Gardeners who raise seed for sale are compelled by dearly bought experience to take extraordinary precautions against intercrossing. Thus Messrs. Sharp “have land engaged in the growth of seed in no less than eight parishes.” The mere fact of a vast number of plants belonging to the same variety growing together is a considerable protection, as the chances are strong in favour of plants of the same variety intercrossing; and it is in chief part owing to this circumstance, that certain villages have become famous for pure seed of particular varieties. (10/39. With respect to Messrs. Sharp see ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle’ 1856 page 823. Lindley’s ‘Theory of Horticulture’ page 319.) Only two trials were made by me to ascertain after how long an interval of time, pollen from a distinct variety would obliterate more or less completely the action of a plant’s own pollen. The stigmas in two lately expanded flowers on a variety of cabbage, called Ragged Jack, were well covered with pollen from the same plant. After an interval of twenty-three hours, pollen from the Early Barnes Cabbage growing at a distance was placed on both stigmas; and as the plant was left uncovered, pollen from other flowers on the Ragged Jack would certainly have been left by the bees during the next two or three days on the same two stigmas. Under these circumstances it seemed very unlikely that the pollen of the Barnes cabbage would produce any effect; but three out of the fifteen plants raised from the two capsules thus produced were plainly mongrelised: and I have no doubt that the twelve other plants were affected, for they grew much more vigorously than the self-fertilised seedlings from the Ragged Jack planted at the same time and under the same conditions. Secondly, I placed on several stigmas of a long-styled cowslip (Primula veris) plenty of pollen from the same plant, and after twenty-four hours added some from a short-styled dark-red Polyanthus, which is a variety of the cowslip. From the flowers thus treated thirty seedlings were raised, and all these without exception bore reddish flowers; so that the effect of the plant’s own pollen, though placed on the stigmas twenty-four hours previously, was quite destroyed by that of the red variety. It should, however, be observed that these plants are dimorphic, and that the second union was a legitimate one, whilst the first was illegitimate; but flowers illegitimately fertilised with their own pollen yield a moderately fair supply of seeds.
We have hitherto considered only the prepotent fertilising power of pollen from a distinct variety over a plants’ own pollen,—both kinds of pollen being placed on the same stigma. It is a much more remarkable fact that pollen from another individual of the same variety is prepotent over a plant’s own pollen, as shown by the superiority of the seedlings raised from a cross of this kind over seedlings from self-fertilised flowers. Thus in Tables 7/A, B, and C, there are at least fifteen species which are self-fertile when insects are excluded; and this implies that their stigmas must receive their own pollen; nevertheless, most of the seedlings which were raised by fertilising the non-castrated flowers of these fifteen species with pollen from another plant were greatly superior, in height, weight, and fertility, to the self-fertilised offspring. (10/40. These fifteen species consist of Brassica oleracea, Reseda odorata and lutea, Limnanthes douglasii, Papaver vagum, Viscaria oculata, Beta vulgaris, Lupinus luteus, Ipomoea purpurea, Mimulus luteus, Calceolaria, Verbascum thapsus, Vandellia nummularifolia, Lactuca sativa, and Zea mays.) For instance, with Ipomoea purpurea every single intercrossed plant exceeded in height its self-fertilised opponent until the sixth generation; and so it was with Mimulus luteus until the fourth generation. Out of six pairs of crossed and self-fertilised cabbages, every one of the former was much heavier than the latter. With Papaver vagum, out of fifteen pairs, all but two of the crossed plants were taller than their self-fertilised opponents. Of eight pairs of Lupinus luteus, all but two of the crossed were taller; of eight pairs of Beta vulgaris all but one; and of fifteen pairs of Zea mays all but two were taller. Of fifteen pairs of Limnanthes douglasii, and of seven pairs of Lactuca sativa, every single crossed plant was taller than its self-fertilised opponent. It should also be observed that in these experiments no particular care was taken to cross-fertilise the flowers immediately after their expansion; it is therefore almost certain that in many of these cases some pollen from the same flower will have already fallen on and acted on the stigma.
