More Letters of Charles Darwin — Volume 2

I am not much surprised that I overlooked the movement in Habenaria, as it takes so long. (695/2. This refers to Peristylus viridis, sometimes known as Habenaria viridis. Lord Farrer's observations are given in "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 63.)

I am glad you have seen Listera; it requires to be seen to believe in the co-ordination in the position of the parts, the irritability, and the chemical nature of the viscid fluid. This reminds me that I carefully described to Huxley the shooting out of the pollinia in Catasetum, and received for an answer, "Do you really think that I can believe all that!" (695/3. See Letter 665.)

LETTER 696. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 2nd, 1868.

It is a splendid scheme, and if you make only a beginning on a "Flora," which shall serve as an index to all papers on curious points in the life-history of plants, you will do an inestimable good service. Quite recently I was asked by a man how he could find out what was known on various biological points in our plants, and I answered that I knew of no such book, and that he might ask half a dozen botanists before one would chance to remember what had been published on this or that point. Not long ago another man, who had been experimenting on the quasi-bulbs on the leaves of Cardamine, wrote to me to complain that he could not find out what was known on the subject. It is almost certain that some early or even advanced students, if they found in their "Flora" a line or two on various curious points, with references for further investigation, would be led to make further observations. For instance, a reference to the viscid threads emitted by the seeds of Compositae, to the apparatus (if it has been described) by which Oxalis spurts out its seeds, to the sensitiveness of the young leaves of Oxalis acetosella with reference to O. sensitiva. Under Lathyrus nissolia it would {be} better to refer to my hypothetical explanation of the grass-like leaves than to nothing. (696/1. No doubt the view given in "Climbing Plants," page 201, that L. nissolia has been evolved from a form like L. aphaca.) Under a twining plant you might say that the upper part of the shoot steadily revolves with or against the sun, and so, when it strikes against any object it turns to the right or left, as the case may be. If, again, references were given to the parasitism of Euphrasia, etc., how likely it would be that some young man would go on with the investigation; and so with endless other facts. I am quite enthusiastic about your idea; it is a grand idea to make a "Flora" a guide for knowledge already acquired and to be acquired. I have amused myself by speculating what an enormous number of subjects ought to be introduced into a Eutopian (696/2. A mis-spelling of Utopian.) Flora, on the quickness of the germination of the seeds, on their means of dispersal; on the fertilisation of the flower, and on a score of other points, about almost all of which we are profoundly ignorant. I am glad to read what you say about Bentham, for my inner consciousness tells me that he has run too many forms together. Should you care to see an elaborate German pamphlet by Hermann Muller on the gradation and distinction of the forms of Epipactis and of Platanthera? (696/3. "Verhand. d. Nat. Ver. f. Pr. Rh. u. Wesfal." Jahrg. XXV.: see "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., pages 74, 102.) It may be absurd in me to suggest, but I think you would find curious facts and references in Lecoq's enormous book (696/4. "Geographie Botanique," 9 volumes, 1854-58.), in Vaucher's four volumes (696/5. "Plantes d'Europe," 4 volumes, 1841.), in Hildebrand's "Geschlechter Vertheilung" (696/6 "Geschlechter Vertheilung bei den Pflanzen," 1 volume, Leipzig, 1867.), and perhaps in Fournier's "De la Fecondation." (696/7. "De la Fecondation dans les Phanerogames," par Eugene Fournier: thesis published in Paris in 1863. The facts noted in Darwin's copy are the explosive stamens of Parietaria, the submerged flowers of Alisma containing air, the manner of fertilisation of Lopezia, etc.) I wish you all success in your gigantic undertaking; but what a pity you did not think of it ten years ago, so as to have accumulated references on all sorts of subjects. Depend upon it, you will have started a new era in the floras of various countries. I can well believe that Mrs. Hooker will be of the greatest possible use to you in lightening your labours and arranging your materials.

LETTER 697. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 5th, 1868.

