ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

.

gol's ideas as far from fantastic. Yot, instead of taking the singlo forward stop which now sooms sỌ obvious, he even hazarded the conjecture that the insect-forms of some orchideous flowers are intended to deter rather than to attract insects. And so the explanation of all these and other extraordinary structures, as well as of the arrangement of blossoms in general, and even the very meaning and need of sexual propagation, were left to be supplied by Mr. Darwin. The aphorism “Naturo abhors a vacuum" is a characteristic specimen of the science of the middle nges. The aphorism "Nature abhors close fertilization," and the demonstration of the principle, belong to our age, and to Mr. Darwin. To have originated this, and also the principle of natural selection-the truthfulness and importance of which are evident the moment it is apprehended—and to have applied these principles to the system of Nature in such a manner as to make, within a dozen years, a deeper impression upon natural history than has been made since Linmus, is ample title for one man's fame.

Thero is no need of our giving any account or of estimating the importance of such works as the "Ori gin of Species by means of Natural Selection," the "Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," the "Descent of Man, and Selection in relation to Sex," and the "Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals"-a series to which we may, hope other volumes may in due time be added. We would rather, if space permitted, attempt an analysis of the less known, but not less masterly, subsidiary essays, upon the various arrangements for insuring cross-fer

tilization in flowers, for the climbing of plants, and the like. These, as we have heard, may beforo long be reprinted in a volume, and supplemented by some long-pending but still unfinished investigations upon the action of Dionæa and Drosera--a capital subject for Mr. Darwin's handling.

propos to these papers, which furnish excellent illustrations of it, let us recognizo Darwin's great sor vice to natural science in bringing back to it Teleology; so that, instead of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology. To many, no doubt, evolutionary Teleology comes in such a questionable shape as to seem shorn of all its goodness; but they will think better of it in time, when their ideas become adjusted, and they see what an impetus the new doctrines have given to investiga tion. They are much mistaken who supposo that Darwinism is only of speculative importance, and perhaps transient interest. In its working applica tions it has proved to be a new power, eminently practical and fruitful.

And here, again, we are bound to note a striking contrast to Mr. Brown, greatly as we revere his memory. He did far less work than was justly to be expected from him. Mr. Darwin not only points out the road, but labors upon it indefatigably and unceas ingly. A most commendable noblesse oblige assures us that he will go on while strength (would we could add health) remains. The vast amount of such work he has already accomplished might overtax the powers of the strongest. That it could have been done at all under constant infirm health is most wonderful.

X.

INSECTIVOROUS PLANT

(Tun Nation, April 9 and 9, 1876.)

THAT animals should feed upon plants is natural and normal, and the reverse seems impossible. But the adage, “Natura non agit saltatim," has its appliention even here. It is the naturalist, rather than Nature, that draws hard and fast lines evorywhere, and marks out abrupt boundaries whero sho shades off with gradations. However opposite the parts which animals and vegetables play in the economy of the world as the two opposed kingdoms of organic Nature, it is becoming more and more obvious that they are not only two contiguous kingdoms, but are parts of one whole-antithetical and complementary to each other, indeed; but such "thin partitions do the bounds divido" that no definitions yet framed hold good without exception. This is a world of transition in more senses than is commonly thought; and one of the lessons which the philosophical naturalist learns, or has to learn, is, that differences the most wide and real in the main, and the most essentiul, may nevertheless be here and there connected or bridged over by gradations. There is a limbo filled with organisms which never riso high enough in the

scale to be manifestly either animal or plant, unless it may be said of some of them that they are cach in turn and neither long. There are undoubted animals which produce the essential material of vegetablo fabric, or build up a part of their structure of it, or elaborate the characteristic leaf-green which, under solar light, assimilates inorganic into organic matter, the most distinguishing function of vegetation. On the other hand, there are plants-microscopie, indeed, but unquestionable-which move spontaneously and freely around and among animals that are fixed and rooted. And, to come without further parley to the matter in hand, while the majority of animals feed directly upon plants, "for 'tis their nature to," thero are plants which turn the tables and feed upon them. Some, being parasitic upon living animals, feed insidiously and furtively; these, although really cases in point, are not so extraordinary, and, as they belong to the lower orders, they are not much regarded, except for the harm they do. There are others, and those of the highest orders, which lure or entrap animals in ways which may well excite our special wonder-all the more so since we are now led to concludo that they not only capture but consume their prey.

As respects the two or three most notable instances, the conclusions which have been reached aro among the very recent acquisitions of physiological science. Curiously enough, however, now that they are made out, it appears that they were in good part long ago attained, recorded, and mainly, forgotten. The earlier observations and surmises shared the common fate of discoveries made before the time, or by

those who were not sagacious enough to bring out their full meaning or importance. Vegetable mor phology, dimly apprehended by Linnaeus, initiated by Caspar Frederick Wolff, and again, independently in successive generations, by Goethe and by De Candolle, offers a parallel instance. The botanists of Goethe's day could not see any sense, advantage, or practical application, to be made of the proposition that the parts of a blossom answer to leaves; and so the study of homologies had long to wait. Until lately it appeared to be of no consequence whatever (except, perhaps, to the insects) whether Drosera and Sarracenia caught flies or not; and even Dionæa excited only unreflecting wonder as a vegetable anomaly. As if there were real anomalies in Nature, and some one plant possessed extraordinary powers denied to all others, and (as was supposed) of no importance to itself!

That most expert of fly-catchers, Dionaea, of which so much has been written and so little known until lately, came very near revealing its secret to Solander and Ellis a hundred years ago, and doubtless to John Bartram, our botanical pioneer, its probable discoverer, who sent it to Europe. Ellis, in his published letter to Linnaeus, with which the history begins, described the structure and action of the living trap correctly; noticed that the irritability which called forth the quick movement closing the trap, entirely resided in the few small bristles of its upper face; that this whole surface was studded with glands, which proba bly secreted a liquid; and that the trap did not open again when an insect was captured, even upon the

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »