1877.] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
223 
the new wine of cross-fertilization, had somehow 
got into the old bottle intended for guano and the 
phosphates, and it worked badly. 
All the new interest in the subject that we have 
in hand, began oyer a dozen years ago, with the 
publication of Mr. Darwin’s little book “ On the 
Various Contrivances by which Orchids are Fer¬ 
tilized by Insects,” which was published in 1862. 
This year the author has brought out a new and re¬ 
vised edition; and this is re-published here in New 
-York, along-with the whole series of Mr. Darwin’s 
works, by D. Appleton & Co., so that every one 
now can obtain it. The old edition had long been 
scarce, and was never printed in this country. 
Having illustrated, from other families of plants, 
many of the very various contrivances for ensuring 
cross-fertilization, and having shown what the use 
and good of cross-fertilization is, it is fitting to give 
some account of how this is done in orchids—a 
family in which these contrivances are the most 
elaborate and special. However it may be with 
other flowers, it is agreed on all hands that these 
can not get on without the aid of insects. That is, 
as a rule, for Nature seems to delight in exceptions, 
and a few orchid-flowers are adapted to self-fertili¬ 
zation, while as to most this is a sheer impossibility. 
With Darwin’s new book in our hands, and we 
trust in those of some of our readers, we may hope 
to show what a few of these orchid contrivances 
are. Considering that we are just in season for 
Lady Slippers, they will best serve for the present 
article. These form a peculiar tribe of orchids; 
and the contrivance for fertilization is equally 
peculiar. 
Figure 1 shows a flower of the larger sort of yel¬ 
low Lady’s Slipper, which usually blossoms in June. 
Figure 2 is a section of the slipper of the early 
spring species, G. acaule, the stemless Lady’s Slipper. 
What we call a slipper—and which has better been 
likened to a buskin, or an Indian moccason, is in 
fact a trap, after the fashion of one kind of rat- 
trap, the edges of the opening being rolled in, so as 
to facilitate entrance but hinder return. This acts 
more effectually than one might suppose. For, on 
throwing in flies, we find that they seldom get out 
Fig. 2.— SECTION OF STEMLESS LADY’S SLIPPER. 
of this opening, large as it is in the yellow and 
white Lady’s Slippers. In the stemless species, the 
opening, although long—occupying the whole front 
of the pendent sac—is nearly closed, the in-rolled 
edges of the long slit being brought loosely into 
contact. The central part of the blossom, which 
curves downward and covers the upper part of the 
mouth of the trap, consists of stamens, style, and 
stigma, covered by a spade-shaped body, which 
answers to a stamen, as the botanists say, but is a 
useless one, as it has no pollen. Underneath is the 
Fig. 3.— SECTION OF FIGURE 1. 
broad stigma, which faces partly backwards. It is 
best seen in the sections, figures 2 and 3. Under¬ 
neath, a little further back, are the two anthers, one 
on each side, placed, as we shall see, “where they 
will do the most good.” The bottom of the sac is 
lined with long and soft bristles, which appear to 
contain something attractive to flies. There is no 
honey in the slipper, no pollen can of itself ever 
fall on rhe stigma, or be conveyed to it by the wind. 
In fact, the pollen never falls from the anther of 
itself, for, although it appears like a damp powder, 
or like a soft pulp in some species, the surface is 
covered with a thin film of sticky varnish. This var¬ 
nished surface adhers to the finger when touched, 
and brings away with it a patch of the pollen, of the 
size of the adhering surface. 
Now, as to the fertilization, let us copy what we 
wrote about it in the American Agriculturist a dozen 
years ago. “ The flower left alone would be hope¬ 
lessly sterile. Although we have never seen an in¬ 
sect spontaneously enter the slipper and do the 
work, we are about as sure that the work is done in 
this way, as if we had seen it. Probably it is visit¬ 
ed by nocturnal insects. The slipper may be en¬ 
tered by the orifice in front, which, in most species, 
offers the readiest access; or, from behind, by 
crawling under either anther, and thence under the 
stigma into the main sac. A large fly, or a coleop¬ 
terous insect of corresponding size, entering from 
behind, would probably hit the back of his head or 
eye against one of the anthers, and as he crept un¬ 
der the stigma, might lodge some of it there. Feed¬ 
ing upon the hairs as he passed on, the front orifice 
would be before him for egress ; but its incurved 
border would interpose some obstacle. It offers 
none to entrance; and we presume that the insect 
enters at the front, and passing onwards, departs by 
the back door. In departing, whether he turns to 
the right or the left, he must rub his head against an 
overhanging anther, and carry off a plaster of pol¬ 
len. If he then passes to another flower of the 
same species, and enters it by the front orifice, as 
he proceeds towards the most practicable exit, he 
must crowd under the stigma, upon which he will 
hardly fail to deposit some of the pollen brought 
from the neighboring flower. Now, that this is 
really the way of it—that it is intended the insect 
shall enter at the instep and emerge at the heel of 
the slipper, and so bring the pollen of one flower to 
the stigma of another—is as good as demonstrated 
by the peculiar character of the stigma in this flow¬ 
er. It is not glutinous as in the other orchids, but 
only moist, and is rough to the touch. Under a 
microscope this roughness is seen to arise from the 
surface of the stigma being covered with projecting 
points, or what would be so if they were longer; 
and these all turn forwards, so that the apparatus 
may be likened to a rasp, or to a hand wool-card of 
the olden time ; and one can not resist the conclu¬ 
sion that it is intended to card off and to retain the 
pollen brought upon the head of an insect entering 
at the front, and on its way to get out at the back 
part of the flower. A more ingenious and effectual 
contrivance for crossing the flowers of a species by 
the help of insects, could hardly be devised.” 
