FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   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   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   >>   >|  
ll the petals were irregularly formed. This seems at least to me a priori a more probable view than to look at one form of Peloria as due to reversion and the other as something distinct. (660/4. See Maxwell Masters, "Vegetable Teratology," 1869, page 235; "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume II., page 33.) What do you think of this notion? LETTER 661. TO P.H. GOSSE. (661/1. The following was written in reply to Mr. Gosse's letter of May 30th asking for a solution of his difficulties in fertilising Stanhopea. It is reprinted by the kind permission of Mr. Edmund Gosse from his delightful book, the "Life of Philip Henry Gosse," London, 1890, page 299.) Down, June 2nd, 1863. It would give me real pleasure to resolve your doubts, but I cannot. I can give only suspicions and my grounds for them. I should think the non-viscidity of the stigmatic hollow was due to the plant not living under its natural conditions. Please see what I have said on Acropera. An excellent observer, Mr. J. Scott, of the Botanical Gardens, Edinburgh, finds all that I say accurate, but, nothing daunted, he with the knife enlarged the orifice and forced in pollen-masses; or he simply stuck them into the contracted orifice without coming into contact with the stigmatic surface, which is hardly at all viscid, when, lo and behold, pollen-tubes were emitted and fine seed capsules obtained. This was effected with Acropera Loddigesii; but I have no doubt that I have blundered badly about A. luteola. I mention all this because, as Mr. Scott remarks, as the plant is in our hot-houses, it is quite incredible it ever could be fertilised in its native land. The whole case is an utter enigma to me. Probably you are aware that there are cases (and it is one of the oddest facts in Physiology) of plants which, under culture, have their sexual functions in so strange a condition, that though their pollen and ovules are in a sound state and can fertilise and be fertilised by distinct but allied species, they cannot fertilise themselves. Now, Mr. Scott has found this the case with certain orchids, which again shows sexual disturbance. He had read a paper at the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, and I daresay an abstract which I have seen will appear in the "Gardeners' Chronicle"; but blunders have crept in in copying, and parts are barely intelligible. How insects act with your Stanhopea I will not pretend to conjecture. In many cases I belie
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   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   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

pollen

 

sexual

 

Acropera

 

Botanical

 

Edinburgh

 

orifice

 

stigmatic

 

fertilise

 

fertilised

 
Stanhopea

distinct

 
Loddigesii
 
blundered
 

effected

 
barely
 

capsules

 

obtained

 

copying

 
luteola
 

mention


Chronicle

 

blunders

 

emitted

 
contact
 
surface
 

conjecture

 

allied

 

coming

 

contracted

 

viscid


behold

 
intelligible
 

insects

 

pretend

 

remarks

 

orchids

 

Physiology

 

disturbance

 
oddest
 

plants


ovules
 
strange
 

condition

 

functions

 

culture

 

Probably

 

abstract

 
incredible
 

houses

 
species