Chapter 29

On a visit to a nursery at Erfurt I once inspected an experiment with a new double variety of the common blue-bottle or blue corn-flower. The plants were dependent on the weather to a high degree. Bad weather increased the number of poorly filled flower-heads, while warm and sunny days were productive of beautiful double flowers. The heads that are borne by strong branches have a greater tendency to become double than those of the weaker ones, [508] and towards the autumn, when all those of the first group are faded away, and only a weak though large section of the heads is still flowering, the whole aspect of the variety gradually retrogrades. The same law of dependency and periodicity is prevalent everywhere. In my own cultures of the improved field-marigold I have observed it frequently. The number of the ray-florets may be considered as a direct response to nourishment, both when this is determined by external circumstances, and when it depends on the particular strength of the branch, which bears the head in question. It is a case exactly similar to that of the supernumerary carpels of the pistilloid poppy, and the deductions arrived at with that variety may be applied directly to double flowers.

This dependency upon nourishment is of high practical importance in combination with the usual effect of the doubling which makes the flowers sterile. It is a general rule that the most perfect flowers do not produce seed. At the height of the flowering period the external circumstances are the most favorable, and the flowering branches still constitute the stronger axes of the plants. Hence we may infer that sterility will prevail precisely in this period. Many varieties are known to yield only seeds from the very last flowers, as for instance some [509] double begonias. Others bear only seed on their weaker lateral branches, as the double camomile, or become fertile only towards the fall, as is often the case with the above quoted Erfurt variety of the blue-bottle. As far as I have been able to ascertain, such seeds are quite adequate for the reproduction and perpetuation of the double varieties, but the question whether there are differences between the seeds of the more or less double flowers of the same plants still remains open. It is very probable, from a theoretical point of view, that such differences exist, but perhaps they are so slight, as to have practically no bearing on the question.

On the ground of their wide range of variability, the double varieties must be regarded as pertaining to the group of ever-sporting forms. On one side they fluctuate in the direction towards such petalomanous flowers as are borne by the stocks and others, which we have previously discussed. Here no trace of the fertile organs is left. But this extreme is never reached by petaloid double flowers. A gap remains which, often overlooked, always exists, and which sharply separates the two types. On the other hand the alteration of the stamens gradually relapses to perfectly single flowers. Here the analogy with the pistillody of the poppies and with the "five-leaved" clover is obvious.

[510] This conception of the inner nature of double flowers explains the fact that the varietal mark is seldom seen to be complete throughout larger groups of individuals, providing these have not been already selected by this character. _Tagetes africana_ is liable to produce some poorly filled specimens, and some double varieties of carnations are offered for sale with the note that the seed yields only 80% of doubles. With _Chrysanthemum coronarium_ and blue-bottles this figure is often announced to be only about 50%. No doubt it is partly due to impurities, caused by vicinism, but it is obviously improbable that the effect of these impurities should be so large.

Some cases of partial reversion may be interpreted in the same way. Among the garden anemones, _Anemone coronaria_, there is a variety called the "Bride," on account of its pure white dowers. It is for sale with single and with double flowers, and these two forms are known to sport into one another, although they are multiplied in the vegetative way. Such cases are known to be of quite ordinary occurrence. Of course such sports must be considered as partial, and the same stem may bear both types of flowers. It even happens that some particular flower is partly double and partly single. Mr. Krelage, of Haarlem, had the kindness to [511] send me such a curious flower. One half of it was completely double, while the other half was entirely single, bearing normal and fertile stamens in the ordinary number.

The same halfway doubling is recorded to occur among composites sometimes, and from the same source I possess in my collection a head of _Pyrethrum roseum_, bearing on half of its disk elongated corolla tubes, and on the other half the small disk-florets of the typical species.

It is a current belief, that varieties are improved by continued culture. I have never been able to ascertain the grounds on which this conviction rests. It may be referred either to the purity of the race or to the complete development of the varietal character. In the first case it is a question of hybrid mixtures from which many young varieties must be freed before being placed on the market. But as we have already seen in a former lecture, this requires only three or four years, and afterwards the degree of purity is kept up to the point which proves to be the most suitable for practical purposes. The complete development of the varietal character is a question restricted to ever-sporting varieties, since in white flowers and other constant varieties this degree is variable in a very small and unimportant measure. [512] Hence the double flowers seem to afford a very good example for this discussion.

