ERRONEOUS DEDUCTION. 197 



gested, that half of the plants, with perfect 

 flowers, were hermaphrodite, and the other half, 

 with rudimentary stamens and anthers and no 

 pollen, were female. What were the centuries 

 of study on plant structure worth, if it was not 

 safe to accept the conviction that female organs 

 of normal size are present for the bearing of 

 seed? Darwin said, "The most acute botanist, 

 judging only from structure, would never have 

 suspected that some of the bushes were in func- 

 tion exclusively males." 1 As in the previous 

 example, he sought to verify his inference by 

 watching the fruit. He watched thirteen bushes, 

 eight females and five " hermaphrodites. " 

 The females yielded abundant fruit, and a 

 single branch two or three feet long from one 

 of them yielded more than any one whole bush 

 among the "hermaphrodites." The inference 

 from structure was almost completely reversed. 

 The species seemed to be practically dioecious, 

 with the stamens aborted in the females, but 

 the pistils apparently normal in the individuals 

 that were almost exclusively male in function. 

 He might here again have rested the case, and 

 recorded the spindle-tree as dioecious. 



But hear him : " I now determined to observe 

 more carefully during successive seasons some 

 1 Different Forms of Flowers, etc., pp. 287-292. 



