by Heer to

Darwin the author speaks of a species of poplar which he describes as

the oldest Dicotyledon so far recorded.) The presence of even one true

Angiosperm in the Lower Chalk makes me inclined to conjecture that

plants of this great division must have been largely developed in

some isolated area, whence owing to geographical changes, they at last

succeeded in escaping, and spread quickly over the world. (574/3. No

satisfactory evidence has so far been brought forward of the occurrence

of fossil Angiosperms in pre-Cretaceous rocks. The origin of the

Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons remains one of the most difficult and

attractive problems of Palaeobotany.) (574/4. See Letters 395, 398.) But

I fully admit that this case is a great difficulty in the views which I

hold. Many as have been the wonderful discoveries in Geology during the

last half-century, I think none have exceeded in interest your results

with respect to the plants which formerly existed in the Arctic regions.

How I wish that similar collections could be made in the Southern

hemisphere, for instance in Kerguelen's Land.

The death of Sir C. Lyell is a great loss to science, but I do not think

to himself, for it was scarcely possible that he could have retained his

mental powers, and he would have suffered dreadfully from their loss.

The last time I saw him he was speaking with the most lively interest

about his last visit to you, and I was grieved to hear from him a very

poor account of your health. I have been working for some time on a

special subject, namely insectivorous plants. I do not know whether the

subject will interest you, but when my book is published I will have the

pleasure of sending you a copy.

I am very much obliged for your photograph, and enclose one of myself.

LETTER 574*. TO S.B.J. SKERTCHLY. March 2nd, 1878.

It is the greatest possible satisfaction to a man nearly at the close

of his career to believe that he has aided or stimulated an able and

energetic fellow-worker in the noble cause of science. Therefore your

letter has deeply gratified me. I am writing this away from home, as my

health failed, and I was forced to rest; and this will account for the

delay in answering your letter. No doubt on my return home I shall find

the memoir which you have kindly sent me. I shall read it with much

interest, as I have heard something of your work from Prof. Geikie, and

have read his admirable "Ice Age." (574/5. "The Great Ice Age and its

Relation to the Antiquity of Man": London, 1874. By James Geikie.) I

have noticed the criticisms on your work, but such opposition must

be expected by every one who draws fine grand conclusions, and such

assuredly are yours as abstracted in your letter. (574/6. Mr. S.B.J.

Skertchly recorded "the discovery of palaeolithic flint implements,

mammalian bones, and fresh-water shells in brick-earths below the

Boulder-clay of East Anglia," in a letter published in the "Geol. Mag."

Volume III., page 476, 1876. (See also "The Fenland, Past and Present."

S.H. Miller and S.B.J. Skertchly, London, 1878.) The conclusions of Mr.

Skertchly as to the pre-Glacial age of the flint implements were not

accepted by some authorities. (See correspondence in "Nature," Volume

XV., 1877, pages 141, 142.) We are indebted to Mr. Marr for calling

our attention to Mr. Skertchly's discovery.) What magnificent progress

Geology has made within my lifetime!

I shall have very great pleasure in sending you any of my books with my

autograph, but I really do not know which to send. It will cost you only

the trouble of a postcard to tell me which you would like, and it shall

soon be sent. Forgive this untidy note, as it is rather an effort to

write.

With all good wishes for your continued success in science and for your

happiness...

CHAPTER 2.X.--BOTANY, 1843-1871.

2.X.I. Miscellaneous.--2.X.II. Melastomaceae.--2.X.III. Correspondence

with John Scott.

2.X.I. MISCELLANEOUS, 1843-1862.

(PLATE: SIR JOSEPH HOOKER, 1897. From a Photograph by W.J. Hawker

Wimborne. Walker & Cockerell, ph. sc.)

LETTER 575. TO WILLIAM JACKSON HOOKER. Down, March 12th [1843].

...When you next write to your son, will you please remember me kindly

to him and give him my best thanks for his note? I had the pleasure

yesterday of reading a letter from him to Mr. Lyell of Kinnordy, full of

the most interesting details and descriptions, and written (if I may be

permitted to make such a criticism) in a particularly agreeable style.

It leads me anxiously to hope, even more than I did before, that he will

publish some separate natural history journal, and not allow (if it can

be avoided) his materials to be merged in another work. I am very glad

to hear you talk of inducing your son to publish an Antarctic Flora.

I have long felt much curiosity for some discussion on the general

character of the flora of Tierra del Fuego, that part of the globe

farthest removed in latitude from us. How interesting will be a strict

comparison between the plants of these regions and of Scotland and

Shetland. I am sure I may speak on the part of Prof. Henslow that all

my collection (which gives a fair representation of the Alpine flora of

Tierra del Fuego and of Southern Patagonia) will be joyfully laid at his

disposal.

LETTER 576. TO JOHN LINDLEY. Down, Saturday [April 8th, 1843].

I take the liberty, at the suggestion of Dr. Royle, of forwarding to you

a few seeds, which have been found under very singular circumstances.

They have been sent to me by Mr. W. Kemp, of Galashiels, a (partially

educated) man, of whose acuteness and accuracy of observation, from

several communications on geological subjects, I have a VERY HIGH

opinion. He found them in a layer under twenty-five feet thickness of

white sand, which seems to have been deposited on the margins of an

anciently existing lake. These seeds are not known to the provincial

botanists of the district. He states that some of them germinated in

eight days after being planted, and are now alive. Knowing the interest

you took in some raspberry seeds, mentioned, I remember, in one of your

works, I hope you will not think me troublesome in asking you to have

these seeds carefully planted, and in begging you so far to oblige me as

to take the trouble to inform me of the result. Dr. Daubeny has started

for Spain, otherwise I would have sent him some. Mr. Kemp is anxious to

publish an account of his discovery himself, so perhaps you will be so

kind as to communicate the result to me, and not to any periodical. The

chance, though appearing so impossible, of recovering a plant lost to

any country if not to the world, appears to me so very interesting, that

I hope you will think it worth while to have these seeds planted, and

not returned to me.

LETTER 577. TO C. LYELL. [September, 1843.]

An interesting fact has lately, as it were, passed through my hands. A

Mr. Kemp (almost a working man), who has written on "parallel roads,"

and has corresponded with me (577/1. In a letter to Henslow, Darwin

wrote: "If he [Mr. Kemp] had not shown himself a most careful and

ingenious observer, I should have thought nothing of the case."), sent

me in the spring some seeds, with an account of the spot where they

were found, namely, in a layer at the bottom of a deep sand pit, near

Melrose, above the level of the river, and which sand pit he thinks must

have been accumulated in a lake, when the whole features of the valleys

were different, ages ago; since which whole barriers of rock, it

appears, must have been worn down. These seeds germinated freely, and

I sent some to the Horticultural Society, and Lindley writes to me that

they turn out to be a common Rumex and a species of Atriplex, which

neither he nor Henslow (as I have since heard) have ever seen, and

certainly not a British plant! Does this not look like a vivification of

a fossil seed? It is not surprising, I think, that seeds should last ten

or twenty thousand [years], as they have lasted two or three [thousand

years] in the Druidical mounds, and have germinated.

When not building, I have been working at my volume on the volcanic

islands which we visited; it is almost ready for press...I hope you will

read my volume, for, if you don't, I cannot think of anyone else who

will! We have at last got our house and place tolerably comfortable, and

I am well satisfied with our anchorage for life. What an autumn we have

had: completely Chilian; here we have had not a drop of rain or a cloudy

day for a month. I am positively tired of the fine weather, and long for

the sight of mud almost as much as I did when in Peru.

(577/2. The vitality of seeds was a subject in which Darwin continued to

take an interest. In July, 1855 ("Life and Letters," II., page 65),

he wrote to Hooker: "A man told me the other day of, as I thought, a

splendid instance--and splendid it was, for according to his evidence

the seed came up alive out of the lower part of the London Clay! I

disgusted him by telling him that palms ought to have come up."

In the "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1855, page 758, appeared a notice (half

a column in length) by Darwin on the "Vitality of Seeds." The facts

related refer to the "Sand-walk" at Down; the wood was planted in 1846

on a piece of pasture land laid down as grass in 1840. In 1855, on the

soil being dug in several places, Charlock (Brassica sinapistrum) sprang

up freely. The subject continued to interest him, and we find a note

dated July 2nd, 1874, in which Darwin recorded that forty-six plants

of Charlock sprang up in that year over a space (14 x 7 feet) which had

been dug to a considerable depth. In the course of the article in the

"Gardeners' Chronicle," Darwin remarks: "The power in seeds of retaining

their vitality when buried in damp soil may well be an element in

preserving the species, and therefore seeds may be specially endowed

with this capacity; whereas the power of retaining vitality in a dry

artificial condition must be an indirect, and in one sense accidental,

quality in seeds of little or no use to the species."

The point of view expressed in the letter to Lyell above given is of

interest in connection with the research of Horace Brown and F. Escombe

(577/3. "Proc. Roy. Soc." Volume LXII., page 160.) on the remarkable

power possessed by dry seeds of resistance to the temperature of liquid

air. The point of the experiment is that life continues at a temperature

"below that at which ordinary chemical reactions take place." A still

more striking demonstration of the fact has been made by Thiselton-Dyer

and Dewar who employed liquid hydrogen as a refrigerant. (577/4. Read

before the British Association (Dover), 1899, and published in the

"Comptes rendus," 1899, and in the "Proc. R. Soc." LXV., page 361,

1899.) The connection between these facts and the dormancy of buried

seeds is only indirect; but inasmuch as the experiment proves the

possibility of life surviving a period in which no ordinary chemical

change occurs, it is clear that they help one to believe in greatly

prolonged dormancy in conditions which tend to check metabolism. For a

discussion of the bearing of their results on the life-problem, and for

the literature of the subject, reference should be made to the paper by

Brown and Escombe. See also C. de Candolle "On Latent Life in Seeds,"

"Brit. Assoc. Report," 1896, page 1023 and F. Escombe, "Science

Progress," Volume I., N.S., page 585, 1897.)

LETTER 578. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, Saturday [November 5th, 1843].

I sent that weariful Atriplex to Babington, as I said I would, and

he tells me that he has reared a facsimile by sowing the seeds of A.

angustifolia in rich soil. He says he knows the A. hastata, and that it

is very different. Until your last note I had not heard that Mr. Kemp's

seeds had produced two Polygonums. He informs me he saw each plant bring

up the husk of the individual seed which he planted. I believe myself in

his accuracy, but I have written to advise him not to publish, for as

he collected only two kinds of seeds--and from them two Polygomuns, two

species or varieties of Atriplex and a Rumex have come up, any one would

say (as you suggested) that more probably all the seeds were in the

soil, than that seeds, which must have been buried for tens of thousands

of years, should retain their vitality. If the Atriplex had turned out

new, the evidence would indeed have been good. I regret this result of

poor Mr. Kemp's seeds, especially as I believed, from his statements and

the appearance of the seeds, that they did germinate, and I further have

no doubt that their antiquity must be immense. I am sorry also for the

trouble you have had. I heard the other day through a circuitous course

how you are astonishing all the clodhoppers in your whole part of the

county: and [what is] far more wonderful, as it was remarked to me, that

you had not, in doing this, aroused the envy of all the good surrounding

sleeping parsons. What good you must do to the present and all

succeeding generations. (578/1. For an account of Professor Henslow's

management of his parish of Hitcham see "Memoir of the Rev. John Stevens

Henslow, M.A." by the Rev. Leonard Jenyns: 8vo, London, 1862.)

LETTER 579. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 14th [1855].

