320 REV. GEORGE HENSLOW ON THE 
I shall now quote three passages from his ‘ Cross and Self-Fertilisation of Plants,’ in 
which Mr. Darwin inclines to the belief that there is some good in self-fertilization :— 
“ We should always keep in mind the obvious fact that the production of seed is the chief end of the | 
act of fertilisation ; and that this end can be gained by hermaphrodite plants with incomparably greater 
certainty by self-fertilisation, than by the union of the sexual elements belonging to two distinct 
flowers or plants ” (p. 3). 
In speaking of the superiority of self-fertilized seedlings of Ipomea over those raised | 
from flowers fertilized br pollen taken from other flowers on the same plant, he says:— 
“ This is a remarkable fact, which seems to indicate that self-fertilization is in some manner more i 
advantageous than crossing, unless the cross bring with it, as is generally the case, some decided and i 
preponderant advantage ” (p. 61). 
Lastly, Mr. Darwin observes :— 1 
“The most important conclusion at which I have arrived is that the mere act of crossing by itself 1 | 
does no good. The good depends on the individuals which are crossed differing slightly in their bh 
constitution ” (p. 27). H 
Before proceeding with my own observations, it will be advisable to give the opinions ` 
of at least two eminent botanists, who regard self-fertilization as an important principle l 
in nature. I allude to Dr. H. Müller and Mr. T. Meehan. 1 
The former, alluding to Mr. Darwin's well-known aphorism that ‘ Nature abhors per- — 
petual self-fertilization," says that it was exaggerated by his successors, as Hildebrand - 
in Germany, and Delpino in Italy; while, on the other hand, he refers to Axell, who 1 
propounded the doctrine that— | E 
" The development of the fertilizing arrangements in phanerogams has been always in advance, and 1 
still continues in advance, in one and the same direction, towards a perfection which affords more and 1 
more facilities for self-fertilization.” 
He then says that— 
“He is convinced that neither Hermann, Darwin, nor Axell's opinion is a thoroughly adequate one, | 
but that, under certain conditions, the facility for self-fertilization is most advantageous to a plant, 1 
while, under other conditions, the inevitableness of cross-fertilization by the visits of insects is the more — 
advantageous." 
Similarly Mr. Thomas Meehan, of Germantown, Philadelphia, in a paper entitled, 
“ Are Insects any material Aid to Plants in Fertilization ? " *, says that he does not regard 
this supposed necessity for cross-fertilization, or this supposed injury to plants, as at all 
established, nor is the injuriousness to animals from in-and-in breeding by any means 
proved, but that there are abundant evidences to the contrary. He further adds his 
belief that undoubted self-fertilized plants have existed as long, and are every way as 
healthy, as those that cannot now fertilize themselves. His admirable paper, which was 
reproduced in the ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle’ for Sept. 11, 1875, is, in fact, an “apology” 
for self-fertilization. 
* Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, vol. xxiv, p. 243 (1875), Also 
‘ Nature,’ Sept 25, 1873, : 
