SEXUALITY IN PLANTS. 
By maxwell T. MASTEKS, M.D., F.R.S. 
[PLATE cm.] 
I T has long since become unnecessary to offer any argument 
or illustration in support of the doctrine of sexuality in 
plants. Among the so-called flowerless plants even, the evi- 
dence of the existence of distinct sexes is now so overwhelming 
that there are few who hesitate to believe in its occurrence, 
even in those cases where only one of the two sexes has up to 
this time been demonstrated. Linnaeus, to whom, most of all, 
we owe the promulgation of the doctrine, though he was by no 
means the first to propound it, proceeded to establish it by 
inductive, circumstantial evidence. He brought forward com- 
paratively little in the way of direct proof or absolute demon- 
stration, even among flowering plants, while the actual exist- 
ence of sexes in the so-called flowerless plants has been ques- 
tioned up to within quite recent times. It is a singular fact, 
however, that the whole process of fertilisation has been, gene- 
rally speaking, more thoroughly and completely demonstrated 
among the so-called Cryptograms, long considered as a sexual, 
than among the more highly developed flowering plants. It is 
curious also to remark the different views now taken as to the 
process from those which were held originally. As soon as it 
was clearly perceived that the stamens and the pistils, or their 
contents, were the essential agents in the process of fertilisa- 
tion, it was naturally surmised that the pistil of every given 
flower was fertilised by the pollen of the same flower. Under 
this- supposition many curious contrivances which were observed 
were at once set down as so many aids and promoters of self- 
fertilisation. 
Sprengel was one of the first to show the fallacies of these 
observations, and to demonstrate the frequent existence of 
cross-fertilisation, whether effected by the agency of winds or 
by pollen- carrying insects. 