You well know how credulous I am, and therefore you will not be

surprised at my believing the Raspberry story (579/1. This probably

refers to Lindley's story of the germination of raspberry seeds taken

from a barrow 1600 years old.): a very similar case is on record in

Germany--viz., seeds from a barrow; I have hardly zeal to translate it

for the "Gardeners' Chronicle." (579/2. "Vitality of Seeds," "Gardeners'

Chronicle," November 17th, 1855, page 758.) I do not go the whole

hog--viz., that sixty and two thousand years are all the same, for I

should imagine that some slight chemical change was always going on in a

seed. Is this not so? The discussions have stirred me up to send my very

small case of the charlock; but as it required some space to give all

details, perhaps Lindley will not insert; and if he does, you, you worse

than an unbelieving dog, will not, I know, believe. The reason I do

not care to try Mr. Bentham's plan is that I think it would be very

troublesome, and it would not, if I did not find seed, convince me

myself that none were in the earth, for I have found in my salting

experiments that the earth clings to the seeds, and the seeds are very

difficult to find. Whether washing would do I know not; a gold-washer

would succeed, I daresay.

LETTER 580. TO W.J. HOOKER.

Testimonial from Charles Darwin, Esq., M.A., F.R.S. and G.S., late

Naturalist to Captain Fitz-Roy's Voyage.

Down House, Farnborough, August 25th, 1845.

I have heard with much interest that your son, Dr. Hooker, is a

candidate for the Botanical Chair at Edinburgh. From my former

attendance at that University, I am aware how important a post it is for

the advancement of science, and I am therefore the more anxious for your

son's success, from my firm belief that no one will fulfil its duties

with greater zeal or ability. Since his return from the famous Antarctic

expedition, I have had, as you are aware, much communication with him,

with respect to the collections brought home by myself, and on other

scientific subjects; and I cannot express too strongly my admiration

at the accuracy of his varied knowledge, and at his powers of

generalisation. From Dr. Hooker's disposition, no one, in my opinion,

is more fitted to communicate to beginners a strong taste for those

pursuits to which he is himself so ardently devoted. For the sake of

the advancement of Botany in all its branches, your son has my warmest

wishes for his success.

LETTER 581. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Thursday [June 11th, 1847].

Many thanks for your kindness about the lodgings--it will be of great

use to me. (581/1. The British Association met at Oxford in 1847.)

Please let me know the address if Mr. Jacobson succeeds, for I think I

shall go on the 22nd and write previously to my lodgings. I have since

had a tempting invitation from Daubeny to meet Henslow, etc., but upon

the whole, I believe, lodgings will answer best, for then I shall have a

secure solitary retreat to rest in.

I am extremely glad I sent the Laburnum (581/2. This refers to the

celebrated form known as Cytisus Adami, of which a full account is given

in "Variation of Animals and Plants," Volume I., Edition II., page 413.

It has been supposed to be a seminal hybrid or graft-hybrid between C.

laburnum and C. purpureus. It is remarkable for bearing "on the same

tree tufts of dingy red, bright yellow, and purple flowers, borne on

branches having widely different leaves and manner of growth." In a

paper by Camuzet in the "Annales de la Societe d'Horticulture de Paris,

XIII., 1833, page 196, the author tries to show that Cytisus Adami is

a seminal hybrid between C. alpinus and C. laburnum. Fuchs ("Sitz. k.

Akad. Wien," Bd. 107) and Beijerinck ("K. Akad. Amsterdam," 1900) have

spoken on Cytisus Adami, but throw no light on the origin of the hybrid.

See letters to Jenner Weir in the present volume.): the raceme grew in

centre of tree, and had a most minute tuft of leaves, which presented

no unusual appearance: there is now on one raceme a terminal bilateral

[i.e., half yellow, half purple] flower, and on other raceme a single

terminal pure yellow and one adjoining bilateral flower. If you would

like them I will send them; otherwise I would keep them to see whether

the bilateral flowers will seed, for Herbert (581/3. Dean Herbert.) says

the yellow ones will. Herbert is wrong in thinking there are no somewhat

analogous facts: I can tell you some, when we meet. I know not whether

botanists consider each petal and stamen an individual; if so, there

seems to me no especial difficulty in the case, but if a flower-bud is a

unit, are not their flowers very strange?

I have seen Dillwyn in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and was disgusted

at it, for I thought my bilateral flowers would have been a novelty for

you.

(581/4. In a letter to Hooker, dated June 2nd, 1847, Darwin makes a bold

suggestion as to floral symmetry:--)

I send you a tuft of the quasi-hybrid Laburnum, with two kinds of

flowers on same stalk, and with what strikes [me] as very curious

(though I know it has been observed before), namely, a flower

bilaterally different: one other, I observe, has half its calyx purple.

Is this not very curious, and opposed to the morphological idea that a

flower is a condensed continuous spire of leaves? Does it not look as

if flowers were normally bilateral; just in the same way as we now know

that the radiating star-fish, etc., are bilateral? The case reminds me

of those insects with exactly half having secondary male characters and

the other half female.

(581/5. It is interesting to note his change of view in later years.

In an undated letter written to Mr. Spencer, probably in 1873, he

says: "With respect to asymmetry in the flowers themselves, I remain

contented, from all that I have seen, with adaptation to visits of

insects. There is, however, another factor which it is likely enough may

have come into play--viz., the protection of the anthers and pollen

from the injurious effects of rain. I think so because several flowers

inhabiting rainy countries, as A. Kerner has lately shown, bend their

heads down in rainy weather.")

LETTER 582. TO J.D. HOOKER. June [1855].

(582/1. This is an early example of Darwin's interest in the movements

of plants. Sleeping plants, as is well-known, may acquire a rhythmic

movement differing from their natural period, but the precise experiment

here described has not, as far as known, been carried out. See Pfeffer,

"Periodische Bewegungen," 1875, page 32.)

I thank you much for Hedysarum: I do hope it is not very precious,

for, as I told you, it is for probably a most foolish purpose. I read

somewhere that no plant closes its leaves so promptly in darkness, and I

want to cover it up daily for half an hour, and see if I can TEACH IT to

close by itself, or more easily than at first in darkness. I am rather

puzzled about its transmission, from not knowing how tender it is...

LETTER 583. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 19th, 1856.

I thank you warmly for the very kind manner with which you have taken my

request. It will, in truth, be a most important service to me; for it is

absolutely necessary that I should discuss single and double creations,

as a very crucial point on the general origin of species, and I must

confess, with the aid of all sorts of visionary hypotheses, a very

hostile one. I am delighted that you will take up possibility of

crossing, no botanist has done so, which I have long regretted, and I am

glad to see that it was one of A. De Candolle's desiderata. By the way,

he is curiously contradictory on subject. I am far from expecting that

no cases of apparent impossibility will be found; but certainly I expect

that ultimately they will disappear; for instance, Campanulaceae seems

a strong case, but now it is pretty clear that they must be liable to

crossing. Sweet-peas (583/1. In Lathyrus odoratus the absence of the

proper insect has been supposed to prevent crossing. See "Variation

under Domestication," Edition II., Volume II., page 68; but the

explanation there given for Pisum may probably apply to Lathyrus.),

bee-orchis, and perhaps hollyhocks are, at present, my greatest

difficulties; and I find I cannot experimentise by castrating

sweet-peas, without doing fatal injury. Formerly I felt most interest

on this point as one chief means of eliminating varieties; but I feel

interest now in other ways. One general fact [that] makes me believe in

my doctrine (583/2. The doctrine which has been epitomised as "Nature

abhors perpetual self-fertilisation," and is generally known as

Knight's Law or the Knight-Darwin Law, is discussed by Francis Darwin in

"Nature," 1898. References are there given to the chief passages in

the "Origin of Species," etc., bearing on the question. See Letter 19,

Volume I.), is that NO terrestrial animal in which semen is liquid is

hermaphrodite except with mutual copulation; in terrestrial plants in

which the semen is dry there are many hermaphrodites. Indeed, I do wish

I lived at Kew, or at least so that I could see you oftener. To return

again to subject of crossing: I have been inclined to speculate so far,

as to think (my!?) notion (I say MY notion, but I think others have put

forward nearly or quite similar ideas) perhaps explains the frequent

separation of the sexes in trees, which I think I have heard remarked

(and in looking over the mono- and dioecious Linnean classes in Persoon

seems true) are very apt to have sexes separated; for [in] a tree having

a vast number of flowers on the same individual, or at least the same

stock, each flower, if only hermaphrodite on the common plan, would

generally get its own pollen or only pollen from another flower on

same stock,--whereas if the sexes were separate there would be a better

chance of occasional pollen from another distinct stock. I have thought

of testing this in your New Zealand Flora, but I have no standard of

comparison, and I found myself bothered by bushes. I should propound

that some unknown causes had favoured development of trees and bushes

in New Zealand, and consequent on this there had been a development

of separation of sexes to prevent too much intermarriage. I do not, of

course, suppose the prevention of too much intermarriage the only good

of separation of sexes. But such wild notions are not worth troubling

you with the reading of.

LETTER 584. TO J.D. HOOKER. Moor Park [May 2nd, 1857].

The most striking case, which I have stumbled on, on apparent, but

false relation of structure of plants to climate, seems to be Meyer

and Doege's remark that there is not one single, even moderately-sized,

family at the Cape of Good Hope which has not one or several species

with heath-like foliage; and when we consider this together with the

number of true heaths, any one would have been justified, had it not

been for our own British heaths (584/1. It is well known that plants

with xerophytic characteristics are not confined to dry climates; it

is only necessary to mention halophytes, alpine plants and certain

epiphytes. The heaths of Northern Europe are placed among the xerophytes

by Warming ("Lehrbuch der okologischen Pflanzengeographie," page 234,

Berlin, 1896).), in saying that heath-like foliage must stand in direct

relation to a dry and moderately warm climate. Does this not strike you

as a good case of false relation? I am so pleased with this place and

the people here, that I am greatly tempted to bring Etty here, for she

has not, on the whole, derived any benefit from Hastings. With thanks

for your never failing assistance to me...

I remember that you were surprised at number of seeds germinating in

pond mud. I tried a fourth pond, and took about as much mud (rather

more than in former case) as would fill a very large breakfast cup, and

before I had left home 118 plants had come up; how many more will be up

on my return I know not. This bears on chance of birds by their muddy

feet transporting fresh-water plants.

This would not be a bad dodge for a collector in country when plants

were not in seed, to collect and dry mud from ponds.

LETTER 585. TO ASA GRAY. Down [1857].

I am very glad to hear that you think of discussing the relative ranges

of the identical and allied U. States and European species, when

you have time. Now this leads me to make a very audacious remark in

opposition to what I imagine Hooker has been writing (585/1. See Letter

338, Volume I.), and to your own scientific conscience. I presume he

has been urging you to finish your great "Flora" before you do anything

else. Now I would say it is your duty to generalise as far as you safely

can from your as yet completed work. Undoubtedly careful discrimination

of species is the foundation of all good work; but I must look at such

papers as yours in Silliman as the fruit. As careful observation is far

harder work than generalisation, and still harder than speculation, do

you not think it very possible that it may be overvalued? It ought never

to be forgotten that the observer can generalise his own observations

incomparably better than any one else. How many astronomers have

laboured their whole lives on observations, and have not drawn a single

conclusion; I think it is Herschel who has remarked how much better it

would be if they had paused in their devoted work and seen what they

could have deduced from their work. So do pray look at this side of the

question, and let us have another paper or two like the last admirable

ones. There, am I not an audacious dog!

