The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species - Charles Robert Darwin (ebook reader screen TXT) 📗

obviously differ from each other in the length of their pistils and stamens. (1/1. This fact, according to Von Mohl 'Botanische Zeitung' 1863 page 326, was first observed by Persoon in the year 1794.) This difference has hitherto been looked at as a case of mere variability, but this view, as we shall presently see, is far from the true one. Florists who cultivate the Polyanthus and Auricula have long been aware of the two kinds of flowers, and they call the plants which display the globular stigma at the mouth of the corolla, "pin-headed" or "pin-eyed," and those which display the anthers, "thrum-eyed." (1/2. In Johnson's Dictionary, "thrum" is said to be the ends of weavers' threads; and I suppose that some weaver who cultivated the Polyanthus invented this name, from being struck with some degree of resemblance between the cluster of anthers in the mouth of the corolla and the ends of his threads.) I will designate the two forms as the long-styled and short-styled.
The pistil in the long-styled form is almost exactly twice as long as that of the short-styled. The stigma stands in the mouth of the corolla or projects just above it, and is thus externally visible. It stands high above the anthers, which are situated halfway down the tube and cannot be easily seen. In the short-styled form the anthers are attached near the mouth of the tube, and therefore stand above the stigma, which is seated in about the middle of the tubular corolla. The corolla itself is of a different shape in the two forms; the throat or expanded portion above the attachment of the anthers being much longer in the long-styled than in the short-styled form. Village children notice this difference, as they can best make necklaces by threading and slipping the corollas of the long-styled flowers into one another. But there are much more important differences. The stigma in the long-styled form is globular; in the short-styled it is depressed on the summit, so that the longitudinal axis of the former is sometimes nearly double that of the latter. Although somewhat variable in shape, one difference is persistent, namely, in roughness: in some specimens carefully compared, the papillae which render the stigma rough were in the long- styled form from twice to thrice as long as in the short-styled. The anthers do not differ in size in the two forms, which I mention because this is the case with some heterostyled plants. The most remarkable difference is in the pollen- grains. I measured with the micrometer many specimens, both dry and wet, taken from plants growing in different situations, and always found a palpable difference. The grains distended with water from the short-styled flowers were about .038 millimetres (10 to 11/7000 of an inch) in diameter, whilst those from the long-styled were about .0254 millimetres (7/7000 of an inch), which is in the ratio of 100 to 67. The pollen-grains therefore from the longer stamens of the short-styled form are plainly larger than those from the shorter stamens of the long-styled. When examined dry, the smaller grains are seen under a low power to be more transparent than the larger grains, and apparently in a greater degree than can be accounted for by their less diameter. There is also a difference in shape, the grains from the short-styled plants being nearly spherical, those from the long-styled being oblong with the angles rounded; this difference disappears when the grains are distended with water. The long-styled plants generally tend to flower a little before the short-styled: for instance, I had twelve plants of each form growing in separate pots and treated in every respect alike; and at the time when only a single short-styled plant was in flower, seven of the long-styled had expanded their flowers.
We shall, also, presently see that the short-styled plants produce more seed than the long-styled. It is remarkable, according to Professor Oliver, that the ovules in the unexpanded and unimpregnated flowers of the latter are considerably larger than those of the short-styled flowers (1/3. 'Natural History Review' July 1862 page 237.); and this I suppose is connected with the long-styled flowers producing fewer seeds, so that the ovules have more space and nourishment for rapid development.
To sum up the differences:--The long-styled plants have a much longer pistil, with a globular and much rougher stigma, standing high above the anthers. The stamens are short; the grains of pollen smaller and oblong in shape. The upper half of the tube of the corolla is more expanded. The number of seeds produced is smaller and the ovules larger. The plants tend to flower first.
The short-styled plants have a short pistil, half the length of the tube of the corolla, with a smooth depressed stigma standing beneath the anthers. The stamens are long; the grains of pollen are spherical and larger. The tube of the corolla is of uniform diameter except close to the upper end. The number of seeds produced is larger.
I have examined a large number of flowers; and though the shape of the stigma and the length of the pistil both vary, especially in the short-styled form, I have never met with any transitional states between the two forms in plants growing in a state of nature. There is never the slightest doubt under which form a plant ought to be classed. The two kinds of flowers are never found on the same individual plant. I marked many cowslips and primroses, and on the following year all retained the same character, as did some in my garden which flowered out of their proper season in the autumn. Mr. W. Wooler, of Darlington, however, informs us that he has seen early blossoms on the Polyanthus, which were not long-styled, but became so later in the season. (1/4. I have proved by numerous experiments, hereafter to be given, that the Polyanthus is a variety of Primula veris.) Possibly in this case the pistils may not have been fully developed during the early spring. An excellent proof of the permanence of the two forms may be seen in nursery-gardens, where choice varieties of the Polyanthus are propagated by division; and I found whole beds of several varieties, each consisting exclusively of the one or the other form. The two forms exist in the wild state in about equal numbers: I collected 522 umbels from plants growing in several stations, taking a single umbel from each plant; and 241 were long-styled, and 281 short-styled. No difference in tint or size could be perceived in the two great masses of flowers.
