FOOTNOTES:
[232] 'Amœn. Acad.,' i, p. 55, t. iii (1744):—The following note refers to Linné's notion that these forms were due to hybridization. It is extracted from Gmelin's edition of the 'Systema Naturæ,' 1791, p. 931. "Linariæ proles hybrida, ejusdemque qualitatis et constans, radicibus infinite sese multiplicans charactere fructificationis diversissima, corolla regulari, quinque-corniculata, pentandra, ut genus proprium absolute constitueret et distinctissimum, nisi fructus frequentissime abortiret. Naturæ prodigium. Ita quidem a Linné. Verisimilor autem videtur ea opinio, quæ peloriam pro peculiari degeneratione monstrosa floris habet, in quam inclinare hoc genus (Linaria) præ aliis, similis a forma deflexio in aliis speciebus, e.g. spurio Elatine, cymbalaria, observata, ... Merk., 'Goett. gel. Anz.,' 1774, n. 121. Linck, 'Annal. Naturg.,' i, p. 32."
[233] 'Bull. Acad. Belg.,' xviii, part i, p. 591. Lobelia, p. 137.
[234] See also Seringe, 'Esquisse d'une Monogr. du genre Aconitum,' p. 124.
[235] Schlotterbec, 'Act. Helvet.,' t. ii, pl. i, Roeper. Balsam, p. 10, note.
[236] Masters. "Peloria, &c., Ophrys aranifera," 'Journ. Linn. Soc.,' viii, p. 207.
[237] Godron, "Mém. sur les Fumarieès à fl. irreg.," 'Ann. Sc. Nat.,' sér. 5, vol. ii, tab. xvii, p. 280.
[238] 'Bull. Soc. Bot. France,' vol. v, 1858, p. 701.
[239] 'Bull. Soc. Bot. France,' vol. vi, 1859, p. 717.
[240] 'Variation of Anim. and Plants,' ii, p. 70.
[241] Loc. cit., p. 59.
[242] 'Théor. Elém.,' ed. 2, p. 266.
[243] Cited in 'Bull. Soc. Bot. France,' vol. xiii (Rev. Bibl.), p. 81.
PART III.
METAMORPHY.
Much of the objection with which Goethe's famous essay on the 'Metamorphosis of Plants' was met on its publication may be traced to a misapprehension of the sense in which Goethe employed the word. As used by him, it had nearly the same signification as now applied to the word development by organogenists. It does not necessarily imply that there has been a change in any particular organ, but rather that there has been, to some extent, a change in the plan of construction, in accordance with which a deviation from the customary form results. The particular organ was never anything else than what it is; it has not been metamorphosed in the ordinary sense of the word; for instance, in a double flower, where the stamens are, as it is said, changed or metamorphosed into petals, no absolute change really has taken place—the petal was never a stamen, although it occupies the position of the latter, and may be considered a substitute for it.
The term metamorphosis, then, really implies an alteration in the organizing force, taking effect at a very early period of the life of the flower, at or before the period when the primitive aggregation of cells, of which it is at that time composed, becomes separated or "differentiated" into the several parts of the flower. In other words, the "development" of the flower pursues a different course from what is usual. In the preceding sections the effects of arrest and of excess in this process have been partly treated of; other deviations arising from similar causes will be mentioned elsewhere, but, under the present heading, are specially included cases not of merely diminished or increased, but of perverted development; the natural process is here not necessarily checked or enhanced, but it is changed. Hence, in the present work, the term metamorphy is employed to distinguish cases where the ordinary course of development has been perverted or changed. As it is applied solely for teratological purposes, the ordinary acceptation of the term, as nearly synonymous with "development," is not interfered with.
In order to avoid other possible misapprehensions, the terms retrograde and progressive metamorphosis employed by Goethe are not herein used, their place being, to a great extent, supplied by the more intelligible expressions arrest or excess of development.[244]