The Effects of Cross & Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom Part 1

The Effects of Cross & Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom.

by Charles Darwin.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

Various means which favour or determine the cross-fertilisation of plants.

Benefits derived from cross-fertilisation.

Self-fertilisation favourable to the propagation of the species.

Brief history of the subject.

Object of the experiments, and the manner in which they were tried.

Statistical value of the measurements.

The experiments carried on during several successive generations.

Nature of the relations.h.i.+p of the plants in the later generations.

Uniformity of the conditions to which the plants were subjected.

Some apparent and some real causes of error.

Amount of pollen employed.

Arrangement of the work.

Importance of the conclusions.

There is weighty and abundant evidence that the flowers of most kinds of plants are constructed so as to be occasionally or habitually cross-fertilised by pollen from another flower, produced either by the same plant, or generally, as we shall hereafter see reason to believe, by a distinct plant. Cross-fertilisation is sometimes ensured by the s.e.xes being separated, and in a large number of cases by the pollen and stigma of the same flower being matured at different times. Such plants are called dichogamous, and have been divided into two sub-cla.s.ses: proterandrous species, in which the pollen is mature before the stigma, and proterogynous species, in which the reverse occurs; this latter form of dichogamy not being nearly so common as the other.

Cross-fertilisation is also ensured, in many cases, by mechanical contrivances of wonderful beauty, preventing the impregnation of the flowers by their own pollen. There is a small cla.s.s of plants, which I have called dimorphic and trimorphic, but to which Hildebrand has given the more appropriate name of heterostyled; this cla.s.s consists of plants presenting two or three distinct forms, adapted for reciprocal fertilisation, so that, like plants with separate s.e.xes, they can hardly fail to be intercrossed in each generation. The male and female organs of some flowers are irritable, and the insects which touch them get dusted with pollen, which is thus transported to other flowers. Again, there is a cla.s.s, in which the ovules absolutely refuse to be fertilised by pollen from the same plant, but can be fertilised by pollen from any other individual of the same species. There are also very many species which are partially sterile with their own pollen. Lastly, there is a large cla.s.s in which the flowers present no apparent obstacle of any kind to self-fertilisation, nevertheless these plants are frequently intercrossed, owing to the prepotency of pollen from another individual or variety over the plant's own pollen.

As plants are adapted by such diversified and effective means for cross-fertilisation, it might have been inferred from this fact alone that they derived some great advantage from the process; and it is the object of the present work to show the nature and importance of the benefits thus derived. There are, however, some exceptions to the rule of plants being constructed so as to allow of or to favour cross-fertilisation, for some few plants seem to be invariably self-fertilised; yet even these retain traces of having been formerly adapted for cross-fertilisation. These exceptions need not make us doubt the truth of the above rule, any more than the existence of some few plants which produce flowers, and yet never set seed, should make us doubt that flowers are adapted for the production of seed and the propagation of the species.

We should always keep in mind the obvious fact that the production of seed is the chief end of the act of fertilisation; and that this end can be gained by hermaphrodite plants with incomparably greater certainty by self-fertilisation, than by the union of the s.e.xual elements belonging to two distinct flowers or plants. Yet it is as unmistakably plain that innumerable flowers are adapted for cross-fertilisation, as that the teeth and talons of a carnivorous animal are adapted for catching prey; or that the plumes, wings, and hooks of a seed are adapted for its dissemination. Flowers, therefore, are constructed so as to gain two objects which are, to a certain extent, antagonistic, and this explains many apparent anomalies in their structure. The close proximity of the anthers to the stigma in a mult.i.tude of species favours, and often leads, to self-fertilisation; but this end could have been gained far more safely if the flowers had been completely closed, for then the pollen would not have been injured by the rain or devoured by insects, as often happens. Moreover, in this case, a very small quant.i.ty of pollen would have been sufficient for fertilisation, instead of millions of grains being produced. But the openness of the flower and the production of a great and apparently wasteful amount of pollen are necessary for cross-fertilisation. These remarks are well ill.u.s.trated by the plants called cleistogene, which bear on the same stock two kinds of flowers. The flowers of the one kind are minute and completely closed, so that they cannot possibly be crossed; but they are abundantly fertile, although producing an extremely small quant.i.ty of pollen. The flowers of the other kind produce much pollen and are open; and these can be, and often are, cross-fertilised. Hermann Muller has also made the remarkable discovery that there are some plants which exist under two forms; that is, produce on distinct stocks two kinds of hermaphrodite flowers. The one form bears small flowers constructed for self-fertilisation; whilst the other bears larger and much more conspicuous flowers plainly constructed for cross-fertilisation by the aid of insects; and without their aid these produce no seed.

