LETTER 725. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, June 23rd, 1874.
I wrote to you about a week ago, thanking you for information on cabbage seeds, asking you the name of Luzula or Carex, and on some other points; and I hope before very long to receive an answer. You must now, if you can, forgive me for being very troublesome, for I am in that state in which I would sacrifice friend or foe. I have ascertained that bits of certain leaves, for instance spinach, excite much secretion in Pinguicula, and that the glands absorb matter from the leaves. Now this morning I have received a lot of leaves from my future daughter-in-law in North Wales, having a surprising number of captured insects on them, a good many leaves, and two seed-capsules. She informs me that the little leaves had excited secretion; and my son and I have ascertained this morning that the protoplasm in the glands beneath the little leaves has undoubtedly undergone aggregation. Therefore, absurd as it may sound, I am prepared to affirm that Pinguicula is not only insectivorous, but graminivorous, and granivorous! Now I want to beg you to look under the simple microscope at the enclosed leaves and seeds, and, if you possibly can, tell me their genera. The little narrow leaves are remarkable (725/1. Those of Erica tetralix.); they are fleshy, with the edges much curled from the axis of the plant, and bear a few long glandular hairs; these grow in little tufts. These are the commonest in Pinguicula, and seem to afford most nutritious matter. A second leaf is like a miniature sycamore. With respect to the seeds, I suppose that one is a Carex; the other looks like that of Rumex, but is enclosed in a globular capsule. The Pinguicula grew on marshy, low, mountainous land.
I hope you will think this subject sufficiently interesting to make you willing to aid me as far as you can. Anyhow, forgive me for being so very troublesome.
LETTER 726. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 30th {1874}.
I am particularly obliged for your address. (726/1. Presidential address (Biological Section) at the Belfast meeting of the British Association, 1874.) It strikes me as quite excellent, and has interested me in the highest degree. Nor is this due to my having worked at the subject, for I feel sure that I should have been just as much struck, perhaps more so, if I had known nothing about it. You could not, in my opinion, have put the case better. There are several lights (besides the facts) in your essay new to me, and you have greatly honoured me. I heartily congratulate you on so splendid a piece of work. There is a misprint at page 7, Mitschke for Nitschke. There is a partial error at page 8, where you say that Drosera is nearly indifferent to organic substances. This is much too strong, though they do act less efficiently than organic with soluble nitrogenous matter; but the chief difference is in the widely different period of subsequent re-expansion. Thirdly, I did not suggest to Sanderson his electrical experiments, though, no doubt, my remarks led to his thinking of them.
Now for your letter: you are very generous about Dionoea, but some of my experiments will require cutting off leaves, and therefore injuring plants. I could not write to Lady Dorothy {Nevill}. Rollisson says that they expect soon a lot from America. If Dionoea is not despatched, have marked on address, "to be forwarded by foot-messenger."
Mrs. Barber's paper is very curious, and ought to be published (726/2. Mrs. Barber's paper on the pupa of Papilio Nireus assuming different tints corresponding to the objects to which it was attached, was communicated by Mr. Darwin to the "Trans. Entomolog. Soc." 1874.); but when you come here (and REMEMBER YOU OFFERED TO COME) we will consult where to send it. Let me hear when you recommence on Cephalotus or Sarracenia, as I think I am now on right track about Utricularia, after wasting several weeks in fruitless trials and observations. The negative work takes five times more time than the positive.
LETTER 727. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 18th {1874}.
I have had a splendid day's work, and must tell you about it.
Lady Dorothy sent me a young plant of U{tricularia} montana (727/1. See "Life and Letters," III., page 327, and "Insectivorous Plants," page 431.), which I fancy is the species you told me of. The roots or rhizomes (for I know not which they are; I can see no scales or internodes or absorbent hairs) bear scores of bladders from 1/20 to 1/100 of an inch in diameter; and I traced these roots to the depth of 1 1/2 in. in the peat and sand. The bladders are like glass, and have the same essential structure as those of our species, with the exception that many exterior parts are aborted. Internally the structure is perfect, as is the minute valvular opening into the bladder, which is filled with water. I then felt sure that they captured subterranean insects, and after a time I found two with decayed remnants, with clear proof that something had been absorbed, which had generated protoplasm. When you are here I shall be very curious to know whether they are roots or rhizomes.
Besides the bladders there are great tuber-like swellings on the rhizomes; one was an inch in length and half in breadth. I suppose these must have been described. I strongly suspect that they serve as reservoirs for water. (727/2. The existence of water-stores is quite in accordance with the epiphytic habit of the plant.) But I shall experimentise on this head. A thin slice is a beautiful object, and looks like coarsely reticulated glass.
If you have an old plant which could be turned out of its pot (and can spare the time), it would be a great gain to me if you would tear off a bit of the roots near the bottom, and shake them well in water, and see whether they bear these minute glass-like bladders. I should also much like to know whether old plants bear the solid bladder-like bodies near the upper surface of the pot. These bodies are evidently enlargements of the roots or rhizomes. You must forgive this long letter, and make allowance for my delight at finding this new sub-group of insect-catchers. Sir E. Tennent speaks of an aquatic species of Utricularia in Ceylon, which has bladders on its roots, and rises annually to the surface, as he says, by this means. (727/3. Utricularia stellaris. Emerson Tennent's "Ceylon," Volume I., page 124, 1859.)
We shall be delighted to see you here on the 26th; if you will let us know your train we will send to meet you. You will have to work like a slave while you are here.
LETTER 728. TO J. JENNER WEIR.
(728/1. In 1870 Mr. Jenner Weir wrote to Darwin: "My brother has but two kinds of laburnum, viz., Cytisus purpureus, very erect, and Cytisus alpinus, very pendulous. He has several stocks of the latter grafted with the purple one; and this year, the grafts being two years old, I saw in one, fairly above the stock, about four inches, a raceme of purely yellow flowers with the usual dark markings, and above them a bunch of purely purple flowers; the branches of the graft in no way showed an intermediate character, but had the usual rigid growth of purpureus."
Early in July 1875, when Darwin was correcting a new edition of "Variation under Domestication," he again corresponded with Mr. Weir on the subject.)
Down, July 8th {1875}.
I thank you cordially. The case interests me in a higher degree than anything which I have heard for a very long time. Is it your brother Harrison W., whom I know? I should like to hear where the garden is. There is one other very important point which I am most anxious to hear—viz., the nature of the leaves at the base of the yellow racemes, for leaves are always there produced with the yellow laburnums, and I suppose so in the case of C. purpureus. As the tree has produced yellow racemes several times, do you think you could ask your brother to cut off and send me by post in a box a small branch of the purple stock with the pods or leaves of the yellow sport? (728/2. "The purple stock" here means the supposed C. purpureus, on which a yellow-flowered branch was borne.) This would be an immense favour, for then I would cut the point of junction longitudinally and examine slice under the microscope, to be able to state no trace of bud of yellow kind having been inserted. I do not suspect anything of the kind, but it is sure to be said that your brother's gardener, either by accident or fraud, inserted a bud. Under this point of view it would be very good to gather from your brother how many times the yellow sport has appeared. The case appears to me so very important as to be worth any trouble. Very many thanks for all assistance so kindly given.
I will of course send a copy of new edition of "Variation under Domestication" when published in the autumn.
LETTER 729. TO J. JENNER WEIR.
(729/1. On July 9th Mr. Weir wrote to say that a branch of the Cytisus had been despatched to Down. The present letter was doubtless written after Darwin had examined the specimen. In "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 417, note, he gives for a case recorded in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" in 1857 the explanation here offered (viz. that the graft was not C. purpureus but C. Adami), and adds, "I have ascertained that this occurred in another instance." This second instance is doubtless Mr. Weir's.)
Down, July 10th, 1875.
