lis 



THE GARDENER'S MONTHLY 



\^ April, 



may say that I have seen at the recent Centen- 

 nial Exhibition, as fine Golden ri{)pin apple?, 

 the kind used to illustrate the theory, as ever 

 Mr. T. A. Kuij^ht thought were only seen in his 

 younger days. 



We must then lay aside ail considerations of 

 the benefits of cross-breeding from analogy or 

 inference, even though we sliould find that all 

 plants discarded their own pollen. There may 

 be some other reason, quite independent of any 

 sexual consideration ; and it is because I believe 

 there are otlicr reasons in di(Tocious, mona'cious, 

 and other cases, that I take the stand I do to-day. 



We may note, in the first place, that insects 

 visit some anemophilous plants as freely as they 

 do others. They, for instance, abound on the 

 male flowers of the willow, especially Salix cap- 

 rea, which have abundant honeyed secretions. 

 But they avoid the female plants. If honeyed 

 secretions are for the purpose of enticing insects 

 for cross-fertilizing purposes, how \a the object 

 attained here? Later in the season we see the 

 same thing in Rhus. R. glabra and R. copallinn 

 as I have shown in a former paper before this 

 association, are in effect dioecious. The male 

 flowers have a honeyed secretion peculiarly at- 

 tractive to innumerable insects. A panicle of 

 these flowers is a wonderful entomological cabi- 

 net. I know of nothing like their visits here in 

 the whole floral world. I have six plants of Rhus 

 copallina within twelve paces of each other. 

 Five are males and one is a female. I have never 

 seen one insect on the female plant, neither does 

 it seed, neither wind nor insect serves it. Here 

 are two species with color and honeyed secre- 

 tions on which insects abound inordinately; and 

 yet the insects aid in no degree whatever, in fer- 

 tilization. I ask you whether I may not say 

 most decisively that whatever may be the pur- 

 poses of color, fragrance or honeyed secretions, 

 they are not for the purpose of attracting insects 

 in the interests of cross-fertilization. Then there 

 is Yucca, about which so much has been made. 

 In my grounds. Yucca filamentosa abounds. It 

 opens its flowers about the 2oth of June. In 

 1875 a plant of Yucca angustifolia blossomed on 

 the 5th of June. Though closely watched I found 

 no Pronubas about them. They produced no 

 seed. The Y. filamentosa had numbers, and seed 

 abounded. About the 5th of June this year, the 

 Y. angxistifolia again opened its flowers. On the 

 12th, I noticed the Pronuba to abound, and I 

 hoped for seed. There were from one to five in 

 each flower. On the 19th, I noticed that the 



flowers had almost all fallen fruitless. I then 

 placed some pollen on four of the flowers, each 

 pollen from its own flower, and these four cap- 

 sules which I exhibit, are the results. The only 

 seeds the i)lant jjrochiced. Even when fertilized 

 at all by insects. J am sure the fertilization is 

 from the pollen of tlie same flower. My experi- 

 ment shows its own pollen is acceptable to 

 it. It is true it is difficult to understand why the 

 plant seems unable to fertilize its own self with- 

 out extraneous aid ; but it is clear that it is not 

 from any abhorrence of own pollen, or an espe- 

 cial desire for insect aid ; especially the aid of an 

 insect whose chief mission seems to be to prey 

 on the fertilized seed ! 



(To be continued.) 



EDITORIAL NOTES. 



Time in Evidence. — Prof. Goodale has been 

 giving a lecture in Boston on cross-fertilization 

 in flowers. He is reported in the Masscichuselta 

 Ploughman as saying, in effect (for we have not 

 the paper just now before us), that the observa- 

 tions of a single season ought not to weigh 

 against the many years of study given the sub- 

 ject by Mr. Darwin. 



It is true that our observation, that clover nill 

 seed without insect agency, extends only over 

 two seasons; but there is no evidence that Mr. 

 Darwin tried the protection of clover from in- 

 sects but once. This is. the fair contrast — the 

 clover experiment against the clover experi- 

 ment, and not the clover experiment, or any 

 other special point, against the "whole subject" 

 in that general sweep. It is an ingenious way 

 of putting down an opponent, but not satisfac- 

 tory, we think. Even though Mr. Darwin had 

 tried the clover under " protection " for a num- 

 ber of years, and it gave no seed, while another 

 in bvit one season under protection found every 

 flower seed, why is not that one season enough 

 to establish the fact that clover will seed without 

 the Humble Bee ? If Prof. Goodale is correctly 

 reported, he must surely see the weakness of 

 such an argument. 



ExocHORDA. — Trusting to the memory of the 

 plate in Hooker's Botanical Magazine, we gave 

 Hooker the authonship of the name. But it 

 was Lindlry, and not Hooker, who separated it 

 from Spiraea, and established the name. 



AscLEPiAS CORNUTI. — Referring to our com- 

 mon silk weed, we wrote as if it was different 