The adaptation of flowers for cross-fertilisation is a subject which has interested me for the last thirty-seven years, and I have collected a large ma.s.s of observations, but these are now rendered superfluous by the many excellent works which have been lately published. In the year 1857 I wrote a short paper on the fertilisation of the kidney bean (1/1.

'Gardeners' Chronicle' 1857 page 725 and 1858 pages 824 and 844. 'Annals and Magazine of Natural History' 3rd series volume 2 1858 page 462.); and in 1862 my work 'On the Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects' appeared. It seemed to me a better plan to work out one group of plants as carefully as I could, rather than to publish many miscellaneous and imperfect observations. My present work is the complement of that on Orchids, in which it was shown how admirably these plants are constructed so as to permit of, or to favour, or to necessitate cross-fertilisation. The adaptations for cross-fertilisation are perhaps more obvious in the Orchideae than in any other group of plants, but it is an error to speak of them, as some authors have done, as an exceptional case. The lever-like action of the stamens of Salvia (described by Hildebrand, Dr. W. Ogle, and others), by which the anthers are depressed and rubbed on the backs of bees, shows as perfect a structure as can be found in any orchid. Papilionaceous flowers, as described by various authors--for instance, by Mr. T.H.

Farrer--offer innumerable curious adaptations for cross-fertilisation.

The case of Posoqueria fragrans (one of the Rubiaceae), is as wonderful as that of the most wonderful orchid. The stamens, according to Fritz Muller, are irritable, so that as soon as a moth visits a flower, the anthers explode and cover the insect with pollen; one of the filaments which is broader than the others then moves and closes the flower for about twelve hours, after which time it resumes its original position.

(1/2. 'Botanische Zeitung' 1866 page 129.) Thus the stigma cannot be fertilised by pollen from the same flower, but only by that brought by a moth from some other flower. Endless other beautiful contrivances for this same purpose could be specified.

Long before I had attended to the fertilisation of flowers, a remarkable book appeared in 1793 in Germany, 'Das Entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur,'

by C.K. Sprengel, in which he clearly proved by innumerable observations, how essential a part insects play in the fertilisation of many plants. But he was in advance of his age, and his discoveries were for a long time neglected. Since the appearance of my book on Orchids, many excellent works on the fertilisation of flowers, such as those by Hildebrand, Delpino, Axell and Hermann Muller, and numerous shorter papers, have been published. (1/3. Sir John Lubbock has given an interesting summary of the whole subject in his 'British Wild Flowers considered in relation to Insects' 1875. Hermann Muller's work 'Die Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten' 1873, contains an immense number of original observations and generalisations. It is, moreover, invaluable as a repertory with references to almost everything which has been published on the subject. His work differs from that of all others in specifying what kinds of insects, as far as known, visit the flowers of each species. He likewise enters on new ground, by showing not only that flowers are adapted for their own good to the visits of certain insects; but that the insects themselves are excellently adapted for procuring nectar or pollen from certain flowers. The value of H.

Muller's work can hardly be over-estimated, and it is much to be desired that it should be translated into English. Severin Axell's work is written in Swedish, so that I have not been able to read it.) A list would occupy several pages, and this is not the proper place to give their t.i.tles, as we are not here concerned with the means, but with the results of cross-fertilisation. No one who feels interest in the mechanism by which nature effects her ends, can read these books and memoirs without the most lively interest.