I do not know how to thank you enough; pray give also my thanks and kind remembrances to your brother. I am sure you will forgive my expressing my doubts freely, as I well know that you desire the truth more than anything else. I cannot avoid the belief that some nurseryman has sold C{ytisus} Adami to your brother in place of the true C. purpureus. The latter is a little bush only 3 feet high (Loudon), and when I read your account, it seemed to me a physical impossibility that a sporting branch of C. alpinus could grow to any size and be supported on the extremely delicate branches of C. purpureus. If I understand rightly your letter, you consider the tuft of small shoots on one side of the sporting C. alpinus from Weirleigh as C. purpureus; but these shoots are certainly those of C. Adami. I earnestly beg you to look at the specimens enclosed. The branch of the true C. purpureus is the largest which I could find. If C. Adami was sold to your brother as C. purpureus, everything is explained; for then the gardener has grafted C. Adami on C. alpinus, and the former has sported in the usual manner; but has not sported into C. purpureus, only into C. alpinus. C. Adami does not sport less frequently into C. purpureus than into C. alpinus. Are the purple flowers borne on moderately long racemes? If so, the plant is certainly C. Adami, for the true C. purpureus bears flowers close to the branches. I am very sorry to be so troublesome, but I am very anxious to hear again from you.
C. purpureus bears "flowers axillary, solitary, stalked."
P.S.—I think you said that the purple {tree} at Weirleigh does not seed, whereas the C. purpureus seeds freely, as you may see in enclosed. C. Adami never produces seeds or pods.
LETTER 730. TO E. HACKEL.
(730/1. The following extract refers to Darwin's on "Cross and Self-Fertilisation.")
November 13th, 1875.
I am now busy in drawing up an account of ten years' experiments in the growth and fertility of plants raised from crossed and self-fertilised flowers. It is really wonderful what an effect pollen from a distinct seedling plant, which has been exposed to different conditions of life, has on the offspring in comparison with pollen from the same flower or from a distinct individual, but which has been long subjected to the same conditions. The subject bears on the very principle of life, which seems almost to require changes in the conditions.
LETTER 731. TO G.J. ROMANES.
(731/1. The following extract from a letter to Romanes refers to Francis Darwin's paper, "Experiments on the Nutrition of Drosera rotundifolia." "Linn. Soc. Journ." {1878}, published 1880, page 17.)
August 9th {1876}.
The second point which delights me, seeing that half a score of botanists throughout Europe have published that the digestion of meat by plants is of no use to them (a mere pathological phenomenon, as one man says!), is that Frank has been feeding under exactly similar conditions a large number of plants of Drosera, and the effect is wonderful. On the fed side the leaves are much larger, differently coloured, and more numerous; flower-stalks taller and more numerous, and I believe far more seed capsules,—but these not yet counted. It is particularly interesting that the leaves fed on meat contain very many more starch granules (no doubt owing to more protoplasm being first formed); so that sections stained with iodine, of fed and unfed leaves, are to the naked eye of very different colours.
There, I have boasted to my heart's content, and do you do the same, and tell me what you have been doing.
LETTER 732. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 25th {1876}.
If you can put the following request into any one's hands pray do so; but if not, ignore my request, as I know how busy you are.
I want any and all plants of Hoya examined to see if any imperfect flowers like the one enclosed can be found, and if so to send them to me, per post, damp. But I especially want them as young as possible.
They are very curious. I have examined some sent me from Abinger (732/1. Lord Farrer's house.), but they were a month or two too old, and every trace of pollen and anthers had disappeared or had never been developed. Yet a very fine pod with apparently good seed had been formed by one such flower. (732/2. The seeds did not germinate; see the account of Hoya carnosa in "Forms of Flowers," page 331.)
LETTER 733. TO G.J. ROMANES.
(733/1. Published in the "Life of Romanes," page 62.)
Down, August 10th {1877}.
When I went yesterday I had not received to-day's "Nature," and I thought that your lecture was finished. (733/2. Abstract of a lecture on "Evolution of Nerves and Nervo-Systems," delivered at the Royal Institution, May 25th, 1877. "Nature," July 19th, August 2nd, August 9th, 1877.) This final part is one of the grandest essays which I ever read.
It was very foolish of me to demur to your lines of conveyance like the threads in muslin (733/3. "Nature," August 2nd, page 271.), knowing how you have considered the subject: but still I must confess I cannot feel quite easy. Everyone, I suppose, thinks on what he has himself seen, and with Drosera, a bit of meat put on any one gland on its disc causes all the surrounding tentacles to bend to this point, and here there can hardly be differentiated lines of conveyance. It seems to me that the tentacles probably bend to that point wherever a molecular wave strikes them, which passes through the cellular tissue with equal ease in all directions in this particular case. (733/4. Speaking generally, the transmission takes place more readily in the longitudinal direction than across the leaf: see "Insectivorous Plants," page 239.) But what a fine case that of the Aurelia is! (733/5. Aurelia aurita, one of the medusae. "Nature," pages 269-71.)
LETTER 734. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. 6, Queen Anne Street {December 1876}.
Tell Hooker I feel greatly aggrieved by him: I went to the Royal Society to see him for once in the chair of the Royal, to admire his dignity and enjoy it, and lo and behold, he was not there. My outing gave me much satisfaction, and I was particularly glad to see Mr. Bentham, and to see him looking so wonderfully well and young. I saw lots of people, and it has not done me a penny's worth of harm, though I could not get to sleep till nearly four o'clock.
LETTER 735. TO D. OLIVER. Down, October, 13th {1876?}.
You must be a clair-voyant or something of that kind to have sent me such useful plants. Twenty-five years ago I described in my father's garden two forms of Linum flavum (thinking it a case of mere variation); from that day to this I have several times looked, but never saw the second form till it arrived from Kew. Virtue is never its own reward: I took paper this summer to write to you to ask you to send me flowers, {so} that I might beg plants of this Linum, if you had the other form, and refrained, from not wishing to trouble you. But I am now sorry I did, for I have hardly any doubt that L. flavum never seeds in any garden that I have seen, because one form alone is cultivated by slips. (735/1. Id est, because, the plant being grown from slips, one form alone usually occurs in any one garden. It is also arguable that it is grown by slips because only one form is common, and therefore seedlings cannot be raised.)
(736/1. The following five letters refer to Darwin's work on "bloom"—a subject on which he did not live to complete his researches:—
One of his earliest letters on this subject was addressed in August, 1873, to Sir Joseph Hooker (736/2. Published in "Life and Letters," III., page 339.):
"I want a little information from you, and if you do not yourself know, please to enquire of some of the wise men of Kew.
"Why are the leaves and fruit of so many plants protected by a thin layer of waxy matter (like the common cabbage), or with fine hair, so that when such leaves or fruit are immersed in water they appear as if encased in thin glass? It is really a pretty sight to put a pod of the common pea, or a raspberry, into water. I find several leaves are thus protected on the under surface and not on the upper.
"How can water injure the leaves, if indeed this is at all the case?"
On this latter point Darwin wrote to the late Lord Farrer:
"I am now become mad about drops of water injuring leaves. Please ask Mr. Payne (736/3. Lord Farrer's gardener.) whether he believes, FROM HIS OWN EXPERIENCE, that drops of water injure leaves or fruit in his conservatories. It is said that the drops act as burning-glasses; if this is true, they would not be at all injurious on cloudy days. As he is so acute a man, I should very much like to hear his opinion. I remember when I grew hothouse orchids I was cautioned not to wet their leaves; but I never then thought on the subject."
The next letter, though of later date than some which follow it, is printed here because it briefly sums his results and serves as guide to the letters dealing with the subject.)
LETTER 736. TO W. THISELTON-DYER.
(736/4. Published in "Life and Letters," III., page 341.)
Down, September 5th {1877}.
One word to thank you. I declare, had it not been for your kindness, we should have broken down. As it is we have made out clearly that with some plants (chiefly succulent) the bloom checks evaporation—with some certainly prevents attacks of insects; with SOME sea-shore plants prevents injury from salt water, and, I believe, with a few prevents injury from pure water resting on the leaves. This latter is as yet the most doubtful and the most interesting point in relation to the movements of plants.
(736/5. Modern research, especially that of Stahl on transpiration ("Bot. Zeitung," 1897, page 71) has shown that the question is more complex than it appeared in 1877. Stahl's point of view is that moisture remaining on a leaf checks the transpiration-current; and by thus diminishing the flow of mineral nutriment interferes with the process of assimilation. Stahl's idea is doubtless applicable to the whole problem of bloom on leaves. For other references to bloom see letters 685, 689 and 693.)
