FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313  
314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   >>   >|  
chosen that whatever the result is they will be of value. But always remember that not one naturalist out of a dozen cares for really philosophical experiments. LETTER 645. TO J. SCOTT. Down, May 31st [1863]. I am unwell, and must write briefly. I am very much obliged for the "Courant." (645/1. The Edinburgh "Evening Courant" used to publish notices of the papers read at the Botanical Society of Edinburgh. The paper referred to here was Scott's on Oncidium.) The facts will be of highest use to me. I feel convinced that your paper will have permanent value. Your case seems excellently and carefully worked out. I agree that the alteration of title was unfortunate, but, after all, title does not signify very much. So few have attended to such points that I do not expect any criticism; but if so, I should think you had much better reply, but I could if you wished it much. I quite understand about the cases being individual sterility; so Gartner states it was with him. Would it be worth while to send a corrected copy of the "Courant" to the "Gardeners' Chronicle?" (645/2. An account of Scott's work appeared in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," June 13th, 1863, which is, at least partly, a reprint of the "Courant," since it contains the awkward sentence criticised by Darwin and referred to below. The title is "On the Fertilisation of Orchids," which was no doubt considered unfortunate as not suggesting the subject of the paper, and as being the same as that of Darwin's book.) I did not know that you had tried Lobelia fulgens: can you give me any particulars on the number of plants and kinds used, etc., that I may quote, as in a few days I shall be writing on this whole subject? No one will ever convince me that it is not a very important subject to philosophical naturalists. The Hibiscus seems a very curious case, and I agree with your remarks. You say that you are glad of criticisms (by the way avoid "former and latter," the reader is always forced to go back to look). I think you would have made the case more striking if you had first showed that the pollen of Oncidium sphacelatum was good; secondly, that the ovule was capable of fertilisation; and lastly, shown that the plant was impotent with its own pollen. "Impotence of organs capable of elimination"--capable here strictly refers to organs; you mean to impotence. To eliminate impotence is a curious expression; it is removing a non-existent quality. But style is a trifle
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313  
314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Courant

 

subject

 

capable

 

referred

 

pollen

 

Oncidium

 

curious

 

Chronicle

 

Gardeners

 
Darwin

unfortunate

 
organs
 
impotence
 

philosophical

 
Edinburgh
 

convince

 

particulars

 

plants

 
number
 

writing


removing

 

considered

 

quality

 
Orchids
 
Fertilisation
 

trifle

 

suggesting

 

existent

 

Lobelia

 

important


fulgens

 
striking
 

showed

 

fertilisation

 

lastly

 

impotent

 

forced

 

reader

 
remarks
 

Hibiscus


eliminate
 
naturalists
 

sphacelatum

 

refers

 

elimination

 

Impotence

 

strictly

 
criticisms
 

expression

 
sterility