576 
visited by bees, nor disturbed by being beaten by the wind 
against the surrounding net.” The reviewer says :—‘‘ The 
Field Naturalist quotes the passage incorrectly, omitting ‘ when 
the flowers are neither visited by bees.’” In my chapter headed 
“The Sterilising Influence of Darwin’s Net,” where the quota- 
tion occurs, the bees in this reference—as they were excluded 
by the net—had nothing whatever to do with the subject, and so 
reference to them was omitted ; the effect of the net and of the 
net alone on fertilisation was there being discussed. 
Such are the passages which the reviewer cites as misquoted 
or interpolated. 1 should have esteemed it a deep dishonour if 
I had knowingly misquoted any statement of Darwin, or had 
interpolated any words in quotations from Darwin, and should 
not lightly have excused myself even had it been done carelessly or 
unwittingly. To avoid all such charges like those of the re- 
viewer, I distinctly state in the preface :—‘‘ We have carefully 
given the references to all the passages quoted, or referred to, 
in the following pages.’’ This was done that every reader 
might find without trouble, if he desired, the original passages 
and could compare the quotation with them. 
At p. 409, the reviewer cites from ‘‘The Primrose and 
Darwinism” :—‘‘ In calm weather the net would prevent the 
free access of the wind and would prevent it from shaking, and 
so from freely disturbing and distributing the pollen ” (p. 8), and 
states ‘*not a particle of evidence is given from his point of 
view.” The evidence in this case is supplied by Darwin him- 
self :—‘‘ In all cases the flowers were protected from the wind” 
(Cr. and S.F., p. 23); and again, as quoted in Prim. and Dar., 
““The wind does hardly anything in the way of conveying 
pollen from plant to plant when insects are excluded” (F. of 
Fl., p. 93). 
The reviewer says, ‘‘ When the author ventures on suggesting 
a function we are liable to come across such a theory, as the 
orifice in the carina of Lotus is to serve for the ventilation of the 
pollen stored within the carina.” As I spent three and a half to 
four years of my life in the uninterrupted study of physiology 
and its sister sciences, there still remains a sufficient residuum of 
its flavour in the cask that I can venture to assert that if your 
reviewer will only consult a competent physiologist about a 
pistil surrounded with packed pollen in a closed carina, like 
Fig. 13, p. 132 (Sowerby’s ‘‘English Botany,” v. iii.), of the 
Lotus, he will tell the reviewer that such ventilation of a cone, if 
not absolutely necessary in every season, yet would be absolutely 
mecessary in some seasons, and would be very conducive in 
all seasons to the healthy fertilisation and fructification of the pod. 
Finally, the reviewer states, ‘‘the author makes the astonish- 
ing 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.’’ The 
reference here is to the dimorphism of the primrose and to 
Darwin’s statement in reference to such a state—‘‘ One form of 
Primula must unite with the other form in order to produce full 
fertility” (‘‘ Form of Flowers,” pp. 49, 56). And again, 
“‘heterostyled flowers stand in the reciprocal relation of different 
sexes to each other” (“‘ Form of Flowers,” pp. 2, 28, 245). 
The late Professor J. S. Henslow was acquainted with the 
heterostylism of the primrose as stated (and quoted) by me in the 
preface to the book, but Darwin alone fell into the error that 
«the two forms stood in the reciprocal relation of different sexes 
to each other.” I will leave to the judgment of botanists who 
are also acquainted with the long-tongued Hymenoptera aculeata 
and Lepidoptera to decide the question in the spring by observing 
the flowers from the middle of March to the end of April, 
whether the short-styled primrose, though fully productive, is 
cross-fertilised by insects. 
In the same way we will leave to all observers or naturalists, 
by their observing the flowers in the month of May, the question 
whether the Aru is not, with possibly some very accidental 
exceptions, ‘‘a purely self-fertilised flower.” We know of no 
English plant which gives plainer and more easily observable 
evidence to the fact of self-fertilisation. This is our decided 
opinion after having examined more than 500 specimens of openéd 
spathes and found in them no evidence to the contrary. 
After examining these cases the reviewer will not, I think, 
‘find it hard to tell why this book was written.” But lest 
he should still after that finda difficulty, I will tell him myself. 
