Charles Darwin: His Life in an Autobiographical Chapter Part 41

For a statement of the scope and influence of my father's botanical work, I may refer to Mr. Thiselton Dyer's article in 'Charles Darwin,'

one of the _Nature Series_. Mr. Dyer's wide knowledge, his friends.h.i.+p with my father, and his power of sympathising with the work of others, combine to give this essay a permanent value. The following pa.s.sage (p.

43) gives a true picture:--

"Notwithstanding the extent and variety of his botanical work, Mr.

Darwin always disclaimed any right to be regarded as a professed botanist. He turned his attention to plants, doubtless because they were convenient objects for studying organic phenomena in their least complicated forms; and this point of view, which, if one may use the expression without disrespect, had something of the amateur about it, was in itself of the greatest importance. For, from not being, till he took up any point, familiar with the literature bearing on it, his mind was absolutely free from any prepossession. He was never afraid of his facts, or of framing any hypothesis, however startling, which seemed to explain them.... In any one else such an att.i.tude would have produced much work that was crude and rash. But Mr. Darwin--if one may venture on language which will strike no one who had conversed with him as over-strained--seemed by gentle persuasion to have penetrated that reserve of nature which baffles smaller men. In other words, his long experience had given him a kind of instinctive insight into the method of attack of any biological problem, however unfamiliar to him, while he rigidly controlled the fertility of his mind in hypothetical explanations by the no less fertility of ingeniously devised experiment."

To form any just idea of the greatness of the revolution worked by my father's researches in the study of the fertilisation of flowers, it is necessary to know from what a condition this branch of knowledge has emerged. It should be remembered that it was only during the early years of the present century that the idea of s.e.x, as applied to plants, became firmly established. Sachs, in his _History of Botany_[270]

(1875), has given some striking ill.u.s.trations of the remarkable slowness with which its acceptance gained ground. He remarks that when we consider the experimental proofs given by Camerarius (1694), and by Kolreuter (1761-66), it appears incredible that doubts should afterwards have been raised as to the s.e.xuality of plants. Yet he shows that such doubts did actually repeatedly crop up. These adverse criticisms rested for the most part on careless experiments, but in many cases on _a priori_ arguments. Even as late as 1820, a book of this kind, which would now rank with circle squaring, or flat-earth philosophy, was seriously noticed in a botanical journal. A distinct conception of s.e.x, as applied to plants, had, in fact, not long emerged from the mists of profitless discussion and feeble experiment, at the time when my father began botany by attending Henslow's lectures at Cambridge.

When the belief in the s.e.xuality of plants had become established as an incontrovertible piece of knowledge, a weight of misconception remained, weighing down any rational view of the subject. Camerarius[271] believed (naturally enough in his day) that hermaphrodite[272] flowers are necessarily self-fertilised. He had the wit to be astonished at this, a degree of intelligence which, as Sachs points out, the majority of his successors did not attain to.

The following extracts from a note-book show that this point occurred to my father as early as 1837:

"Do not plants which have male and female organs together [_i.e._ in the same flower] yet receive influence from other plants? Does not Lyell give some argument about varieties being difficult to keep [true] on account of pollen from other plants? Because this may be applied to show all plants do receive intermixture."

Sprengel,[273] indeed, understood that the hermaphrodite structure of flowers by no means necessarily leads to self-fertilisation. But although he discovered that in many cases pollen is of necessity carried to the stigma of another _flower_, he did not understand that in the advantage gained by the intercrossing of distinct _plants_ lies the key to the whole question. Hermann Muller[274] has well remarked that this "omission was for several generations fatal to Sprengel's work.... For both at the time and subsequently, botanists felt above all the weakness of his theory, and they set aside, along with his defective ideas, the rich store of his patient and acute observations and his comprehensive and accurate interpretations." It remained for my father to convince the world that the meaning hidden in the structure of flowers was to be found by seeking light in the same direction in which Sprengel, seventy years before, had laboured. Robert Brown was the connecting link between them, for it was at his recommendation that my father in 1841 read Sprengel's now celebrated _Secret of Nature Displayed_.[275]

The book impressed him as being "full of truth," although "with some little nonsense." It not only encouraged him in kindred speculation, but guided him in his work, for in 1844 he speaks of verifying Sprengel's observations. It may be doubted whether Robert Brown ever planted a more fruitful seed than in putting such a book into such hands.

