NATURE 
409 
THURSDAY, AUGUST. 28, 1¢02. 
A FIELD NATURALISTS SCIENCE. 
The Primrose and Darwinism. By a Field Naturalist, 
M.A. Camb. Pp. xiii + 233. (London: Grant 
Richards, 1902.) Price 6s. net. 
T is hard to tell why this book was written. The 
preface alone is enough to condemn it, for in the 
preface we have in miniature the chief defects of the 
book—inaccuracy and want of scientific method. 
At the foot of p. vi. the author makes the astonishing 
statement that Darwin’s predecessors are to be 
“commended for strictly subordinating theory to natural 
facts. They thus happily avoided the error into which 
Darwin, in this instance at least, most assuredly and 
most conspicuously fell.” 
On p. vil. the author continues, 
“We consider that it was most unfortunate for Natural 
Science that Darwin relied almost so exclusively on | 
artificial observation, or, in other terms, on experiment, 
for the investigation and interpretation of natural laws 
in facts connected with the fertilisation of flowers.” 
That is to say, the botanists are to be commended for 
not having attempted to solve the problem of the sexual 
relation between the two forms of dimorphic flowers in 
the only possible way in which that question can be 
attacked. 
The preface is followed by a chapter of three pages in 
which some technical terms are defined, and an incom- 
plete account of dimorphism is given. This, we gather, 
is intended for the general reader, but it is useless 
for the purpose ; indeed, we fail to see what interest 
such a reader can find in the book. If he is con- 
vinced by the Field Naturalist, and consequently gives 
up his belief in Darwin’s work on the fertilisation of 
flowers, what does he gain? He haslost a coherent and 
interesting doctrine which, whatever may be its faults, is 
undoubtedly in agreement with an enormous range of 
authentic observation and experiment, and one that 
has stood the test of time, having been before the world 
in its modern shape since 1862. The reader is told 
by the Field Naturalist that Avum maculatum is a 
“purely self-fertilised flower”; if his faith endures up 
to this part of the book, and if he accordingly swallows 
the statement, he must for the future give up all attempt 
to find a function for floral structures, the whole build 
and habit of reproductive mechanism having become 
meaningless. It is the same throughout the book ; we 
have pages of weak argument directed against well- 
authenticated conclusions—arguments which, if accepted, 
would leave floral structures unexplained and inexplicable. 
And when the author ventures on suggesting a function, 
we are liable to come across such a theory as that the 
orifice in the carina of Lotus (through which pollen is 
obviously and visibly pumped out) is to serve for the 
ventilation of the pollen stored within the carina ! 
If the general reader desires to read this book, let 
him prepare himself-by reading a discussion on floral 
biology by some candid and competent person. And if, 
after he has seen how the subject can be treated by a 
rational writer, he still insists on reading “‘ The Primrose 
NO. 1713, VOL. 66] 
and Darwinism,” we must leav him to his fate, though we 
shall continue to be sorry for him. 
We do not propose to go through the whole book, but 
to discuss one or two points and to leave our readers to 
judge of the remainder ; we must indeed confess that we 
have found it impossible to read the whole. 
The author’s principal objection to Darwin’s experi- 
ments is that in order to exclude insects he made use of 
a covering of netting. This treatment the author assumes, 
without any evidence, to be injurious to the pollen. He 
gives (p. 8) his general reasons for believing in this 
astonishing conclusion. 
(1) “The influence of the solar rays would be greatly 
diminished,” and “would be much debarred from exer- 
cising their full maturing power on the anthers, .. .” 
This may or may not be the case; but what botanist 
would make such a statement, unsupported by a single 
experiment ? 
(2) “ Radiation would likewise be almost entirely pre- 
vented by the net, and the dew would consequently fail to 
fall on theanthers. . . . In the mornings of early spring, 
. we have frequently found the flowers of the prim- 
rose bedrenched with dew.” 
The general reader would naturally assume that pollen 
is known to be improved in quality by being wetted. No 
botanist would have been likely to frame such a hypo- 
thesis, for it is well known that pollen is injured by water. 
And when a Field Naturalist theorises in this way, with- 
out giving a shred of experimental evidence, he must be 
plainly told that he gives up all claims to be considered 
a man of science. 
(3) “In calm weather” the net would prevent “ the 
free access of the wind, and would prevent it from shak- 
ing, and so from freely disturbing and distributing the 
pollen.” 
Here again not a particle of evidence is given for his 
point of view. 
In Chapter iv. the author gives instances intended to 
prove the injurious effect of the net. They are quoted 
from Darwin’s “Cross and Self-Fertilisation.” One is the 
case of Salvia tenori, which when protected by a net was 
quite sterile except for two or three flowers on the 
summit of the spikes which touched the net when the 
wind blew. 
The Field Naturalist (p. 11) says :— 
“To attribute the capacity for fertilisation” in the un- 
protected “flowers to the bees is perfectly gratuitous, as 
the flowers under the net (when bees were excluded), 
‘when they touched the net and the wind blew,’! pro- 
duced seeds without any cross-fertilisation.” 
How the Field Naturalist accounts for the flowers 
which touched the net when the wind blew being in a 
more natural condition than those which did not touch it 
we are unable to guess. He does not show that they 
were more wetted with dew, and gives, in fact, nothing 
that can be called a reason for his conclusion. Yet he 
has to account for a striking difference, since those 
flowers that did not touch the net were quite sterile. How 
Darwin accounts for the fertility of the flowers is not 
clear. They may have been visited by bees. Why does 
not the Field Naturalist go into this point, which would 
1 An incorrect quotation, 
ae 
