More Letters of Charles Darwin Volume Ii Part 40

I think you have set yourself a new, very interesting, and difficult line of research. As far as I know, no one has carefully observed the structure of insects in relation to flowers, although so many have now attended to the converse relation. (703/1. See Letter 462, also H.

Muller, "Fertilisation of Flowers," English Translation, page 30, on "The insects which visit flowers." In Muller's book references are given to several of his papers on this subject.) As I imagine few or no insects are adapted to suck the nectar or gather the pollen of any single family of plants, such striking adaptations can hardly, I presume, be expected in insects as in flowers.

LETTER 704. TO T.H. FARRER (Lord Farrer).

Down, May 28th, 1870.

I suppose I must have known that the stamens recovered their former position in Berberis (704/1. See Farrer, "Nature," II., 1870, page 164.

Lord Farrer was before H. Muller in making out the mechanism of the barberry.), for I formerly tried experiments with anaesthetics, but I had forgotten the facts, and I quite agree with you that it is a sound argument that the movement is not for self-fertilisation. The N. American barberries (Mahonia) offer a good proof to what an extent natural crossing goes on in this genus; for it is now almost impossible in this country to procure a true specimen of the two or three forms originally introduced.

I hope the seeds of Pa.s.siflora will germinate, for the turning up of the pendent flower must be full of meaning. (704/2. Darwin had (May 12th, 1870) sent to Farrer an extract from a letter from F. Muller, containing a description of a Pa.s.siflora visited by humming-birds, in which the long flower-stalk curls up so that "the flower itself is upright."

Another species visited by bees is described as having "dependent flowers." In a letter, June 29th, 1870, Mr. Farrer had suggested that P.

princeps, which he described as having sub-erect flowers, is fitted for humming-birds' visits. In another letter, October 13th, 1869, he says that Tacsonia, which has pendent flowers and no corona, is not fertilised by insects in English gla.s.s-houses, and may be adapted for humming-birds. See "Life and Letters," III., page 279, for Farrer's remarks on Tacsonia and Pa.s.siflora; also H. Muller's "Fertilisation of Flowers," page 268, for what little is known on the subject; also Letter 701 in the present volume.) I am so glad that you are able to occupy yourself a little with flowers: I am sure it is most wise in you, for your own sake and children's sakes.

Some little time ago Delpino wrote to me praising the Swedish book on the fertilisation of plants; as my son George can read a little Swedish, I should like to have it back for a time, just to hear a little what it is about, if you would be so kind as to return it by book-post.

(704/3. Severin Axell, "Om anordningarna for de Fanerogama Vaxternas Befruktning," Stockholm, 1869.)

I am going steadily on with my experiments on the comparative growth of crossed and self-fertilised plants, and am now coming to some very curious anomalies and some interesting results. I forget whether I showed you any of them when you were here for a few hours. You ought to see them, as they explain at a glance why Nature has taken such extraordinary pains to ensure frequent crosses between distinct individuals.

If in the course of the summer you should feel any inclination to come here for a day or two, I hope that you will propose to do so, for we should be delighted to see you...

LETTER 705. TO ASA GRAY. Down, December 7th, 1870.

I have been very glad to receive your letter this morning. I have for some time been wishing to write to you, but have been half worked to death in correcting my uncouth English for my new book. (705/1.

"Descent of Man.") I have been glad to hear of your cases appearing like incipient dimorphism. I believe that they are due to mere variability, and have no significance. I found a good instance in Nolana prostrata, and experimented on it, but the forms did not differ in fertility. So it was with Amsinckia, of which you told me. I have long thought that such variations afforded the basis for the development of dimorphism. I was not aware of such cases in Phlox, but have often admired the arrangement of the anthers, causing them to be all raked by an inserted proboscis. I am glad also to hear of your curious case of variability in ovules, etc.