A pa.s.sage in the _Autobiography_ (p. 44) shows how it was that my father was attracted to the subject of fertilisation: "During the summer of 1839, and I believe during the previous summer, I was led to attend to the cross-fertilisation of flowers by the aid of insects, from having come to the conclusion in my speculations on the origin of species, that crossing played an important part in keeping specific forms constant."

The original connection between the study of flowers and the problem of evolution is curious, and could hardly have been predicted. Moreover, it was not a permanent bond. My father proved by a long series of laborious experiments, that when a plant is fertilised and sets seeds under the influence of pollen from a distinct individual, the offspring so produced are superior in vigour to the offspring of self-fertilisation, _i.e._ of the union of the male and female elements of a single plant.

When this fact was established, it was possible to understand the _raison d'etre_ of the machinery which insures cross-fertilisation in so many flowers; and to understand how natural selection can act on, and mould, the floral structure.

Asa Gray has well remarked with regard to this central idea (_Nature_, June 4, 1874):--"The aphorism, 'Nature abhors a vacuum,' is a characteristic specimen of the science of the middle ages. The aphorism, 'Nature abhors close fertilisation,' and the demonstration of the principle, belong to our age and to Mr. Darwin. To have originated this, and also the principle of Natural Selection ... and to have applied these principles to the system of nature, in such a manner as to make, within a dozen years, a deeper impression upon natural history than has been made since Linnaeus, is ample t.i.tle for one man's fame."

The flowers of the Papilionaceae[276] attracted his attention early, and were the subject of his first paper on fertilisation.[277] The following extract from an undated letter to Asa Gray seems to have been written before the publication of this paper, probably in 1856 or 1857:--

" ... What you say on Papilionaceous flowers is very true; and I have no facts to show that varieties are crossed; but yet (and the same remark is applicable in a beautiful way to Fumaria and Dielytra, as I noticed many years ago), I must believe that the flowers are constructed partly in direct relation to the visits of insects; and how insects can avoid bringing pollen from other individuals I cannot understand. It is really pretty to watch the action of a humble-bee on the scarlet kidney bean, and in this genus (and in _Lathyrus grandiflorus_)[278] the honey is so placed that the bee invariably alights on that _one_ side of the flower towards which the spiral pistil is protruded (bringing out with it pollen), and by the depression of the wing-petal is forced against the bee's side all dusted with pollen. In the broom the pistil is rubbed on the centre of the back of the bee. I suspect there is something to be made out about the Leguminosae, which will bring the case within _our_ theory; though I have failed to do so. Our theory will explain why in the vegetable ... kingdom the act of fertilisation even in hermaphrodites usually takes place _sub jove_, though thus exposed to _great_ injury from damp and rain."

A letter to Dr. Asa Gray (September 5th, 1857) gives the substance of the paper in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_:--

"Lately I was led to examine buds of kidney bean with the pollen shed; but I was led to believe that the pollen could _hardly_ get on the stigma by wind or otherwise, except by bees visiting [the flower] and moving the wing petals: hence I included a small bunch of flowers in two bottles in every way treated the same: the flowers in one I daily just momentarily moved, as if by a bee; these set three fine pods, the other _not one_. Of course this little experiment must be tried again, and this year in England it is too late, as the flowers seem now seldom to set. If bees are necessary to this flower's self-fertilisation, bees must almost cross them, as their dusted right-side of head and right legs constantly touch the stigma.

"I have, also, lately been reobserving daily _Lobelia fulgens_--this in my garden is never visited by insects, and never sets seeds, without pollen be put on the stigma (whereas the small blue Lobelia is visited by bees and does set seed); I mention this because there are such beautiful contrivances to prevent the stigma ever getting its own pollen; which seems only explicable on the doctrine of the advantage of crosses."

