HARRIS AND KUCHS : OBSERVATIONS ON POLLINATION. 23 



August 20. (a) Four of the five ovaries were clearly develop- 

 ing. The fifth appeared doubtful. 



September 13. (a) Three fully developed pods remained, (b) 

 Development of pod arrested when about half grown. 



Plant II. 



August 20. (a) Four iiowers self-pollinated as with plant I. 

 (6) Cross-pollination effected on seven racemes between flowers 

 which had opened simultaneously on the racemes. 



August 22. (a) All yet on. (b) One flower of a pair had fal- 

 len off. 



August 24. (a) Two ovaries remained and looked as though 

 they might develop, (b) Three pairs fallen off at raceme. The 

 single pod of one pair still remained and looked as though it 

 might develop. All remaining pairs seemed to be thriving. 



August 26. (a) One pod developing; the other doubtful. 

 (b) Single pod of pair developing. Two pairs were thriving; 

 one pair was almost grown. The third pair looked doubtful. 



September 13. (a) One pod fully developed ; the other fallen 

 off. (6) One pair fully developed. One each of two other pairs 

 were fully developed. 



Plant III. 



August 20. Thirteen flowers marked to see if autogamy 

 takes place. 



August 22. All flowers still on the plant. 



August 24. All but two flowers had fallen off. One of these 

 seemed to be developing ; the other looked wilted. 



August 26. One pod was thriving ; the other had wilted and 

 fallen off. 



September 13. One pod fully developed. 



From the structure of the iiowers it would seem that self-pol- 

 lination would be impossible. When the flower is open, the 

 stigma has never been observed to be in contact with the ter- 

 minal portion of the large stamen. The stamens do not dehisce 

 until after the flower has opened, nor does the stigma come in 

 contact with the tip of the anther in the bud ; thus, clistogamy 

 would be out of the question. It appears from the results ob- 

 tained from plant III that spontaneous self-pollination is pos- 

 sible. Of course, however, the positive result in this one case 

 should by no means be taken as conclusive evidence of self-pol- 



