268 REVIEWS. 



in specimens growing at Kew." Were tliey not imper- 

 fectly developed blossoms, perhaps late in the season ? Here 

 the flowers open freely, and have rose-colored petals. If he 

 will examine fresh specimens of Scrophularia, it will soon be 

 clear that his idea of their self-fertilization (p. 371) is a mis- 

 take. It is a mere slip in the " Genera Plantar um " through 

 which abortive stamens are attributed to the cleistogamous 

 flowers of Epiphegus. The authors evidently meant to 

 describe the case just as Mr. Henslow found it to be, but used 

 a wrong word. 



" Weeds are probably all self-fertilizing or anemophilous. 

 A weed is simply an unattractive plant, and possessing no 

 feature worthy of cultivation." It may be as difficult to define 

 " a weed " as to define " dirt." But, turning to the " Handbook 

 of the British Flora," we find, as w^e expected, that the showy 

 Corn Poppy, Cockle, and Larkspur are denominated weeds. 

 Why weeds should possess the vigor and gain the predomi- 

 nance which they do is a large question, to which other solu- 

 tions have been offered than that one which is in this essay 

 very plausibly maintained. We cannot take up the topic 

 here ; but, without acceding to his general proposition, we are 

 much disposed to agree with the author in this essay, as respects 

 some of them, that aptitude for self-fertilization may have 

 driven them the advantaQ:e which has determined their w^ide 

 dispersion. 



The insistence upon the importance of self-fertilization is 

 what gives this essay its value. As a w4iole it fortifies the 

 proposition, well laid down by Herman Miiller, which Mr. 

 Henslow cites: " that, under certain conditions, the facility 

 for self-fertilization is most advantageous to a plant, w'hile, 

 under other conditions, the inevitableness of cross-fertilization 

 by the visits of insects is the more advantageous." But this 

 is not our author's thesis. It comes to this : the plan of nature 

 is either cross-fertilization supplemented by close-fertilization, 

 or close-fertilization tempered by cross-fertilization. As re- 

 stricted to 2:»lants the difference is not wide. Regarded gen- 

 erally, the Darwinian axiom is still best sustained. 