...Now I want to beg for assistance for the new edition of "Origin." Nageli himself urges that plants offer many morphological differences, which from being of no service cannot have been selected, and which he accounts for by an innate principle of progressive development. (697/1. Nageli's "Enstehung und Begriff der Naturhistorischen Art." An address delivered at the public session of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Munich, March 28th, 1865; published by the Academy. Darwin's copy is the 2nd edition; it bears signs, in the pencilled notes on the margins, of having been read with interest. Much of it was translated for him by a German lady, whose version lies with the original among his pamphlets. At page 27 Nageli writes: "It is remarkable that the useful adaptations which Darwin brings forward in the case of animals, and which may be discovered in numbers among plants, are exclusively of a physiological kind, that they always show the formation or transformation of an organ to a special function. I do not know among plants a morphological modification which can be explained on utilitarian principles." Opposite this passage Darwin has written "a very good objection": but Nageli's sentence seems to us to be of the nature of a truism, for it is clear that any structure whose evolution can be believed to have come about by Natural Selection must have a function, and the case falls into the physiological category. The various meanings given to the term morphological makes another difficulty. Nageli cannot use it in the sense of "structural" — in which sense it is often applied, since that would mean that no plant structures have a utilitarian origin. The essence of morphology (in the better and more precise sense) is descent; thus we say that a pollen-grain is morphologically a microspore. And this very example serves to show the falseness of Nageli's view, since a pollen-grain is an adaptation to aerial as opposed to aquatic fertilisation. In the 5th edition of the "Origin," 1869, page 151, Darwin discusses Nageli's essay, confining himself to the simpler statement that there are many structural characters in plants to which we cannot assign uses. See Volume I., Letter 207.) I find old notes about this difficulty; but I have hitherto slurred it over. Nageli gives as instances the alternate and spiral arrangement of leaves, and the arrangement of the cells in the tissues. Would you not consider as a morphological difference the trimerous, tetramerous, etc., divisions of flowers, the ovules being erect or suspended, their attachment being parietal or placental, and even the shape of the seed when of no service to the plant.

Now, I have thought, and want to show, that such differences follow in some unexplained manner from the growth or development of plants which have passed through a long series of adaptive changes. Anyhow, I want to show that these differences do not support the idea of progressive development. Cassini states that the ovaria on the circumference and centre of Compos. flowers differ in essential characters, and so do the seeds in sculpture. The seeds of Umbelliferae in the same relative positions are coelospermous and orthospermous. There is a case given by Augt. St. Hilaire of an erect and suspended ovule in the same ovarium, but perhaps this hardly bears on the point. The summit flower, in Adoxa and rue differ from the lower flowers. What is the difference in flowers of the rue? how is the ovarium, especially in the rue? As Augt. St. Hilaire insists on the locularity of the ovarium varying on the same plant in some of the Rutaceae, such differences do not speak, as it seems to me, in favour of progressive development. Will you turn the subject in your mind, and tell me any more facts. Difference in structure in flowers in different parts of the same plant seems best to show that they are the result of growth or position or amount of nutriment.

I have got your photograph (697/2. A photograph by Mrs. Cameron.) over my chimneypiece, and like it much; but you look down so sharp on me that I shall never be bold enough to wriggle myself out of any contradiction.

Owen pitches into me and Lyell in grand style in the last chapter of volume 3 of "Anat. of Vertebrates." He is a cool hand. He puts words from me in inverted commas and alters them. (697/3. The passage referred to seems to be in Owen's "Anatomy of Vertebrata," III., pages 798, 799, note. "I deeply regretted, therefore, to see in a 'Historical Sketch' of the Progress of Enquiry into the origin of species, prefixed to the fourth edition of that work (1866), that Mr. Darwin, after affirming inaccurately and without evidence, that I admitted Natural Selection to have done something toward that end, to wit, the 'origin of species,' proceeds to remark: 'It is surprising that this admission should not have been made earlier, as Prof. Owen now believes that he promulgated the theory of Natural Selection in a passage read before the Zoological Society in February, 1850, ("Trans." Volume IV., page 15).'" The first of the two passages quoted by Owen from the fourth edition of the "Origin" runs: "Yet he {Prof. Owen} at the same time admits that Natural Selection MAY {our italics} have done something towards this end." In the sixth edition of the "Origin," page xviii., Darwin, after referring to a correspondence in the "London Review" between the Editor of that Journal and Owen, goes on: "It appeared manifest to the editor, as well as to myself, that Prof. Owen claimed to have promulgated the theory of Natural Selection before I had done so;...but as far as it is possible to understand certain recently published passages (Ibid. {"Anat. of Vert."}, Volume III., page 798), I have either partly or wholly again fallen into error. It is consolatory to me that others find Prof. Owen's controversial writings as difficult to understand and to reconcile with each other, as I do. As far as the mere enunciation of the principle of Natural Selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or no Prof. Owen preceded me, for both of us, as shown in this historical sketch, were long ago preceded by Dr. Wells and Mr. Matthews.")

LETTER 698. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 29th, 1868.