LETTER 737. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 19th, 1873.
The next time you walk round the garden ask Mr. Smith (737/1. Probably John Smith (1798-1888), for some years Curator, Royal Gardens, Kew.), or any of your best men, what they think about injury from watering during sunshine. One of your men—viz., Mr. Payne, at Abinger, who seems very acute—declares that you may water safely any plant out of doors in sunshine, and that you may do the same for plants under glass if the sashes are opened. This seems to me very odd, but he seems positive on the point, and acts on it in raising splendid grapes. Another good gardener maintains that it is only COLD water dripping often on the same point of a leaf that ever injures it. I am utterly perplexed, but interested on the point. Give me what you learn when you come to Down.
I should like to hear what plants are believed to be most injured by being watered in sunshine, so that I might get such.
I expect that I shall be utterly beaten, as on so many other points; but I intend to make a few experiments and observations. I have already convinced myself that drops of water do NOT act as burning lenses.
LETTER 738. TO J.D. HOOKER. December 20th {1873}.
I find that it is no use going on with my experiments on the evil effects of water on bloom-divested leaves. Either I erred in the early autumn or summer in some incomprehensible manner, or, as I suspect to be the case, water is only injurious to leaves when there is a good supply of actinic rays. I cannot believe that I am all in the wrong about the movements of the leaves to shoot off water.
The upshot of all this is that I want to keep all the plants from Kew until the spring or early summer, as it is mere waste of time going on at present.
LETTER 739. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, July 22nd {1877}.
Many thanks for seeds of the Malva and information about Averrhoa, which I perceived was sensitive, as A. carambola is said to be; and about Mimosa sensitiva. The log-wood {Haematoxylon} has interested me much. The wax is very easily removed, especially from the older leaves, and I found after squirting on the leaves with water at 95 deg, all the older leaves became coated, after forty-eight hours, in an astonishing manner with a black Uredo, so that they looked as if sprinkled with soot and water. But not one of the younger leaves was affected. This has set me to work to see whether the "bloom" is not a protection against parasites. As soon as I have ascertained a little more about the case (and generally I am quite wrong at first) I will ask whether I could have a very small plant, which should never be syringed with water above 60 deg, and then I suspect the leaves would not be spotted, as were the older ones on the plant, when it arrived from Kew, but nothing like what they were after my squirting.
In an old note of yours (which I have just found) you say that you have a sensitive Schrankia: could this be lent me?
I have had lent me a young Coral-tree (Erythrina), which is very sickly, yet shows odd sleep movements. I suppose I could buy one, but Hooker told me first to ask you for anything.
Lastly, have you any seaside plants with bloom? I find that drops of sea-water corrode sea-kale if bloom is removed; also the var. littorum of Triticum repens. (By the way, my plants of the latter, grown in pots here, are now throwing up long flexible green blades, and it is very odd to see, ON THE SAME CULM, the rigid grey bloom-covered blades and the green flexible ones.) Cabbages, ill-luck to them, do not seem to be hurt by salt water. Hooker formerly told me that Salsola kali, a var. of Salicornia, one species of Suaeda, Euphorbia peplis, Lathyrus maritimus, Eryngium maritimum, were all glaucous and seaside plants. It is very improbable that you have any of these or of foreigners with the same attributes.
God forgive me: I hope that I have not bored you greatly.
By all the rules of right the leaves of the logwood ought to move (as if partially going to sleep) when syringed with tepid water. The leaves of my little plant do not move at all, and it occurs to me as possible, though very improbable, that it would be different with a larger plant with perhaps larger leaves. Would you some day get a gardener to syringe violently, with water kept in a hothouse, a branch on one of your largest logwood plants and observe {whether?} leaves move together towards the apex of leaf?
By the way, what astonishing nonsense Mr. Andrew Murray has been writing about leaves and carbonic acid! I like to see a man behaving consistently...
What a lot I have scribbled to you!
(FIGURE 13. Leaf of Trifolium resupinatum (from a drawing by Miss Pertz).)
LETTER 740. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. {August, 1877.}
There is no end to my requests. Can you spare me a good plant (or even two) of Oxalis sensitiva? The one which I have (formerly from Kew) has been so maltreated that I dare not trust my results any longer.
Please give the enclosed to Mr. Lynch. (740/1. Mr. Lynch, now Curator of the Cambridge Botanic Garden, was at this time in the R. Bot. Garden, Kew. Mr. Lynch described the movements of Averrhoa bilimbi in the "Linn. Soc. Journ," Volume XVI., page 231. See also "The Power of Movement in Plants," page 330.) The spontaneous movements of the Averrhoa are very curious.
You sent me seeds of Trifolium resupinatum, and I have raised plants, and some former observations which I did not dare to trust have proved accurate. It is a very little fact, but curious. The half of the lateral leaflets (marked by a cross) on the lower side have no bloom and are wetted, whereas the other half has bloom and is not wetted, so that the two sides look different to the naked eye. The cells of the eipdermis appear of a different shape and size on the two sides of the leaf {Figure 13}.
When we have drawings and measurements of cells made, and are sure of our facts, I shall ask you whether you know of any case of the same leaf differing histologically on the two sides, for Hooker always says you are a wonderful man for knowing what has been made out.
(740/2. The biological meaning of the curious structure of the leaves of Trifolium resupinatum remains a riddle. The stomata and (speaking from memory) the trichomes differ on the two halves of the lateral leaflets.)
LETTER 741. TO L. ERRERA.
(741/1. Professor L. Errera, of Brussels wrote, as a student, to Darwin, asking permission to send the MS. of an essay by his friend S. Gevaert and himself on cross and self-fertilisation, and which was afterwards published in the "Bull. Soc. Bot. Belg." XVII., 1878. The terms xenogamy, geitonogamy, and autogamy were first suggested by Kerner in 1876; their definition will be found at page 9 of Ogle's translation of Kerner's "Flowers and their Unbidden Guests," 1878. In xenogamy the pollen comes from another PLANT; in geitonogamy from another FLOWER on the same PLANT; in autogamy from the androecium of the fertilised FLOWER. Allogamy embraces xenogamy and geitonogamy.)
Down, October 4th, 1877.
I have now read your MS. The whole has interested me greatly, and is very clearly written. I wish that I had used some such terms as autogamy, xenogamy, etc...I entirely agree with you on the a priori probability of geitonogamy being more advantageous than autogamy; and I cannot remember having ever expressed a belief that autogamy, as a general rule, was better than geitonogamy; but the cases recorded by me seem too strong not to make me suspect that there was some unknown advantage in autogamy. In one place I insert the caution "if this be really the case," which you quote. (741/2. See "Cross and Self-Fertilisation," pages 352, 386. The phrase referred to occurs in both passages; that on page 386 is as follows: "We have also seen reason to suspect that self-fertilisation is in some peculiar manner beneficial to certain plants; but if this be really the case, the benefit thus derived is far more than counterbalanced by a cross with a fresh stock or with a slightly different variety." Errera and Gevaert conclude (pages 79-80) that the balance of the available evidence is in favour of the belief that geitonogamy is intermediate, in effectiveness, between autogamy and xenogamy.) I shall be very glad to be proved to be altogether in error on this point.
Accept my thanks for pointing out the bad erratum at page 301. I hope that you will experimentise on inconspicuous flowers (741/3. See Miss Bateson, "Annals of Botany," 1888, page 255, "On the Cross-Fertilisation of Inconspicuous Flowers:" Miss Bateson showed that Senecio vulgaris clearly profits by cross-fertilisation; Stellaria media and Capsella bursa-pastoris less certainly.); if I were not too old and too much occupied I would do so myself.
Finally let me thank you for the kind manner in which you refer to my work, and with cordial good wishes for your success...
LETTER 742. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, October 9th, 1877.
