1877.] 



AND HORTICULTURIST. 



183 



portance. I believe I have shown that the facts are 

 not wholly as represented, and that the facts, even 

 when they may exist as represented, do not pro- 

 duce results according to the deductions drawn 

 from them. 



Let me now show the danger of attempts 

 to read the purposes of nature from her direct 

 acts. If we examine swamp vegetation, we find 

 Magnolias, Willows, White Cedars, Eed Maples, 

 Cypresses and numerous others growing therein. 

 We at once conclude that they grow there be- 

 cause these trees prefer the wet to the dx-yer land. 

 But a wider acquaintance with trees will show 

 that all of them do better when, as we often find 

 them, growing in dryer places. A suspicion then 

 arises that there is something wrong with our 

 reasoning, and we find at last that nature has a 

 deeper purpose than merely an individual regard 

 for these trees. Their seeds will only grow in 

 wet soil ; and of necessity, and not for individual 

 benefit have these trees to remain there. Again 

 I think there is nothing more certain than that 

 effects will continue long after the causes which 

 produced them have ceased to exist; so that ac- 

 tions which \ >'i see, may be associated with de- 

 gradation, iuMuad of evolution ; may be the last 

 flickering of a dying light, and not an Aurora 

 indicating the birth of a new da}'. In the pres- 

 ent question, our reason will tell us that the phe- 

 nomena we see may bear this interpretation as 

 well as those given to them by our friends. 



In Europe, for instance, the common Straw- 

 berry is almost universally hermaphrodite ; but 

 in this countiy the tendency to dioecism is well- 

 known. We know also that those parts of the 

 world in which dioecism prevails is not as favor- 

 able to the existence of the Strawberry as the 

 other, and we may safely conclude that dioecism 

 — a form of dimorphism — has no relation to any 

 advantage to be derived through the sexes ; but 

 is an actual result of degrading conditions. 



Then, physiologically, what good can result? 

 It is asserted by those who difl"er from me that 

 probably most of the large order of composites 

 are cross-fertilized ; the flower in one head re- 

 ceiving the pollen of another flower in the same 

 head, by the aid of insects. This they contend 

 after an examination of the structure. After 

 noting the behavior of the parts, and in the 

 absence of insects, I contend they are self- 

 fertilizers. But supposing they were all that is 

 aeked for them ! Compare one with an ordinary 

 polypetalous flower — say Ranuncuhis — and 

 where is the gain ? The floral parts are all on the 



same common peduncle in both cases, and the 

 stamens and pistils are as widely — nay wider 

 separated in a Ranunculus than in a Dandelion. 

 Practically, there is a wider separation of the 

 sexes in the Ranunculus than the Dandelion, 

 granting even all or more than is asked for as 

 cross-fertilization in composites. Physiological 

 disturbances that aid the vital principle in the 

 pistils, and interfere with that of the stamens, 

 of course weaken the vital power of the pollen. 

 In such cases foreign pollen — pollen from flowers 

 free from these disturbances, or where the dis- 

 turbances favor the stamens instead of the pis- 

 tils, would have more potency. It is therefore 

 not surprising that some cases should offer prov- 

 ing foreign pollen better than own pollen. It 

 would be more surprising if there were none ; for 

 in every direction we find nature with overflowing 

 abundance, pushing beyond what we regard as the 

 necessary mark. As the boy, who to jump across 

 the stream first goes back, and when he lands on 

 the other side goes further than he wants to; so 

 does nature in all things, or I have not read her 

 story right. I can refer in a brief paper like 

 this, to but a few observations I have made, nor 

 do I think it necessary. I will now submit these 

 propositions : — 



1st. That cross-fertilization by insect agency 

 does not exist to near the extent claimed for it. 



2nd. Where it does exist there is no evidence 

 that it is of any material benefit to the race— on 

 the contrary. 



3rd. Difficulties in self-fertihzation result from 

 physiological disturbances that have no relation 

 to the general welfare of plants as species. 



EDITORIAL NOTES. 



Bo'iWNicAL Against Common Names.— The Gar- 

 dener's Chronicle has the following :— " The report 

 of the United States Commissioner for Agricul- 

 ture for 1875, contains a catalogue of upwards of 

 400 species of forest trees, including, however, 

 such plants as Yuccas. The same volume con- 

 tains an elaborate and exhaustive account of the 

 forests of the several States. For the benefit of 

 those who rail at Latin names of plants we give 

 the popular names of Abies Douglasii, which it 

 appears is known as ' Douglas Fir, Red Fir, Black 

 Fir, Douglas Spruce, Red Spruce, Black Spruce, 

 Hemlock, Oregon Pine, Western Pitch, Bear 

 River Pine, Swamp Pine, and perhaps others. 

 Moreover, nearly all of the names are also ap- 