You ask about my doctrine which led me to expect that trees would tend

to have separate sexes. I am inclined to believe that no organic being

exists which perpetually self-fertilises itself. This will appear very

wild, but I can venture to say that if you were to read my observations

on this subject you would agree it is not so wild as it will at first

appear to you, from flowers said to be always fertilised in bud, etc. It

is a long subject, which I have attended to for eighteen years. Now, it

occurred to me that in a large tree with hermaphrodite flowers, we will

say it would be ten to one that it would be fertilised by the pollen of

its own flower, and a thousand or ten thousand to one that if crossed

it would be crossed only with pollen from another flower of same tree,

which would be opposed to my doctrine. Therefore, on the great principle

of "Nature not lying," I fully expected that trees would be apt to be

dioecious or monoecious (which, as pollen has to be carried from flower

to flower every time, would favour a cross from another individual of

the same species), and so it seems to be in Britain and New Zealand. Nor

can the fact be explained by certain families having this structure

and chancing to be trees, for the rule seems to hold both in genera and

families, as well as in species.

I give you full permission to laugh your fill at this wild speculation;

and I do not pretend but what it may be chance which, in this case, has

led me apparently right. But I repeat that I feel sure that my doctrine

has more probability than at first it appears to have. If you had not

asked, I should not have written at such length, though I cannot give

any of my reasons.

The Leguminosae are my greatest opposers: yet if I were to trust to

observations on insects made during many years, I should fully expect

crosses to take place in them; but I cannot find that our garden

varieties ever cross each other. I do NOT ask you to take any trouble

about it, but if you should by chance come across any intelligent

nurseryman, I wish you would enquire whether they take any pains

in raising the varieties of papilionaceous plants apart to prevent

crossing. (I have seen a statement of naturally formed crossed Phaseoli

near N. York.) The worst is that nurserymen are apt to attribute all

varieties to crossing.

Finally I incline to believe that every living being requires an

occasional cross with a distinct individual; and as trees from the mere

multitude of flowers offer an obstacle to this, I suspect this obstacle

is counteracted by tendency to have sexes separated. But I have

forgotten to say that my maximum difficulty is trees having

papilionaceous flowers: some of them, I know, have their keel-petals

expanded when ready for fertilisation; but Bentham does not believe

that this is general: nevertheless, on principle of nature not lying, I

suspect that this will turn out so, or that they are eminently sought by

bees dusted with pollen. Again I do NOT ask you to take trouble, but if

strolling under your Robinias when in full flower, just look at stamens

and pistils whether protruded and whether bees visit them. I must just

mention a fact mentioned to me the other day by Sir W. Macarthur, a

clever Australian gardener: viz., how odd it was that his Erythrinas in

N.S. Wales would not set a seed, without he imitated the movements of

the petals which bees cause. Well, as long as you live, you will never,

after this fearfully long note, ask me why I believe this or that.

LETTER 586. TO ASA GRAY. June 18th [1857].

It has been extremely kind of you telling me about the trees: now with

your facts, and those from Britain, N. Zealand, and Tasmania I shall

have fair materials for judging. I am writing this away from home, but

I think your fraction of 95/132 is as large as in other cases, and is at

least a striking coincidence.

I thank you much for your remarks about my crossing notions, to which,

I may add, I was led by exactly the same idea as yours, viz., that

crossing must be one means of eliminating variation, and then I wished

to make out how far in animals and vegetables this was possible.

Papilionaceous flowers are almost dead floorers to me, and I cannot

experimentise, as castration alone often produces sterility. I am

surprised at what you say about Compositae and Gramineae. From what I

have seen of latter they seemed to me (and I have watched wheat,

owing to what L. de Longchamps has said on their fertilisation in bud)

favourable for crossing; and from Cassini's observations and Kolreuter's

on the adhesive pollen, and C.C. Sprengel's, I had concluded that the

Compositae were eminently likely (I am aware of the pistil brushing

out pollen) to be crossed. (586/1. This is an instance of the curious

ignorance of the essential principles of floral mechanism which was to

be found even among learned and accomplished botanists such as Gray,

before the publication of the "Fertilisation of Orchids." Even in 1863

we find Darwin explaining the meaning of dichogamy in a letter to Gray.)

If in some months' time you can find time to tell me whether you have

made any observations on the early fertilisation of plants in these two

orders, I should be very glad to hear, as it would save me from great

blunder. In several published remarks on this subject in various genera

it has seemed to me that the early fertilisation has been inferred

from the early shedding of the pollen, which I think is clearly a false

inference. Another cause, I should think, of the belief of fertilisation

in the bud, is the not-rare, abnormal, early maturity of the pistil as

described by Gartner. I have hitherto failed in meeting with detailed

accounts of regular and normal impregnation in the bud. Podostemon and

Subularia under water (and Leguminosae) seem and are strongest cases

against me, as far as I as yet know. I am so sorry that you are so

overwhelmed with work; it makes your VERY GREAT kindness to me the more

striking.

It is really pretty to see how effectual insects are. A short time ago

I found a female holly sixty measured yards from any other holly, and

I cut off some twigs and took by chance twenty stigmas, cut off their

tops, and put them under the microscope: there was pollen on every one,

and in profusion on most! weather cloudy and stormy and unfavourable,

wind in wrong direction to have brought any.

LETTER 587. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 12th [1858].

I want to ask a question which will take you only few words to answer.

It bears on my former belief (and Asa Gray strongly expressed opinion)

that Papilionaceous flowers were fatal to my notion of there being no

eternal hermaphrodites. First let me say how evidence goes. You will

remember my facts going to show that kidney-beans require visits of bees

to be fertilised. This has been positively stated to be the case with

Lathyrus grandiflorus, and has been very partially verified by me.

Sir W. Macarthur tells me that Erythrina will hardly seed in Australia

without the petals are moved as if by bee. I have just met the statement

that, with common bean, when the humble-bees bite holes at the base

of the flower, and therefore cease visiting the mouth of the corolla,

"hardly a bean will set." But now comes a much more curious statement,

that [in] 1842-43, "since bees were established at Wellington (New

Zealand), clover seeds all over the settlement, WHICH IT DID NOT

BEFORE." (587/1. See Letter 362, Volume I.) The writer evidently has no

idea what the connection can be. Now I cannot help at once connecting

this statement (and all the foregoing statements in some degree support

each other, as all have been advanced without any sort of theory) with

the remarkable absence of Papilionaceous plants in N. Zealand. I see in

your list Clianthus, Carmichaelia (four species), a new genus, a shrub,

and Edwardsia (is latter Papilionaceous?). Now what I want to know is

whether any of these have flowers as small as clover; for if they

have large flowers they may be visited by humble-bees, which I think I

remember do exist in New Zealand; and which humble-bees would not visit

the smaller clover. Even the very minute little yellow clover in England

has every flower visited and revisited by hive-bees, as I know by

experience. Would it not be a curious case of correlation if it could be

shown to be probable that herbaceous and small Leguminosae do not exist

because when [their] seeds [are] washed ashore (!!!) no small bees exist

there. Though this latter fact must be ascertained. I may not prove

anything, but does it not seem odd that so many quite independent facts,

or rather statements, should point all in one direction, viz., that bees

are necessary to the fertilisation of Papilionaceous flowers?

LETTER 588. TO JOHN LUBBOCK (Lord Avebury). Sunday [1859].

Do you remember calling my attention to certain flowers in the truss

of Pelargoniums not being true, or not having the dark shade on the two

upper petals? I believe it was Lady Lubbock's observation. I find, as

I expected, it is always the central or sub-central flower; but what is

far more curious, the nectary, which is blended with the peduncle of

the flowers, gradually lessens and quite disappears (588/1. This fact

is mentioned in Maxwell Masters' "Vegetable Teratology" (Ray Society's

Publications), 1869, page 221.), as the dark shade on the two upper

petals disappears. Compare the stalk in the two enclosed parcels, in

each of which there is a perfect flower.

Now, if your gardener will not be outrageous, do look over your

geraniums and send me a few trusses, if you can find any, having the

flowers without the marks, sending me some perfect flowers on same

truss. The case seems to me rather a pretty one of correlation of

growth; for the calyx also becomes slightly modified in the flowers

without marks.

LETTER 589. TO MAXWELL MASTERS. Down, April 7th [1860].

I hope that you will excuse the liberty which I take in writing to you

and begging a favour. I have been very much interested by the abstract

(too brief) of your lecture at the Royal Institution. Many of the facts

alluded to are full of interest for me. But on one point I should be

infinitely obliged if you could procure me any information: namely, with

respect to sweet-peas. I am a great believer in the natural crossing of

individuals of the same species. But I have been assured by Mr. Cattell

(589/1. The nurseryman he generally dealt with.), of Westerham, that the

several varieties of sweet-pea can be raised close together for a number

of years without intercrossing. But on the other hand he stated that

they go over the beds, and pull up any false plant, which they very

naturally attribute to wrong seeds getting mixed in the lot. After many

failures, I succeeded in artificially crossing two varieties, and the

offspring out of the same pod, instead of being intermediate, was very

nearly like the two pure parents; yet in one, there was a trace of the

cross, and these crossed peas in the next generation showed still more

plainly their mongrel origin. Now, what I want to know is, whether there

is much variation in sweet-peas which might be owing to natural crosses.

What I should expect would be that they would keep true for many years,

but that occasionally, perhaps at long intervals, there would be a

considerable amount of crossing of the varieties grown close together.

Can you give, or obtain from your father, any information on this head,

and allow me to quote your authority? It would really be a very great

favour and kindness.

LETTER 590. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(590/1. The genera Scaevola and Leschenaultia, to which the following

letter refers, belong to the Goodeniaceae (Goodenovieae, Bentham &

Hooker), an order allied to the Lobeliaceae, although the mechanism

of fertilisation resembles rather more nearly that of Campanula. The

characteristic feature of the flower in this order is the indusium, or,

as Delpino (590/2. Delpino's observations on Dichogamy, summarised by

Hildebrand in "Bot. Zeitung," 1870, page 634.) calls it, the "collecting

cup": this cuplike organ is a development of the style, and serves the

same function as the hairs on the style of Campanula, namely, that of

taking the pollen from the anthers and presenting it to the visiting

insect. During this stage the immature stigma is at the bottom of the

cup, and though surrounded by pollen is incapable of being pollinated.

In most genera of the order the pollen is pushed out of the indusium by

the growth of the style or stigma, very much as occurs in Lobelia or

the Compositae. Finally the style emerges from the indusium (590/3.

According to Hamilton ("Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales," X., 1895, page

361) the stigma rarely grows beyond the indusium in Dampiera. In the

same journal (1885-6, page 157, and IX., 1894, page 201) Hamilton

has given a number of interesting observations on Goodenia, Scaevola,

Selliera, Brunonia. There seem to be mechanisms for cross- and also

for self-fertilisation.), the stigmas open out and are pollinated from

younger flowers. The mechanism of fertilisation has been described by

F. Muller (590/4. In a letter to Hildebrand published in the "Bot.

Zeitung," 1868, page 113.), and more completely by Delpino (loc. cit.).

Mr. Bentham wrote a paper (590/5. "Linn. Soc. Journal," 1869, page 203.)

on the style and stigma in the Goodenovieae, where he speaks of Mr.

Darwin's belief that fertilisation takes place outside the indusium.

This statement, which we imagine Mr. Bentham must have had from an

unpublished source, was incomprehensible to him as long as he confined

his work to such genera as Goodenia, Scaevola, Velleia, Coelogyne,

in which the mechanism is much as above described; but on examining

Leschenaultia the meaning became clear. Bentham writes of this

genus:--"The indusium is usually described as broadly two-lipped,

without any distinct stigma. The fact appears to be that the upper less

prominent lip is stigmatic all over, inside and out, with a transverse

band of short glandular hairs at its base outside, while the lower more

prominent lip is smooth and glabrous, or with a tuft of rigid hairs.

Perhaps this lower lip and the upper band of hairs are all that

correspond to the indusium of other genera; and the so-called upper lip,

outside of which impregnation may well take place, as observed by Mr.

Darwin, must be regarded as the true stigma."

