RECORD: Darwin, C. R. [1840.04.19]. Abstract of Kölreuter, Nova Acta, etc., 1794, pp. 378-397. CUL-DAR116.83-87,90-91. 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.

Kölreuter, J. G. 1783-1802. Nova Acta Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae. St. Petersburg.


(34) (24)

Jalappæ. J

Nov Act. 1794 p. 378

Describes minutely ten experiments between Hybrids (varieties of Jalap. vulg. & all its varieties and & longiflora). (p.p.p.) addendum and varieties of J. Vulg:= the hybrid parent sometimes betw being the mother & sometimes the father=

All these crosses true on many flowers & there were raised from each from 1 to 12 plants. These vary marvelously, even those from very same plants.— thus whole 12 from same cross are every one different & are all described.— The fœcundity varies in those from same cross wonderfullyevery point, time of flowering colour, size, every character of foliage & growth of stems calyx, general habit proportional length of stamen & pistils "vis vegetiva" wonderfully increased in some all vary — odour. = some character once appeared just contrary to what might have been expected from parentage: some take after father, some mother some whether hybrid or pure, (some intermediate— (a), either generally in whole plant or more commonly in certain parts)

(K.z seems (does not state so decidedly) to consider this wonderful variation as effect of this degree of descent. (the very case however he show in describing, show this is wonderful case of variation) and I remember in former

(a)

Nova Acta. 1797. p. 391

This splendid plant, which is grandchild of pure parents, produced one plant grt. grandchild — fertility not mentioned

(Read again) (I now have)

[24v]

p. 396— says these crosses have greater tendency to take after J. vulg of which there is 3/4 blood, or even J. longiflora of which there is only 1/4 blood, than after hybrids (yet some few do take after Hybrid) — this is the many individual facts, mentioned of latter case proves there is tendency to revert to parent stock.

(z) some of the hybrid Digitalis & Lobelia sprinkled with pollen of parents produced plant, yet I don't remember they sported so much.)

[24 bis]

(p. p. p. adden. to p. 24.) Vide also. addend to p. 27

example. T. is the degree of descent of all these ten experiments.

n.a 1797. p. 373.)  In this case T., was the grandchild, was only one, & was less more infœcund producing "valde exiguus numerosa" than in Hybrid mother (wh had parvum bonorum seminum). [diagram not transcribed]

This one T. or grandchild produced, sponte nata, seven great grand child, here separately described. several pigmæa— vary much leaves in one extraordinary small, several quite sterile others not mentioned, one most fertile "parvus bonorum seminum".— (It is highly important so many being pigmæa & weak for my theory of sterility of Hybrids.

25 35

Jalappæ

papers something of this appears; but we must remember here father one parent is variety & other half variety in every case: it is evident that this variation is precisely like common sporting: it would appear from Koelreuters works, that first cross

does not sport,— [illeg] like variation is caused by exposure of many generations to new circumstances & not so much by first exposure. — New conditions when slight cause an organism to vary, if great to abort; here we see some tendency in hybrids in 3d descent with fœcundity in some cases greatly increased (B) — it would hence appear as if sporting was effect in minor degree of those causes wh. tend to make organisms sterile: All these facts go to support my view of sterility of hybrids being same, as plants sterility organism in new conditions.—

When Hybrid animal has bred with pure parent, have offspring sported? We know in crossing cattle just same fact as here noticed is case.) In crossing dogs however first cross varies more.— one might argue dogs are mongrel breed—

[25v]

B. The fœcundity, appears here to be a highly sporting element; hence some of the offspring very sterile.— but in cross in mongrels I have fancied increased fœcundity a certain consequence; to complete the analogy it ought to be accidental.

26

Jalappæ

Examples

p 380. Jalap. Hy {vulg. rub ♀ longiflora male} ♀

J. vulg. flor. ♂

(N.B. in. N.A. 1797. p. 396 some additamenta to these experiments given)

N.B. here dark J. longiflora is mother

Produced 12 plants

(a) like longiflora seeds "vix nonnulla yet copia florum"

(b) flower deciduous few good seeds

(c) semina bona sat numerosa

(d) plant. J vulgari simillima— semina, ditto

e flores innumeri semina perpauca

(h) "in summo fere gradu infœcunda vix unum alternumve bonum semen."

(i) ad another case of this "in summo gradu" vulgarem valde in additamenta accedens — in fere summo gradu infœcunda

(k) —in many respect like longiflora — sterilitas do

(m) "ad vulgarem valde accedens". "semina fœcunda satis numerosa".— (There is another experiment of other cross with same result, but more plants rather more fertile; several having "copia valde notabilis" of good seeds.)

(It is evident return to parent forms has no relation to fertility.)—(P)

(In a former variety, taking which took after hybrid parent semina fœcunda non pauca) (Q)

[26v]

P. (p 384. plant which had 3/4 blood of one variety of J. vulg. viz albo. — took much after this side, nevertheless "infœcundior quam sub primo statu hybrido".—

(Q) I should have observed that many of these plants in all the crosses shed their innumerable —flowers unimpregnated

I have not noticed this fact in other hybrids of other genera

(27 (37

Jalappæ

388 (1794

J. vulg all ♀

J. Hyb {vulg. rub ♀ longiflora. ♂} ♂ Reverse of last, but different vars. of vulg.

Tife flowers

(a) "copia valde exiguus" of good seeds

b. ditto

c.) "numerus permagnus" of do (QQQ)

d) "satis magnus" — (addendum)

€ "vix nonnulla" — (inverse)

p. 391 Jala {vulg. rub ♀ longiflora. ♂} proprio pulverea consperso (v. p. 32 for other & similar experiments)

{Produced 5 8 flower almost above middle number, compared with those hybrids sprinkled with parent dust of pure J. vulg.

These plants (p. 397) either "summo gradu infœcundæ" or less fœcund than in parent hybrid state.— (Hence crossing have in former (some subsequent cases) has done usual good to fertility of offspring)

These five plants varied in more extraordinary manner even than foregoing cases: some shed their leaves prematurely were covered with rubigo within foliis vesiculosis & calex praternaturalis

[27v]

Q "semina fœcunda perpauca" were produced by those four of the most fertile of the 8 plants

do Q. Hence if mules bred, young mules would be even less fœcund than parent mules — Hence there seems no necessary tendency to recover fertility.—

(28 38

Jalappæ n.a. 1794 p. 391

all these facts showed (K: says) hoe their plants were degenerating & drawing near their end— I must observe that this is solitary case, hitherto, of hybrids being unhealthy — These plants decidedly took more after J. Longiflora than ♂ Vulgaris

K. says whoever writes to produce varieties let him fœcunditate generation after generation of hybrids with own pollen (for few seeds are yet produced), & he will reap rich harvest

(What a pity the few great grandchildren are not described in this or the foregoing cases, in some of which latter there might have been many raised)

(In mongrels it is proverbial that the variation goes for many generations)

See p. 36 of this M.S. for case.

(29 39

Jalappæ

[in margin: probably some [illeg] in longiflora. This does not seem case of reversion of few individuals.]

p 393 J. Hyb {vulg. rub ♀ longiflora. ♂} ♀

J. longiflora ♂

analogous to last but has 3/4 longiflora sap, instead of 3/4 vulg sap or blood.

Produced two plants — which approached closely to ♂ — Both spontaneously & impregnated again with pollen of Longiflora produced (great-grandchildren — seed) in "haud exiguo numero"

So that he says J. longiflora, which he has successfully done pursued up to 8 generations so that most scrupulous scrupulous observer could detect "vix aliquam notatilem differantiam."

This show for how many generations & stain remains in blood— In previous vol. for 1793 [p. 398], alluding to this transmutation, he says he has succeeded "ad plenariam fere transmutationem"

In the eight generations there would have been only 1/128 part of blood of J. vulg. yet we wee some trace no 1/256? of character still distinguishable — This & other facts in crossing (& Austrian Nose) shows each parent does or may give more than 1/2 [illeg] in transmitting its peculiarities —


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