FOOTNOTES:
[392] 'Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr.,' vol. vii, 1860, p. 587.
[393] 'Fragment. Phyt. Austral.,' part xx, p. 270.
[394] 'Bull. Acad. Belg.,' xvi, pt. i, p. 60, "Fuchsia," p. 125, c. ic.
[395] "Théorie de la feuille," 'Arch. des Sciences Bibl. Univers.,' 1868.
[396] See Engelmann, 'De Antholysi,' p. 16, section 12.
[397] Verhandl. des Botanisch. Vereins Brandenburg,' 1859, 1 heft.
[398] See Henslow. 'Mag. Nat, Hist.' 1832, vol. v, p. 429.
[399] 'Phytologist,' September, 1857.
[400] Seemann's 'Journal of Botany,' iv, p. 168, t. 47, f. 3.
[401] 'Illust. Hortic.,' 1866, misc., p. 97.
[402] See Fresenius, 'Mus. Senkenb.,' bd. 2, p. 43. Schlechtendal, 'Bot. Zeit.,' iv, pp. 403, 492, Veronica tetrandra.
[403] 'Flora,' 1865, tab. 6, fig. 8.
[404] 'Org. Veget.,' t. i, p. 497, pl. 42, f. 3.
[405] 'El. Ter. Veg.,' p. 354.
[406] Cited in "Rev. Bibl." of 'Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr.,' 1866, p. 171.
[407] Loc. cit., 351.
[408] 'Mém. Acad. Toulous.,' vi, 1862, ex 'Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr.,' "Rev. Bibl.," vol. ix, 1862. p. 127.
[409] 'Flora.' 1857. p. 289.
[410] L. c., p. 354.
[411] Giraud, 'Ed. Phil. Mag.,' Dec., 1839.
[412] See Cerasus Caproniana, D. C. 'Plant. Rar. Hort. Genev.,' tab. 18.
[413] Nees, 'Linnæa,' v, p. 679, tab. 11 (Schœnodorus).
[414] 'Gard. Chron.,' 1852, p. 452.
[415] See Cramer, 'Bildungsabweich.' pp. 16, 24.
[416] 'Linnæa,' 1842, p. 389, c. ic.
[417] Seemann's 'Journal of Botany,' 1867, vol. v, p. 158.
[418] Cramer, 'Bildungsabweich,' p. 66, Astrantia major, Eryngium, to which may be added Daucus, Heracleum, &c.
[419] See also Reinwardt, 'Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur.,' 12, 1, 37; and Masters, 'Journ. Linn. Soc.,' vi, p. 24.
[420] 'Organog. Veget.,' tab. 53.
[421] 'Missbild.,' p. 206.
[422] Ehrenberg, 'Flora,' 1846, p. 704.
[423] 'Flora,' 1860, tab. 7.
[424] 'Ann. Sc. Nat.,' 3 ser., t. x, p. 207.
[425] 'Mem. Mus.,' xii. t. 17.
[426] 'Nov. Act. Acad. Nat. Cur.,' xv, tab. xxviii, f. 3; 'Bot. Mag.,' t. 1622. "Caryophyllus spicam frumenti referens." A similar malformation in Dianthus barbatus is not uncommon. It has lately been introduced into gardens under the name of Dianthus "mousseux," but is not likely to find favour with gardeners.
[427] 'Bull. Soc. Bot. France,' t. vi, 1859. p. 268.
[428] Weber, 'Verhandl. Nat. Hist. Vereins. Rhein. Pruss.,' 1860.
[429] 'Bot. Zeit.,' 1848, p. 217.
[430] 'De Anthol.,' p. 17, § 12.
[431] 'Linnæa,' vol. ii, 1827, p. 85.
[432] 'De Antholysi,' p. 17, tab. iii, f. 15, 16; Weinmann, 'Phytanth. iconogr.,' nro. 292.