One line to thank you much about Mertensia. The former plant has begun to make new leaves, to my great surprise, so that I shall be now well supplied. We have worked so well with the Averrhoa that unless the second species arrives in a very good state it would be superfluous to send it. I am heartily glad that you and Mrs. Dyer are going to have a holiday. I will look at you as a dead man for the next month, and nothing shall tempt me to trouble you. But before you enter your grave aid me if you can. I want seeds of three or four plants (not Leguminosae or Cruciferae) which produce large cotyledons. I know not in the least what plants have large cotyledons. Why I want to know is as follows: The cotyledons of Cassia go to sleep, and are sensitive to a touch; but what has surprised me much is that they are in constant movement up and down. So it is with the cotyledons of the cabbage, and therefore I am very curious to ascertain how far this is general.
LETTER 743. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, October 11th {1877}.
The fine lot of seeds arrived yesterday, and are all sown, and will be most useful. If you remember, pray thank Mr. Lynch for his aid. I had not thought of beech or sycamore, but they are now sown.
Perhaps you may like to see a rough copy of the tracing of movements of one of the cotyledons of red cabbage, and you can throw it into the fire. A line joining the two cotyledons stood facing a north-east window, and the day was uniformly cloudy. A bristle was gummed to one cotyledon, and beyond it a triangular bit of card was fixed, and in front a vertical glass. A dot was made in the glass every quarter or half hour at the point where the end of the bristle and the apex of card coincided, and the dots were joined by straight lines. The observations were from 10 a.m. to 8.45 p.m. During this time the enclosed figure was described; but between 4 p.m. and 5.38 p.m. the cotyledon moved so that the prolonged line was beyond the limits of the glass, and the course is here shown by an imaginary dotted line. The cotyledon of Primula sinensis moved in closely analogous manner, as do those of a Cassia. Hence I expect to find such movements very general with cotyledons, and I am inclined to look at them as the foundation for all the other adaptive movements of leaves. They certainly are of the so-called sleep of plants.
I hope I have not bothered you. Do not answer. I am all on fire at the work.
I have had a short and very prosperous note from Asa Gray, who says Hooker is very prosperous, and both are tremendously hard at work. (743/1. "Hooker is coming over, and we are going in summer to the Rocky Mountains together, according to an old promise of mine." Asa Gray to G.F. Wright, May 24th, 1877 ("Letters of Asa Gray," II., page 666).)
LETTER 744. TO H. MULLER. Down, January 1st {1878?}.
I must write two or three lines to thank you cordially for your very handsome and very interesting review of my last in "Kosmos," which I have this minute finished. (744/1. "Forms of Flowers," 1877. H. Muller's article is in "Kosmos," II., page 286.) It is wonderful how you have picked out everything important in it. I am especially glad that you have called attention to the parallelism between illegitimate offspring of heterostyled plants and hybrids. Your previous article in "Kosmos" seemed to me very important, but for some unknown reason the german was very difficult, and I was sadly overworked at the time, so that I could not understand a good deal of it. (744/2. "Kosmos," II., pages 11, 128. See "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 308.) But I have put it on one side, and when I have to prepare a new edition of my I must make it out. It seems that you attribute such cases as that of the dioecious Rhamnus and your own of Valeriana to the existence of two forms with larger and smaller flowers. I cannot follow the steps by which such plants have been rendered dioecious, but when I read your article with more care I hope I shall understand. (744/3. See "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., pages 9 and 304. H. Muller's view is briefly that conspicuous and less conspicuous varieties occurred, and that the former were habitually visited first by insects; thus the less conspicuous form would play the part of females and their pollen would tend to become superfluous. See H. Muller in "Kosmos," II.) If you have succeeded in explaining this class of cases I shall heartily rejoice, for they utterly perplexed me, and I could not conjecture what their meaning was. It is a grievous evil to have no faculty for new languages.
With the most sincere respect and hearty good wishes to you and all your family for the new year...
P.S.—What interesting papers your wonderful brother has lately been writing!
LETTER 745. TO W. THISELTON-DYER.
(745/1. This letter refers to the purchase of instruments for the Jodrell Laboratory in the Royal Gardens, Kew. "The Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction and the Advancement of Science, commonly spoken of as the Devonshire Commission, in its fourth Report (1874), page 10, expressed the opinion that 'it is highly desirable that opportunities for the pursuit of investigations in Physiological Botany should be afforded at Kew to those persons who may be inclined to follow that branch of science.' Effect was given to this recommendation by the liberality of the late T.J. Phillips-Jodrell, M.A., who built and equipped the small laboratory, which has since borne his name, at his own expense. It was completed and immediately brought into use in 1876." The above is taken from the "Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information," R. Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1901, page 102, which also gives a list of work carried out in the laboratory between 1876 and 1900.)
Down, March 14th, 1878.
I have a very strong opinion that it would be the greatest possible pity if the Phys{iological} Lab., now that it has been built, were not supplied with as many good instruments as your funds can possibly afford. It is quite possible that some of them may become antiquated before they are much or even at all used. But this does not seem to me any argument at all against getting them, for the Laboratory cannot be used until well provided; and the mere fact of the instruments being ready may suggest to some one to use them. You at Kew, as guardians and promoters of botanical science, will then have done all in your power, and if your Lab. is not used the disgrace will lie at the feet of the public. But until bitter experience proves the contrary I will never believe that we are so backward. I should think the German laboratories would be very good guides as to what to get; but Timiriazeff of Moscow, who travelled over Europe to see all Bot. Labs., and who seemed so good a fellow, would, I should think, give the best list of the most indispensable instruments. Lately I thought of getting Frank or Horace to go to Cambridge for the use of the heliostat there; but our observations turned out of less importance than I thought, yet if there had been one at Kew we should probably have used it, and might have found out something curious. It is impossible for me to predict whether or not we should ever want this or that instrument, for we are guided in our work by what turns up. Thus I am now observing something about geotropism, and I had no idea a few weeks ago that this would have been necessary. In a short time we might earnestly wish for a centrifugal apparatus or a heliostat. In all such cases it would make a great difference if a man knew that he could use a particular instrument without great loss of time. I have now given my opinion, which is very decided, whether right or wrong, and Frank quite agrees with me. You can, of course, show this letter to Hooker.
LETTER 746. TO F. LUDWIG. Down, May 29th, 1878.
I thank you sincerely for the trouble which you have taken in sending me so long and interesting a letter, together with the specimens. Gradations are always very valuable, and you have been remarkably successful in discovering the stages by which the Plantago has become gyno-dioecious. (746/1. See F. Ludwig, "Zeitsch. f. d. Geo. Naturwiss." Bd. LII., 1879. Professor Ludwig's observations are quoted in the preface to "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page ix.) Your view of its origin, from being proterogynous, seems to me very probable, especially as the females are generally the later-flowering plants. If you can prove the reverse case with Thymus your view will manifestly be rendered still more probable. I have never felt satisfied with H. Muller's view, though he is so careful and admirable an observer. (746/2. See "Forms of Flowers," Edition II., page 308. Also letter 744.) It is more than seventeen years since I attended to Plantago, and when nothing had been published on the subject, and in consequence I omitted to attend to several points; and now, after so long an interval, I cannot pretend to say to which of your forms the English one belongs; I well remember that the anther of the females contained a good deal {of} pollen, though not one sound grain.
P.S.—Delpino is Professor of Botany in Genoa, Italy (746/3. Now at Naples.); I have always found him a most obliging correspondent.
LETTER 747. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, August 24th {1878}.
Many thanks for seeds of Trifolium resupinatum, which are invaluable to us. I enclose seeds of a Cassia, from Fritz Muller, and they are well worth your cultivation; for he says they come from a unique, large and beautiful tree in the interior, and though looking out for years, he has never seen another specimen. One of the most splendid, largest and rarest butterflies in S. Brazil, he has never seen except near this one tree, and he has just discovered that its caterpillars feed on its leaves.
I have just been looking at fine young pods beneath the ground of Arachis. (747/1. Arachis hypogoea, cultivated for its "ground nuts.") I suppose that the pods are not withdrawn when ripe from the ground; but should this be the case kindly inform me; if I do not hear I shall understand that {the} pods ripen and are left permanently beneath the ground.
