The communication of Mr. Meehan to the Pennsylvania Horticultural
Society, seems to have excited the opposition of all those persons, and
we believe they are the majority, who have settled the question to their
own satisfaction, that the Strawberry is either pistillate or staminate,
and unchangeably so. Mr. Meehan has produced his plants (of Hovey’s
Seedling), with staminate flowers. The Strawberry cultivators pronounce
them (in the teeth of Mr. M’s assertion that they are runners from
pistillate plants,) to be not Hovey’s, but another variety. Some others
talk of the absurdity of plants being fruitful without fertilization,
which, whether absurd or not, Mr. M. does not claim for his plants; we
have seen nothing yet on that side in the way of argument, it is all
assertion;—The Cinn. Hort. Society, formally pronounced it impossible,
and with them there is no appeal from their “ipse dixit.”
In the last number of the Farm. Journal, we have a letter, which we
suppose is from the eminent botanist of that region, which we copy, as
suggesting many reasons why Mr. Meehan may be right.
The statement of MR. MEEHAN, in the April number of the Farm
Journal, alleging that he has observed the sexual characters
of the Strawberry flowers to be variously modified by
culture, or different methods of treatment—has elicited some
strong asseverations of _opinion_, in contradiction to that
allegation of _fact_. One writer unhesitatingly declares the
alleged change to be “_utterly impossible_:” and I understand
that in the Queen City of the West, they have had a _public
gathering_, to deliberate on the subject, which resulted in a
_Pronunciamento_ adverse to MR. MEEHAN’S statement,—his facts
and observations being _rejected_ by a clear majority of the
voters present! The matter being thus _settled_, by preamble
and resolution after the manner of political difficulties at a
war-meeting, it may seem to be out of order, now, to offer any
remarks on the controverted topic. Nevertheless, as this is
reputed to be a Free Country, I should like to be indulged with
the privilege of submitting a few suggestions,—if not in arrest
of judgement, at least as a plea in mitigation of the sentence,
against my friend MEEHAN. It is the remark of a vigorous and
sagacious modern writer, that “no scientific question was ever
yet settled dogmatically, nor ever will;” and I think the same
may be especially predicated of questions of fact, in Natural
History. I may here observe, that I was favored with the
opportunity of examining one of MR. MEEHAN’S specimens,—in
which there were certainly two scapes from the same root—one
bearing a cyme of _pistillate_ flowers (with minute rudiments
of abortive stamens,) and the other a cyme of _perfect_, or
hermaphrodite flowers: and whether the specimen was the progeny
of a pistillate, a staminate, or a hermaphrodite plant, I
should think the inference plausible, that the flowers on at
least _one_ of these two cymes, must have been a modification,
or altered product, of the parent plant. It is this kind of
change, in the character of the flowers, which I understand
MR. MEEHAN to announce, as having occurred in plants under
his management. Now, in view of the countless modifications
daily observable in the organs of plants—and especially in
the _floral organs_—I can perceive no sufficient ground for
declaring the changes, reported by MR. MEEHAN, to be “_utterly
impossible_.” The modifications here referred to, are a very
different thing from the alleged _transmutation of one kind to
another_,—which is vulgarly supposed to take place in certain
plants, just as the Alchemists formerly pretended was affected
among the metals. They merely alter the texture, distort the
forms, or affect the developements of organs; but do neither
change nor annihilate those _essential characteristics_, by
which the plant is rendered permanently distinct from every
other genus and species. The floral organs of many plants are
remarkably subject to modification, under the long-continued
influences of soil, climate, and culture, or management.
Some flowers are rendered _double_, as it is termed, by the
expansion of stamens into petals; others become imperfect, and
even neutral, by the abortion or blighting of the stamens, or
pistils, or both. The _Strawberry_ appears to be very liable
to this kind of blight; and hence the much talked of sorts,
among cultivators, of _pistillates_, and _staminates_,—though
in all the pistillate flowers, which I have examined, there
were _vestiges_ more or less obvious, of abortive _stamens_,
on the rim of the calyx. It also varies much, under culture,
in some other features,—especially in the developement and
character or quality of the _receptacle_, or what is commonly
regarded as _fruit_: but no one, I believe, has yet seen a
Strawberry plant transmuted into a _Cinquefoil_, though so
nearly allied in habit. The organs of plants may be greatly
disguised by the influences above mentioned; but still the
essential distinguishing traits are preserved,—and there
seems to be no insuperable obstacle to prevent a plant, with
modified or abortive organs, from reverting, under a change
of circumstances, to its original condition, and resuming
its pristine form and character. The normal, or what may be
called the _constitutional_ character of the Strawberry-flower,
is to be _perfect_—_i. e._ furnished with both stamens and
pistils (possibly such may be the true normal structure
of _all_ flowers); and although many other plants, as the
Strawberry, are found with _imperfect_, and even _neutral_
flowers,—every Naturalist and careful observer knows, that
there is often an obvious effort and tendency, in such flowers,
to a more complete development: _i. e._ to become _perfect_
and _regular_. We occasionally see _diandrous_ flowers become
_didynamous_,—and _didynamous_ plants developing _regular
petandrous_ flowers; and it is not at all unusual to find the
_staminate tassel_ of the cultivated Maize (_Zea Mays, L._ a
_monoicous_ plant,) bearing _fertile flowers_, and exhibiting
a very successful attempt at the production of an _Ear_—or
_cluster of Ears_—of _Indian corn_. These instances, I trust
(for it is needless to multiply them,) may suffice to show that
there is nothing irrational, nor incredible, in MR. MEEHAN’S
observations; and that it is rather strong phraseology,
to declare such phenomena to be “_utterly impossible_.”
The polemic writers on this Strawberry question, speak of
the necessity of staminate plants among the pistillate, to
produce, or perfect the _fruit_. No doubt, the pistils must be
fertilized, in order to produce _seeds_ that will vegetate.
But what do those gentlemen understand, by the “_fruit_?” Do
they mean the little single-seeded _akenes_ or _nutlets_, which
are sprinkled over the enlarged pulpy receptacle,—or do they
refer to the _receptacle itself_, which in popular parlance
is intended by the term “_fruit_?” If they have reference to
the _real fruit_—the _nutlets_ which contain the seed,—there
is probably no question (as already intimated) about the
necessity of staminate influence to produce perfect fruit. But
I have a suspicion, that by the term “_fruit_,” they mean the
delicious _receptacle_ which bears the fruit, and if they mean
to allege that the pistils must be fertilized by the stamens,
_in order to produce that enlargement of the receptacle_
which affords an _esculent substitute_ for fruit,—then I have
only to say, it is a _question of fact_ which I have had no
adequate opportunity to determine; and concerning which I,
for one, should be happy to receive reliable information. To
ascertain the point satisfactorily, would require very careful
experiments and observations. Whether such have been made, I am
not informed. I may remark, however, by way of _analogy_, that
there are instances in which _pistils_, and even _receptacles_,
are enlarged, where no staminate influence has been exerted.
The conglomorate coalescent _pistils_ of the Osage Orange
(_Maclura_,) for example, attain to their full natural size
(although the _seeds_ are necessarily imperfect,) where no
staminate plant is in the neighborhood; and, what affords a
closer analogy, the including _receptacle_ of the _pistillate
Fig_ is fully developed; when entirely free from any staminate
influence. Whether the _receptacle_ of the _Strawberry_ ever
enlarges, without the pistils being fertilized, (as already
stated,) is more than I can tell; but I feel well assured, that
any competent authority, who may furnish the information, will
make an acceptable contribution to physiological Botany.