1889.] BOTANICAL GAZETTE. 1 79 



BRIEFER ARTICLES. 



Curious case of variation in Calla.— A strange and rather remark- 

 able case of variation in the flower structure of this familiar plant 

 recently came to my notice through the kindness of a local florist, who 

 called my attention to it, and upon my observation of its rarity gave it to 

 me for such use as I chose to make of it. 



It presented a well marked example of " double flower " in every es- 

 sential respect. The flower structure of the Calla is so well known that 

 no special description is necessary. The plant itself was perfectly nor- 

 mal to all appearance, save the flower, including care and environment. 

 The stalk upon which this particular flower was borne was not appre- 

 ciably larger than ordinary. In short, there was nothing to indicate 

 the possibility of the monstrosity prior to its appearance. Yet there it 

 was, a perfectly "double calla," in a very literal sense ; for the "double " 

 feature extended to spadix as well as spathe. The only appreciable dif- 

 ference in the parts was in size. The outer and normal flower was very 

 large and fire ; the inner was pure in color and texture, but was less than 

 half the ordinary size. This difference was likewise true as to the spa- 

 dixes, which varied in about the same way, save that they were partially 

 fused together, while the former were wholly distinct. 



Such, in brief, is a general statement of the facts. Monstrosity is not 

 an unusual thing in nature, especially under the influence of domestica- 

 tion; but a glance at the literature of the subject, though limited, seems 

 to indicate that this is a rather rare case. According to Professor Gray, 

 indeed most botanists, flowers are to be considered as the morphological 

 counterparts of leaves modified in such way as to conserve the ends of re- 

 production. The calla has been considered as a striking example of such 

 modification, the transition being so gradual as to be appreciable by even 

 the ordinary observer, there being no floral envelopes save the single, 

 large, modified leaf, in which the original shape is but little changed. 



When variations of these envelopes occur they usually show a dispo- 

 sition to revert to primitive conditions, " retrograde metamorphosis," or 

 to go on to multiply after the forms of foliage, " prolification." There 

 are many examples of these among flowering plants ; but neither seems 

 to cover the case under consideration, unless it be that of prolification in 

 disguise. Again quoting Prof. Gray : " In the application of morphologi- 

 cal ideas to the elucidation of the flower, nothing should be assumed in 

 regard to it which has not its counterpart and exemplar in the leaves and 

 axis of vegetation." (Structural Botany, p. 174, vol. I— sixth edition.) 

 Does the case under consideration not force us to regard some flower 

 structures aa at least partial exceptions to the general laws of variation ? 

 Unless it may be regarded as a case of prolification in disguise, which 

 seems open to doubt, then there seems really no alternative except to 