If you ever come across heliotropic or apheliotropic aerial roots on a plant not valuable (but which should be returned), I should like to observe them. Bignonia capreolata, with its strongly apheliotropic tendrils (which I had from Kew), is now interesting me greatly. Veitch tells me it is not on sale in any London nursery, as I applied to him for some additional plants. So much for business.
I have received from the Geographical Soc. your lecture, and read it with great interest. (747/2. "On Plant-Distribution as a field for Geographical Research." "Geog. Soc. Proc." XXII., 1878, page 412.) But it ought not merely to be read; it requires study. The sole criticism which I have to make is that parts are too much condensed: but, good Lord, how rare a fault is this! You do not quote Saporta, I think; and some of his work on the Tertiary plants would have been useful to you. In a former note you spoke contemptuously of your lecture: all I can say is that I never heard any one speak more unjustly and shamefully of another than you have done of yourself!
LETTER 748. TO H. MULLER. Down, September 20th, 1878.
I am working away on some points in vegetable physiology, but though they interest me and my son, yet they have none of the fascination which the fertilisation of flowers possesses. Nothing in my life has ever interested me more than the fertilisation of such plants as Primula and Lythrum, or again Anacamptis (748/1. Orchis pyramidalis.) or Listera.
LETTER 749. TO H. MULLER. Down, February 12th {1879}.
I have just heard that some misfortune has befallen you, and that you have been treated shamefully. (749/1. Hermann Muller was accused by the Ultramontane party of introducing into his school-teaching crude hypotheses ("unreife Hypothesen"), which were assumed to have a harmful influence upon the religious sentiments of his pupils. Attempts were made to bring about Muller's dismissal, but the active hostility of his opponents, which he met in a dignified spirit, proved futile. ("Prof. Dr. Hermann Muller von Lippstadt. Ein Gedenkblatt," von Ernst Krause. "Kosmos," VII., page 393, 1883.)) I grieve deeply to hear this, and as soon as you can find a few minutes to spare, I earnestly beg you to let me hear what has happened.
LETTER 750. TO A. STEPHEN WILSON.
(750/1. The following letters refer to two forms of wheat cultivated in Russia under the names Kubanka and Saxonka, which had been sent to Mr. Darwin by Dr. Asher from Samara, and were placed in the hands of Mr. Wilson that he might test the belief prevalent in Russia that Kubanka "grown repeatedly on inferior soil," assumes "the form of Saxonka." Mr. Wilson's paper of 1880 gives the results of his inquiry. He concludes (basing his views partly on analogous cases and partly on his study of the Russian wheats) that the supposed transformation is explicable in chief part by the greater fertility of the Saxonka wheat leading to extermination of the other form. According to Mr. Wilson, therefore, the Saxonka survivors are incorrectly assumed to be the result of the conversion of one form into the other.)
Down, April 24th, 1878.
I send you herewith some specimens which may perhaps interest you, as you have so carefully studied the varieties of wheat. Anyhow, they are of no use to me, as I have neither knowledge nor time sufficient. They were sent me by the Governor of the Province of Samara, in Russia, at the request of Dr. Asher (son of the great Berlin publisher) who farmed for some years in the province. The specimen marked Kubanka is a very valuable kind, but which keeps true only when cultivated in fresh steppe-land in Samara, and in Saratoff. After two years it degenerates into the variety Saxonica, or its synonym Ghirca. The latter alone is imported into this country. Dr. Asher says that it is universally known, and he has himself witnessed the fact, that if grain of the Kubanka is sown in the same steppe-land for more than two years it changes into Saxonica. He has seen a field with parts still Kubanka and the remainder Saxonica. On this account the Government, in letting steppe-land, contracts that after two years wheat must not be sown until an interval of eight years. The ears of the two kinds appear different, as you will see, but the chief difference is in the quality of the grains. Dr. Asher has witnessed sales of equal weights of Kubanka and Saxonica grain, and the price of the former was to that of the latter as 7 to 4. The peasants say that the change commences in the terminal grain of the ear. The most remarkable point, as Dr. Asher positively asserts, is that there are no intermediate varieties; but that a grain produces a plant yielding either true Kubanka or true Saxonica. He thinks that it would be interesting to sow here both kinds in good and bad wheat soil and observe the result. Should you think it worth while to make any such trial, and should you require further information, Dr. Asher, whose address I enclose, will be happy to give any in his power.
LETTER 751. TO A. STEPHEN WILSON. Basset, Southampton, April 29th {1878}.
Your kind note and specimens have been forwarded to me here, where I am staying at my son's house for a fortnight's complete rest, which I required from rather too hard work. For this reason I will not now examine the seeds, but will wait till returning home, when, with my son Francis' aid, I will look to them.
I always felt, though without any good reason, rather sceptical about Prof. Buckman's experiment, and I afterwards heard that a most wicked and cruel trick had been played on him by some of the agricultural students at Cirencester, who had sown seeds unknown to him in his experimental beds. Whether he ever knew this I did not hear.
I am exceedingly glad that you are willing to look into the Russian wheat case. It may turn out a mare's nest, but I have often incidentally observed curious facts when making what I call "a fool's experiment."
LETTER 752. TO A. STEPHEN WILSON. Down, March 5th, 1879.
I have just returned home after an absence of a week, and your letter was not forwarded to me; I mention this to account for my apparent discourtesy in not having sooner thanked you. You have worked out the subject with admirable care and clearness, and your drawings are beautiful. I suspected that there was some error in the Russian belief, but I did not think of the explanation which you have almost proved to be the true one. It is an extremely interesting instance of a more fertile variety beating out a less fertile one, and, in this case, one much more valuable to man. With respect to publication, I am at a loss to advise you, for I live a secluded life and do not see many periodicals, or hear what is done at the various societies. It seems to me that your paper should be published in some agricultural journal; for it is not simply scientific, and would therefore not be published by the Linnean or Royal Societies.
Would the Royal Agricultural Society be a fitting place? Unfortunately I am not a member, and could not myself present it. Unless you think of some better journal, there is the "Agricultural Gazette": I have occasionally suggested articles for publication to the editor (though personally unknown to me) which he has always accepted.
Permit me again to thank you for the thorough manner in which you have worked out this case; to kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing a new truth or fact.
LETTER 753. TO A. STEPHEN WILSON. Down, February 13th, 1880.
It was very kind of you to send me two numbers of the "Gardeners' Chronicle" with your two articles, which I have read with much interest. (753/1. "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1879, page 652; 1880, pages 108, 173.) You have quite convinced me, whatever Mr. Asher may say to the contrary. I want to ask you a question, on the bare chance of your being able to answer it, but if you cannot, please do not take the trouble to write. The lateral branches of the silver fir often grow out into knobs through the action of a fungus, Aecidium; and from these knobs shoots grow vertically (753/2. The well-known "Witches-Brooms," or "Hexen-Besen," produced by the fungus Aecidium elatinum.) instead of horizontally, like all the other twigs on the same branch. Now the roots of Cruciferae and probably other plants are said to become knobbed through the action of a fungus: now, do these knobs give rise to rootlets? and, if so, do they grow in a new or abnormal direction? (753/3. The parasite is probably Plasmodiophora: in this case no abnormal rootlets have been observed, as far as we know.)
LETTER 754. TO W. THISELTON-DYER. Down, June 18th, 1879.
The plants arrived last night in first-rate order, and it was very very good of you to take so much trouble as to hunt them up yourself. They seem exactly what I wanted, and if I fail it will not be for want of perfect materials. But a confounded painter (I beg his pardon) comes here to-night, and for the next two days I shall be half dead with sitting to him; but after then I will begin to work at the plants and see what I can do, and very curious I am about the results.
I have to thank you for two very interesting letters. I am delighted to hear, and with surprise, that you care about old Erasmus D. God only knows what I shall make of his life—it is such new kind of work to me. (754/1. "Erasmus Darwin." By Ernst Krause. Translated from the German by W.S. Dallas: with a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin. London, 1879. See "Life and Letters," III., pages 218-20.)