This is a different view from one which was taken 
by Mr. Darwin in the first edition of his book on 
orchid-fertilization. He had examined only some 
of the tropical species. But what we described as 
in all probabibity true, judging from the structure, 
is now a fact confirmed by observation. We have 
specimens in which a small insect perished on its 
way out, having got stuck fast to the glutinous 
mass of the pollen, which it was too feeble to carry 
away. Mr. Darwin, when this view of the case was 
pointed out to him, finding that the flies he tried 
upon yellow Lady’s Slipper, were either “ too large 
or too stupid,” introduced “a very small bee, 
which seemed about the right size, viz., Andrena 
parvula.''' 1 “The. bee vainly endeavored to crawl 
out again the same way by which it had entered, 
but always fell backwards, owing to the margins 
being inflected. The labellum [slipper] thus acts 
like one of those conical traps with the edges turned 
inwards, which are sold to catch beetles and cock¬ 
roaches in the London kitchens. * * * Ultimately 
it forced its way out through one of the small ori¬ 
fices close to one of the anthers, and was found 
when caught to be smeared with the glutinous pol¬ 
len. I then put the same bee back into the label¬ 
lum, and it again crawled out through one of the 
small orifices, always covered with pollen. I re¬ 
peated the operation five times, always with the 
same result. I afterwards cut away the labellum 
so as to examine the stigma, and found its whole 
surface covered with pollen.”—To complete the 
evidence, Dr. H. Muller found that this very An¬ 
drena which Mr. Darwin happened to try, and other 
species like it, did the work of fertilization natur¬ 
ally for the European Cypripedium in Germany. 
Tm mwmssMM. 
2SF" For other Household Items see " Basket ” pages. 
Home Topics. 
BY FAITH ROCHESTER. 
Fitness in Dress. 
All acknowledge the propriety of putting on cloth¬ 
ing suitable for the work in hand. Has every 
woman some work to do in this world ? If not, 
why is she here ? What right has she to food, and 
clothes, and shelter, and education, if she renders 
no service in return ? Many imagine that they do 
the world sufficient service simply by wearing and 
exhibiting fine costumes—walking pictures, as it 
were ; pretty ornaments for the landscape or the 
parlor. What do you think of the head and the 
heart of a woman who chooses that business as her 
work in the world ? Did you read the article on 
“ Daily Beauty,” which appeared in the “ Atlantic 
Monthly” many years ago ? It was not written for 
“ working women,” but for those who could spend 
most of their time in carriages and in parlors. 
The idea was broached that the working women of 
America should be willing to wear a costume dis¬ 
tinguishing them as working women, a sort of 
peasant’s dress. Our leaven of democracy renders 
that impossible, in the way that the author meant. 
And yet I hope that we shall soon have a genuine 
working woman’s dress, or a costume really suita¬ 
ble for a woman to work in ; one that allows free¬ 
dom of motion, easily made, and easily kept clean; 
and I am sure that when the “ working women ” 
adopt such a costume, no one will long be willing 
to belong to the other class, and continue the use 
of a costume more suitable for an Eastern harem 
than for Christian wives, mothers, and sisters. 
How far shall we follow the fashion? Ruskin 
has been speaking to girls on the subject, in his 
oracular way, and he says they must make their 
new dresses in the prevailing style, and then wear 
them unaltered until they are worn out. But he 
says they must not use cloth to make great unne¬ 
cessary bows, and bunches, andloopings, nor scat¬ 
ter bows and buttons about where they have no 