Darwin's interest in the Goodeniaceae was due to the mechanism being

apparently fitted for self-fertilisation. In 1871 a writer signing

himself F.W.B. made a communication to the "Gardeners' Chronicle"

(590/6. 1871, page 1103.), in which he expresses himself as "agreeably

surprised" to find Leschenaultia adapted for self-fertilisation, or at

least for self-pollinisation. This led Darwin to publish a short note in

the same journal, in which he describes the penetration of pollen-tubes

into the viscid surface on the outside of the indusium. (590/7. 1871,

page 1166. He had previously written in the "Journal of Horticulture and

Cottage Gardener," May 28th, 1861, page 151:--"Leschenaultia formosa has

apparently the most effective contrivance to prevent the stigma of one

flower ever receiving a grain of pollen from another flower; for the

pollen is shed in the early bud, and is there shut up round the stigma

within a cup or indusium. But some observations led me to suspect that

nevertheless insect agency here comes into play; for I found by holding

a camel-hair pencil parallel to the pistil, and moving it as if it were

a bee going to suck the nectar, the straggling hairs of the brush opened

the lip of the indusium, entered it, stirred up the pollen, and brought

out some grains. I did this to five flowers, and marked them. These

five flowers all set pods; whereas only two other pods set on the whole

plant, though covered with innumerable flowers...I wrote to Mr. James

Drummond, at Swan River in Australia,...and he soon wrote to me that he

had seen a bee cleverly opening the indusium and extracting pollen.")

He also describes how a brush, pushed into the flower in imitation of

an insect, presses "against the slightly projecting lower lip of the

indusium, opens it, and some of the hairs enter and become smeared

with pollen." The yield of pollen is therefore differently arranged in

Leschenaultia; for in the more typical genera it depends on the growth

of the style inside the indusium. Delpino, however (see Hildebrand's

version, loc. cit.), describes a similar opening of the cup produced by

pressure on the hairs in some genera of the order.)

Down, June 7th [1860].

Best and most beloved of men, I supplicate and entreat you to observe

one point for me. Remember that the Goodeniaceae have weighed like an

incubus for years on my soul. It relates to Scaevola microcarpa. I

find that in bud the indusium collects all the pollen splendidly, but,

differently from Leschenaultia, cannot be afterwards easily opened.

Further, I find that at an early stage, when the flower first opens, a

boat-shaped stigma lies at the bottom of the indusium, and further

that this stigma, after the flower has some time expanded, grows very

rapidly, when the plant is kept hot, and pushes out of the indusium a

mass of pollen; and at same time two horns project at the corners of the

indusium. Now the appearance of these horns makes me suppose that these

are the stigmatic surfaces. Will you look to this? for if they be by the

relative position of the parts (with indusium and stigma bent at right

angles to style) [I am led to think] that an insect entering a flower

could not fail to have [its] whole back (at the period when, as I have

seen, a whole mass of pollen is pushed out) covered with pollen, which

would almost certainly get rubbed on the two horns. Indeed, I doubt

whether, without this aid, pollen would get on to the horns. What

interests me in the case is the analogy in result with the Lobelia, but

by very different means. In Lobelia the stigma, before it is mature,

pushes by its circular brush of hairs the pollen out of the conjoined

anthers; here the indusium collects pollen, and then the growth of the

stigma pushes it out. In the course of about 1 1/2 hour, I found an

indusium with hairs on the outer edge perfectly clogged with pollen, and

horns protruded, which before the 1 1/2 hour had not one grain of pollen

outside the indusium, and no trace of protruding horns. So you will see

how I wish to know whether the horns are the true stigmatic surfaces. I

would try the case experimentally by putting pollen on the horns, but my

greenhouse is so cold, and my plant so small, and in such a little pot,

that I suppose it would not seed...

The little length of stigmatic horns at the moment when pollen is forced

out of the indusium, compared to what they ultimately attain, makes me

fancy that they are not then mature or ready, and if so, as in Lobelia,

each flower must be fertilised by pollen from another and earlier

flower.

How curious that the indusium should first so cleverly collect pollen

and then afterwards push it out! Yet how closely analogous to Campanula

brushing pollen out of the anther and retaining it on hairs till the

stigma is ready. I am going to try whether Campanula sets seed without

insect agency.

LETTER 591. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(591/1. The following letters are given here rather than in

chronological order, as bearing on the Leschenaultia problem. The latter

part of Letter 591 refers to the cleistogamic flowers of Viola.)

Down, May 1st [1862].

If you can screw out time, do look at the stigma of the blue

Leschenaultia biloba. I have just examined a large bud with the indusium

not yet closed, and it seems to me certain that there is no stigma

within. The case would be very important for me, and I do not like to

trust solely to myself. I have been impregnating flowers, but it is

rather difficult...

I have just looked again at Viola canina. The case is odder: only 2

stamens which embrace the stigma have pollen; the 3 other stamens have

no anther-cells and no pollen. These 2 fertile anthers are of different

shape from the 3 sterile others, and the scale representing the

lower lip is larger and differently shaped from the 4 other scales

representing 4 other petals.

In V. odorata (single flower) all five stamens produce pollen. But I

daresay all this is known.

LETTER 592. TO J.D. HOOKER. November 3rd [1862].

Do you remember the scarlet Leschenaultia formosa with the sticky margin

outside the indusium? Well, this is the stigma--at least, I find the

pollen-tubes here penetrate and nowhere else. What a joke it would be if

the stigma is always exterior, and this by far the greatest difficulty

in my crossing notions should turn out a case eminently requiring insect

aid, and consequently almost inevitably ensuring crossing. By the

way, have you any other Goodeniaceae which you could lend me, besides

Leschenaultia and Scaevola, of which I have seen enough?

I had a long letter the other day from Crocker of Chichester; he has the

real spirit of an experimentalist, but has not done much this summer.

LETTER 593. TO F. MULLER. Down, April 9th and 15th [1866].

I am very much obliged by your letter of February 13th, abounding with

so many highly interesting facts. Your account of the Rubiaceous plant

is one of the most extraordinary that I have ever read, and I am glad

you are going to publish it. I have long wished some one to observe the

fertilisation of Scaevola, and you must permit me to tell you what I

have observed. First, for the allied genus of Leschenaultia: utterly

disbelieving that it fertilises itself, I introduced a camel-hair brush

into the flower in the same way as a bee would enter, and I found that

the flowers were thus fertilised, which never otherwise happens; I then

searched for the stigma, and found it outside the indusium with the

pollen-tubes penetrating it; and I convinced Dr. Hooker that botanists

were quite wrong in supposing that the stigma lay inside the indusium.

In Scaevola microcarpa the structure is very different, for the immature

stigma lies at the base within the indusium, and as the stigma grows it

pushes the pollen out of the indusium, and it then clings to the hairs

which fringe the tips of the indusium; and when an insect enters the

flower, the pollen (as I have seen) is swept from these long hairs on to

the insect's back. The stigma continues to grow, but is not apparently

ready for impregnation until it is developed into two long protruding

horns, at which period all the pollen has been pushed out of the

indusium. But my observations are here at fault, for I did not observe

the penetration of the pollen-tubes. The case is almost parallel with

that of Lobelia. Now, I hope you will get two plants of Scaevola, and

protect one from insects, leaving the other uncovered, and observe the

results, both in the number of capsules produced, and in the average

number of seeds in each. It would be well to fertilise half a dozen

flowers under the net, to prove that the cover is not injurious to

fertility.

With respect to your case of Aristolochia, I think further observation

would convince you that it is not fertilised only by larvae, for in a

nearly parallel case of an Arum and a Aristolochia, I found that insects

flew from flower to flower. I would suggest to you to observe any cases

of flowers which catch insects by their probosces, as occurs with

some of the Apocyneae (593/1. Probably Asclepiadeae. See H. Muller,

"Fertilisation of Flowers," page 396.); I have never been able to

conceive for what purpose (if any) this is effected; at the same time,

if I tempt you to neglect your zoological work for these miscellaneous

observations I shall be guilty of a great crime.

To return for a moment to the indusium: how curious it is that the

pollen should be thus collected in a special receptacle, afterwards to

be swept out by insects' agency!

I am surprised at what you tell me about the fewness of the flowers of

your native orchids which produce seed-capsules. What a contrast with

our temperate European species, with the exception of some species of

Ophrys!--I now know of three or four cases of self-fertilising orchids,

but all these are provided with means for an occasional cross.

I am sorry to say Dr. Cruger is dead from a fever.

I received yesterday your paper in the "Botanische Zeitung" on the wood

of climbing plants. (593/2. Fritz Muller, "Ueber das Holz einiger um

Desterro wachsenden Kletterpflanzen." "Botanische Zeitung," 1866, pages

57, 65.) I have read as yet only your very interesting and curious

remarks on the subject as bearing on the change of species; you have

pleased me by the very high compliments which you pay to my paper. I

have been at work since March 1st on a new English edition (593/3. The

4th Edition.) of my "Origin," of which when published I will send you a

copy. I have much regretted the time it has cost me, as it has stopped

my other work. On the other hand, it will be useful for a new third

German edition, which is now wanted. I have corrected it largely, and

added some discussions, but not nearly so much as I wished to do, for,

being able to work only two hours daily, I feared I should never get it

finished. I have taken some facts and views from your work "Fur Darwin";

but not one quarter of what I should like to have quoted.

LETTER 594. TO A.G. MORE. Down, June 24th, 1860.

I hope that you will forgive the liberty which I take in writing to you

and requesting a favour. Mr. H.C. Watson has given me your address, and

has told me that he thought that you would be willing to oblige me. Will

you please to read the enclosed, and then you will understand what I

wish observed with respect to the bee-orchis. (594/1. Ophrys apifera.)

What I especially wish, from information which I have received since

publishing the enclosed, is that the state of the pollen-masses should

be noted in flowers just beginning to wither, in a district where the

bee-orchis is extremely common. I have been assured that in parts of

Isle of Wight, viz., Freshwater Gate, numbers occur almost crowded

together: whether anything of this kind occurs in your vicinity I know

not; but, if in your power, I should be infinitely obliged for any

information. As I am writing, I will venture to mention another wish

which I have: namely, to examine fresh flowers and buds of the Aceras,

Spiranthes, marsh Epipactis, and any other rare orchis. The point which

I wish to examine is really very curious, but it would take too long

space to explain. Could you oblige me by taking the great trouble to

send me in an old tin canister any of these orchids, permitting me, of

course, to repay postage? It would be a great kindness, but perhaps I am

unreasonable to make such a request. If you will inform me whether you

have leisure so far to oblige me, I would tell you my movements, for on

account of my own health and that of my daughter, I shall be on the move

for the next two or three weeks.

I am sure I have much cause to apologise for the liberty which I have

taken...

LETTER 595. TO A.G. MORE. Down, August 3rd, 1860.

I thank you most sincerely for sending me the Epipactis [palustris]. You

can hardly imagine what an interesting morning's work you have given me,

as the rostellum exhibited a quite new modification of structure. It has

been extremely kind of you to take so very much trouble for me. Have you

looked at the pollen-masses of the bee-Ophrys? I do not know whether the

Epipactis grows near to your house: if it does, and any object takes you

to the place (pray do not for a moment think me so very unreasonable

as to ask you to go on purpose), would you be so kind [as] to watch

the flowers for a quarter of an hour, and mark whether any insects (and

what?) visit these flowers.