Thanks for case of sleeping Crotalaria—new to me. I quite agree to every word you say about Ball's lecture (754/2. "On the Origin of the Flora of the European Alps," "Geogr. Soc. Proc." Volume I., 1879, page 564. See Letter 395, Volume II.)—it is, as you say, like Sir W. Thomson's meteorite. (754/3. In 1871 Lord Kelvin (Presidential Address Brit. Assoc.) suggested that meteorites, "the moss-grown fragments from the ruins of another world," might have introduced life to our planet.) It is really a pity; it is enough to make Geographical Distribution ridiculous in the eyes of the world. Frank will be interested about the Auriculas; I never attended to this plant, for the powder did {not} seem to me like true "bloom." (754/4. See Francis Darwin, on the relation between "bloom" on leaves and the distribution of the stomata. "Linn. Soc. Journ." Volume XXII., page 114.) This subject, however, for the present only, has gone to the dogs with me.
I am sorry to hear of such a struggle for existence at Kew; but I have often wondered how it is that you are all not killed outright.
I can most fully sympathise with you in your admiration of your little girl. There is nothing so charming in this world, and we all in this house humbly adore our grandchild, and think his little pimple of a nose quite beautiful.
LETTER 755. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, February 16th, 1880.
I have had real pleasure in signing Dyer's certificate. (755/1. As a candidate for the Royal Society.) It was very kind in you to write to me about the Orchideae, for it has pleased me to an extreme degree that I could have been of the least use to you about the nature of the parts. They are wonderful creatures, these orchids, and I sometimes think with a glow of pleasure, when I remember making out some little point in their method of fertilisation. (755/2. Published in "Life and Letters," III., page 288.) With respect to terms, no doubt you will be able to improve them greatly, for I knew nothing about the terms as used in other groups of plants. Could you not invent some quite new term for gland, implying viscidity? or append some word to gland. I used for cirripedes "cement gland."
Your present work must be frightfully difficult. I looked at a few dried flowers, and could make neither heads nor tails of them; and I well remember wondering what you would do with them when you came to the group in the "Genera Plantarum." I heartily wish you safe through your work,...
LETTER 756. TO F.M. BALFOUR. Down, September 4th, 1880.
I hope that you will not think me a great bore, but I have this minute finished reading your address at the British Association; and it has interested me so much that I cannot resist thanking you heartily for the pleasure derived from it, not to mention the honour which you have done me. (756/1. Presidential address delivered by Prof. F.M. Balfour before the Biological Section at the British Association meeting at Swansea (1880).) The recent progress of embryology is indeed splendid. I have been very stupid not to have hitherto read your but I have had of late no spare time; I have now ordered it, and your address will make it the more interesting to read, though I fear that my want of knowledge will make parts unintelligible to me. (756/2. "A Treatise on Comparative Embryology," 2 volumes. London, 1880.) In my recent work on plants I have been astonished to find to how many very different stimuli the same small part—viz., the tip of the radicle—is sensitive, and has the power of transmitting some influence to the adjoining part of the radicle, exciting it to bend to or from the source of irritation according to the needs of the plant (756/3. See Letter 757.); and all this takes place without any nervous system! I think that such facts should be kept in mind when speculating on the genesis of the nervous system. I always feel a malicious pleasure when a priori conclusions are knocked on the head: and therefore I felt somewhat like a devil when I read your remarks on Herbert Spencer (756/4. Prof. Balfour discussed Mr. Herbert Spencer's views on the genesis of the nervous system, and expressed the opinion that his hypothesis was not borne out by recent discoveries. "The discovery that nerves have been developed from processes of epithelial cells gives a very different conception of their genesis to that of Herbert Spencer, which makes them originate from the passage of nervous impulses through a track of mingled colloids..." (loc. cit., page 644.))...Our recent visit to Cambridge was a brilliant success to us all, and will ever be remembered by me with much pleasure.
LETTER 757. TO JAMES PAGET.
(757/1. During the closing years of his life, Darwin began to experimentise on the possibility of producing galls artificially. A letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (November 3rd, 1880) shows the interest which he felt in the question:—
"I was delighted with Paget's essay (757/2. An address on "Elemental Pathology," delivered before the British Medical Association, August 1880, and published in the Journal of the Association.); I hear that he has occasionally attended to this subject from his youth...I am very glad he has called attention to galls: this has always seemed to me a profoundly interesting subject; and if I had been younger would take it up."
His interest in this subject was connected with his ever-present wish to learn something of the causes of variation. He imagined to himself wonderful galls caused to appear on the ovaries of plants, and by these means he thought it possible that the seed might be influenced, and thus new varieties arise. (757/3. There would have been great difficulties about this line of research, for when the sexual organs of plants are deformed by parasites (in the way he hoped to effect by poisons) sterility almost always results. See Molliard's "Les Cecidies Florales," "Ann. Sci. Nat." 1895, Volume I., page 228.) He made a considerable number of experiments by injecting various reagents into the tissues of leaves, and with some slight indications of success. (757/4. The above passage is reprinted, with alterations, from "Life and Letters," III., page 346.)
The following letter to the late Sir James Paget refers to the same subject.)
Down, November 14th, 1880.
I am very much obliged for your essay, which has interested me greatly. What indomitable activity you have! It is a surprising thought that the diseases of plants should illustrate human pathology. I have the German "Encyclopaedia," and a few weeks ago told my son Francis that the article on the diseases of plants would be well worth his study; but I did not know it was written by Dr. Frank, for whom I entertain a high respect as a first-rate observer and experimentiser, though for some unknown reason he has been a good deal snubbed in Germany. I can give you one good case of regrowth in plants, recently often observed by me, though only externally, as I do not know enough of histology to follow out details. It is the tip of the radicle of a germinating common bean. The case is remarkable in some respects, for the tip is sensitive to various stimuli, and transmits an order, causing the upper part of the radicle to bend. When the tip (for a length of about 1 mm.) is cut transversely off, the radicle is not acted on by gravitation or other irritants, such as contact, etc., etc., but a new tip is regenerated in from two to four days, and then the radicle is again acted on by gravitation, and will bend to the centre of the earth. The tip of the radicle is a kind of brain to the whole growing part of the radicle! (757/5. We are indebted to Mr. Archer-Hind for the translation of the following passage from Plato ("Timaeus," 90A): "The reason is every man's guardian genius (daimon), and has its habitation in our brain; it is this that raises man (who is a plant, not of earth but of heaven) to an erect posture, suspending the head and root of us from the heavens, which are the birthplace of our soul, and keeping all the body upright." On the perceptions of plants, see "Nature," November 14th, 1901—a lecture delivered at the Glasgow meeting of the British Association by Francis Darwin. See also Bonitz, "Index Aristotelicus," S.V. phuton.)
My observation will be published in about a week's time, and I would have sent you the but I do not suppose that there is anything else in the which would interest you. I am delighted that you have drawn attention to galls. They have always seemed to me profoundly interesting. Many years ago I began (but failed for want of time, strength, and health, as on infinitely many other occasions) to experimentise on plants, by injecting into their tissues some alkaloids and the poison of wasps, to see if I could make anything like galls. If I remember rightly, in a few cases the tissues were thickened and hardened. I began these experiments because if by different poisons I could have affected slightly and differently the tissues of the same plant, I thought there would be no insuperable difficulty in the fittest poisons being developed by insects so as to produce galls adapted for them. Every character, as far as I can see, is apt to vary. Judging from one of your sentences you will smile at this.
To any one believing in my pangenesis (if such a man exists) there does not seem to me any extreme difficulty in understanding why plants have such little power of regeneration; for there is reason to think that my imaginary gemmules have small power of passing from cell to cell. (757/6. On regeneration after injury, see Massart, "La Cicatrisation chez les Vegetaux," in Volume 57 (1898) of the "Memoires Couronnes," published by the Royal Academy of Belgium. An account of the literature is given by the author.)
Forgive me for scribbling at such unreasonable length; but you are to blame for having interested me so much.
P.S.—Perhaps you may remember that some two years ago you asked me to lunch with you, and proposed that I should offer myself again. Whenever I next come to London, I will do so, and thus have the pleasure of seeing you.
