RECORD: Darwin, C. R. n.d. Various abstracts. CUL-DAR116.116-122. Edited by John van Wyhe (Darwin Online, http://darwin-online.org.uk/)

REVISION HISTORY: Transcribed by Christine Chua, edited by John van Wyhe 7.2023. RN1

NOTE: See record in the Darwin Online manuscript catalogue, enter its Identifier here. Reproduced with permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library and William Huxley Darwin. The volume CUL-DAR116 contains abstracts of & notes on botanical works, Gaertner, Kölreuter, Herbert, van Mons, Claparède.


[116]

Abstract Koelreuter

116v]

Act. Acad. St. Petersburg 1781. Part II. p 303

on Datura inermis tatula & stramonium are perfectly fertile together.— Loudon says tatula N. America, & Dict Hist. Nat. Class. says tatula Indian.

see Back of Page

do 1782. Part II. p. 255 for Malva. sylvestris mauritiana—m Capensis scabrosa,—& Capensis—

(   ) (   )

do p 256 Is not Alcea rotundifolia common Hollyock.— where has Linnæus said thinks same species? with fig-leaved?—

Nova Acta 1783 p. 339— see if Linum var S Africa is really var, for there is a shrubby tree (is there reference given?) called Africanum.—

(I have looked to all the fertile crosses in the Fortsetzung & none can be made out to be species.

[116v]

Is Cavanilles Monadelphiae classi Diss in Library for History of Alceæ or Hollyock. in Library of Linn Soc (Yes)

In Lindley Digitalis work to see about the fertile Digitales cannot read in (I think) D. purpurea & thapsi.— not in Library of Linn. Soc.

see in Hort Soc Library

Steudel makes. Malva Capensis a species he makes Malva scabrosa = m. fragrans & m. fragrans is var r. of Linn. of Capensis M. sylvestris & mauritiana are apparently distinct & are discussed by Gærtner.—

Datura inermis = D. lævis according to Steudel

(1

Koelreuter 2 Pamphlets or 1' Forsetzung Hybrids

p. 11. Hybrid Plants produced by reciprocal impreg. alike.

p. 12. Hybrid infertile on male side, but not on female.

p. 13 cases of variability (p. 17) or difference in Hybrids, (p 14) also in fertility, even from same capsules—

p 18 cases of Hybrids plants crossed with 1 pure parent yet more sterile than the Hybrid parent

p 29 Hybrids vigorous of greater size than parents

(NB yet, there can be no doubt that some hybrid seedlings are very tender Gærtner, Herbert.)

33 great difference between 2 Hybrids, same parents.

p 38 p. 44 I suspect in Hybrids pollen more often fails than female organ.

p. 54 states this

p. 44 case of seed itself affected by cross. Does Gærtner Yes mention.

p 45. mongrels, like each other in a Reciprocal cross. ✔

p 61. variability in Hybrids in later generations (?)

3d Fortsets p. 45. Strong & quick vegetation of Hybrids. X

à (Back)

[1v]

1st Fortsetz. p. 31. a difference is implied between hybrid resulting from Nicot. maj. vul. ♀ & N. glut. ♂, & from N. Transylv ♀ & N. glut ♂. — N. Transylv. & maj. vulg. being varieties of same species.—

Again 2d. Fortsetz. p. 56. Hybrids from N. perenne ♀ & N. glut. ♂., & Nicot. Maj. fl. albo ♀. N. glut. ♂; (N. perenne & of maj. fl. albo being only varieties) he expressly states only differed as much as the difference between N. perenne & major.

So Gærtner wrong. p 58. The reciprocal crosses same result.— The above vars. differ in shape of leaves, in branching of stem, in shape of flower & of seed capsule.

(p. 2

Koelreuter 3rd. Pamphlet & 2d. Fortsetzung.

p. 10 most curious case of Verbascum phœnicum translated X which cd not impregnate itself.— though easily acted by 5 other species

& p. 40 of the 3d Fortsetzung (See Below zzz) Throws greater light on Crinum

This throws the greatest light on Herberts case of Crinum no doubt the male organs was slightly affected so that more fertile with other pollen than with own.—

3d. Fort. p. 16 some difference in a Reverse cross,

p. 20 case of cross between species with Knob to hairs & without knobs hybrid intermediate

3d. Fort. p. 34. Most remarkable case of Verb. Lych. fl albo & fl flav. quite fertile (so Gärtner makes them & reciprocally (Even Babington allows there are such vars.) with intermediate coloured flowers; & yet both grow mingled together, wild, (& white in whole areas separate) & both raised in garden for 4 years & keep true; this shows that either there is no crossing, or the coloured vars. (Mem: how Sterility graduates.) are slightly sterile together.