We shall presently see that most of the species of Primula exist under two analogous forms; and it may be asked what is the meaning of the above-described important differences in their structure? The question seems well worthy of careful investigation, and I will give my observations on the cowslip in detail. The first idea which naturally occurred to me was, that this species was tending towards a dioecious condition; that the long-styled plants, with their longer pistils, rougher stigmas, and smaller pollen-grains, were more feminine in nature, and would produce more seed;--that the short-styled plants, with their shorter pistils, longer stamens and larger pollen-grains, were more masculine in nature. Accordingly, in 1860, I marked a few cowslips of both forms growing in my garden, and others growing in an open field, and others in a shady wood, and gathered and weighed the seed. In all the lots the short-styled plants yielded, contrary to my expectation, most seed. Taking the lots together, the following is the result:--
TABLE 1.1.
Column 1: Plant. Column 2: Number of Plants. Column 3: Number of Umbels Produced. Column 4: Number of Capsules Produced. Column 5: Weight of Seed In Grains.
Short-styled cowslips : 9 : 33 : 199 : 83. Long-styled cowslips : 13 : 51 : 261 : 91.
If we compare the weight from an equal number of plants, and from an equal number of umbels, and from an equal number of capsules of the two forms, we get the following results:--
TABLE 1.2.
Column 1: Plant. Column 2: Number of Plants. Column 3: Weight of Seed in grains. ... Column 4: Number of Umbels. Column 5: Weight of Seed. ... Column 6: Number of Capsules. Column 7: Weight of Seed in grains.
Short-styled cowslips : 10 : 92 :: 100 : 251 :: 100 : 41. Long-styled cowslips : 10 : 70 :: 100 : 178 :: 100 : 34.
So that, by all these standards of comparison, the short-styled form is the more fertile; if we take the number of umbels (which is the fairest standard, for large and small plants are thus equalised), the short-styled plants produce more seed than the long-styled, in the proportion of nearly four to three.
In 1861 the trial was made in a fuller and fairer manner. A number of wild plants had been transplanted during the previous autumn into a large bed in my garden, and all were treated alike; the result was:--
TABLE 1.3.
Column 1: Plant. Column 2: Number of Plants. Column 3: Number of Umbels. Column 4: Weight of Seed in grains.
Short-styled cowslips : 47 : 173 : 745. Long-styled cowslips : 58 : 208 : 692.
These figures give us the following proportions:--
TABLE 1.4.
Column 1: Plant. Column 2: Number of Plants. Column 3: Weight of Seed in grains. ... Column 4: Number of Umbels. Column 5: Weight of Seed in grains.
Short-styled cowslips : 100 : 1585 :: 100 : 430. Long-styled cowslips : 100 : 1093 :: 100 : 332.
The season was much more favourable this year than the last; the plants also now grew in good soil, instead of in a shady wood or struggling with other plants in the open field; consequently the actual produce of seed was considerably larger. Nevertheless we have the same relative result; for the short-styled plants produced more seed than the long-styled in nearly the proportion of three to two; but if we take the fairest standard of comparison, namely, the product of seeds from an equal number of umbels, the excess is, as in the former case, nearly as four to three.
Looking to these trials made during two successive years on a large number of plants, we may safely conclude that the short-styled form is more productive than the long-styled form, and the same result holds good with some other species of Primula. Consequently my anticipation that the plants with longer pistils, rougher stigmas, shorter stamens and smaller pollen-grains, would prove to be more feminine in nature, is exactly the reverse of the truth.
In 1860 a few umbels on some plants of both the long-styled and short-styled form, which had been covered by a net, did not produce any seed, though other umbels on the same plants, artificially fertilised, produced an abundance of seed; and this fact shows that the mere covering in itself was not injurious. Accordingly, in 1861, several plants were similarly covered just before they expanded their flowers; these turned out as follows:--
TABLE 1.5.
Column 1: Plant. Column 2: Number of Plants. Column 3: Number of Umbels produced. Column 4: Product of Seed.
Short-styled : 6 : 24 : 1.3 grain weight of seed, or about 50 in number. Long-styled : 18 : 74 : Not one seed.
Judging from the exposed plants which grew all round in the same bed, and had been treated in the same manner, excepting that they had been exposed to the visits of insects, the above six short-styled plants ought to have produced 92 grains' weight of seed instead of only 1.3; and the eighteen long-styled plants, which produced not one seed, ought to have produced above 200 grains' weight. The production of a few seeds by the short-styled plants was probably due to the action of Thrips or of some other minute insect. It