LETTER 758. TO W. THISELTON-DYER.
(758/1. "The Power of Movement in Plants" was published early in November, 1880. Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, in writing to thank Darwin for a copy of the had (November 20th) compared a structure in the seedling Welwitschia with the "peg" of Cucurbita (see "Power of Movement," page 102). Dyer wrote: "One peculiar feature in the germinating embryo is a lateral hypocotyledonary process, which eventually serves as an absorbent organ, by which the nutriment of the endosperm is conveyed to the seedling. Such a structure was quite new to me, and Bower and I were disposed to see in it a representative of the foot in Selaginella, when I saw the account of Flahault's 'peg.'" Flahault, it should be explained, was the discoverer of the curious peg in Cucurbita. Prof. Bower wrote a paper ("On the Germination and Histology of the seedling of Welwitschia mirabilis" in the "Quart. Journ. Microscop. Sci." XXI., 1881, page 15.)
Down, November 28th {1880}.
Very many thanks for your most kind note, but you think too highly of our work—not but what this is very pleasant.
I am deeply interested about Welwitschia. When at work on the pegs or projections I could not imagine how they were first developed, before they could have been of mere mechanical use. Now it seems possible that a circle between radicle and hypocotyl may be permeable to fluids, and thus have given rise to projections so as to expose larger surface. Could you test Welwitschia with permanganate of potassium: if, like my pegs, the lower surface would be coloured brown like radicle, and upper surface left white like hypocotyl. If such an idea as yours, of an absorbing organ, had ever crossed my mind, I would have tried many hypocotyls in weak citrate of ammonia, to see if it penetrated on line of junction more easily than elsewhere. I daresay the projection in Abronia and Mirabilis may be an absorbent organ. It was very good fun bothering the seeds of Cucurbita by planting them edgeways, as would never naturally occur, and then the peg could not act properly. Many of the Germans are very contemptuous about making out use of organs; but they may sneer the souls out of their bodies, and I for one shall think it the most interesting part of natural history. Indeed, you are greatly mistaken if you doubt for one moment on the very great value of your constant and most kind assistance to us. I have not seen the pamphlet, and shall be very glad to keep it. Frank, when he comes home, will be much interested and pleased with your letter. Pray give my kindest remembrance to Mrs. Dyer.
This is a very untidy note, but I am very tired with dissecting worms all day. Read the last chapter of our and then you will know the whole contents.
LETTER 759. TO H. VOCHTING. Down, December 16th, 1880.
Absence from home has prevented me from sooner thanking you for your kind present of your several publications. I procured some time ago your "Organbilding" (759/1. "Organbildung im Pflanzenreich," 1878.) etc., but it was too late for me to profit by it for my as I was correcting the press. I read only parts, but my son Francis read the whole with care and told me much about it, which greatly interested me. I also read your article in the "Bot. Zeitung." My son began at once experimenting, to test your views, and this very night will read a paper before the Linnean Society on the roots of Rubus (759/2. Francis Darwin, "The Theory of the Growth of Cuttings" ("Linn. Soc. Journ." XVIII.). {I take this opportunity of expressing my regret that at page 417, owing to neglect of part of Vochting's facts, I made a criticism of his argument which cannot be upheld.—F.D.}.), and I think that you will be pleased to find how well his conclusions agree with yours. He will of course send you a copy of his paper when it is printed. I have sent him your letter, which will please him if he agrees with me; for your letter has given me real pleasure, and I did not at all know what the many great physiologists of Germany, Switzerland, and Holland would think of it {"The Power of Movement," etc.}. I was quite sorry to read Sachs' views about root-forming matter, etc., for I have an unbounded admiration for Sachs. In this country we are dreadfully behind in Physiological Botany.
LETTER 760. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, January 24th, 1881.
It was extremely kind of you to write me so long and valuable a letter, the whole of which deserves careful consideration. I have been particularly pleased at what you say about the new terms used, because I have often been annoyed at the multitude of new terms lately invented in all branches of Biology in Germany; and I doubted much whether I was not quite as great a sinner as those whom I have blamed. When I read your remarks on the word "purpose" in your "Phytographie," I vowed that I would not use it again; but it is not easy to cure oneself of a vicious habit. It is also difficult for any one who tries to make out the use of a structure to avoid the word purpose. I see that I have probably gone beyond my depth in discussing plurifoliate and unifoliate leaves; but in such a case as that of Mimosa albida, where rudiments of additional leaflets are present, we must believe that they were well developed in the progenitor of the plant. So again, when the first true leaf differs widely in shape from the older leaves, and resembles the older leaves in allied species, is it not the most simple explanation that such leaves have retained their ancient character, as in the case of the embryos of so many animals?
Your suggestion of examining the movements of vertical leaves with an equal number of stomata on both sides, with reference to the light, seems to me an excellent one, and I hope that my son Francis may follow it up. But I will not trouble you with any more remarks about our My son will write to you about the diagram.
Let me add that I shall ever remember with pleasure your visit here last autumn.
LETTER 761. TO J. LUBBOCK (Lord Avebury). Down, April 16th {1881}.
Will you be so kind as to send and lend me the Desmodium gyrans by the bearer who brings this note.
Shortly after you left I found my notice of the seeds in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," which please return hereafter, as I have no other copy. (761/1. "Note on the Achenia of Pumilio argyrolepis." "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1861, page 4.) I do not think that I made enough about the great power of absorption of water by the corolla-like calyx or pappus. It seems to me not unlikely that the pappus of other Compositae may be serviceable to the seeds, whilst lying on the ground, by absorbing the dew which would be especially apt to condense on the fine points and filaments of the pappus. Anyhow, this is a point which might be easily investigated. Seeds of Tussilago, or groundsel (761/2. It is not clear whether Tussilago or groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) is meant; or whether he was not sure which of the two plants becomes slimy when wetted.), emit worm-like masses of mucus, and it would be curious to ascertain whether wetting the pappus alone would suffice to cause such secretion. (761/3. See Letter 707.)
LETTER 762. TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, April 18th, 1881.
I am extremely glad of your success with the flashing light. (762/1. Romanes' paper on the effect of intermittent light on heliotropism was the "Proc. Royal Soc." Volume LIV., page 333.) If plants are acted on by light, like some of the lower animals, there is an additional point of interest, as it seems to me, in your results. Most botanists believe that light causes a plant to bend to it in as direct a manner as light affects nitrate of silver. I believe that it merely tells the plant to which side to bend, and I see indications of this belief prevailing even with Sachs. Now it might be expected that light would act on a plant in something the same manner as on the lower animals. As you are at work on this subject, I will call your attention to another point. Wiesner, of Vienna (who has lately published a great on heliotropism) finds that an intermittent light, say of 20 minutes, produces the same effect as a continuous light of, say 60 m. (762/2. Wiesner's papers on heliotropism are in the "Denkschriften" of the Vienna Academy, Volumes 39 and 43.) So that Van Tieghem, in the first part of his which has just appeared, remarks, the light during 40 m. out of the 60 m. produced no effect. I observed an analogous case described in my (762/3. "Power of Movement," page 459.)
Wiesner and Van Tieghem seem to think that this is explained by calling the whole process "induction," borrowing a term used by some physico-chemists (of whom I believe Roscoe is one) and implying an agency which does not produce any effect for some time, and continues its effect for some time after the cause has ceased. I believe that photographic paper is an instance. I must ask Leonard (762/4. Mr. Darwin's son.) whether an interrupted light acts on it in the same manner as on a plant. At present I must still believe in my explanation that it is the contrast between light and darkness which excites a plant.
I have forgotten my main object in writing—viz., to say that I believe (and have so stated) that seedlings vary much in their sensitiveness to light; but I did not prove this, for there are many difficulties, whether the time of incipient curvature or the amount of curvature is taken as the criterion. Moreover they vary according to age, and perhaps from vigour of growth, and there seems inherent variability, as Strasburger (whom I quote) found with spores. If the curious anomaly observed by you is due to varying sensitiveness, ought not all the seedlings to bend if the flashes were at longer intervals of time? According to my notion of contrast between light and darkness being the stimulus, I should expect that if flashes were made sufficiently slow it would be a powerful stimulus, and that you would suddenly arrive at a period when the result would SUDDENLY become great. On the other hand, as far as my experience goes, what one expects rarely happens.