There can hardly be a doubt that several other species of which the crossed seedlings are more vigorous than the self-fertilised, as shown in Tables 7/A, 7/B and 7/C, besides the above fifteen, must have received their own pollen and that from another plant at nearly the same time; and if so, the same remarks as those just given are applicable to them. Scarcely any result from my experiments has surprised me so much as this of the prepotency of pollen from a distinct individual over each plant’s own pollen, as proved by the greater constitutional vigour of the crossed seedlings. The evidence of prepotency is here deduced from the comparative growth of the two lots of seedlings; but we have similar evidence in many cases from the much greater fertility of the non-castrated flowers on the mother-plant, when these received at the same time their own pollen and that from a distinct plant, in comparison with the flowers which received only their own pollen.
From the various facts now given on the spontaneous intercrossing of varieties growing near together, and on the effects of cross-fertilising flowers which are self-fertile and have not been castrated, we may conclude that pollen brought by insects or by the wind from a distinct plant will generally prevent the action of pollen from the same flower, even though it may have been applied some time before; and thus the intercrossing of plants in a state of nature will be greatly favoured or ensured.
The case of a great tree covered with innumerable hermaphrodite flowers seems at first sight strongly opposed to the belief in the frequency of intercrosses between distinct individuals. The flowers which grow on the opposite sides of such a tree will have been exposed to somewhat different conditions, and a cross between them may perhaps be in some degree beneficial; but it is not probable that it would be nearly so beneficial as a cross between flowers on distinct trees, as we may infer from the inefficiency of pollen taken from plants which have been propagated from the same stock, though growing on separate roots. The number of bees which frequent certain kinds of trees when in full flower is very great, and they may be seen flying from tree to tree more frequently than might have been expected. Nevertheless, if we consider how numerous are the flowers, for instance, on a horse-chestnut or lime-tree, an incomparably larger number of flowers must be fertilised by pollen brought from other flowers on the same tree, than from flowers on a distinct tree. But we should bear in mind that with the horse-chestnut, for instance, only one or two of the several flowers on the same peduncle produce a seed; and that this seed is the product of only one out of several ovules within the same ovarium. Now we know from the experiments of Herbert and others that if one flower is fertilised with pollen which is more efficient than that applied to the other flowers on the same peduncle, the latter often drop off (10/41. ‘Variation under Domestication’ chapter 17 2nd edition volume 2 page 120.); and it is probable that this would occur with many of the self-fertilised flowers on a large tree, if other and adjoining flowers were cross-fertilised. Of the flowers annually produced by a great tree, it is almost certain that a large number would be self-fertilised; and if we assume that the tree produced only 500 flowers, and that this number of seeds were requisite to keep up the stock, so that at least one seedling should hereafter struggle to maturity, then a large proportion of the seedlings would necessarily be derived from self-fertilised seeds. But if the tree annually produced 50,000 flowers, of which the self-fertilised dropped off without yielding seeds, then the cross-fertilised flowers might yield seeds in sufficient number to keep up the stock, and most of the seedlings would be vigorous from being the product of a cross between distinct individuals. In this manner the production of a vast number of flowers, besides serving to entice numerous insects and to compensate for the accidental destruction of many flowers by spring-frosts or otherwise, would be a very great advantage to the species; and when we behold our orchard-trees covered with a white sheet of bloom in the spring, we should not falsely accuse nature of wasteful expenditure, though comparatively little fruit is produced in the autumn.
ANEMOPHILOUS PLANTS.
