BOTANICAL GAZETTE. 18S 



This paper is elaborate, mostly able as well as ingenious, in all re- 

 spects considerable, and unconvincing. Its thesis is, the Darwinian 

 ''Nature abhors perpetual self-fertilization," read backward. It con- 

 cludes that, "not only are (lie majority of plants self-fertilizing, but 

 that those which are exclusively so propagate abundantly and with 

 extraordinary rapidity, arei., best able to establish themselves in for- 

 eign countries, as, being quite independent of insects, they run no 

 risk of extermination on that score; . . . that, so far I'rom there being 

 any necessarily injurious or evil effects resulting from the self-ferti- 

 lization of plants in a state of nature, they have proved themselves 

 to be in every way the best fitted to survive in the great struggle for 

 life." The hypothesis is also advanced "that they are all degraded 

 forms," and that therefore "their ancestral life-history is a longer one 

 than that of their more conspicuous and intercrossing relations." We 

 fail to see how this follows, except upon the assumption that the ear- 

 liest phagnogamous plants had the most highly organized blossoms; 

 and that would not accord with vegetable paleontology. 



Mr. Henslow rejoices that he has one staunch supporter; "for, as 

 has been seen, Mr. T. Meehan has arrived at the same conclusion;" 

 and indeed he builds not a little upon facts supplied by Mr. Meehan's 

 observations. He cites the latter's "-admirable paper, which was re- 

 produced in the 'Gardner's Chronicle' for Sept. 11, 1875, and is in 

 fact an 'apology' for self fertilization." As he then marshals twenty 

 reasons for believing particular plants to be normall}' self-fertilizing, 

 and nineteen "chief facts which may be regarded as occurring cor- 

 relatively with self-fertilization, some being actual causes which di- 

 rectly or indirectly bring it about," it would appear that it is no 

 longer self-fertilization, but rather the existence and raison d'etre of 

 cross-fertilization that stands in need of apology, or of explanation. 



He freely concedes that the flowers of many plants, and some whole 

 orders, are so constructed that intercrossing is for them a necessity; 

 also that most of those which are believed "to be normally self-ferti- 

 lizing" because they can and do fertilize themselves habitually," yet 

 "may in some cases be cross-fertilized by insects." It is admitted 

 that the structure of the latter is adapted — most variously and wond- 

 rously adapted — to being fertilized by particular insects. As this 

 comes to pass in plants and flowers of the highest organization and 

 greatest specialization, Darwin and his school conclude that this is a 

 most advantageous outcome, and means some real good to the species; 

 that when this is accompanied with a loss of self-fertility, it is the 

 loss of something no longer useful, something better than self-fertili- 