I said that I had been wishing to write to you, and this was about your Drosera, which after many fluctuations between life and death, at last made a shoot which I could observe. The case is rather interesting; but I must first remind you that the filament of Dionoea is not sensitive to very light prolonged pressure, or to nitrogenous matter, but is exquisitely sensitive to the slightest touch. (705/2. In another connection the following reference to Dionoea is of some interest: "I am sure I never heard of Curtis's observations on Dionoea, nor have I met with anything more than general statements about this plant or about Nepenthes catching insects." (From a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker, July 12th, 1860.)) In our Drosera the filaments are not sensitive to a slight touch, but are sensitive to prolonged pressure from the smallest object of any nature; they are also sensitive to solid or fluid nitrogenous matter. Now in your Drosera the filaments are not sensitive to a rough touch or to any pressure from non-nitrogenous matter, but are sensitive to solid or fluid nitrogenous matter. (705/3. Drosera filiformis: see "Insectivorous Plants," page 281. The above account does not entirely agree with Darwin's published statement. The filaments moved when bits of cork or cinder were placed on them; they did not, however, respond to repeated touches with a needle, thus behaving differently from D.

rotundifolia. It should be remembered that the last-named species is somewhat variable in reacting to repeated touches.) Is it not curious that there should be such diversified sensitiveness in allied plants?

I received a very obliging letter from Mr. Morgan, but did not see him, as I think he said he was going to start at once for the Continent. I am sorry to hear rather a poor account of Mrs. Gray, to whom my wife and I both beg to be very kindly remembered.

LETTER 706. TO C.V. RILEY.

(706/1. In Riley's opinion his most important work was the series ent.i.tled "Annual Report on the Noxious, Beneficial, and other Insects of the State of Missouri" (Jefferson City), beginning in 1869. These reports were greatly admired by Mr. Darwin, and his copies of them, especially of Nos. 3 and 4, show signs of careful reading.)

Down, June 1st [1871].

I received some little time ago your report on noxious insects, and have now read the whole with the greatest interest. (706/2. "Third Annual Report on the Noxious, Beneficial, and other Insects of the State of Missouri" (Jefferson City, Mo.). The mimetic case occurs at page 67; the 1875 pupae of Pterophorus periscelidactylus, the "Grapevine Plume," have pupae either green or reddish brown, the former variety being found on the leaves, the latter on the brown stems of the vine.) There are a vast number of facts and generalisations of value to me, and I am struck with admiration at your powers of observation.

The discussion on mimetic insects seems to me particularly good and original. Pray accept my cordial thanks for the instruction and interest which I have received.

What a loss to Natural Science our poor mutual friend Walsh has been; it is a loss ever to be deplored...

Your country is far ahead of ours in some respects; our Parliament would think any man mad who should propose to appoint a State Entomologist.

LETTER 707A. TO C.V. RILEY.

(706A/1. We have found it convenient to place the two letters to Riley together, rather than separate them chronologically.)

Down, September 28th, 1881.

I must write half a dozen lines to say how much interested I have been by your "Further Notes" on p.r.o.nuba which you were so kind as to send me.

(706A/2. "Proc. Amer. a.s.soc. Adv. Sci." 1880.) I had read the various criticisms, and though I did not know what answer could be made, yet I felt full confidence in your result, and now I see that I was right...If you make any further observation on p.r.o.nuba it would, I think, be well worth while for you to observe whether the moth can or does occasionally bring pollen from one plant to the stigma of a distinct one (706A/3.

Riley discovered the remarkable fact that the Yucca moth (p.r.o.nuba yuccasella) lays its eggs in the ovary of Yucca flowers, which it has previously pollinated, thus making sure of a supply of ovules for the larvae.), for I have shown that the cross-fertilisation of the flowers on the same plant does very little good; and, if I am not mistaken, you believe that p.r.o.nuba gathers pollen from the same flower which she fertilises.

What interesting and beautiful observations you have made on the metamorphoses of the gra.s.shopper-destroying insects.

LETTER 707. TO F. HILDEBRAND. Down, February 9th [1872].

Owing to other occupations I was able to read only yesterday your paper on the dispersal of the seeds of Compositae. (707/1. "Ueber die Verbreitungsmittel der Compositenfruchte." "Bot. Zeitung," 1872, page 1.) Some of the facts which you mention are extremely interesting.

I write now to suggest as worthy of your examination the curious adhesive filaments of mucus emitted by the achenia of many Compositae, of which no doubt you are aware. My attention was first called to the subject by the achenia of an Australian Pumilio (P. argyrolepis), which I briefly described in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1861, page 5. As the threads of mucus dry and contract they draw the seeds up into a vertical position on the ground. It subsequently occurred to me that if these seeds were to fall on the wet hairs of any quadruped they would adhere firmly, and might be carried to any distance. I was informed that Decaisne has written a paper on these adhesive threads. What is the meaning of the mucus so copiously emitted from the moistened seeds of Iberis, and of at least some species of Linum? Does the mucus serve as a protection against their being devoured, or as a means of attachment.