Your letter is quite invaluable, for Nageli's essay (698/1. See preceding Letter.) is so clever that it will, and indeed I know it has produced a great effect; so that I shall devote three or four pages to an answer. I have been particularly struck by your statements about erect and suspended ovules. You have given me heart, and I will fight my battle better than I should otherwise have done. I think I cannot resist throwing the contrivances in orchids into his teeth. You say nothing about the flowers of the rue. (698/2. For Ruta see "Origin," Edition V., page 154.) Ask your colleagues whether they know anything about the structure of the flower and ovarium in the uppermost flower. But don't answer on purpose.

I have gone through my long Index of "Gardeners' Chronicle," which was made solely for my own use, and am greatly disappointed to find, as I fear, hardly anything which will be of use to you. (698/3. For Hooker's projected biological book, see Letter 696.) I send such as I have for the chance of their being of use.

LETTER 699. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 16th {1869}.

Your two notes and remarks are of the utmost value, and I am greatly obliged to you for your criticism on the term. "Morphological" seems quite just, but I do not see how I can avoid using it. I found, after writing to you, in Vaucher about the Rue (699/1. "Plantes d'Europe," Volume I., page 559, 1841.), but from what you say I will speak more cautiously. It is the Spanish Chesnut that varies in divergence. Seeds named Viola nana were sent me from Calcutta by Scott. I must refer to the plants as an "Indian species," for though they have produced hundreds of closed flowers, they have not borne one perfect flower. (699/2. The cleistogamic flowers of Viola are used in the discussion on Nageli's views. See "Origin," Edition V., page 153.) You ask whether I want illustrations "of ovules differing in position in different flowers on the same plant." If you know of such cases, I should certainly much like to hear them. Again you speak of the angle of leaf-divergence varying and the variations being transmitted. Was the latter point put in in a hurry to round the sentence, or do you really know of cases?

Whilst looking for notes on the variability of the divisions of the ovarium, position of the ovules, aestivation, etc., I found remarks written fifteen or twenty years ago, showing that I then supposed that characters which were nearly uniform throughout whole groups must be of high vital importance to the plants themselves; consequently I was greatly puzzled how, with organisms having very different habits of life, this uniformity could have been acquired through Natural Selection. Now, I am much inclined to believe, in accordance with the view given towards the close of my MS., that the near approach to uniformity in such structures depends on their not being of vital importance, and therefore not being acted on by Natural Selection. (699/3. This view is given in the "Origin," Edition VI., page 372.) If you have reflected on this point, what do you think of it? I hope that you approved of the argument deduced from the modifications in the small closed flowers.

It is only about two years since last edition of "Origin," and I am fairly disgusted to find how much I have to modify, and how much I ought to add; but I have determined not to add much. Fleeming Jenkin has given me much trouble, but has been of more real use to me than any other essay or review. (699/4. On Fleeming Jenkin's review, "N. British Review," June, 1867, see "Life and Letters," III., page 107.)

LETTER 700. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {January 22nd, 1869}.

Your letter is quite splenditious. I am greatly tempted, but shall, I hope, refrain from using some of your remarks in my chapter on Classification. It is very true what you say about unimportant characters being so important systematically; yet it is hardly paradoxical bearing in mind that the natural system is genetic, and that we have to discover the genealogies anyhow. Hence such parts as organs of generation are so useful for classification though not concerned with the manner of life. Hence use for same purpose of rudimentary organs, etc. You cannot think what a relief it is that you do not object to this view, for it removes PARTLY a heavy burden from my shoulders. If I lived twenty more years and was able to work, how I should have to modify the "Origin," and how much the views on all points will have to be modified! Well, it is a beginning, and that is something...

LETTER 701. TO T.H. FARRER (Lord Farrer). Down, August 10th, 1869.

Your view seems most ingenious and probable; but ascertain in a good many cases that the nectar is actually within the staminal tube. (701/1. It seems that Darwin did not know that the staminal tube in the diadelphous Leguminosae serves as a nectar-holder, and this is surprising, as Sprengel was aware of the fact.) One can see that if there is to be a split in the tube, the law of symmetry would lead it to be double, and so free one stamen. Your view, if confirmed, would be extremely well worth publication before the Linnean Society. It is to me delightful to see what appears a mere morphological character found to be of use. It pleases me the more as Carl Nageli has lately been pitching into me on this head. Hooker, with whom I discussed the subject, maintained that uses would be found for lots more structures, and cheered me by throwing my own orchids into my teeth. (701/2. See Letters 697-700.)

All that you say about changed position of the peduncle in bud, in flower, and in seed, is quite new to me, and reminds me of analogous cases with tendrils. (701/3. See Vochting, "Bewegung der Bluthen und Fruchte," 1882; also Kerner, "Pflanzenleben," Volume I., page 494, Volume II., page 121.) This is well worth working out, and I dare say the brush of the stigma.