[433] See Hildebrand, 'Bot. Zeit.,' 1862, p. 209, tab. viii; Cramer, 'Bildungsabweich.,' p. 7, tab. xiii; Engelmann, 'De Antholysi,' p. 18, &c. For similar changes in Gagea arvensis see Wirtgen, 'Flora,' 1838, t. xxi. p. 350, and 'Flora.' 1846, p. 353. Some of these are cases of synanthy.
[434] Schlechtendal, 'Bot. Zeit.,' xx, 1862, p. 301.
[435] 'Phil. Bot.,' § 126.
[436] C. Morren, 'Bull. Acad. Belg.,' xix, part ii, p. 17.
[437] 'Seemann's Journal of Botany,' iii, p. 354.
[438] On this point the reader will find an excellent summary in Lindley's 'Vegetable Kingdom,' cd. iii, p. 183a, and in Darwin, 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' p. 292. See also Crüger,'Journ. Linn. Soc.,' t. viii, p. 134.
[439] 'Seemann's Journal of Botany,' vol. iv, p. 168, tab. 47.
[440] Ibid., t. iv. 1866, p. 168, t. xlvii, f. 1.
[441] 'Bildungsabweich,' p. 8; see also 'Bot. Zeit.,' 1852, p. 425.
[442] 'Journ. Linn. Soc.,' t. ii, p. 104. tab. 1, fig. B.
[443] Lindl., "Orchid. Ind.," 'Jour. Linn. Soc.,' iii, p. 9.
[444] 'Arch. Bot.,' ii, p. 300, tab. xvi, f. 11.
[445] 'Seemann's Journal of Botany,' v, p. 318, tab. lxxii, figs. A 4, 4 a.
[446] "Monstr. Veg.," in 'Neue Denkschrift,' p. 17, tab. vii.
[447] 'Flora,' t. viii, 1825, p. 736.
[448] 'Mem. Soc. d'Hist. Nat.,' ii, 1, p. 212, tab. iii.
[449] 'Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr.,' t. vii, 1860, p. 26.
[450] 'Beitr. Morphol. und Biol. Orchid.,' quoted by Cramer; 'Bildungsabweich,' p. 9.
[451] Masters, 'Journ. Linn. Soc.,' viii, p. 207. See also Rodigas, 'Bull. Soc. Bot. Belg.,' iv, p. 266, for similar changes in Cypripedium Hookeræ.
[452] Kirschleger, 'Flora,' 1844, p. 131.
[453] 'Bildungsabweich,' p. 11, tab. xiv, f. 3.
[454] 'Bull. Acad. Roy. Belg.,' t. xix, part 2, p. 171.
[455] 'Organogr. Végét.,' t. i, p. 509, tab. 40, figs. 6, 7.
[456] 'Flora,' 1856, p. 715.
[457] 'Linn. Trans.,' t. xxiii, p. 364, tab. 34, fig. 5.
[458] 'Monog. Polygon,' pl. 3, K. f. 12.
[459] 'Flora,' 1856, tab. viii.
[460] Ibid., 1865, tab. ix, f. 6.
[461] 'Adansonia,' vol. iv, 1864, p. 127.
[462] 'Ann. Nat. Hist.,' 1845, vol. xvi, p. 126.
[463] See Schlechtendal, 'Bot. Zeit.,' t. xviii, p. 381 (Triticum); also 'Flora,' t. xiv, 1831, p. 5 (Avena).
PART II.
DIMINISHED NUMBER OF ORGANS.
A diminution in the number of parts is generally due to suppression, using that word as the equivalent of non-development. It corresponds thus in meaning with the Fehlschlagen of the Germans, the avortement complète of Moquin and other French writers. It differs from atrophy, or partial abortion, inasmuch as the latter terms apply to instances wherein there has been a partial development, and in which evolution has gone on to a certain extent, but has, from some cause or other, been checked. These cases will be found under the head of diminished size of organs. As the word abortion is used by different authors in different ways, it is the more necessary to be as precise as possible in the application of the term. In the present work abortion is used to apply to cases wherein parts have been formed, but wherein growth has been arrested at a certain stage, and which, therefore, have either remained in statu quo, while the surrounding parts have increased, or have, from pressure or other causes, actually diminished in size.
