THE STRAWBERRY CONTROVERSY.
The communication of Mr. Meehan to the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, seems to have excited the opposition of all those persons, and we believe they are the majority, who have settled the question to their own satisfaction, that the Strawberry is either pistillate or staminate, and unchangeably so. Mr. Meehan has produced his plants (of Hovey’s Seedling), with staminate flowers. The Strawberry cultivators pronounce them (in the teeth of Mr. M’s assertion that they are runners from pistillate plants,) to be not Hovey’s, but another variety. Some others talk of the absurdity of plants being fruitful without fertilization, which, whether absurd or not, Mr. M. does not claim for his plants; we have seen nothing yet on that side in the way of argument, it is all assertion;—The Cinn. Hort. Society, formally pronounced it impossible, and with them there is no appeal from their “ipse dixit.”
In the last number of the Farm. Journal, we have a letter, which we suppose is from the eminent botanist of that region, which we copy, as suggesting many reasons why Mr. Meehan may be right.
The statement of Mr. Meehan, in the April number of the Farm Journal, alleging that he has observed the sexual characters of the Strawberry flowers to be variously modified by culture, or different methods of treatment—has elicited some strong asseverations of opinion, in contradiction to that allegation of fact. One writer unhesitatingly declares the alleged change to be “utterly impossible:” and I understand that in the Queen City of the West, they have had a public gathering, to deliberate on the subject, which resulted in a Pronunciamento adverse to Mr. Meehan’s statement,—his facts and observations being rejected by a clear majority of the voters present! The matter being thus settled, by preamble and resolution after the manner of political difficulties at a war-meeting, it may seem to be out of order, now, to offer any remarks on the controverted topic. Nevertheless, as this is reputed to be a Free Country, I should like to be indulged with the privilege of submitting a few suggestions,—if not in arrest of judgement, at least as a plea in mitigation of the sentence, against my friend Meehan. It is the remark of a vigorous and sagacious modern writer, that “no scientific question was ever yet settled dogmatically, nor ever will;” and I think the same may be especially predicated of questions of fact, in Natural History. I may here observe, that I was favored with the opportunity of examining one of Mr. Meehan’s specimens,—in which there were certainly two scapes from the same root—one bearing a cyme of pistillate flowers (with minute rudiments of abortive stamens,) and the other a cyme of perfect, or hermaphrodite flowers: and whether the specimen was the progeny of a pistillate, a staminate, or a hermaphrodite plant, I should think the inference plausible, that the flowers on at least one of these two cymes, must have been a modification, or altered product, of the parent plant. It is this kind of change, in the character of the flowers, which I understand Mr. Meehan to announce, as having occurred in plants under his management. Now, in view of the countless modifications daily observable in the organs of plants—and especially in the floral organs—I can perceive no sufficient ground for declaring the changes, reported by Mr. Meehan, to be “utterly impossible.” The modifications here referred to, are a very different thing from the alleged transmutation of one kind to another,—which is vulgarly supposed to take place in certain plants, just as the Alchemists formerly pretended was affected among the metals. They merely alter the texture, distort the forms, or affect the developements of organs; but do neither change nor annihilate those essential characteristics, by which the plant is rendered permanently distinct from every other genus and species. The floral organs of many plants are remarkably subject to modification, under the long-continued influences of soil, climate, and culture, or management. Some flowers are rendered double, as it is termed, by the expansion of stamens into petals; others become imperfect, and even neutral, by the abortion or blighting of the stamens, or pistils, or both. The Strawberry appears to be very liable to this kind of blight; and hence the much talked of sorts, among cultivators, of pistillates, and staminates,—though in all the pistillate flowers, which I have examined, there were vestiges more or less obvious, of abortive stamens, on the rim of the calyx. It also varies much, under culture, in some other features,—especially in the developement and character or quality of the receptacle, or what is commonly regarded as fruit: but no one, I believe, has yet seen a Strawberry plant transmuted into a Cinquefoil, though so nearly allied in habit. The organs of plants may be greatly disguised by the influences above mentioned; but still the essential distinguishing traits are preserved,—and there seems to be no insuperable obstacle to prevent a plant, with modified or abortive organs, from reverting, under a change of circumstances, to its original condition, and resuming its pristine form and character. The normal, or what may be called the constitutional character of the Strawberry-flower, is to be perfect—i. e. furnished with both stamens and pistils (possibly such may be the true normal structure of all flowers); and although many other plants, as the Strawberry, are found with imperfect, and even neutral flowers,—every Naturalist and careful observer knows, that there is often an obvious effort and tendency, in such flowers, to a more complete development: i. e. to become perfect and regular. We occasionally see diandrous flowers become didynamous,—and didynamous plants developing regular petandrous flowers; and it is not at all unusual to find the staminate tassel of the cultivated Maize (Zea Mays, L. a monoicous plant,) bearing fertile flowers, and exhibiting a very successful attempt at the production of an Ear—or cluster of Ears—of Indian corn. These instances, I trust (for it is needless to multiply them,) may suffice to show that there is nothing irrational, nor incredible, in Mr. Meehan’s observations; and that it is rather strong phraseology, to declare such phenomena to be “utterly impossible.” The polemic writers on this Strawberry question, speak of the necessity of staminate plants among the pistillate, to produce, or perfect the fruit. No doubt, the pistils must be fertilized, in order to produce seeds that will vegetate. But what do those gentlemen understand, by the “fruit?” Do they mean the little single-seeded akenes or nutlets, which are sprinkled over the enlarged pulpy receptacle,—or do they refer to the receptacle itself, which in popular parlance is intended by the term “fruit?” If they have reference to the real fruit—the nutlets which contain the seed,—there is probably no question (as already intimated) about the necessity of staminate influence to produce perfect fruit. But I have a suspicion, that by the term “fruit,” they mean the delicious receptacle which bears the fruit, and if they mean to allege that the pistils must be fertilized by the stamens, in order to produce that enlargement of the receptacle which affords an esculent substitute for fruit,—then I have only to say, it is a question of fact which I have had no adequate opportunity to determine; and concerning which I, for one, should be happy to receive reliable information. To ascertain the point satisfactorily, would require very careful experiments and observations. Whether such have been made, I am not informed. I may remark, however, by way of analogy, that there are instances in which pistils, and even receptacles, are enlarged, where no staminate influence has been exerted. The conglomorate coalescent pistils of the Osage Orange (Maclura,) for example, attain to their full natural size (although the seeds are necessarily imperfect,) where no staminate plant is in the neighborhood; and, what affords a closer analogy, the including receptacle of the pistillate Fig is fully developed; when entirely free from any staminate influence. Whether the receptacle of the Strawberry ever enlarges, without the pistils being fertilized, (as already stated,) is more than I can tell; but I feel well assured, that any competent authority, who may furnish the information, will make an acceptable contribution to physiological Botany.
W. D.
West Chester, June 6, 1853.