It can be decided by two facts. First by a consideration of the oldest double varieties, and secondly by that of the very youngest. Are the older ones now in a better condition than at the outset? Have they really been gradually improved during the centuries of their existence? Obviously this can only be answered by a comparison of the figures given by older writers, with the varieties as they are now in culture. Munting's drawings and descriptions are now nearly two centuries and a half old, but I do not find any real difference between his double varieties and their present representatives. So it is in other cases in which improvements by crossing or the introduction of new forms does not vitiate the evidence. Double varieties, as a rule, are exactly the same now, as they were at the time of their first introduction.

If this were otherwise one would expect that young double varieties should in the main display only slight grades of the anomaly, and that they would require centuries to reach their full development. Nothing of the kind is on record. On the contrary the newest double sorts are said to be not only equal to their predecessors, but to excel them. As a rule such claims may be exaggerated, but not to any great extent. [513] This is proven in the simplest way by the result of our own experiment.

In the double field-marigold we have the very first generation of a variety of pure and not hybrid origin. It shows the new attribute in its full development. It has flower-heads nearly as completely filled as the best double varieties of allied cultivated composites. In the second generation it reached heads with 200 rays each, and much larger numbers will seldom be seen in older species on heads of equal size. I have compared my novelty with the choicest double camomiles and others, but failed to discover any real difference. Improvement of the variety developed in the experiments carried on by myself seems to be excluded by the fact that it comes into conflict with the same difficulty that confronts the older cultivated species, viz.: the increasing sterility of the race.

It is perfectly evident that this double marigold is now quite constant. Continuously varying about a fixed average it may live through centuries, but the mean and the limits will always remain the same, as in the case of the ever-sporting varieties.

Throughout this lecture I have spoken of double flowers and double flower-heads of composites as of one single group. They are as nearly related from the hereditary point of [514] view, as they are divergent in other respects. It would be superfluous to dwell any longer upon the difference between heads and flowers. But it is as well to point out, that the term double flowers indicates a motley assemblage of different phenomena. The hen-and-chicken daisy, and the corresponding variety of the garden cineraria (_Cineraria cruenta_), are extremes on one side. The hen-and-chicken type occurs even in other families and is known to produce most curious anomalies, as with _Scabiosa_, the supernumerary heads of which may be produced on long stalks and become branched themselves in the same manner.

Petalody of the stamens is well known to be the ordinary type of doubling. But it is often accompanied by a multiplication of the organs, both of the altered stamens and of the petals themselves. This proliferation may consist in median or in lateral cleavages, and in both cases the process may be repeated one or more times. It would be quite superfluous to give more details, which may be gathered from any morphologic treatise on double flowers. But from the physiologic point of view all these cases are to be considered as one large group, complying with previously given definitions of the ever-sporting varieties. They are very variable and wholly permanent. Obviously this [515] permanency agrees perfectly with the conception of their sudden origin.

[516]

LECTURE XVIII

NEW SPECIES OF _OENOTHERA_

In our experiments on the origin of peloric varieties and double flowers we were guided in the choice of our material by a survey of the evidence already at hand. We chose the types known to be most commonly produced anew, either in the wild state or under the conditions of cultivation. In both instances our novelty was a variety in the ordinary sense of the word. Our pedigree-culture was mainly an experimental demonstration of the validity of conclusions, which had previously been deduced from such observations as can be made after the accidental birth of new forms.

From these facts, and even from these pedigree-experiments, it is scarcely allowable to draw conclusions as to the origin of real species. If we want to know how species originate, it is obviously necessary to have recourse to direct observation. The question is of the highest importance, both for the theory of descent, and for our conception of the real nature of [517] systematic affinities at large. Many authors have tried to solve it on the ground of comparative studies and of speculations upon the biologic relations of plants and animals. But in vain. Contradiction and doubt still reign supreme. All our hopes now rest on the result of experiments.

Unfortunately such experiments seemed simply impossible a few years ago. What is to guide us in the choice of the material? The answer may only be expected from a consideration of elementary species. For it is obvious that they only can be observed to originate, and that the systematic species, because they are only artificial groups of lower unities, can never become the subject of successful experimental inquiry.

In previous lectures we tried to clear up the differences existing between nearly related elementary species. We have seen that they affect all of the attributes of the plants, each of them changing in some measure all of the organs. Nevertheless they were due to distinct unities and of the lowest possible degree. Such unit-steps may therefore be expected to become visible some time or other by artificial means. On the other hand, mutations as a rule make their appearance in groups, and there are many systematic species which on close inspection [518] have been shown to be in reality composite assemblages. Roses and brambles, hawkweeds and willows are the best known examples. Violets and _Draba verna_, dandelions and helianthemums and many other instances were dealt with in previous lectures. Even wheat and barley and corn afford instances of large groups of elementary species. Formerly mixed in the fields, they became separated during the last century, and now constitute constant races, which, for brevity's sake, are dealt with under the name of varieties.

In such groups of nearly allied forms the single members must evidently be of common origin. It is not necessary for them to have originated all in the same place or at the same time. In some cases, as with _Draba verna_, the present geographic distribution points to a common birthplace, from whence the various forms may about the same period have radiated in all directions. The violets on the other hand seem to include widely diffused original forms, from which branches have started at different times and in different localities.

The origin of such groups of allied forms must therefore be the object of our research. Perhaps we might find a whole group, perhaps only part of it. In my opinion we have the right to assume that if _Draba_ and violets and [519] others have formerly mutated in this way, other species must at present be in the same changeable condition. And if mutations in groups, or such periodic mutations should be the rule, it is to be premised that these periods recur from time to time, and that many species must even now be in mutating condition, while others are not.

It is readily granted that the constant condition of species is the normal one, and that mutating periods must be the exception. This fact does not tend to increase our prospect of discovering a species in a state of mutability. Many species will have to be tested before finding an instance. On the other hand, a direct trial seems to be the only way to reach the goal. No such special guides as those that led us to the choice of pelories and double flowers are available. The only indication of value is the presumption that a condition of mutability might be combined with a general state of variability at large, and that groups of plants of very uniform features might be supposed to be constant in this respect too. On the contrary, anomalies and deviations if existent in the members of one strain, or found together in one native locality of a species, might be considered as an indication in the desired direction.

Few plants vary in the wild state in such a [520] measure as to give distinct indications. All have to be given a trial in the garden under conditions as similar as possible to their natural environments. Cultivated plants are of course to be excluded. Practically they have already undergone the experience in question and can not be expected to change their habits soon enough. Moreover they are often of hybrid origin. The best way is to experiment with the native plants of one's own country.

I have made such experiments with some hundred species that grow wild in Holland. Some were very variable, as for instance, the jointed charlock (_Raphanus Raphanistrum_) and the narrow-leaved plantain (_Plantago lanceolata_). Others seemed more uniform, but many species, collected without showing any malformation, subsequently produced them in my garden, either on the introduced plants themselves or among their offspring. From this initial material I have procured a long series of hereditary races, each with some peculiar anomaly for its special character. But this result was only a secondary gain, a meager consolation for the negative fact that no real mutability could be discovered.

My plants were mostly annuals or biennials, or such perennials as under adequate treatment might produce flowers and seeds during their [521] first summer. It would be of no special use to enumerate them. The negative result does not apply to the species as such, but only to the individual strain, which I collected and cultivated. Many species, which are quite constant with us, may be expected to be mutable in other parts of their range.

Only one of all my tests met my expectations. This species proved to be in a state of mutation, producing new elementary forms continually, and it soon became the chief member of my experimental garden. It was one of the evening primroses.

Several evening-primroses have at different times been introduced into European gardens from America. From thence they have spread into the vicinity, becoming common and exhibiting the behavior of indigenous types. _Oenothera biennis_ was introduced about 1614 from Virginia, or nearly three centuries ago. _O. muricata_, with small corollas and narrow leaves, was introduced in the year 1789 by John Hunneman, and _O. suaveolens_, or sweet-scented primrose, a form very similar to the _biennis_, about the same time, in 1778, by John Fothergill. This form is met with in different parts of France, while the _biennis_ and _muricata_ are very common in the sandy regions of Holland, where I have observed them for [522] more than 40 years. They are very constant and have proven so in my experiments. Besides these three species, the large-flowered evening-primrose, or _Oenothera lamarckiana_, is found in some localities in Holland and elsewhere. We know little concerning its origin. It is supposed to have come from America in the same way as its congeners, but as yet I have not been able to ascertain on what grounds this supposition rests. As far as I know, it has not been seen growing wild in this country, though it may have been overlooked. The fact that the species of this group are subject to many systematic controversies and are combined by different writers into systematic species in different ways, being often considered as varieties of one or two types, easily accounts for it having been overlooked. However, it would be of great interest to ascertain whether _O. lamarckiana_ yet grows in America, and whether it is in the same state of mutability here as it is in Holland.