Conrad Sprengel knows nothing about their impregnation, whether dichogamous or not

(p. 20 obscure evidence by Koelreuter of action [illeg] of insects in Verbascum)

[119]

Abstract of the Fortsetzung of Kölreuter

[119v]

p. 39. (3d Fort) I see K. declares most vehemently from repeated observations that insects go from Mullein to Mullein repeatedly 2 or 3 known cases of self-formed Hybrids & had it not been for law of each kind liking its own pollen best (as he & Gärtner has proved not from repeated experiments) he declares the kinds in all cross: especially V. Lychnites.

Makes no remark how it comes that the red white & yellow vars. do not cross. This will prove I suspect to be real species, but quite fertile it is most valuable fact for me, whichever way it is looked at— N.B we must either take natural origin, & invariability as test & opinion of best Botanists, as far as analogy is concerned.—

zzz. p. 41 3d. Fortsetzung. He repeats all he has said before, & say adds that in the 3d year & following year he found the same thing on same plants, & on many others, but only from time to time, infertility sometimes on male, sometimes on female side & sometimes on both sides, & some old plants fertile throughout season on both sides: —

(3

Feb. /56/. Lingley in his monograph of Digitalis, describes Dig. purpurea & thapsi as distinct, but expresses some doubt, & wd feel more if it were certain that Kölreuter experiment were made on real D. thapsi & not on var. of D. purpurea.— But if K. says came from Spain (latter & Italy being country of D. thapsi) then I think may be trusted. Is D. purpurea fd in Spain? (Q)

L. describes curious small var. of D. minor which came up in pot in Lee of Hammersmith garden.

[121]

Van Mons. Arbres Fruitiers Vol I — After having read pretty carefully

"a chaos of repetitions & ill arranged facts", rendered doubtful by odd views & strong prejudices against mongrelism &c. — Moreover he did not separate offspring of the several fruit he first used— yet there is good in Book.— I think he makes out that quick renewal by seed is important in raising vars. from all plants. But then he uses unripe seeds always, & by taking the first time plant fruits, he no doubt get less strong plants — He is never weary of talking of importance of the seed being affable, but not sick— I think this is probably explained by incipient sterility & consequent increase in fruit — Moreover he did at first used selection of the most promising seedlings — He demonstrates that the seed of best old fruit produce

[121v]

but very few good trees — & he demonstrates by above method he can get nearly all good— Moreover Belgium favourable for Pears — He demonstrates that by renouvellement fruit & flower bear in each generation, earlier— this is to me quite inexplicable. — Now by a little selection, under good circumstances & by processes probably inducing incipient sterility? it is important to find that in so sporting a tribe as pears that goodness in 4 or 5 generations becomes hereditary — He obscurely accounts for old fruit-trees &c giving seed which produce worthless plants, by the seed tending to revert to parent type; by an effort to recover its health

[121b]

it may be it gets accustomed to its varied conditions & so loose its incipient sterility, but this is not in accordance with the fruit remaining good, though he says that in old tulip the flowers do get sauvage. — I think my old view is perhaps best that by successive planting, grafting &c on different stocks & soils, tendency to vary so great that the goodness (viz size flavour &c) which is the sole quality which is wanted is lost, or almost so — but by repeated sowing under similar conditions no grafting is reacquired.

As no wild fruit wd be worth transplanting or grafting &c, the first origin of fruit, though in poor state, must have

[121bv]

been in state of nature & in its own wild country (which is opposed to one of V. M.' odd views).

[122]

(1

Zeitschrift für m Wissen: Zoologie B. 19. 1869

Histolog. Untersuchungen über den Regenwurm. E. Claparède

p. 604 thinks that the calcareous concretions are excretions, only incidentally of mechanical service; but this does not explain concretions almost exclusively in the anterior glands

667. thinks the concretions will are reabsorbed in the intestinal canal, but this does not always occur as I have f. three one in castings

― admits little stones often fd in canal, but says that worms at one time swallow earth & at another leaves; & thinks the former only for burrowing — so that stones wd not be present when wanted for triturating leaves

608— gizzard transverse muscles of considerable thickness, 10 times as thick as the longitudinal ones.

611. the Typhlosoles is only fold of intestine [sketch] looks like intestine within intestine.

Oligochæta terricola


Return to homepage

Citation: John van Wyhe, ed. 2002-. The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online. (http://darwin-online.org.uk/)

File last updated 5 September, 2023