I should suppose they would crawl in by depressing the terminal portion

of the labellum; and that when within the flower this terminal portion

would resume its former position; and lastly, that the insect in

crawling out would not depress the labellum, but would crawl out at back

of flower. (595/1. The observations of Mr. William Darwin on Epipactis

palustris given in the "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., 1877,

page 99, bear on this point. The chief fertilisers are hive-bees, which

are too big to crawl into the flower. They cling to the labellum, and

by depressing it open up the entrance to the flower. Owing to the

elasticity of the labellum and its consequent tendency to spring up

when released, the bees, "as they left the flower, seemed to fly rather

upwards." This agrees with Darwin's conception of the mechanism of the

flower as given in the first edition of the Orchid book, 1862, page 100,

although at that time he imagined that the fertilising insect crawled

into the flower. The extreme flexibility and elasticity of the labellum

was first observed by Mr. More (see first edition, page 99). The

description of the flower given in the above letter to Mr. More is not

quite clear; the reader is referred to the "Fertilisation of Orchids,"

loc. cit.) An insect crawling out of a recently opened flower would,

I believe, have parts of the pollen-masses adhering to the back or

shoulder. I have seen this in Listera. How I should like to watch the

Epipactis.

If you can it any time send me Spiranthes or Aceras or O. ustulata, you

would complete your work of kindness.

P.S.--If you should visit the Epipactis again, would you gather a few of

the lower flowers which have been opened for some time and have begun

to wither a little, and observe whether pollen is well cleared out of

anther-case. I have been struck with surprise that in nearly all the

lower flowers sent by you, though much of the pollen has been removed,

yet a good deal of pollen is left wasted within the anthers. I observed

something of this kind in Cephalanthera grandiflora. But I fear that you

will think me an intolerable bore.

LETTER 596. TO A.G. MORE. Down, August 5th, 1860.

I am infinitely obliged for your most clearly stated observations on

the bee-orchis. It is now perfectly clear that something removes the

pollen-masses far more with you than in this neighbourhood. But I am

utterly puzzled about the foot-stalk being so often cut through. I

should suspect snails. I yesterday found thirty-nine flowers, and of

them only one pollen-mass in three flowers had been removed, and as

these were extremely much-withered flowers I am not quite sure of

the truth of this. The wind again is a new element of doubt. Your

observations will aid me extremely in coming to some conclusion. (596/1.

Mr. More's observations on the percentage of flowers in which the

pollinia were absent are quoted in "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition

I., page 68.) I hope in a day or two to receive some day-moths, on the

probosces of which I am assured the pollen-masses of the bee-orchis

still adhere (596/2. He was doomed to disappointment. On July 17th,

1861, he wrote to Mr. More:--"I found the other day a lot of bee-Ophrys

with the glands of the pollinia all in their pouches. All facts point

clearly to eternal self-fertilisation in this species; yet I cannot

swallow the bitter pill. Have you looked at any this year?")...

I wrote yesterday to thank you for the Epipactis. For the chance of your

liking to look at what I have found: take a recently opened flower, drag

gently up the stigmatic surface almost any object (the side of a hooked

needle), and you will find the cap of the hemispherical rostellum comes

off with a touch, and being viscid on under-surface, clings to needle,

and as pollen-masses are already attached to the back of rostellum, the

needle drags out much pollen. But to do this, the curiously projecting

and fleshy summits of anther-cases must at some time be pushed back

slightly. Now when an insect's head gets into the flower, when the flap

of the labellum has closed by its elasticity, the insect would naturally

creep out by the back-side of the flower. And mark when the insect flies

to another flower with the pollen-masses adhering to it, if the flap of

labellum did not easily open and allow free ingress to the insect, it

would surely rub off the pollen on the upper petals, and so not leave

it on stigma. It is to know whether I have rightly interpreted the

structure of this whole flower that I am so curious to see how insects

act. Small insects, I daresay, would crawl in and out and do nothing. I

hope that I shall not have wearied you with these details.

If you would like to see a pretty and curious little sight, look

to Orchis pyramidalis, and you will see that the sticky glands are

congenitally united into a saddle-shaped organ. Remove this under

microscope by pincers applied to foot-stalk of pollen-mass, and look

quickly at the spontaneous movement of the saddle-shaped organs and see

how beautifully adapted to seize proboscis of moth.

LETTER 597. TO J.D. HOOKER December 4th [1860].

Many thanks about Apocynum and Meyen.

The latter I want about some strange movements in cells of Drosera,

which Meyen alone seems to have observed. (597/1. No observations of

Meyen are mentioned in "Insectivorous Plants.") It is very curious, but

Trecul disbelieves that Drosera really clasps flies! I should very much

wish to talk over Drosera with you. I did chloroform it, and the leaves

which were already expanded did not recover thirty seconds of exposure

for three days. I used the expression weight for the bit of hair which

caused movement and weighed 1/78000 of a grain; but I do not believe it

is weight, and what it is, I cannot after many experiments conjecture.

(597/2. The doubt here expressed as to whether the result is due to

actual weight is interesting in connection with Pfeffer's remarkable

discovery that a smooth object in contact with the gland produces no

effect if the plant is protected from all vibration; on an ordinary

table the slight shaking which reaches the plant is sufficient to make

the body resting on the gland tremble, and thus produce a series of

varying pressures--under these circumstances the gland is irritated, and

the tentacle moves. See Pfeffer, "Untersuchungen aus d. bot. Institut

zu Tubingen," Volume I., 1885, page 483; also "Insectivorous Plants,"

Edition II., page 22.) The movement in this case does not depend on

the chemical nature of substance. Latterly I have tried experiments on

single glands, and a microscopical atom of raw meat causes such rapid

movement that I could see it move like hand of clock. In this case it

is the nature of the object. It is wonderful the rapidity of the

absorption: in ten seconds weak solution of carbonate of ammonia changes

not the colour, but the state of contents within the glands. In two

minutes thirty seconds juice of meat has been absorbed by gland and

passed from cell to cell all down the pedicel (or hair) of the gland,

and caused the sap to pass from the cells on the upper side of the

pedicel to the lower side, and this causes the curvature of the pedicel.

I shall work away next summer when Drosera opens again, for I am much

interested in subject. After the glandular hairs have curved, the oddest

changes take place--viz., a segregation of the homogeneous pink fluid

and necessary slow movements in the thicker matter. By Jove, I sometimes

think Drosera is a disguised animal! You know that I always so like

telling you what I do, that you must forgive me scribbling on my beloved

Drosera. Farewell. I am so very glad that you are going to reform your

ways; I am sure that you would have injured your health seriously. There

is poor Dana has done actually nothing--cannot even write a letter--for

a year, and it is hoped that in another YEAR he may quite recover.

After this homily, good night, my dear friend. Good heavens, I ought

not to scold you, but thank you, for writing so long and interesting a

letter.

LETTER 598. TO E. CRESY. Down, December 12th [1860?].

After writing out the greater part of my paper on Drosera, I thought of

so many points to try, and I wished to re-test the basis of one large

set of experiments, namely, to feel still more sure than I am, that a

drop of plain water never produces any effect, that I have resolved

to publish nothing this year. For I found in the record of my daily

experiments one suspicious case. I must wait till next summer. It will

be difficult to try any solid substances containing nitrogen, such

as ivory; for two quite distinct causes excite the movement, namely,

mechanical irritation and presence of nitrogen. When a solid substance

is placed on leaf it becomes clasped, but is released sooner than when a

nitrogenous solid is clasped; yet it is difficult (except with raw meat

and flies) to be sure of the result, owing to differences in vigour of

different plants. The last experiments which I tried before my

plants became too languid are very curious, and were tried by putting

microscopical atoms on the gland itself of single hairs; and it is

perfectly evident that an atom of human hair, 1/76000 of a grain (as

ascertained by weighing a length of hair) in weight, causes conspicuous

movement. I do not believe (for atoms of cotton thread acted) it is the

chemical nature; and some reasons make me doubt whether it is

actual weight; it is not the shadow; and I am at present, after many

experiments, confounded to know what the cause is. That these atoms did

really act and alter the state of the contents of all the cells in the

glandular hair, which moved, was perfectly clear. But I hope next summer

to make out a good deal more...

LETTER 599. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 14th [1861].

I have been putting off writing from day to day, as I did not wish to

trouble you, till my wish for a little news will not let me rest...

I have no news to tell you, for I have had no interesting letters for

some time, and have not seen a soul. I have been going through the

"Cottage Gardener" of last year, on account chiefly of Beaton's articles

(599/1. Beaton was a regular contributor to the "Cottage Gardener," and

wrote various articles on cross breeding, etc., in 1861. One of these

was in reply to a letter published in the "Cottage Gardener," May

14th, 1861, page 112, in which Darwin asked for information as to the

Compositae and the hollyhock being crossed by insect visitors. In the

number for June 8th, 1861, page 211, Darwin wrote on the variability of

the central flower of the carrot and the peloria of the central flower

in Pelargonium. An extract from a letter by Darwin on Leschenaultia,

"Cottage Gardener," May 28th, 1861, page 151, is given in Letter 590,

note.); he strikes me as a clever but d--d cock-sure man (as Lord

Melbourne said), and I have some doubts whether to be much trusted. I

suspect he has never recorded his experiment at the time with care. He

has made me indignant by the way he speaks of Gartner, evidently

knowing nothing of his work. I mean to try and pump him in the

"Cottage Gardener," and shall perhaps defend Gartner. He alludes to me

occasionally, and I cannot tell with what spirit. He speaks of "this Mr.

Darwin" in one place as if I were a very noxious animal.

Let me have a line about poor Henslow pretty soon.

(599/2. In a letter of May 18th, 1861, Darwin wrote again:--)

By the way, thanks about Beaton. I have now read more of his writings,

and one answer to me in "Cottage Gardener." I can plainly see that he is

not to be trusted. He does not well know his own subject of crossing.

LETTER 600. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(600/1. Part of this letter has been published in "Life and Letters,"

III., page 265.)

2, Hesketh Crescent, Torquay [1861].

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

should think or guess [that] 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. By the

way, Cephalanthera has single pollen-grains, but this seems to be a case

of degradation, for the rostellum is utterly aborted. Oddly, the

columns of pollen are here kept in place by very early penetration of

pollen-tubes into the edge of the stigma; nevertheless, it receives more

pollen by insect agency. Epithecia [Dichaea] has done me one good little

turn. I often speculated how the caudicle of Orchis had been formed.

(600/2. The gradation here suggested is thoroughly worked out in the

"Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition I., page 323, Edition II., page

257.) I had noticed slight clouds in the substance half way down; I

have now dissected them out, and I find they are pollen-grains fairly

embedded and useless. If you suppose the pollen-grains to abort in

the lower half of the pollinia of Epipactis, but the parallel elastic

threads to remain and cohere, you have the caudicle of Orchis, and can

understand the few embedded and functionless pollen-grains. I must not

look at any more exotic orchids: hearty thanks for your offer. But if

you would make one single observation for me on Cypripedium, I should

be glad. Asa Gray writes to me that the outside of the pollen-masses

is sticky in this genus; I find that the whole mass consists of

pollen-grains immersed in a sticky brownish thick fluid. You could tell

by a mere lens and penknife. If it is, as I find it, pollen could not

get on the stigma without insect aid. Cypripedium confounds me much.

I conjecture that drops of nectar are secreted by the surface of the

labellum beneath the anthers and in front of the stigma, and that the

shield over the anthers and the form of labellum is to compel insects

to insert their proboscis all round both organs. (600/3. This view was

afterwards given up.) It would be troublesome for you to look at this,

as it is always bothersome to catch the nectar secreting, and the cup of

the labellum gets filled with water by gardener's watering.

I have examined Listera ovata, cordata, and Neottia nidus avis: the

pollen is uniform; I suspect you must have seen some observation founded

on a mistake from the penetration and hardening of sticky fluid from the

rostellum, which does penetrate the pollen a little.

It is mere virtue which makes me not wish to examine more orchids; for

I like it far better than writing about varieties of cocks and hens and

ducks. Nevertheless, I have just been looking at Lindley's list in

the "Vegetable Kingdom," and I cannot resist one or two of his great

division of Arethuseae, which includes Vanilla. And as I know so well

the Ophreae, I should like (God forgive me) any one of the Satyriadae,

Disidae and Corycidae.