LETTER 763. TO JULIUS WIESNER. Down, October 4th, 1881.
I thank you sincerely for your very kind letter, and for the present of your new work. (763/1. "Das Bewegungsvermogen der Pflanze," 1881. One of us has given some account of Wiesner's in the presidential address to Section D of the British Association, 1891. Wiesner's divergence from Darwin's views is far-reaching, and includes the main thesis of the "Power of Movement." See "Life and Letters," III., page 336, for an interesting letter to Wiesner.) My son Francis, if he had been at home, would have likewise sent his thanks. I will immediately begin to read your and when I have finished it will write again. But I read german so very slowly that your will take me a considerable time, for I cannot read for more than half an hour each day. I have, also, been working too hard lately, and with very little success, so that I am going to leave home for a time and try to forget science.
I quite expect that you will find some gross errors in my work, for you are a very much more skilful and profound experimentalist than I am. Although I always am endeavouring to be cautious and to mistrust myself, yet I know well how apt I am to make blunders. Physiology, both animal and vegetable, is so difficult a subject, that it seems to me to progress chiefly by the elimination or correction of ever-recurring mistakes. I hope that you will not have upset my fundamental notion that various classes of movement result from the modification of a universally present movement of circumnutation.
I am very glad that you will again discuss the view of the turgescence of the cells being the cause of the movement of parts. I adopted De Vries' views as seeming to me the most probable, but of late I have felt more doubts on this head. (763/2. See "Power of Movement," page 2. De Vries' work is published in the "Bot. Zeitung," 1879, page 830.)
LETTER 764. TO J.D. HOOKER. Glenrhydding House, Patterdale, Penrith, June 15th, 1881.
It was real pleasure to me to see once again your well-known handwriting on the outside of your note. I do not know how long you have returned from Italy, but I am very sorry that you are so bothered already with work and visits. I cannot but think that you are too kind and civil to visitors, and too conscientious about your official work. But a man cannot cure his virtues, any more than his vices, after early youth; so you must bear your burthen. It is, however, a great misfortune for science that you have so very little spare time for the "Genera." I can well believe what an awful job the palms must be. Even their size must be very inconvenient. You and Bentham must hate the monocotyledons, for what work the Orchideae must have been, and Gramineae and Cyperaceae will be. I am rather despondent about myself, and my troubles are of an exactly opposite nature to yours, for idleness is downright misery to me, as I find here, as I cannot forget my discomfort for an hour. I have not the heart or strength at my age to begin any investigation lasting years, which is the only thing which I enjoy; and I have no little jobs which I can do. So I must look forward to Down graveyard as the sweetest place on earth. This place is magnificently beautiful, and I enjoy the scenery, though weary of it; and the weather has been very cold and almost always hazy.
I am so glad that your tour has answered for Lady Hooker. We return home on the first week of July, and should be truly glad to aid Lady Hooker in any possible manner which she will suggest.
I have written to my gardener to send you plants of Oxalis corniculata (and seeds if possible). I should think so common a weed was never asked for before,—and what a poor return for the hundreds of plants which I have received from Kew! I hope that I have not bothered you by writing so long a note, and I did not intend to do so.
If Asa Gray has returned with you, please give him my kindest remembrances.
LETTER 765. TO J.D. HOOKER. October 22nd, 1881.
I am investigating the action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll, which makes me want the plants in my list. (765/1. "The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on Chlorophyll Bodies." "Linn. Soc. Journ." XIX., page 262, 1882.) I have incidentally observed one point in Euphorbia, which has astonished me—viz. that in the fine fibrous roots of Euphorbia, the alternate rows of cells in their roots must differ physiologically, though not in external appearance, as their contents after the action of carbonate of ammonia differ most conspicuously...
Wiesner of Vienna has just published a vivisecting me in the most courteous, but awful manner, about the "Power of Movement in Plants." (765/2. See Letter 763, note.) Thank heaven, he admits almost all my facts, after re-trying all my experiments; but gives widely different interpretation of the facts. I think he proves me wrong in several cases, but I am convinced that he is utterly erroneous and fanciful in other explanations. No man was ever vivisected in so sweet a manner before, as I am in this
CHAPTER 2.XII.
VIVISECTION AND MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS, 1867-1882.
2.XII.I. VIVISECTION, 1875-1882. LETTER 766. TO LORD PLAYFAIR.
(766/1. A Bill was introduced to the House of Commons by Messrs. Lyon Playfair, Walpole and Ashley, in the spring of 1875, but was withdrawn on the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question. Some account of the Anti-Vivisection agitation, the introduction of bills, and the appointment of a Royal Commission is given in the "Life and Letters," III., page 201, where the more interesting of Darwin's letters on the question are published.)
Down, May 26th, 1875.
I hope that you will excuse my troubling you once again. I received some days ago a letter from Prof. Huxley, in Edinburgh, who says with respect to your Bill: "the professors here are all in arms about it, and as the papers have associated my name with the Bill, I shall have to repudiate it publicly, unless something can be done. But what in the world is to be done?" (766/2. The letter is published in full in Mr. L. Huxley's interesting chapter on the vivisection question in his father's "Life," I., page 438.) Dr. Burdon Sanderson is in nearly the same frame of mind about it. The newspapers take different views of the purport of the Bill, but it seems generally supposed that it would prevent demonstrations on animals rendered insensible, and this seems to me a monstrous provision. It would, moreover, probably defeat the end desired; for Dr. B. Sanderson, who demonstrates to his class on animals rendered insensible, told me that some of his students had declared to him that unless he had shown them what he had, they would have experimented on live animals for themselves. Certainly I do not believe that any one could thoroughly understand the action of the heart without having seen it in action. I do not doubt that you wish to aid the progress of Physiology, and at the same time save animals from all useless suffering; and in this case I believe that you could not do a greater service than to warn the Home Secretary with respect to the appointment of Royal Commissioners, that ordinary doctors know little or nothing about Physiology as a science, and are incompetent to judge of its high importance and of the probability of its hereafter conferring great benefits on mankind.
LETTER 767. TO LORD PLAYFAIR. Down, May 28th.
I must write one line to thank you for your very kind letter, and to say that, after despatching my last note, it suddenly occurred to me that I had been rude in calling one of the provisions of your Bill "monstrous" or "absurd"—I forget which. But when I wrote the expression it was addressed to the bigots who, I believed, had forced you to a compromise. I cannot understand what Dr. B. Sanderson could have been about not to have objected with respect to the clause of not demonstrating on animals rendered insensible. I am extremely sorry that you have had trouble and vexation on the subject. It is a most disagreeable and difficult one. I am not personally concerned, as I never tried an experiment on a living animal, nor am I a physiologist; but I know enough to see how ruinous it would be to stop all progress in so grand a science as Physiology. I commenced the agitation amongst the physiologists for this reason, and because I have long felt very keenly on the question of useless vivisection, and believed, though without any good evidence, that there was not always, even in this country, care enough taken. Pray forgive me this note, so much about myself...
LETTER 768. TO G.J. ROMANES.
(768/1. Published in "Life of Romanes," page 61, under 1876-77.)
Down, June 4th {1876}.
Your letter has made me as proud and conceited as ten peacocks. (768/2. This may perhaps refer to Darwin being elected the only honorary member of the Physiological Society, a fact that was announced in a letter from Romanes June 1st, 1876, published in the "Life" of Romanes, page 50. Dr. Sharpey was subsequently elected a second honorary member.) I am inclined to think that writing against the bigots about vivisection is as hopeless as stemming a torrent with a reed. Frank, who has just come here, and who sputters with indignation on the subject, takes an opposite line, and perhaps he is right; anyhow, he had the best of an argument with me on the subject...It seems to me the physiologists are now in the position of a persecuted religious sect, and they must grin and bear the persecution, however cruel and unjust, as well as they can.
This book is provided by FunNovel Novel Book | Fan Fiction Novel [Beautiful Free Novel Book]