The paper was supplemented by a second in 1858.[279] The chief object of these publications seems to have been to obtain information as to the possibility of growing varieties of Leguminous plants near each other, and yet keeping them true. It is curious that the Papilionaceae should not only have been the first flowers which attracted his attention by their obvious adaptation to the visits of insects, but should also have const.i.tuted one of his sorest puzzles. The common pea and the sweet pea gave him much difficulty, because, although they are as obviously fitted for insect-visits as the rest of the order, yet their varieties keep true. The fact is that neither of these plants being indigenous, they are not perfectly adapted for fertilisation by British insects. He could not, at this stage of his observations, know that the co-ordination between a flower and the particular insect which fertilises it may be as delicate as that between a lock and its key, so that this explanation was not likely to occur to him.

Besides observing the Leguminosae, he had already begun, as shown in the foregoing extracts, to attend to the structure of other flowers in relation to insects. At the beginning of 1860 he worked at Leschenaultia,[280] which at first puzzled him, but was ultimately made out. A pa.s.sage in a letter chiefly relating to Leschenaultia seems to show that it was only in the spring of 1860 that he began widely to apply his knowledge to the relation of insects to other flowers. This is somewhat surprising, when we remember that he had read Sprengel many years before. He wrote (May 14):--

"I should look at this curious contrivance as specially related to visits of insects; as I begin to think is almost universally the case."

Even in July 1862 he wrote to Asa Gray:--

"There is no end to the adaptations. Ought not these cases to make one very cautious when one doubts about the use of all parts? I fully believe that the structure of all irregular flowers is governed in relation to insects. Insects are the Lords of the floral (to quote the witty _Athenaeum_) world."

This idea has been worked out by H. Muller, who has written on insects in the character of flower-breeders or flower-fanciers, showing how the habits and structure of the visitors are reflected in the forms and colours of the flowers visited.

He was probably attracted to the study of Orchids by the fact that several kinds are common near Down. The letters of 1860 show that these plants occupied a good deal of his attention; and in 1861 he gave part of the summer and all the autumn to the subject. He evidently considered himself idle for wasting time on Orchids which ought to have been given to _Variation under Domestication_. Thus he wrote:--

"There is to me incomparably more interest in observing than in writing; but I feel quite guilty in trespa.s.sing on these subjects, and not sticking to varieties of the confounded c.o.c.ks, hens and ducks. I hear that Lyell is savage at me."

It was in the summer of 1860 that he made out one of the most striking and familiar facts in the Orchid-book, namely, the manner in which the pollen ma.s.ses are adapted for removal by insects. He wrote to Sir J. D.

Hooker, July 12:--

"I have been examining _Orchis pyramidalis_, and it almost equals, perhaps even beats, your Listera case; the sticky glands are congenitally united into a saddle-shaped organ, which has great power of movement, and seizes hold of a bristle (or proboscis) in an admirable manner, and then another movement takes place in the pollen ma.s.ses, by which they are beautifully adapted to leave pollen on the two lateral stigmatic surfaces. I never saw anything so beautiful."

In June of the same year he wrote:--

"You speak of adaptation being rarely visible, though present in plants.

I have just recently been looking at the common Orchis, and I declare I think its adaptations in every part of the flower quite as beautiful and plain, or even more beautiful than in the woodp.e.c.k.e.r."[281]

He wrote also to Dr. Gray, June 8, 1860:--

"Talking of adaptation, I have lately been looking at our common orchids, and I dare say the facts are as old and well-known as the hills, but I have been so struck with admiration at the contrivances, that I have sent a notice to the _Gardeners' Chronicle_."

Besides attending to the fertilisation of the flowers he was already, in 1860, busy with the h.o.m.ologies of the parts, a subject of which he made good use in the Orchid book. He wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (July):--

"It is a real good joke my discussing h.o.m.ologies of Orchids with you, after examining only three or four genera; and this very fact makes me feel positive I am right! I do not quite understand some of your terms; but sometime I must get you to explain the h.o.m.ologies; for I am intensely interested in the subject, just as at a game of chess."

