664 TRAVEL IN EUROPE AND AMERICA. [1876, 



TO CHAELES DAKWIN. 



Decembers, 1876. 



. . . Curious that one species should take pains to 

 close fertilize some flowers, the other to cross aU. . . . 



Now I want to beg of you to consider about a name 

 for this kind of thing, on which, as a good judge, you 

 could consult Bentham, or indeed. Hooker, if he can 

 give it attention. 



This matter will need to come into generic or spe- 

 cific characters, and therefore wants a terse and un- 

 ambiguous mode of expression in a single word. 



My old expression thirty or so years ago, " dicecio- 

 dimorphous," you reasonably objected to, implying 

 separation of sexes (which, though, it need not do). 



Yours of " dimorphous " should be, as the lawyers 

 say, void for vagnieness, there being plenty of other 

 kinds of dimorphism in flowers. 



Hildebrand's, of " heterostylous," the difference 

 being in other things as well as style, and, I think, 

 possible sometimes not in the style. The term will 

 not work well in characters, whether in Latin or Eng- 

 lish. I have proposed, accordingly, in a little article 

 not yet j^ublished, to use the term " heterogone," in 

 other form " heterogonous," in Latin " Flores hetero- 

 goni," with the counterpart " homogone," " homogo- 

 nous," " Flores homogoni." 



This means, you see, explicitly, diverse genitalia, 

 and the yov-q is used as in the common botanical term 

 " perigonium." 



TO B. W. CHUKCH. 



February 5, 1877. 



Your friend Lord Blachford is an unrivaled expo- 

 sitor. I have just been reading, with extreme sat- 



