Insectivorous Plants

by Charles Darwin

CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE DROSERACEÆ.

The six known genera composing this family have now been described in relation to our present subject, as far as my means have permitted. They all capture insects. This is effected by Drosophyllum, Roridula, and Byblis, solely by the viscid fluid secreted from their glands; by Drosera, through the same means, together with the movements of the tentacles; by Dionaea and Aldrovanda, through the closing of the blades of the leaf. In these two last genera rapid

* My son Francis counted the hairs on a space measured by means of a micrometer, and found that there were 35,336 on a square inch of the upper surface of a leaf, and 30,035 on the lower surface; that is, in about the proportion of 100 on the upper to 85 on the lower surface. On a square inch of both surfaces there were 65,371 hairs. A moderately fine plant bearing twelve leaves (the larger ones being a little more than 2 inches in diameter) was now selected, and the area of all the leaves, together with their foot-stalks (the flower-stems not being included), was found by a planimeter to be 39.285 square inches; so that the area of both surfaces was 78.57 square inches. Thus the plant (excluding the flower-stems) must have borne the astonishing number of 2,568,099 glandular hairs. The hairs were counted late in the autumn, and by the following spring (May) the leaves of some other plants of the same lot were found to be from one-third to one-fourth broader and longer than they were before; so that no doubt the glandular hairs had increased in number, and probably now much exceeded three millions. [page 356]

movement makes up for the loss of viscid secretion. In every case it is some part of the leaf which moves. In Aldrovanda it appears to be the basal parts alone which contract and carry with them the broad, thin margins of the lobes. In Dionaea the whole lobe, with the exception of the marginal prolongations or spikes, curves inwards, though the chief seat of movement is near the midrib. In Drosera the chief seat is in the lower part of the tentacles, which, homologically, may be considered as prolongations of the leaf; but the whole blade often curls inwards, converting the leaf into a temporary stomach.

There can hardly be a doubt that all the plants belonging to these six genera have the power of dissolving animal matter by the aid of their secretion, which contains an acid, together with a ferment almost identical in nature with pepsin; and that they afterwards absorb the matter thus digested. This is certainly the case with Drosera, Drosophyllum, and Dionaea; almost certainly with Aldrovanda; and, from analogy, very probable with Roridula and Byblis. We can thus understand how it is that the three first-named genera are provided with such small roots, and that Aldrovanda is quite rootless; about the roots of the two other genera nothing is known. It is, no doubt, a surprising fact that a whole group of plants (and, as we shall presently see, some other plants not allied to the Droseraceae) should subsist partly by digesting animal matter, and partly by decomposing carbonic acid, instead of exclusively by this latter means, together with the absorption of matter from the soil by the aid of roots. We have, however, an equally anomalous case in the animal kingdom; the rhizocephalous crustaceans do not feed like other animals by their mouths, for they are destitute of an [page 357] alimentary canal; but they live by absorbing through root-like processes the juices of the animals on which they are parasitic.*

Of the six genera, Drosera has been incomparably the most successful in the battle for life; and a large part of its success may be attributed to its manner of catching insects. It is a dominant form, for it is believed to include about 100 species,** which range in the Old World from the Arctic regions to Southern India, to the Cape of Good Hope, Madagascar, and Australia; and in the New World from Canada to Tierra del Fuego. In this respect it presents a marked contrast with the five other genera, which appear to be failing groups. Dionaea includes only a single species, which is confined to one district in Carolina. The three varieties or closely allied species of Aldrovanda, like so many water-plants, have a wide range from Central Europe to Bengal and Australia. Drosophyllum includes only one species, limited to Portugal and Morocco. Roridula and Byblis each have (as I

* Fritz Müller, ‘Facts for Darwin,’ Eng. trans. 1869, p. 139. The rhizocephalous crustaceans are allied to the cirripedes. It is hardly possible to imagine a greater difference than that between an animal with prehensile limbs, a well-constructed mouth and alimentary canal, and one destitute of all these organs and feeding by absorption through branching root-like processes. If one rare cirripede, the Anelasma squalicola, had become extinct, it would have been very difficult to conjecture how so enormous a change could have been gradually effected. But, as Fritz Müller remarks, we have in Anelasma an animal in an almost exactly intermediate condition, for it has root-like processes embedded in the skin of the shark on which it is parasitic, and its prehensile cirri and mouth (as described in my monograph on the Lepadidae, ‘Ray Soc.’ 1851, p. 169) are in a most feeble and almost rudimentary condition. Dr. R. Kossmann has given a very interesting discussion on this subject in his ‘Suctoria and Lepadidae,’ 1873. See also, Dr. Dohrn, ‘Der Ursprung der Wirbelthiere,’ 1875, p. 77.

** Bentham and Hooker, ‘Genera Plantarum.’ Australia is the metropolis of the genus, forty-one species having been described from this country, as Prof. Oliver informs me. [page 358]

hear from Prof. Oliver) two species; the former confined to the western parts of the Cape of Good Hope, and the latter to Australia. It is a strange fact that Dionaea, which is one of the most beautifully adapted plants in the vegetable kingdom, should apparently be on the high-road to extinction. This is all the more strange as the organs of Dionaea are more highly differentiated than those of Drosera; its filaments serve exclusively as organs of touch, the lobes for capturing insects, and the glands, when excited, for secretion as well as for absorption; whereas with Drosera the glands serve all these purposes, and secrete without being excited.

By comparing the structure of the leaves, their degree of complication, and their rudimentary parts in the six genera, we are led to infer that their common parent form partook of the characters of Drosophyllum, Roridula, and Byblis. The leaves of this ancient form were almost certainly linear, perhaps divided, and bore on their upper and lower surfaces glands which had the power of secreting and absorbing. Some of these glands were mounted on pedicels, and others were almost sessile; the latter secreting only when stimulated by the absorption of nitrogenous matter. In Byblis the glands consist of a single layer of cells, supported on a unicellular pedicel; in Roridula they have a more complex structure, and are supported on pedicels formed of several rows of cells; in Drosophyllum they further include spiral cells, and the pedicels include a bundle of spiral vessels. But in these three genera these organs do not possess any power of movement, and there is no reason to doubt that they are of the nature of hairs or trichomes. Although in innumerable instances foliar organs move when excited, no case is known of a trichome having such [page 359] power.* We are thus led to inquire how the so-called tentacles of Drosera, which are manifestly of the same general nature as the glandular hairs of the above three genera, could have acquired the power of moving. Many botanists maintain that these tentacles consist of prolongations of the leaf, because they include vascular tissue, but this can no longer be considered as a trustworthy distinction.** The possession of the power of movement on excitement would have been safer evidence. But when we consider the vast number of the tentacles on both surfaces of the leaves of Drosophyllum, and on the upper surface of the leaves of Drosera, it seems scarcely possible that each tentacle could have aboriginally existed as a prolongation of the leaf. Roridula, perhaps, shows us how we may reconcile these difficulties with respect to the homological nature of the tentacles. The lateral divisions of the leaves of this plant terminate in long tentacles; and these include spiral vessels which extend for only a short distance up them, with no line of demarcation between what is plainly the prolongation of the leaf and the pedicel of a glandular hair. Therefore there would be nothing anomalous or unusual in the basal parts of these tentacles, which correspond with the marginal ones of Drosera, acquiring the power of movement; and we know that in Drosera it is only the lower part which becomes inflected. But in order to understand how in this latter genus not only the marginal but all the inner tentacles have become capable of movement, we must further assume, either that through the principle of correlated development this