With respect to the hairs or filaments (about which I once spoke) within different parts of flowers, I have a splendid Tacsonia with perfectly pendent flowers, and there is only a microscopical vestige of the corona of coloured filaments; whilst in most common passion-flowers the flowers stand upright, and there is the splendid corona which apparently would catch pollen. (701/4. Sprengel ("Entdeckte Geheimniss," page 164) imagined that the crown of the Passion-flower served as a nectar-guide and as a platform for insects, while other rings of filaments served to keep rain from the nectar. F. Muller, quoted in H. Muller ("Fertilisation," page 268), looks at the crowns of hairs, ridges in some species, etc., as gratings serving to imprison flies which attract the fertilising humming-birds. There is, we believe, no evidence that the corona catches pollen. See Letter 704, note.)

On the lower side of corolla of foxglove there are some fine hairs, but these seem of not the least use (701/5. It has been suggested that the hairs serve as a ladder for humble bees; also that they serve to keep out "unbidden guests.") — a mere purposeless exaggeration of down on outside — as I conclude after watching the bees at work, and afterwards covering up some plants; for the protected flowers rarely set any seed, so that the hairy lower part of corolla does not come into contact with stigma, as some Frenchman says occurs with some other plants, as Viola odorata and I think Iris.

I heartily wish I could accept your kind invitation, for I am not by nature a savage, but it is impossible. Forgive my dreadful handwriting, none of my womenkind are about to act as amanuensis.

LETTER 702. TO WILLIAM C. TAIT.

(702/1. Mr. Tait, to whom the following letter is addressed, was resident in Portugal. His kindness in sending plants of Drosophyllum lusitanicum is acknowledged in "Insectivorous Plants.")

Down, March 12th, 1869.

I have received your two letters of March 2nd and 5th, and I really do not know how to thank you enough for your extraordinary kindness and energy. I am glad to hear that the inhabitants notice the power of the Drosophyllum to catch flies, for this is the subject of my studies. (702/2. The natives are said to hang up plants of Drosophyllum in their cottages to act as fly-papers ("Insectivorous Plants," page 332).) I have observed during several years the manner in which this is effected, and the results produced in several species of Drosera, and in the wonderful American Dionoea, the leaves of which catch insects just like a steel rat-trap. Hence I was most anxious to learn how the Drosophyllum would act, so that the Director of the Royal Gardens at Kew wrote some years ago to Portugal to obtain specimens for me, but quite failed. So you see what a favour you have conferred on me. With Drosera it is nothing less than marvellous how minute a fraction of a grain of any nitrogenised matter the plant can detect; and how differently it behaves when matter, not containing nitrogen, of the same consistence, whether fluid or solid, is applied to the glands. It is also exquisitely sensitive to a weight of even the 1/70000 of a grain. From what I can see of the glands on Drosophyllum I suspect that I shall find only the commencement, or nascent state of the wonderful capacities of the Drosera, and this will be eminently interesting to me. My MS. on this subject has been nearly ready for publication during some years, but when I shall have strength and time to publish I know not.

And now to turn to other points in your letter. I am quite ignorant of ferns, and cannot name your specimen. The variability of ferns passes all bounds. With respect to your Laugher Pigeons, if the same with the two sub-breeds which I kept, I feel sure from the structure of the skeleton, etc., that it is a descendant of C. livia. In regard to beauty, I do not feel the difficulty which you and some others experience. In the last edition of my "Origin" I have discussed the question, but necessarily very briefly. (702/3. Fourth Edition, page 238.) A new and I hope amended edition of the "Origin" is now passing through the press, and will be published in a month or two, and it will give me great pleasure to send you a copy. Is there any place in London where parcels are received for you, or shall I send it by post? With reference to dogs' tails, no doubt you are aware that a rudimentary stump is regularly inherited by certain breeds of sheep-dogs, and by Manx cats. You speak of a change in the position of the axis of the earth: this is a subject quite beyond me, but I believe the astronomers reject the idea. Nevertheless, I have long suspected that some periodical astronomical or cosmical cause must be the agent of the incessant oscillations of level in the earth's crust. About a month ago I suggested this to a man well capable of judging, but he could not conceive any such agency; he promised, however, to keep it in mind. I wish I had time and strength to write to you more fully. I had intended to send this letter off at once, but on reflection will keep it till I receive the plants.

LETTER 703. TO H. MULLER. Down, March 14th, 1870.

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 Passiflora 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 Passiflora 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 glass-houses, and may be adapted for humming-birds. See "Life and Letters," III., page 279, for Farrer's remarks on Tacsonia and Passiflora; 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 entitled "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.