BARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



57 



said had been dug up several feet, I noticed a small 

 shiny insect, which, upon microscopical examination, 

 I had no hesitation in pronouncing to be the above 

 pretty and interesting mite. I have made two 

 sketches, side and ventral views, copies of which I 

 send for reproduction in Science-Gossip, if you 

 think it advisable. I can confirm most of the 

 description given by the above authority. My 

 specimens, however, had eyes situated on the side of 



Fig. 3S. — Ventral view oi Hoplopfwraferruginea. 



the head, close to its juncture with the abdomen. 

 Also I was not able to discover moveable plates or 

 shield on the under side of the head, although the 

 abdominal ones were very distinct. Mr. George, at 

 the time, was not sure of the species, and it is 

 possible, of course, that my specimen and his are 

 specifically different. I notice that the last edition 

 of the "Micro. Dictionary," has eliminated the 

 statement that these insects are " not British." 



J. E. Lord. 

 Rawtenstall, 



THE ORIGIN OF DOUBLE FLOWERS. 



'■"T^HIS is a subject which has much exercised the 

 -L minds of botanists and scientific horticulturists, 

 not because it is more obscure than tlaat of many 

 other abnormal forms, but because the beauty of 

 double flowers attracts attention to them. It has 

 been a favourite notion that hybridism or crossing 

 has had something to do with their production. As 

 in many cases double flowers do not contain pollen, 

 it is obvious that they cannot supply the means for 

 crossing other flowers ; but then their barrenness 



might be regarded as presumptive evidence of 

 hybrid origin ; it being believed that hybrid plants 

 were commonly sterile. The theories of scientific 

 botanists could throw no light upon a subject which it 

 was the interest of scientific seedsmen to keep dark, 

 the production of seeds which would give origin 

 to plants with double flowers being a valuable pro- 

 fessional secret. Now that the experiments of Dr. 

 Darwin have shown that the seeds of flowers that 

 have been self-fertilised or fertilised illegitimately 

 give origin to plants in many respects resembling 

 hybrids, it may be worth while to see if this discovery, 

 along with other facts and theories connected with 

 the doctrine of evolution, may not help us to form a 

 notion approximately true as to the origin of double 

 flowers. 



By double flowers I mean flowers with an increased 

 number of petals or petaloid organs. These are to 

 be carefully distinguished from synanthic flowers in 

 which two or more flowers are united collaterally, or 

 it may be rather that the parts which might form two 

 or more flowers are blended in one. In these there 

 is no transformation of one organ into another, nor 

 any impairment of reproductive energy ; the stamens 

 contain abundance of good pollen, the pistil has no 

 lack of ovules, and the fruit when ripe contains its 

 full number of seeds capable of growing into strong 

 healthy plants. Besides which synanthy does not 

 commonly affect all the flowers of a plant, but only 

 those in such positions as we might expect to find 

 the largest flowers in, the summit of a plant with 

 terminal flowers, or the lower part of a raceme. 

 Multiplication of petals on the contrary usually 

 aff'ects all the flowers of a plant producing them, and 

 they seem to be formed at the expense of the stamens, 

 for even if there be stamens in such a flower, they 

 are usually deformed or imperfect. Thus it seems 

 that a vigorous plant of a favoured race with no set 

 limits to its power to reproduce itself by seed will be 

 likely to bear synanthic flowers. A plant equally 

 vigorous, but with a rule made absolute forbidding 

 the banns of marriage, will bear double flowers. 

 Such a rule may be expressed in the words of Darwin, 

 that "Nature abhors perpetual self-fertilisation." 

 Several years after having stated this as an axiom, 

 Darwin laid especial emphasis upon the word 

 "perpetual," admitting that nature may tolerate, or 

 even favour self-fertilisation for a long while, but 

 not for ever. 



Now let us see if we can find anything in the 

 history of flowering plants as they exist in nature to 

 warrant the assumption that a course of self-fertilisa- 

 tion tends to change stamens into petals or make 

 them petaloid. After all that has been written about 

 evolution during the last twenty years there are still 

 some who think it quite as likely that orchis and 

 camei a were created as they now exist, as that they 

 should have been derived from petaloid endogens 

 with six stamens, four or five of which have become 



