CONCLUDING REMARKS AND SUMMARY OF CHAPTER.
We do not know whether it is a general rule with seedling plants that the illumination of the upper part determines the curvature of the lower part. But as this occurred in the four species examined by us, belonging to such distinct families as the Gramineæ, Cruciferae, and Chenopodeae, it is probably of common occurrence. It can hardly fail to be of service to seedlings, by aiding them to find the shortest path from the buried seed to the light, on nearly the same principle that the eyes of most of the lower crawling animals are seated at the anterior ends of their bodies. It is extremely doubtful whether with fully developed plants the illumination of one part ever affects the curvature of another part. The summits of 5 young plants of Asparagus officinalis (varying in height between 1.1 and 2.7 inches, and consisting of several short internodes) were covered with caps of tin-foil from 0.3 to 0.35 inch in depth; and the lower uncovered parts became as much curved towards a lateral light, as were the free seedlings in the same pots. Other seedlings of the same plant had their summits painted with Indian ink with the same negative result. Pieces of blackened paper were gummed to the edges and over the blades of some leaves on young plants of Tropaeolum majus and Ranunculus ficaria; these were then placed in a box before a window, and the petioles of the protected leaves became curved towards the light, as much as those of the unprotected leaves.
The foregoing cases with respect to seedling plants have been fully described, not only because the transmission of any effect from light is a new physiological fact, but because we think it tends to modify somewhat the current views on heliotropic movements. Until lately such movements were believed to result simply from increased growth on the shaded side. At present it is commonly admitted[[7]] that diminished light increases the turgescence of the cells, or the extensibility of the cell-walls, or of both together, on the shaded side, and that this is followed by increased growth. But Pfeffer has shown that a difference in the turgescence on the two sides of a pulvinus,—that is, an aggregate of small cells which have ceased to grow at an early age,—is excited by a difference in the amount of light received by the two sides; and that movement is thus caused without being followed by increased growth on the more turgescent side.[[8]] All observers apparently believe that light acts directly on the part which bends, but we have seen with the above described seedlings that this is not the case. Their lower halves were brightly illuminated for hours, and yet did not bend in the least towards the light, though this is the part which under ordinary circumstances bends the most. It is a still more striking fact, that the faint illumination of a narrow stripe on one side of the upper part of the cotyledons of Phalaris determined the direction of the curvature of the lower part; so that this latter part did not bend towards the bright light by which it had been fully illuminated, but obliquely towards one side where only a little light entered. These results seem to imply the presence of some matter in the upper part which is acted on by light, and which transmits its effects to the lower part. It has been shown that this transmission is independent of the bending of the upper sensitive part. We have an analogous case of transmission in Drosera, for when a gland is irritated, the basal and not the upper or intermediate part of the tentacle bends. The flexible and sensitive filament of Dionaea likewise transmits a stimulus, without itself bending; as does the stem of Mimosa.
[7] Emil Godlewski has given (‘Bot. Zeitung,’ 1879, Nos. 6–9) an excellent account (p. 120) of the present state of the question. See also Vines in ‘Arbeiten des Bot. Inst. in Würzburg,’ 1878, B. ii. pp. 114–147. Hugo de Vries has recently published a still more important article on this subject: ‘Bot Zeitung,’ Dec. 19th and 26th, 1879.
[8] ‘Die Periodischen Bewegungen der Blattorgane,’ 1875, pp. 7, 63, 123, etc. Frank has also insisted (‘Die Naturliche wägerechte Richtung von Pflanzentheilen,’ 1870, p. 53) on the important part which the pulvini of the leaflets of compound leaves play in placing the leaflets in a proper position with respect to the light. This holds good, especially with the leaves of climbing plants, which are carried into all sorts of positions, ill-adapted for the action of the light.
Light exerts a powerful influence on most vegetable tissues, and there can be no doubt that it generally tends to check their growth. But when the two sides of a plant are illuminated in a slightly different degree, it does not necessarily follow that the bending towards the illuminated side is caused by changes in the tissues of the same nature as those which lead to increased growth in darkness. We know at least that a part may bend from the light, and yet its growth may not be favoured by light. This is the case with the radicles of Sinapis alba, which are plainly apheliotropic; nevertheless, they grow quicker in darkness than in light.[[9]] So it is with many aërial roots, according to Wiesner;[[10]] but there are other opposed cases. It appears, therefore, that light does not determine the growth of apheliotropic parts in any uniform manner.
[9] Francis Darwin, ‘Über das Wachsthum negativ heliotropischer Wurzeln’: ‘Arbeiten des Bot. Inst. in Würzburg,’ B. ii., Heft iii., 1880, p. 521.
[10] ‘Sitzb. der k. Akad. der Wissensch’ (Vienna), 1880, p. 12.
We should bear in mind that the power of bending to the light is highly beneficial to most plants. There is therefore no improbability in this power having been specially acquired. In several respects light seems to act on plants in nearly the same manner as it does on animals by means of the nervous system.[[11]] With seedlings the effect, as we have just seen, is transmitted from one part to another. An animal may be excited to move by a very small amount of light; and it has been shown that a difference in the illumination of the two sides of the cotyledons of Phalaris, which could not be distinguished by the human eye, sufficed to cause them to bend. It has also been shown that there is no close parallelism between the amount of light which acts on a plant and its degree of curvature; it was indeed hardly possible to perceive any difference in the curvature of some seedlings of Phalaris exposed to a light, which, though dim, was very much brighter than that to which others had been exposed. The retina, after being stimulated by a bright light, feels the effect for some time; and Phalaris continued to bend for nearly half an hour towards the side which had been illuminated. The retina cannot perceive a dim light after it has been exposed to a bright one; and plants which had been kept in the daylight during the previous day and morning, did not move so soon towards an obscure lateral light as did others which had been kept in complete darkness.
[11] Sachs has made some striking remarks to the same effect with respect to the various stimuli which excite movement in plants. See his paper ‘Ueber orthotrope und plagiotrope Pflanzentheile,’ ‘Arb. des Bot. Inst. in Würzburg,’ 1879, B. ii. p. 282.