(707/2. Various theories have been suggested, e.g., that the slime by anchoring the seed to the soil facilitates the entrance of the radicle into the soil: the slime has also been supposed to act as a temporary water-store. See Klebs in Pfeffer's "Untersuchungen aus dem Bot. Inst.

zu Tubingen," I., page 581.) I have been prevented reading your paper sooner by attempting to read Dr. Askenasy's pamphlet, but the German is too difficult for me to make it all out. (707/3. E. Askenasy, "Beitrage zur Kritik der Darwin'schen Lehre." Leipzig, 1872.) He seems to follow Nageli completely. I cannot but think that both much underrate the utility of various parts of plants; and that they greatly underrate the unknown laws of correlated growth, which leads to all sorts of modifications, when some one structure or the whole plant is modified for some particular object.

LETTER 708. TO T.H. FARRER. (Lord Farrer).

(708/1. The following letter refers to a series of excellent observations on the fertilisation of Leguminosae, made by Lord Farrer in the autumn of 1869, in ignorance of Delpino's work on the subject. The result was published in "Nature," October 10th and 17th, 1872, and is full of interesting suggestions. The discovery of the mechanism in Coronilla mentioned in a note was one of the cases in which Lord Farrer was forestalled.)

Down [1872].

I declare I am almost as sorry as if I had been myself forestalled--indeed, more so, for I am used to it. It is, however, a paramount, though bothersome duty in every naturalist to try and make out all that has been done by others on the subject. By all means publish next summer your confirmation and a summary of Delpino's observations, with any new ones of your own. Especially attend about the nectary exterior to the staminal tube. (708/2. This refers to a species of Coronilla in which Lord Farrer made the remarkable discovery that the nectar is secreted on the outside of the calyx. See "Nature," July 2nd, 1874, page 169; also Letter 715.) This will in every way be far better than writing to Delpino. It would not be at all presumptuous in you to criticise Delpino. I am glad you think him so clever; for so it struck me.

Look at hind legs yourself of some humble and hive-bees; in former take a very big individual (if any can be found) for these are the females, the males being smaller, and they have no pollen-collecting apparatus.

I do not remember where it is figured--probably in Kirby & Spence--but actual inspection better...

Please do not return any of my books until all are finished, and do not hurry.

I feel certain you will make fine discoveries.

LETTER 709. TO T.H. FARRER. (Lord Farrer). Sevenoaks, October 13th, 1872.

I must send you a line to say how extremely good your article appears to me to be. It is even better than I thought, and I remember thinking it very good. I am particularly glad of the excellent summary of evidence about the common pea, as it will do for me hereafter to quote; nocturnal insects will not do. I suspect that the aboriginal parent had bluish flowers. I have seen several times bees visiting common and sweet peas, and yet varieties, purposely grown close together, hardly ever intercross. This is a point which for years has half driven me mad, and I have discussed it in my "Var. of Animals and Plants under Dom."

(709/1. In the second edition (1875) of the "Variation of Animals and Plants," Volume I., page 348, Darwin added, with respect to the rarity of spontaneous crosses in Pisum: "I have reason to believe that this is due to their stignas being prematurely fertilised in this country by pollen from the same flower." This explanation is, we think, almost certainly applicable to Lathyrus odoratus, though in Darwin's latest publication on the subject he gives reasons to the contrary. See "Cross and Self-Fertilisation," page 156, where the problem is left unsolved.

Compare Letter 714 to Delpino. In "Life and Letters," III., page 261, the absence of cross-fertilisation is explained as due to want of perfect adaptation between the pea and our native insects. This is Hermann Muller's view: see his "Fertilisation of Flowers," page 214.

See Letter 583, note.) I now suspect (and I wish I had strength to experimentise next spring) that from changed climate both species are prematurely fertilised, and therefore hardly ever cross. When artificially crossed by removal of own pollen in bud, the offspring are very vigorous.

Farewell.--I wish I could compel you to go on working at fertilisation instead of so insignificant a subject as the commerce of the country!

You pay me a very pretty compliment at the beginning of your paper.

LETTER 710. TO J.D. HOOKER.