The nature and relations of plants which are fertilised by the wind have been admirably discussed by Delpino and Hermann Muller; and I have already made some remarks on the structure of their flowers in contrast with those of entomophilous species. (10/42. Delpino ‘Ult. Osservazioni sulla Dicogamia’ part 2 fasc. 1 1870 and ‘Studi sopra un Lignaggio anemofilo’ etc. 1871. Hermann Muller ‘Die Befruchtung’ etc. pages 412, 442. Both these authors remark that plants must have been anemophilous before they were entomophilous. Hermann Muller further discusses in a very interesting manner the steps by which entomophilous flowers became nectariferous and gradually acquired their present structure through successive beneficial changes.) There is good reason to believe that the first plants which appeared on this earth were cryptogamic; and judging from what now occurs, the male fertilising element must either have possessed the power of spontaneous movement through the water or over damp surfaces, or have been carried by currents of water to the female organs. That some of the most ancient plants, such as ferns, possessed true sexual organs there can hardly be a doubt; and this shows, as Hildebrand remarks, at how early a period the sexes were separated. (10/43. ‘Die Geschlechter-Vertheilung’ 1867 pages 84-90.) As soon as plants became phanerogamic and grew on the dry ground, if they were ever to intercross, it would be indispensable that the male fertilising element should be transported by some means through the air; and the wind is the simplest means of transport. There must also have been a period when winged insects did not exist, and plants would not then have been rendered entomophilous. Even at a somewhat later period the more specialised orders of the Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, and Diptera, which are now chiefly concerned with the transport of pollen, did not exist. Therefore the earliest terrestrial plants known to us, namely, the Coniferae and Cycadiae, no doubt were anemophilous, like the existing species of these same groups. A vestige of this early state of things is likewise shown by some other groups of plants which are anemophilous, as these on the whole stand lower in the scale than entomophilous species.
There is no great difficulty in understanding how an anemophilous plant might have been rendered entomophilous. Pollen is a nutritious substance, and would soon have been discovered and devoured by insects; and if any adhered to their bodies it would have been carried from the anthers to the stigma of the same flower, or from one flower to another. One of the chief characteristics of the pollen of anemophilous plants is its incoherence; but pollen in this state can adhere to the hairy bodies of insects, as we see with some Leguminosae, Ericaceae, and Melastomaceae. We have, however, better evidence of the possibility of a transition of the above kind in certain plants being now fertilised partly by the wind and partly by insects. The common rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum) is so far in an intermediate condition, that I have seen many Diptera sucking the flowers, with much pollen adhering to their bodies; and yet the pollen is so incoherent, that clouds of it are emitted if the plant be gently shaken on a sunny day, some of which could hardly fail to fall on the large stigmas of the neighbouring flowers. According to Delpino and Hermann Muller, some species of Plantago are in a similar intermediate condition. (10/44. ‘Die Befruchtung’ etc. page 342.)
Although it is probable that pollen was aboriginally the sole attraction to insects, and although many plants now exist whose flowers are frequented exclusively by pollen-devouring insects, yet the great majority secrete nectar as the chief attraction. Many years ago I suggested that primarily the saccharine matter in nectar was excreted as a waste product of chemical changes in the sap; and that when the excretion happened to occur within the envelopes of a flower, it was utilised for the important object of cross-fertilisation, being subsequently much increased in quantity and stored in various ways. (10/45. Nectar was regarded by De Candolle and Dunal as an excretion, as stated by Martinet in ‘Annal des Sc. Nat.’ 1872 tome 14 page 211.) This view is rendered probable by the leaves of some trees excreting, under certain climatic conditions, without the aid of special glands, a saccharine fluid, often called honey-dew. This is the case with the leaves of the lime; for although some authors have disputed the fact, a most capable judge, Dr. Maxwell Masters, informs me that, after having heard the discussions on this subject before the Horticultural Society, he feels no doubt on this head. The leaves, as well as the cut stems, of the manna ash (Fraxinus ornus) secrete in a like manner saccharine matter. (10/46. ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle’ 1876 page 242.) According to Treviranus, so do the upper surfaces of the leaves of Carduus arctioides during hot weather. Many analogous facts could be given. (10/47. Kurr ‘Untersuchungen uber die Bedeutung der Nektarien’ 1833 page 115.) There are, however, a considerable number of plants which bear small glands on their leaves, petioles, phyllodia, stipules, bracteae, or flower peduncles, or on the outside of their calyx, and these glands secrete minute drops of a sweet fluid, which is eagerly sought by sugar-loving insects, such as ants, hive-bees, and wasps. (10/48. A large number of cases are given by Delpino in the ‘Bulletino Entomologico’ Anno 6 1874. To these may be added those given in my text, as well as the excretion of saccharine matter from the calyx of two species of Iris, and from the bracteae of certain Orchideae: see Kurr ‘Bedeutung der Nektarien’ 1833 pages 25, 28. Belt ‘Nicaragua’ page 224, also refers to a similar excretion by many epiphytal orchids and passion-flowers. Mr. Rodgers has seen much nectar secreted from the bases of the flower-peduncles of Vanilla. Link says that the only example of a hypopetalous nectary known to him is externally at the base of the flowers of Chironia decussata: see ‘Reports on Botany, Ray Society’ 1846 page 355. An important memoir bearing on this subject has lately appeared by Reinke ‘Gottingen Nachrichten’ 1873 page 825, who shows that in many plants the tips of the serrations on the leaves in the bud bear glands which secrete only at a very early age, and which have the same morphological structure as true nectar-secreting glands. He further shows that the nectar-secreting glands on the petioles of Prunus avium are not developed at a very early age, yet wither away on the old leaves. They are homologous with those on the serrations of the blades of the same leaves, as shown by their structure and by transition-forms; for the lowest serrations on the blades of most of the leaves secrete nectar instead of resin (harz).) In the case of the glands on the stipules of Vicia sativa, the excretion manifestly depends on changes in the sap, consequent on the sun shining brightly; for I repeatedly observed that as soon as the sun was hidden behind clouds the secretion ceased, and the hive-bees left the field; but as soon as the sun broke out again, they returned to their feast. (10/49. I published a brief notice of this case in the ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle’ 1855 July 21 page 487, and afterwards made further observations. Besides the hive-bee, another species of bee, a moth, ants, and two kinds of flies sucked the drops of fluid on the stipules. The larger drops tasted sweet. The hive-bees never even looked at the flowers which were open at the same time; whilst two species of humble-bees neglected the stipules and visited only the flowers.) I have observed an analogous fact with the secretion of true nectar in the flowers of Lobelia erinus.
Delpino, however, maintains that the power of secreting a sweet fluid by any extra-floral organ has been in every case specially gained, for the sake of attracting ants and wasps as defenders of the plant against their enemies; but I have never seen any reason to believe that this is so with the three species observed by me, namely, Prunus laurocerasus, Vicia sativa, and V. faba. No plant is so little attacked by enemies of any kind as the common bracken-fern (Pteris aquilina); and yet, as my son Francis has discovered, the large glands at the bases of the fronds, but only whilst young, excrete much sweetish fluid, which is eagerly sought by innumerable ants, chiefly belonging to Myrmica; and these ants certainly do not serve as a protection against any enemy. Delpino argues that such glands ought not to be considered as excretory, because if they were so, they would be present in every species; but I cannot see much force in this argument, as the leaves of some plants excrete sugar only during certain states of the weather. That in some cases the secretion serves to attract insects as defenders of the plant, and may have been developed to a high degree for this special purpose, I have not the least doubt, from the observations of Delpino, and more especially from those of Mr. Belt on Acacia sphaerocephala, and on passion-flowers. This acacia likewise produces, as an additional attraction to ants, small bodies containing much oil and protoplasm, and analogous bodies are developed by a Cecropia for the same purpose, as described by Fritz Muller. (10/50. Mr. Belt ‘The Naturalist in Nicaragua’ 1874 page 218, has given a most interesting account of the paramount importance of ants as defenders of the above Acacia. With respect to the Cecropia see ‘Nature’ 1876 page 304. My son Francis has described the microscopical structure and development of these wonderful food-bodies in a paper read before the Linnean Society.)