The large-flowered evening-primrose was also cultivated about the beginning of the last century in the gardens of the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, at Paris, where it was noticed by Lamarck, who at once distinguished it as an undescribed species. He wrote a complete description [523] of it and his type specimens are still preserved in the herbarium of the Museum, where I have compared them with the plants of my own culture. Shortly afterwards it was renamed by Seringe, in honor of its eminent discoverer, whose name it now bears. So Lamarck unconsciously discovered and described himself the plant, which after a century, was to become the means of an empirical demonstration of his far-reaching views on the common origin of all living beings.

_Oenothera lamarckiana_ is considered in Europe as a garden-plant, much prized for parks and ornamental planting. It is cultivated by seed-merchants and offered for sale. It has escaped from gardens, and having abundant means for rapid multiplication, has become wild in many places. As far as I know its known localities are small, and it is to be presumed that in each of them the plant has escaped separately from culture. It was in this state that I first met with this beautiful species.

Lamarck's evening-primrose is a stately plant, with a stout stem, attaining often a height of 1.6 meters and more. When not crowded the main stem is surrounded by a large circle of smaller branches, growing upwards from its base so as often to form a dense bush. These branches in their turn have numerous lateral [524] branches. Most of them are crowned with flowers in summer, which regularly succeed each other, leaving behind them long spikes of young fruits. The flowers are large and of a bright yellow color, attracting immediate attention, even from a distance. They open towards evening, as the name indicates, and are pollinated by humble-bees and moths. On bright days their duration is confined to one evening, but during cloudy weather they may still be found open on the following morning. Contrary to their congeners they are dependent on visiting insects for pollination. _O. biennis_ and _O. muricata_ have their stigmas in immediate contact with the anthers within the flower-buds, and as the anthers open in the morning preceding the evening of the display of the petals, fecundation is usually accomplished before the insects are let in. But in _O. lamarckiana_ no such self-fertilization takes place. The stigmas are above the anthers in the bud, and as the style increases in length at the time of the opening of the corolla, they are elevated above the anthers and do not receive the pollen. Ordinarily the flowers remained sterile if not visited by insects or pollinated by myself, although rare instances of self-fertilization were seen.

In falling off, the flowers leave behind them a stout ovary with four cells and a large number [525] of young seeds. The capsule when ripe, opens at its summit with four valves, and contains often from two to three hundred seeds. A hundred capsules on the main stem is an average estimate, and the lateral branches may ripen even still more fruits, by which a very rapid dissemination is ensured.

This striking species was found in a locality near Hilvers, in the vicinity of Amsterdam, where it grew in some thousands of individuals. Ordinarily biennial, it produces rosettes in the first, and stems in the second year. Both the stems and the rosettes were at once seen to be highly variable, and soon distinct varieties could be distinguished among them.

The first discovery of this locality was made in 1886. Afterwards I visited it many times, often weekly or even daily during the first few years, and always at least once a year up to the present time. This stately plant showed the long-sought peculiarity of producing a number of new species every year. Some of them were observed directly on the field, either as stems or as rosettes. The latter could be transplanted into my garden for further observation, and the stems yielded seeds to be sown under like control. Others were too weak to live a sufficiently long time in the field. They were discovered by sowing seed from indifferent plants [526] of the wild locality in the garden. A third and last method of getting still more new species from the original strain, was the repetition of the sowing process, by saving and sowing the seed which ripened on the introduced plants. These various methods have led to the discovery of over a dozen new types, never previously observed or described.

Leaving the physiologic side of the relations of these new forms for the next lecture, it would be profitable to give a short description of the several novelties. To this end they may be combined under five different heads, according to their systematic value. The first head includes those which are evidently to be considered as varieties, in the narrower sense of the word, as previously given. The second and third heads indicate the real progressive elementary species, first those which are as strong as the parent-species, and secondly a group of weaker types, apparently not destined to be successful. Under the fourth head I shall include some inconstant forms, and under the last head those that are organically incomplete.

Of varieties with a negative attribute, or real retrograde varieties, I have found three, all of them in a flowering condition in the field. I have given them the names of _laevifolia_, _brevistylis_ and _nanella_.