I fear my long lucubrations will have wearied you, but it has amused me

to write, so forgive me.

LETTER 601. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(601/1. Part of the following letter is published in the "Life and

Letters," the remainder, with the omission of part bearing on the

Glen Roy problem, is now given as an example of the varied botanical

assistance Darwin received from Sir Joseph Hooker. For the part relating

to Verbascum see the "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II.,

1875, Volume II., page 83. The point is that the white and yellow

flowered plants which occur in two species of Verbascum are undoubted

varieties, yet "the sterility which results from the crossing of the

differently coloured varieties of the same species is fully as great as

that which occurs in many cases when distinct species are crossed."

The sterility of the long-styled form (B) of Linum grandiflorum, with

its own pollen is described in "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 87:

his conclusions on the short-styled form (A) differ from those in the

present letter.)

September 28th [1861].

I am going to beg for help, and I will explain why I want it.

You offer Cypripedium; I should be very glad of a specimen, and of any

good-sized Vandeae, or indeed any orchids, for this reason: I never

thought of publishing separately, and therefore did not keep specimens

in spirits, and now I should be very glad of a few woodcuts to

illustrate my few remarks on exotic orchids. If you can send me any,

send them by post in a tin canister on middle of day of Saturday,

October 5th, for Sowerby will be here.

Secondly: Have you any white and yellow varieties of Verbascum which

you could give me, or propagate for me, or LEND me for a year? I have

resolved to try Gartner's wonderful and repeated statement, that pollen

of white and yellow varieties, whether used on the varieties or on

DISTINCT species, has different potency. I do not think any experiment

can be more important on the origin of species; for if he is correct we

certainly have what Huxley calls new physiological species arising. I

should require several species of Verbascum besides the white and yellow

varieties of the same species. It will be tiresome work, but if I can

anyhow get the plants, it shall be tried.

Thirdly: Can you give me seeds of any Rubiaceae of the sub-order

Cinchoneae, as Spermacoce, Diodia, Mitchella, Oldenlandia? Asa Gray says

they present two forms like Primula. I am sure that this subject is

well worth working out. I have just almost proved a very curious case

in Linum grandiflorum which presents two forms, A and B. Pollen of A is

perfectly fertile on stigma of A. But pollen of B is absolutely barren

on its own stigma; you might as well put so much flour on it. It

astounded me to see the stigmas of B purple with its own pollen; and

then put a few grains of similar-looking pollen of A on them, and the

germen immediately and always swelled; those not thus treated never

swelling.

Fourthly: Can you give me any very hairy Saxifraga (for their functions)

[i.e. the functions of the hairs]?

I send you a resume of my requests, to save you trouble. Nor would I ask

for so much aid if I did not think all these points well worth trying to

investigate.

My dear old friend, a letter from you always does me a world of good.

And, the Lord have mercy on me, what a return I make.

LETTER 602. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 4th [1861].

Will you have the kindness to read the enclosed, and look at the

diagram. Six words will answer my question. It is not an important

point, but there is to me an irresistible charm in trying to make out

homologies. (602/1. In 1880 he wrote to Mr. Bentham: "It was very kind

of 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."--"Life and Letters," III., page 264.) You know

the membranous cup or clinandrum, in many orchids, behind the stigma and

rostellum: it is formed of a membrane which unites the filament of the

normal dorsal anther with the edges of the pistil. The clinandrum is

largely developed in Malaxis, and is of considerable importance in

retaining the pollinia, which as soon as the flower opens are quite

loose.

The appearance and similarity of the tissues, etc., at once gives

suspicion that the lateral membranes of the clinandrum are the two other

and rudimentary anthers, which in Orchis and Cephalanthera, etc., exist

as mere papillae, here developed and utilised.

Now for my question. Exactly in the middle of the filament of the

normal anther, and exactly in the middle of the lateral membrane of the

clinandrum, and running up to the same height, are quite similar bundles

of spiral vessels; ending upwards almost suddenly. Now is not this

structure a good argument that I interpret the homologies of the sides

of clinandrum rightly? (602/2. Though Robert Brown made use of the

spiral vessels of orchids, yet according to Eichler, "Bluthendiagramme,"

1875, Volume I., page 184, Darwin was the first to make substantial

additions to the conclusions deducible from the course of the vessels in

relation to the problem of the morphology of these plants. Eichler

gives Darwin's diagram side by side with that of Van Tieghem without

attempting to decide between the differences in detail by which they are

characterised.)

I find that the great Bauer does not draw very correctly! (602/3. F.

Bauer, whom Pritzel calls "der grosste Pflanzenmaler." The reference is

to his "Illustrations of Orchidaceous Plants, with Notes and Prefatory

Remarks by John Lindley," London, 1830-38, Folio. See "Fertilisation

of Orchids," Edition II., page 82.) And, good Heavens, what a jumble he

makes on functions.

LETTER 603. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 22nd. [1861].

Acropera is a beast,--stigma does not open, everything seems contrived

that it shall NOT be anyhow fertilised. There is something very odd

about it, which could only be made out by incessant watching on several

individual plants.

I never saw the very curious flower of Canna; I should say the pollen

was deposited where it is to prevent inevitable self-fertilisation.

You have no time to try the smallest experiment, else it would be worth

while to put pollen on some stigmas (supposing that it does not seed

freely with you). Anyhow, insects would probably carry pollen from

flower to flower, for Kurr states the tube formed by pistil, stamen and

"nectarblatt" secretes (I presume internally) much nectar. Thanks for

sending me the curious flower.

Now I want much some wisdom; though I must write at considerable length,

your answer may be very brief.

(FIGURE 8.--FLORAL DIAGRAM OF AN ORCHID. The "missing bundle" could not

be found in some species.)

In R. Brown's admirable paper in the "Linnean Transacts." (603/4. Volume

XVI., page 685.) he suggests (and Lindley cautiously agrees) that the

flower of orchids consists of five whorls, the inner whorl of the two

whorls of anthers being all rudimentary, and when the labellum presents

ridges, two or three of the anthers of both whorls [are] combined with

it. In the ovarium there are six bundles of vessels: R. Brown judged by

transverse sections. It occurred to me, after what you said, to trace

the vessels longitudinally, and I have succeeded well. Look at my

diagram [Figure 8] (which please return, for I am transported with

admiration at it), which shows the vessels which I have traced, one

bundle to each of fifteen theoretical organs, and no more. You will see

the result is nothing new, but it seems to confirm strongly R. Brown,

for I have succeeded (perhaps he did, but he does not say so) in tracing

the vessels belonging to each organ in front of each other to the same

bundle in the ovarium: thus the vessels going to the lower sepal, to

the side of the labellum, and to one stigma (when there are two) all

distinctly branch from one ovarian bundle. So in other cases, but I have

not completely traced (only seen) that going to the rostellum. But here

comes my only point of novelty: in all orchids as yet looked at (even

one with so simple a labellum as Gymnadenia and Malaxis) the vessels on

the two sides of the labellum are derived from the bundle which goes to

the lower sepal, as in the diagram. This leads me to conclude that the

labellum is always a compound organ. Now I want to know whether it

is conceivable that the vessels coming from one main bundle should

penetrate an organ (the labellum) which receives its vessels from

another main bundle? Does it not imply that all that part of the

labellum which is supplied by vessels coming from a lateral bundle must

be part of a primordially distinct organ, however closely the two may

have become united? It is curious in Gymnadenia to trace the middle

anterior bundle in the ovarium: when it comes to the orifice of the

nectary it turns and runs right down it, then comes up the opposite side

and runs to the apex of the labellum, whence each side of the nectary

is supplied by vessels from the bundles, coming from the lower sepals.

Hence even the thin nectary is essentially, I infer, tripartite; hence

its tendency to bifurcation at its top. This view of the labellum always

consisting of three organs (I believe four when thick, as in Mormodes,

at base) seems to me to explain its great size and tripartite form,

compared with the other petals. Certainly, if I may trust the vessels,

the simple labellum of Gymnadenia consists of three organs soldered

together. Forgive me for writing at such length; a very brief answer

will suffice. I am desperately interested in the subject: the destiny

of the whole human race is as nothing to the course of vessels of

orchids...

What plant has the most complex single stigma and pistil? The most

complex I, in my ignorance, can think of is in Iris. I want to know

whether anything beats in modification the rostellum of Catasetum.

To-morrow I mean to be at Catasetum. Hurrah! What species is it? It

is wonderfully different from that which Veitch sent me, which was C.

saccatum.

According to the vessels, an orchid flower consists of three sepals and

two petals free; and of a compound organ (its labellum), consisting

of one petal and of two (or three) modified anthers; and of a second

compound body consisting of three pistils, one normal anther, and two

modified anthers often forming the sides of the clinandrum.

LETTER 604. TO JOHN LINDLEY.

(604/1. It was in the autumn of 1861 that Darwin made up his mind to

publish his Orchid work as a book, rather than as a paper in the Linnean

Society's "Journal." (604/2. See "Life and Letters," III., page 266.)

The following letter shows that the new arrangement served as an

incitement to fresh work.)

Down, October 25th [1861?]

Mr. James Veitch has been most generous. I did not know that you had

spoken to him. If you see him pray say I am truly grateful; I dare not

write to a live Bishop or a Lady, but if I knew the address of "Rucker"?

and might use your name as introduction, I might write. I am half mad on

the subject. Hooker has sent me many exotics, but I stopped him, for I

thought I should make a fool of myself; but since I have determined to

publish I much regret it.

(FIGURE 9.--HABENARIA CHLORANTHA (Longitudinal course of bundles).)

(605/1. The three upper curved outlines, two of which passing through

the words "upper sepal," "upper petal," "lower sepal," were in red in

the original; for explanation see text.)

LETTER 605. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(605/2. The following letter is of interest because it relates to one of

the two chief difficulties Darwin met with in working out the morphology

of the orchid flower. In the orchid book (605/3. Edition I., page 303.)

he wrote, "This anomaly [in Habenaria] is so far of importance, as it

throws some doubt on the view which I have taken of the labellum being

always an organ compounded of one petal and two petaloid stamens." That

is to say, it leaves it open for a critic to assert that the vessels

which enter the sides of the labellum are lateral vessels of the petal

and do not necessarily represent petaloid stamens. In the sequel he

gives a satisfactory answer to the supposed objector.)

Down, November 10th, [1861].

For the love of God help me. I believe all my work (about a

fortnight) is useless. Look at this accursed diagram (Figure 9) of the

butterfly-orchis [Habenaria], which I examined after writing to you

yesterday, when I thought all my work done. Some of the ducts of the

upper sepal (605/4. These would be described by modern morphologists as

lower, not upper, sepals, etc. Darwin was aware that he used these terms

incorrectly.) and upper petal run to the wrong bundles on the column. I

have seen no such case.

This case apparently shows that not the least reliance can be placed on

the course of ducts. I am sure of my facts.

There is great adhesion and extreme displacement of parts where the

organs spring from the top of the ovarium. Asa Gray says ducts are very

early developed, and it seems to me wonderful that they should pursue

this course. It may be said that the lateral ducts in the labellum

running into the antero-lateral ovarian bundle is no argument that the

labellum consists of three organs blended together.

In desperation (and from the curious way the base of upper petals are

soldered at basal edges) I fancied the real form of upper sepal, upper

petal and lower sepal might be as represented by red lines, and that

there had been an incredible amount of splitting of sepals and petals

and subsequent fusion.

This seems a monstrous notion, but I have just looked at Bauer's drawing

of allied Bonatea, and there is a degree of lobing of petals and sepals

which would account for anything.