In practice, however, it is not always possible to discriminate between those instances in which there has been a true suppression, an absolute non-development of any particular organ, and those in which it has been formed, and has grown for a time, but has afterwards ceased to do so, and has been gradually obliterated by the pressure exercised by the constantly increasing bulk of adjacent parts, or possibly has become incorporated with them. In the adult flower the appearances are the same, though the causes may have been different.
CHAPTER I.
SUPPRESSION OF AXILE ORGANS.
Absolute suppression of the main axis is tantamount to the non-existence of the plant, so that the terms "acaulescent," "acaulosia," etc, must be considered relatively only, and must be taken to signify an atrophied or diminished size of the stem, arising from the non-development of the internodes.
The absence of lateral branches or divisions of the axis is of frequent occurrence, and is dependent on such causes as the following:—deficient supply of nutriment, position against a wall or other obstacle, close crowding of individual plants, too great or too little light, too rich or too poor a soil, &c.
Probably the absence of the swollen portion below the flower in the case of many proliferous roses, double-flowered apples, as already referred to, may be dependent on the non-development of the extremity of the peduncle or flower-stalk. Thus, in a double-flowered apple recently examined, there was a sort of involucel of five perfect leaves, then five sepals surrounding an equal number of petals, numerous stamens, and five styles, but not a trace of an expanded axis, nor of any portion of the carpels, except the styles. The views taken as to the nature of this and similar malformations must depend on the opinion held as to the nature of inferior pistils, and on the share, if any, that the expanded axis takes in their production. As elsewhere said, the evidence furnished by teratology is conflicting, but there seems little or nothing to invalidate the notion that the end of the flower-stalk and the base of the calyx may, to a varying extent, in different cases, jointly be concerned in the formation of the so-called calyx-tube and of the inferior ovary. Obviously it is not proper to apply to all cases where there is an inferior ovary the same explanation as to how it is brought about.
As these pages are passing through the press, M. Casimir de Candolle has published a different explanation as to the nature of the hip of the rose, having been led to his opinion by the conclusion that he has arrived at, that the leaf is to be considered in the light of a flattened branch, whose upper or posterior surface is more or less completely atrophied.
According to M. de Candolle, the calyx-tube, in the case of the rose, is neither a whorl of leaves, nor a concave axis in the ordinary sense in which those terms are used, but is rather to be considered as a ring-like projection from an axis arrested in its ulterior development. The secondary projections from the original one correspond to an equal number of vascular bundles, and develope into the sepals, petals, stamens, and ovaries. If these organs remained in a rudimentary condition, the tube of the calyx would be reduced to the condition of a sheathing leaf. The rose flower, then, according to M. de Candolle, may be considered as a sheathing leaf, whose fibro-vascular system is complete, and from which all possible primary projections are developed.[464]
If, as M. de Candolle considers, the leaf and the branch differ merely in the fact that the vascular system is complete in the latter, and partly atrophied in the former, it would surely be better to consider the "calyx-tube" of the rose as a concave axis rather than as a leaf, seeing that he admits the fibro-vascular system to be complete in the case of the rose.
With reference to this point the reader is referred to Mr. Bentham's account of the morphology and homologies of the Myrtaceæ in the 'Journal of the Linnean Society,' vol. x, p. 105. See also ante, pp. 71, 77.
Some doubts also exist as to the nature of the beak or columella of such fruits as those of Geraniaceæ, Malvaceæ, Umbelliferæ, Euphorbiaceæ, &c. The nature of the organ in question may probably be different in the several orders named; at any rate the subject cannot be discussed in this place, and it is mentioned here because, now and then, it happens that the organ in question is completely wanting, and hence affords an illustration of suppression.