It was, and is, to show that artificial experiments conducted 
under a close-meshed net was an unnatural and very defective 
method to discover the operations of Nature in flowers when 
NO. 1719, VOL. 66] 
NATURE 
[OcToBER 9, 1902 
exposed to the unlimited influence of sun, wind, dew and other 
atmospheric agencies ; and to show that Nature must be inter- 
preted under the atmospheric conditions which she herself 
provides, and not under those conditions minimised and in some 
cases almost absolutely intercepted. 
AUTHOR OF “‘ PRIMROSE AND DARWINISM.” 
September 2. 
In my review of ‘‘ The Primrose and Darwinism,” I thought 
it necessary to call attention to the inaccuracy of the author in 
the matter of quotation, but I had not the least intention of 
accusing him of anything more than carelessness. For instance, 
in the case of Savothamnus, to which he refers in his letter, I 
was quite ready to believe that the omission of words within 
inverted commas was an oversight. But in his letter he tells us 
that they were omitted because ‘‘ the bees in this reference—as 
they were excluded by the net—had nothing whatever to do with 
the subject.” He stands self-convicted of knowingly altering 
what he quotes, but I readily believe that he is guilty of nothing 
worse than ignorance of the usage of literary work. 
The Field Naturalist objects to my statement that there are 
“several copyist’s mistakes” as well as ‘‘interpolated words” 
on p. 191 of his book. I therefore give the passage in his book 
to which I referred, followed by the corrections needed to make 
it agree with ‘‘ Forms of Flowers,” ed. ii. p. 323.1 
But in Oxalzs sensitiva ‘the long-styled cleistogamic flowers 
are produced by long-styled plants; the mid-styled as well as 
the short-styled cleistogamic flowers are produced respectively 
by the other two forms,” 
The mistakes are :— 
For ‘‘ the long-styled read the ‘‘ long-styled. 
For produced by long-styled vead produced by the long- 
styled. 
For the mid-styled read and mid-styled. 
for the short-styled read short-styled. 
Dele, produced respectively. 
If the Field Naturalist really considers this a justifiable 
sample of the art of citation I shall be surprised. 
With regard to Sa/véa tenor, the Field Naturalist complains 
that I describe (p. 409) the words, ‘‘when they touched the 
net and the wind blew” (‘‘ The Primrose,” &c., p. 11) as an in- 
correct quotation. When I read the phrase in question I was 
so much surprised to find these words attributed to Mr. Darwin 
that I turned to his book, where I found, ‘‘ which touched the 
net when the wind blew.” Istill think thatthe Field Naturalist 
is not justified in placing within inverted commas a passage 
which does not occur in the original ; nor can I agree with him 
that the correct and incorrect versions convey ‘“‘ exactly the 
same sense.” This was the only inaccuracy in regard to 
Salvza tenort to which I called attention in my review; but I 
now learn, from the parallel passages given in the Field 
Naturalist’s letter, that he quotes incorrectly the words ‘‘ two 
or three flowers on- the summits of three of the spikes,” 
changing them by a not unimportant omission to ‘‘ two or three 
flowers on the summits of the spikes.” 
Lastly, the Field Naturalist complains of my saying that he 
has not a *‘ particle of evidence” for his point of view in regard to 
the supposed injurious effect of the net in keeping the wind from 
the experimental plants. He goes on: ‘* The evidence in this 
case is supplied by Darwin himself. ‘In all cases the flowers 
were protected from the wind.’ What we want is not evidence 
of protection from wind, but evidence that such protection has 
any hurtful effect on the reproductive organs of the plants. 
The rest of the Field Naturalist’s remarks do not seem to 
me to call for reply. THE WRITER OF THE REVIEW. 
A Method of Treating Parallels. 
In your issue of July 3, just to hand, Dr. Richardson suggests 
a method of treating parallels which differs from the orthodox 
Euclidean method. Improvements of a kind similar to that 
suggested by him will go far towards rendering the teaching of 
geometry more effective than it is at present. I differ from him 
toa slight degree in this particular instance, in that I consider 
it preferable to take the more general case of equal inclination 
of parallels to any straight line which cuts them as expressing 
the clearest and most useful conception of parallelism. By 
constituting sameness of direction the criterion of parallels— 
direction being purely relative, this sameness is determined by 
1 The passage is the same in edit. i. 