Now could you spare me a dry flower out of your Herbarium of Bonatea

speciosa (605/5. See "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition I., page 304

(note), where the resemblances between the anomalous vessels of Bonatea

and Habenaria are described. On November 14th, 1861, he wrote to Sir

Joseph: "You are a true friend in need. I can hardly bear to let the

Bonatea soak long enough."), that I might soak and look for ducts. If

I cannot explain the case of Habenaria all my work is smashed. I was a

fool ever to touch orchids.

LETTER 606. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 17th [1861].

What two very interesting and useful letters you have sent me. You

rather astound me with respect to value of grounds of generalisation

in the morphology of plants. It reminds me that years ago I sent you

a grass to name, and your answer was, "It is certainly Festuca

(so-and-so), but it agrees as badly with the description as most

plants do." I have often laughed over this answer of a great

botanist...Lindley, from whom I asked for an orchid with a simple

labellum, has most kindly sent me a lot of what he marks "rare" and

"rarissima" of peloric orchids, etc., but as they are dried I know not

whether they will be of use. He has been most kind, and has suggested

my writing to Lady D. Nevill, who has responded in a wonderfully kind

manner, and has sent a lot of treasures. But I must stop; otherwise,

by Jove, I shall be transformed into a botanist. I wish I had been one;

this morphology is surprisingly interesting. Looking to your note, I

may add that certainly the fifteen alternating bundles of spiral vessels

(mingled with odd beadlike vessels in some cases) are present in many

orchids. The inner whorl of anther ducts are oftenest aborted. I must

keep clear of Apostasia, though I have cast many a longing look at it in

Bauer. (606/1. Apostasia has two fertile anthers like Cypripedium. It

is placed by Engler and Prantl in the Apostasieae or Apostasiinae, among

the Orchideae, by others in a distinct but closely allied group.)

I hope I may be well enough to read my own paper on Thursday, but I

have been very seedy lately. (606/2. "On the two Forms, or Dimorphic

Condition, in the Species of the Genus Primula," "Linn. Soc. Journ."

1862. He did read the paper, but it cost him the next day in bed. "Life

and Letters," III., page 299.) I see there is a paper at the Royal on

the same night, which will more concern you, on fossil plants of Bovey

(606/3. Oswald Heer, "The Fossil Flora of Bovey Tracey," "Phil. Trans.

R. Soc." 1862, page 1039.), so that I suppose I shall not have you; but

you must read my paper when published, as I shall very much like to hear

what you think. It seems to me a large field for experiment. I shall

make use of my Orchid little volume in illustrating modification of

species doctrine, but I keep very, very doubtful whether I am not doing

a foolish action in publishing. How I wish you would keep to your old

intention and write a book on plants. (606/4. Possibly a book similar to

that described in Letter 696.)

LETTER 607. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, November 26th [1861].

Our notes have crossed on the road. I know it is an honour to have a

paper in the "Transactions," and I am much obliged to you for proposing

it, but I should greatly prefer to publish in the "Journal." Nor does

this apply exclusively to myself, for in old days at the Geological

Society I always protested against an abstract appearing when the paper

itself might appear. I abominate also the waste of time (and it would

take me a day) in making an abstract. If the referee on my paper should

recommend it to appear in the "Transactions," will you be so kind as to

lay my earnest request before the Council that it may be permitted to

appear in the "Journal?"

You must be very busy with your change of residence; but when you are

settled and have some leisure, perhaps you will be so kind as to give me

some cases of dimorphism, like that of Primula. Should you object to my

adding them to those given me by A. Gray? By the way, I heard from A.

Gray this morning, and he gives me two very curious cases in Boragineae.

LETTER 608. TO JOHN LINDLEY.

(608/1. In the following fragment occurs the earliest mention of

Darwin's work on the three sexual forms of Catasetum tridentatum. Sir

R. Schomburgk (608/2. "Trans. Linn. Soc." XVII., page 522.) described

Catasetum tridentatum, Monacanthus viridis and Myanthus barbatus

occurring on a single plant, but it remained for Darwin to make out that

they are the male, female and hermaphrodite forms of a single species.

(608/3. "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition I., page 236; Edition II.,

page 196.)

With regard to the species of Acropera (Gongora) (608/4. Acropera

Loddigesii = Gongora galeata: A. luteola = G. fusca ("Index Kewensis").)

he was wrong in his surmise. The apparent sterility seems to be

explicable by Hildebrand's discovery (608/5. "Bot. Zeitung," 1863

and 1865.) that in some orchids the ovules are not developed until

pollinisation has occurred. (608/6. "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition

II., page 172. See Letter 633.))

Down, December 15th [1861].

I am so nearly ready for press that I will not ask for anything more;

unless, indeed, you stumbled on Mormodes in flower. As I am writing I

will just mention that I am convinced from the rudimentary state of

the ovules, and from the state of the stigma, that the whole plant of

Acropera luteola (and I believe A. Loddigesii) is male. Have you ever

seen any form from the same countries which could be the females? Of

course no answer is expected unless you have ever observed anything to

bear on this. I may add [judging from the] state of the ovules and of

the pollen [that]:--

Catasetum tridentatum is male (and never seeds, according to Schomburgk,

whom you have accidentally misquoted in the "Vegetable Kingdom").

Monacanthus viridis is female. Myanthus barbatus is the hermaphrodite

form of same species.

LETTER 609. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 18th [1861].

Thanks for your note. I have not written for a long time, for I always

fancy, busy as you are, that my letters must be a bore; though I like

writing, and always enjoy your notes. I can sympathise with you about

fear of scarlet fever: to the day of my death I shall never forget all

the sickening fear about the other children, after our poor little baby

died of it. The "Genera Plantarum" must be a tremendous work, and no

doubt very valuable (such a book, odd as it may appear, would be very

useful even to me), but I cannot help being rather sorry at the length

of time it must take, because I cannot enter on and understand your

work. Will you not be puzzled when you come to the orchids? It seems to

me orchids alone would be work for a man's lifetime; I cannot somehow

feel satisfied with Lindley's classification; the Malaxeae and

Epidendreae seem to me very artificially separated. (609/1. Pfitzer (in

the "Pflanzenfamilien") places Epidendrum in the Laeliinae-Cattleyeae,

Malaxis in the Liparidinae. He states that Bentham united the Malaxideae

and Epidendreae.) Not that I have seen enough to form an opinion worth

anything.

Your African plant seems to be a vegetable Ornithorhynchus, and indeed

much more than that. (609/2. See Sir J.D. Hooker, "On Welwitschia, a new

genus of Gnetaceae." "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXIV., 1862-3.) The more I read

about plants the more I get to feel that all phanerogams seem comparable

with one class, as lepidoptera, rather than with one kingdom, as the

whole insecta. (609/3. He wrote to Hooker (December 28th, 1861): "I

wrote carelessly about the value of phanerogams; what I was thinking of

was that the sub-groups seemed to blend so much more one into another

than with most classes of animals. I suspect crustacea would show more

difference in the extreme forms than phanerogams, but, as you say, it is

wild speculation. Yet it is very strange what difficulty botanists seem

to find in grouping the families together into masses.")

Thanks for your comforting sentence about the accursed ducts (accursed

though they be, I should like nothing better than to work at them in the

allied orders, if I had time). I shall be ready for press in three

or four weeks, and have got all my woodcuts drawn. I fear much that

publishing separately will prove a foolish job, but I do not care much,

and the work has greatly amused me. The Catasetum has not flowered yet!

In writing to Lindley about an orchid which he sent me, I told him a

little about Acropera, and in answer he suggests that Gongora may be its

female. He seems dreadfully busy, and I feel that I have more right to

kill you than to kill him; so can you send me one or at most two dried

flowers of Gongora? if you know the habitat of Acropera luteola, a

Gongora from the same country would be the best, but any true Gongora

would do; if its pollen should prove as rudimentary as that of

Monacanthus relatively to Catasetum, I think I could easily perceive it

even in dried specimens when well soaked.

I have picked a little out of Lecoq, but it is awful tedious hunting.

Bates is getting on with his natural history travels in one volume.

(609/4. H.W. Bates, the "Naturalist on the Amazons," 1863. See Volume

I., Letters 123, 148, also "Life and Letters," Volume II., page 381.) I

have read the first chapter in MS., and I think it will be an excellent

book and very well written; he argues, in a good and new way to me,

that tropical climate has very little direct relation to the gorgeous

colouring of insects (though of course he admits the tropics have a far

greater number of beautiful insects) by taking all the few genera common

to Britain and Amazonia, and he finds that the species proper to the

latter are not at all more beautiful. I wonder how this is in species of

the same restricted genera of plants.

If you can remember it, thank Bentham for getting my Primula paper

printed so quickly. I do enjoy getting a subject off one's hands

completely.

I have now got dimorphism in structure in eight natural orders just like

Primula. Asa Gray sent me dried flowers of a capital case in Amsinkia

spectabilis, one of the Boragineae. I suppose you do not chance to have

the plant alive at Kew.

LETTER 610. TO A.G. MORE. Down, June 7th, 1862.

If you are well and have leisure, will you kindly give me one bit of

information: Does Ophrys arachnites occur in the Isle of Wight? or do

the intermediate forms, which are said to connect abroad this species

and the bee-orchis, ever there occur?

Some facts have led me to suspect that it might just be possible, though

improbable in the highest degree, that the bee [orchis] might be the

self-fertilising form of O. arachnites, which requires insects' aid,

something [in the same way] as we have self-fertilising flowers of

the violet and others requiring insects. I know the case is widely

different, as the bee is borne on a separate plant and is incomparably

commoner. This would remove the great anomaly of the bee being a

perpetual self-fertiliser. Certain Malpighiaceae for years produce only

one of the two forms. What has set my head going on this is receiving

to-day a bee having one alone of the best marked characters of O.

arachnites. (610/1. Ophrys arachnites is probably more nearly allied to

O. aranifera than to O. apifera. For a case somewhat analogous to

that suggested see the description of O. scolopax in "Fertilisation of

Orchids," Edition II., page 52.) Pray forgive me troubling you.

LETTER 611. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, June 22nd [1862?].

Here is a piece of presumption! I must think that you are mistaken in

ranking Hab[enaria] chlorantha (611/1. In Hooker's "Students' Flora,"

1884, page 395, H. chlorantha is given as a subspecies of H. bifolia.

Sir J.D. Hooker adds that they are "according to Darwin, distinct, and

require different species of moths to fertilise them. They vary in the

position and distances of their anther-cells, but intermediates occur."

See "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 73.) as a variety of

H. bifolia; the pollen-masses and stigma differ more than in most of the

best species of Orchis. When I first examined them I remember telling

Hooker that moths would, I felt sure, fertilise them in a different

manner; and I have just had proof of this in a moth sent me with the

pollinia (which can be easily recognised) of H. chlorantha attached to

its proboscis, instead of to the sides of its face, as an H. bifolia.

Forgive me scribbling this way; but when a man gets on his hobby-horse

he always is run away with. Anyhow, nothing here requires any answer.

LETTER 612. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [September] 14th [1862].

Your letter is a mine of wealth, but first I must scold you: I cannot

abide to hear you abuse yourself, even in joke, and call yourself a

stupid dog. You, in fact, thus abuse me, because for long years I have

looked up to you as the man whose opinion I have valued more on any

scientific subject than any one else in the world. I continually

marvel at what you know, and at what you do. I have been looking at the

"Genera" (612/1. "Genera Plantarum," by Bentham and Hooker, Volume I.,

Part I., 1862.), and of course cannot judge at all of its real value,

but I can judge of the amount of condensed facts under each family and

genus.

I am glad you know my feeling of not being able to judge about one's own

work; but I suspect that you have been overworking. I should think you

could not give too much time to Wellwitchia (I spell it different every

time I write it) (612/2. "On Welwitschia," "Linn. Soc. Trans." [1862],

XXIV., 1863.); at least I am sure in the animal kingdom monographs

cannot be too long on the osculant groups.

Hereafter I shall be excessively glad to read a paper about Aldrovanda

(612/3. See "Insectivorous Plants," page 321.), and am very much obliged

for reference. It is pretty to see how the caught flies support Drosera;

nothing else can live.

Thanks about plants with two kinds of anthers. I presume (if an included

flower was a Cassia) (612/4. Todd has described a species of Cassia with

an arrangement of stamens like the Melastomads. See Chapter 2.X.II.)

that Cassia is like lupines, but with some stamens still more

rudimentary. If I hear I will return the three Melastomads; I do not

want them, and, indeed, have cuttings. I am very low about them, and

have wasted enormous labour over them, and cannot yet get a glimpse of

the meaning of the parts. I wish I knew any botanical collector to whom

I could apply for seeds in their native land of any Heterocentron or

Monochoetum; I have raised plenty of seedlings from your plants, but

I find in other cases that from a homomorphic union one generally gets

solely the parent form. Do you chance to know of any botanical collector

in Mexico or Peru? I must not now indulge myself with looking after

vessels and homologies. Some future time I will indulge myself. By the

way, some time I want to talk over the alternation of organs in flowers

with you, for I think I must have quite misunderstood you that it was

not explicable.

I found out the Verbascum case by pure accident, having transplanted

one for experiment, and finding it to my astonishment utterly sterile.

I formerly thought with you about rarity of natural hybrids, but I am

beginning to change: viz., oxlips (not quite proven), Verbascum, Cistus

(not quite proven), Aegilops triticoides (beautifully shown by Godron),

Weddell's and your orchids (612/5. For Verbascum see "Animals and

Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 356; for Cistus, Ibid., Edition

II., Volume I., page 356, Volume II., page 122; for Aegilops, Ibid.,

Edition II., Volume I., page 330, note.), and I daresay many others

recorded. Your letters are one of my greatest pleasures in life, but I

earnestly beg you never to write unless you feel somewhat inclined, for

I know how hard you work, as I work only in the morning it is different

with me, and is only a pleasant relaxation. You will never know how much

I owe to you for your constant kindness and encouragement.

LETTER 613. TO JOHN LUBBOCK (Lord Avebury). Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth,

Hants, September 2nd [1862].

Hearty thanks for your note. I am so glad that your tour answered so

splendidly. My poor patients (613/1. Mrs. Darwin and one of her sons,

both recovering from scarlet fever.) got here yesterday, and are doing

well, and we have a second house for the well ones. I write now in great

haste to beg you to look (though I know how busy you are, but I cannot

think of any other naturalist who would be careful) at any field of

common red clover (if such a field is near you) and watch the hive-bees:

probably (if not too late) you will see some sucking at the mouth of the

little flowers and some few sucking at the base of the flowers, at holes

bitten through the corollas. All that you will see is that the bees put

their heads deep into the [flower] head and rout about. Now, if you see

this, do for Heaven's sake catch me some of each and put in spirits and

keep them separate. I am almost certain that they belong to two castes,

with long and short proboscids. This is so curious a point that it seems

worth making out. I cannot hear of a clover field near here.

LETTER 614. TO JOHN LUBBOCK (Lord Avebury). Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth,

Wednesday, September 3rd [1862].

I beg a million pardons. Abuse me to any degree, but forgive me: it

is all an illusion (but almost excusable) about the bees. (614/1.

H. Muller, "Fertilisation of Flowers," page 186, describes hive-bees

visiting Trifolium pratense for the sake of the pollen. Darwin may

perhaps have supposed that these were the variety of bees whose

proboscis was long enough to reach the nectar. In "Cross and Self

Fertilisation," page 361, Darwin describes hive-bees apparently

searching for a secretion on the calyx. In the same passage in "Cross

and Self Fertilisation" he quotes Muller as stating that hive-bees

obtain nectar from red clover by breaking apart the petals. This seems

to us a misinterpretation of the "Befruchtung der Blumen," page 224.) I

do so hope that you have not wasted any time from my stupid blunder. I

hate myself, I hate clover, and I hate bees.

(FIGURE 10.--DIAGRAM OF CRUCIFEROUS FLOWER.

FIGURE 11.--DISSECTION OF CRUCIFEROUS FLOWER.

Laid flat open, showing by dotted lines the course of spiral vessels

in all the organs; sepals and petals shown on one side alone, with the

stamens on one side above with course of vessels indicated, but not

prolonged. Near side of pistil with one spiral vessel cut away.)

LETTER 615. TO J.D. HOOKER. Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth, September 11th,

1862.

You once told me that Cruciferous flowers were anomalous in alternation

of parts, and had given rise to some theory of dedoublement.

Having nothing on earth to do here, I have dissected all the spiral

vessels in a flower, and instead of burning my diagrams [Figures 10 and

11], I send them to you, you miserable man. But mind, I do not want you

to send me a discussion, but just some time to say whether my notions

are rubbish, and then burn the diagrams. It seems to me that all parts

alternate beautifully by fours, on the hypothesis that two short

stamens of outer whorl are aborted (615/1. The view given by Darwin is

(according to Eichler) that previously held by Knuth, Wydler, Chatin,

and others. Eichler himself believes that the flower is dimerous, the

four longer stamens being produced by the doubling or splitting of the

upper (i.e. antero-posterior) pair of stamens. If this view is correct,

and there are good reasons for it, it throws much suspicion on the

evidence afforded by the course of vessels, for there is no trace of the

common origin of the longer stamens in the diagram (Figure 11). Again,

if Eichler is right, the four vessels shown in the section of the ovary

are misleading. Darwin afterwards gave a doubtful explanation of this,

and concluded that the ovary is dimerous. See Letter 616.); and this

view is perhaps supported by their being so few, only two sub-bundles

in the two lateral main bundles, where I imagine two short stamens

have aborted, but I suppose there is some valid objection against this

notion. The course of the side vessels in the sepals is curious, just

like my difficulty in Habenaria. (615/2. See Letter 605.) I am surprised

at the four vessels in the ovarium. Can this indicate four confluent

pistils? anyhow, they are in the right alternating position. The nectary

within the base of the shorter stamens seems to cause the end sepals

apparently, but not really, to arise beneath the lateral sepals.

I think you will understand my diagrams in five minutes, so forgive me

for bothering you. My writing this to you reminds me of a letter which I

received yesterday from Claparede, who helped the French translatress

of the "Origin" (615/3. The late Mlle. Royer.), and he tells me he had

difficulty in preventing her (who never looked at a bee's cell) from

altering my whole description, because she affirmed that an hexagonal

prism must have an hexagonal base! Almost everywhere in the "Origin,"

when I express great doubt, she appends a note explaining the

difficulty, or saying that there is none whatever!! (615/4. See

"Life and Letters," II., page 387.) It is really curious to know what

conceited people there are in the world (people, for instance, after

looking at one Cruciferous flower, explain their homologies).

This is a nice, but most barren country, and I can find nothing to

look at. Even the brooks and ponds produce nothing. The country is like

Patagonia. my wife is almost well, thank God, and Leonard is wonderfully

improved ...Good God, what an illness scarlet fever is! The doctor

feared rheumatic fever for my wife, but she does not know her risk. It

is now all over.

(FIGURE 12.)

LETTER 616. TO J.D. HOOKER. Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth, Thursday Evening

[September 18th, 1862].

Thanks for your pleasant note, which told me much news, and upon the

whole good, of yourselves. You will be awfully busy for a time, but I

write now to say that if you think it really worth while to send me a

few Dielytra, or other Fumariaceous plant (which I have already tried

in vain to find here) in a little tin box, I will try and trace the

vessels; but please observe, I do not know that I shall have time, for I

have just become wonderfully interested in experimenting on Drosera with

poisons, etc. If you send any Fumariaceous plant, send if you can, also

two or three single balsams. After writing to you, I looked at vessels

of ovary of a sweet-pea, and from this and other cases I believe that in

the ovary the midrib vessel alone gives homologies, and that the vessels

on the edge of the carpel leaf often run into the wrong bundle, just

like those on the sides of the sepals. Hence I [suppose] in Crucifers

that the ovarium consists of two pistils; AA [Figure 12] being the

midrib vessels, and BB being those formed of the vessels on edges of the

two carpels, run together, and going to wrong bundles. I came to this

conclusion before receiving your letter.

I wonder why Asa Gray will not believe in the quaternary arrangement;

I had fancied that you saw some great difficulty in the case, and that

made me think that my notion must be wrong.

LETTER 617. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 27th [1862].

Masdevallia turns out nothing wonderful (617/1. This may refer to the

homologies of the parts. He was unable to understand the mechanism of

the flower.--"Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 136.); I was

merely stupid about it; I am not the less obliged for its loan, for if

I had lived till 100 years old I should have been uneasy about it. It

shall be returned the first day I send to Bromley. I have steamed the

other plants, and made the sensitive plant very sensitive, and

shall soon try some experiments on it. But after all it will only be

amusement. Nevertheless, if not causing too much trouble, I should be

very glad of a few young plants of this and Hedysarum in summer (617/2.

Hedysarum or Desmodium gyrans, the telegraph-plant.), for this kind

of work takes no time and amuses me much. Have you seeds of Oxalis

sensitiva, which I see mentioned in books? By the way, what a fault it

is in Henslow's "Botany" that he gives hardly any references; he alludes

to great series of experiments on absorption of poison by roots, but

where to find them I cannot guess. Possibly the all-knowing Oliver may

know. I can plainly see that the glands of Drosera, from rapid power

(almost instantaneous) of absorption and power of movement, give

enormous advantage for such experiments. And some day I will enjoy

myself with a good set to work; but it will be a great advantage if I

can get some preliminary notion on other sensitive plants and on roots.

Oliver said he would speak about some seeds of Lythrum hyssopifolium

being preserved for me. By the way, I am rather disgusted to find

I cannot publish this year on Lythrum salicaria; I must make 126

additional crosses. All that I expected is true, but I have plain

indication of much higher complexity. There are three pistils of

different structure and functional power, and I strongly suspect

altogether five kinds of pollen all different in this one species!

(617/3. See "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 138.)

By any chance have you at Kew any odd varieties of the common potato? I

want to grow a few plants of every variety, to compare flowers, leaves,

fruit, etc., as I have done with peas, etc. (617/4. "Animals and

Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 346. Compare also the similar

facts with regard to cabbages, loc. cit., page 342. Some of the original

specimens are in the Botanical Museum at Cambridge.)

LETTER 618. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(618/1. The following is part of Letter 144, Volume I. It refers to

reviews of "Fertilisation of Orchids" in the "Gardeners' Chronicle,"

1862, pages 789, 863, 910, and in the "Natural History Review," October,

1862, page 371.)

November 7th, 1862.

Dear old Darwin,

I assure you it was not my fault! I worried Lindley over and over again

to notice your orchid book in the "Chronicle" by the very broadest hints

man could give. (618/2. See "Life and Letters," III., page 273.) At

last he said, "really I cannot, you must do it for me," and so I

did--volontiers. Lindley felt that he ought to have done it himself, and

my main effort was to write it "a la Lindley," and in this alone I have

succeeded--that people all think it is exactly Lindley's style!!! which

diverts me vastly. The fact is, between ourselves, I fear that poor L.

is breaking up--he said that he could not fix his mind on your book. He

works himself beyond his mental or physical powers.

And now, my dear Darwin, I may as well make a clean breast of it, and

tell you that I wrote the "Nat. Hist. Review" notice too--to me a very

difficult task, and one I fancied I failed in, comparatively. Of this

you are no judge, and can be none; you told me to tell Oliver it pleased

you, and so I am content and happy.

LETTER 619. TO W.E. DARWIN. Down, 4th [about 1862-3?]