[September, 1859.] 257 



SOME REMARKS ON MONOECIOUS AND DICECIOUS PLANTS. 



{From a Correspondent.) 



Among the numerous subjects for inquiry presented to the 

 botanical observer, few stand in greater need of complete investi- 

 gation than the monoecious or dioecious condition of certain 

 plants. Not but that the condition itself is sufficiently well, 

 explained by the suppression of the stamens, or pistils, as the 

 case may be, but the cause of such suppression is still in the 

 main utterly unknown ; albeit, the few facts we have in reference 

 to this subject are of so interesting a character, that it is a matter 

 of surprise that they have not tempted observers to further re- 

 search in these all but untrodden fields. 



Perhaps an overweening sense of the difficulties to be met 

 with in penetrating into so obscure a subject has deterred many 

 from making the attempt, still, a difficulty is a "thing to be 

 overcome,^^ and there are many points within the compass of an 

 ' ordinarily intelligent observer, which would not necessitate labo- 

 rious and protracted research on his part, and yet would add to 

 our somewhat meagre stock of information on this subject, and 

 perchance lead to the most important results. The best way to 

 illustrate these remarks, and to supply suggestive hints to those 

 who have it in their power to make observations, is to throw 

 together a few excerpta, which will show in part, at least, what 

 has been already done. 



One of the most remarkable, and, at first sight, puzzling cir- 

 cumstances, is the rarity with which the male and female plants, 

 in the case of dioecious plants, are found collected together in 

 anything like equal proportions, even when all the circumstances 

 are taken into consideration. Thus, how rarely are male and fe- 

 male plants of the wild Hop, Bryony, Nettle, Black Bryony, and 

 perennial Mercury, etc., associated together. The plants just 

 mentioned are perennial plants, and the prevalence of plants of 

 one sex in one situation to the entire or partial exclusion of the 

 other has been accounted for by referring to the shoots by which 

 such plants are propagated, which shoots produce flowers of the 

 same sex as those on the plant from which they sprang. But 

 are the sexes more intimately blended, as far as numbers go, in 

 the case of annual dioecious plants, where such propagative shoots 

 are not produced ? We think not. On this point our experience 



N. S. VOL. III. 2 L 