This work was valuable from a systematic point of view. In 1880 he wrote to Mr. Bentham:--

"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."

The pleasure which his early observations on Orchids gave him is shown in such pa.s.sages as the following from a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker (July 27, 1861):--

"You cannot conceive how the Orchids have delighted me. They came safe, but box rather smashed; cylindrical old cocoa-or snuff-canister much safer. I enclose postage. As an account of the movement, I shall allude to what I suppose is Oncidium, to make _certain_,--is the enclosed flower with crumpled petals this genus? Also I most specially want to know what the enclosed little globular brown Orchid is. I have only seen pollen of a Cattleya on a bee, but surely have you not unintentionally sent me what I wanted most (after Catasetum or Mormodes), viz., one of the Epidendreae?! I _particularly_ want (and will presently tell you why) another spike of this little Orchid, with older flowers, some even almost withered."

His delight in observation is again shown in a letter to Dr. Gray (1863). Referring to Cruger's letters from Trinidad, he wrote:--"Happy man, he has actually seen crowds of bees flying round Catasetum, with the pollinia sticking to their backs!"

The following extracts of letters to Sir J. D. Hooker ill.u.s.trate further the interest which his work excited in him:--

"Veitch sent me a grand lot this morning. What wonderful structures!

"I have now seen enough, and you must not send me more, for though I enjoy looking at them _much_, and it has been very useful to me, seeing so many different forms, it is idleness. For my object each species requires studying for days. I wish you had time to take up the group. I would give a good deal to know what the rostellum is, of which I have traced so many curious modifications. I suppose it cannot be one of the stigmas,[282] there seems a great tendency for two lateral stigmas to appear. My paper, though touching on only subordinate points will run, I fear, to 100 MS. folio pages! The beauty of the adaptation of parts seems to me unparalleled. I should think or guess waxy pollen was most differentiated. In Cypripedium which seems least modified, and a much exterminated group, the grains are single. In _all others_, as far as I have seen, they are in packets of four; and these packets cohere into many wedge-formed ma.s.ses in Orchis; into eight, four, and finally two.

It seems curious that a flower should exist, which could _at most_ fertilise only two other flowers, seeing how abundant pollen generally is; this fact I look at as explaining the perfection of the contrivance by which the pollen, so important from its fewness, is carried from flower to flower"[283](1861).

"I was thinking of writing to you to-day, when your note with the Orchids came. What frightful trouble you have taken about Vanilla; you really must not take an atom more; for the Orchids are more play than real work. I have been much interested by Epidendrum, and have worked all morning at them; for Heaven's sake, do not corrupt me by any more"

(August 30, 1861).

He originally intended to publish his notes on Orchids as a paper in the Linnean Society's _Journal_, but it soon became evident that a separate volume would be a more suitable form of publication. In a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker, Sept. 24, 1861, he writes:--

"I have been acting, I fear that you will think, like a goose; and perhaps in truth I have. When I finished a few days ago my Orchis paper, which turns out one hundred and forty folio pages!! and thought of the expense of woodcuts, I said to myself, I will offer the Linnean Society to withdraw it, and publish it in a pamphlet. It then flashed on me that perhaps Murray would publish it, so I gave him a cautious description, and offered to share risks and profits. This morning he writes that he will publish and take all risks, and share profits and pay for all ill.u.s.trations. It is a risk, and Heaven knows whether it will not be a dead failure, but I have not deceived Murray, and [have] told him that it would interest those alone who cared much for natural history. I hope I do not exaggerate the curiosity of the many special contrivances."

And again on September 28th:--

"What a good soul you are not to sneer at me, but to pat me on the back.

I have the greatest doubt whether I am not going to do, in publis.h.i.+ng my paper, a most ridiculous thing. It would annoy me much, but only for Murray's sake, if the publication were a dead failure."