﻿Miscellaneous. 
  7 
  1 
  

  

  A 
  Study 
  of 
  the 
  Hydrangea 
  in 
  relation 
  to 
  Cross-Fertilization. 
  

   By 
  Thomas 
  Meehan. 
  

  

  That 
  many 
  flowers 
  are 
  arranged 
  for 
  cross-fertilization 
  needs 
  no 
  

   argument 
  to 
  sustain 
  it, 
  nor 
  is 
  it 
  less 
  certain 
  that 
  some 
  flowers 
  can 
  

   only 
  be 
  fertilized 
  through 
  the 
  aid 
  of 
  wind 
  or 
  insects. 
  Sprengel, 
  it 
  

   is 
  well 
  known, 
  in 
  the 
  early 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  present 
  century, 
  placed 
  this 
  

   beyond 
  doubt. 
  The 
  great 
  question 
  is 
  not, 
  do 
  plants 
  generally 
  cross- 
  

   fertilize 
  ? 
  but 
  why 
  clo 
  they 
  do 
  it 
  ? 
  Mr. 
  Darwin's 
  great 
  work 
  in 
  this 
  

   connexion 
  has 
  been 
  to 
  prove 
  that 
  plants 
  abhor 
  in-and-in 
  breeding, 
  

   that 
  the 
  struggle 
  for 
  life 
  is 
  necessarily 
  the 
  chief 
  object 
  of 
  existence, 
  

   and 
  that 
  cross-fertilization 
  tends 
  to 
  make 
  the 
  race 
  stronger 
  and 
  

   better 
  fitted 
  to 
  engage 
  in 
  this 
  struggle 
  than 
  closo 
  breeding 
  would 
  do. 
  

   The 
  results 
  of 
  many 
  of 
  Mr. 
  Darwin's 
  experiments 
  sustain 
  his 
  views, 
  

   as 
  do 
  those 
  of 
  many 
  others 
  ; 
  but 
  to 
  my 
  mind 
  just 
  as 
  large 
  a 
  number 
  

   do 
  not 
  sustain 
  them. 
  Mr. 
  Darwin 
  himself 
  has 
  candidly 
  stated 
  that 
  

   continuous 
  self-fertilization 
  does 
  not 
  in 
  the 
  least 
  impair 
  the 
  fertility 
  

   of 
  the 
  race. 
  Mere 
  negative 
  vigour 
  is 
  the 
  leading 
  advantage 
  he 
  finds 
  

   in 
  crossed 
  plants. 
  (Cross 
  and 
  Self-fertilization, 
  Chap. 
  IX. 
  p. 
  327.) 
  

  

  It 
  is 
  not 
  my 
  object 
  now 
  to 
  controvert 
  the 
  views 
  of 
  Mr. 
  Darwin, 
  

   or 
  of 
  his 
  numerous 
  followers. 
  My 
  view 
  of 
  one 
  object 
  of 
  nature 
  in 
  

   cross-fertilization 
  is 
  to 
  aid 
  in 
  production 
  of 
  variety. 
  I 
  have 
  shown 
  

   ever 
  since 
  discussion 
  grew 
  warm 
  on 
  these 
  subjects, 
  that 
  variation 
  is 
  

   essential 
  to 
  the 
  present 
  order 
  of 
  things, 
  — 
  that 
  nature, 
  to 
  be 
  consis- 
  

   tent 
  with 
  herself, 
  must 
  provide 
  for 
  variations 
  if 
  for 
  no 
  other 
  purpose 
  

   than 
  to 
  make 
  variety. 
  I 
  now 
  propose 
  to 
  show, 
  by 
  some 
  studies 
  in 
  

   Hydrangea, 
  that 
  the 
  variations 
  in 
  the 
  species 
  are 
  of 
  the 
  most 
  con- 
  

   tradictory 
  character 
  taken 
  from 
  the 
  standpoint 
  of 
  benefits 
  in 
  the 
  

   struggle 
  for 
  life, 
  while 
  they 
  are 
  entirely 
  consistent 
  with 
  my 
  view 
  of 
  

   variation 
  for 
  variety's 
  sake. 
  Our 
  garden 
  Hydrangea, 
  from 
  Japan 
  

   {Hydrangea 
  hortensis*), 
  has 
  the 
  ray-florets 
  sterile, 
  or 
  rather 
  it 
  is 
  tho 
  

   lateral 
  florets 
  of 
  the 
  compound 
  cyme 
  that 
  give 
  the 
  enlarged 
  sepals, 
  

   and 
  fail 
  to 
  perfect 
  the 
  gynaecium. 
  The 
  terminal 
  florets 
  are 
  fertile. 
  

   In 
  H. 
  quercifolia 
  all 
  the 
  lateral 
  florets 
  are 
  fertile, 
  and 
  it 
  is 
  only 
  the 
  

   terminal 
  one 
  that 
  has 
  petaloid 
  sepals 
  and 
  is 
  barren. 
  Will 
  any 
  one 
  

   assert 
  that 
  these 
  exactly 
  opposite 
  conditions 
  can 
  have 
  any 
  bearing 
  

   whatever 
  as 
  aids 
  in 
  a 
  struggle 
  for 
  life 
  ? 
  Suppose 
  we 
  say 
  that 
  the 
  

   attractive 
  sepals 
  are 
  given 
  to 
  these 
  species 
  for 
  the 
  purpose 
  of 
  attract- 
  

   ing 
  insects, 
  and 
  thus 
  aiding 
  cross-fertflization. 
  With 
  this 
  view 
  we 
  

   examine 
  the 
  American 
  species 
  H. 
  arborescens, 
  and 
  we 
  find 
  barely 
  

   an 
  attempt 
  to 
  make 
  these 
  enlarged 
  petaloid 
  sepals. 
  There 
  are 
  

   small 
  ones 
  on 
  a 
  few 
  terminals 
  and 
  this 
  is 
  all. 
  It 
  has 
  made 
  out 
  

   certainly 
  as 
  well 
  in 
  the 
  great 
  struggle 
  as 
  either 
  of 
  its 
  two 
  brethren. 
  

   But 
  is 
  it 
  a 
  fact 
  that 
  the 
  showy 
  sepals 
  are 
  given 
  to 
  the 
  plant 
  to 
  attract 
  

  

  * 
  Franchet 
  and 
  Savatier 
  insist 
  that 
  Smith's 
  name 
  of 
  II. 
  hortensis 
  has 
  

   priority 
  over 
  II. 
  Hortensia. 
  

  

  