From my own observations on plants, guided to a certain extent by the experience of the breeders of animals, I became convinced many years ago that it is a general law of nature that flowers are adapted to be crossed, at least occasionally, by pollen from a distinct plant.

Sprengel at times foresaw this law, but only partially, for it does not appear that he was aware that there was any difference in power between pollen from the same plant and from a distinct plant. In the introduction to his book (page 4) he says, as the s.e.xes are separated in so many flowers, and as so many other flowers are dichogamous, "it appears that nature has not willed that any one flower should be fertilised by its own pollen." Nevertheless, he was far from keeping this conclusion always before his mind, or he did not see its full importance, as may be perceived by anyone who will read his observations carefully; and he consequently mistook the meaning of various structures. But his discoveries are so numerous and his work so excellent, that he can well afford to bear a small amount of blame. A most capable judge, H. Muller, likewise says: "It is remarkable in how very many cases Sprengel rightly perceived that pollen is necessarily transported to the stigmas of other flowers of the same species by the insects which visit them, and yet did not imagine that this transportation was of any service to the plants themselves." (1/4. 'Die Befruchtung der Blumen' 1873 page 4. His words are: "Es ist merkwurdig, in wie zahlreichen Fallen Sprengel richtig erkannte, da.s.s durch die Besuchenden Insekten der Bluthenstaub mit Nothwendigkeit auf die Narben anderer Bluthen derselben Art ubertragen wird, ohne auf die Vermuthung zu kommen, da.s.s in dieser Wirkung der Nutzen des Insektenbesuches fur die Pflanzen selbst gesucht werden musse.")

Andrew Knight saw the truth much more clearly, for he remarks, "Nature intended that a s.e.xual intercourse should take place between neighbouring plants of the same species." (1/5. 'Philosophical Transactions' 1799 page 202.) After alluding to the various means by which pollen is transported from flower to flower, as far as was then imperfectly known, he adds, "Nature has something more in view than that its own proper males would fecundate each blossom." In 1811 Kolreuter plainly hinted at the same law, as did afterwards another famous hybridiser of plants, Herbert. (1/6. Kolreuter 'Mem. de l'Acad. de St.

Petersbourg' tome 3 1809 published 1811 page 197. After showing how well the Malvaceae are adapted for cross-fertilisation, he asks, "An id aliquid in recessu habeat, quod hujuscemodi flores nunquam proprio suo pulvere, sed semper eo aliarum suae speciei impregnentur, merito quaeritur? Certe natura nil facit frustra." Herbert 'Amaryllidaceae, with a Treatise on Cross-bred Vegetables' 1837.) But none of these distinguished observers appear to have been sufficiently impressed with the truth and generality of the law, so as to insist on it and impress their beliefs on others.

In 1862 I summed up my observations on Orchids by saying that nature "abhors perpetual self-fertilisation." If the word perpetual had been omitted, the aphorism would have been false. As it stands, I believe that it is true, though perhaps rather too strongly expressed; and I should have added the self-evident proposition that the propagation of the species, whether by self-fertilisation or by cross-fertilisation, or as.e.xually by buds, stolons, etc. is of paramount importance. Hermann Muller has done excellent service by insisting repeatedly on this latter point.

It often occurred to me that it would be advisable to try whether seedlings from cross-fertilised flowers were in any way superior to those from self-fertilised flowers. But as no instance was known with animals of any evil appearing in a single generation from the closest possible interbreeding, that is between brothers and sisters, I thought that the same rule would hold good with plants; and that it would be necessary at the sacrifice of too much time to self-fertilise and intercross plants during several successive generations, in order to arrive at any result. I ought to have reflected that such elaborate provisions favouring cross-fertilisation, as we see in innumerable plants, would not have been acquired for the sake of gaining a distant and slight advantage, or of avoiding a distant and slight evil.

Moreover, the fertilisation of a flower by its own pollen corresponds to a closer form of interbreeding than is possible with ordinary bi-s.e.xual animals; so that an earlier result might have been expected.

I was at last led to make the experiments recorded in the present volume from the following circ.u.mstance. For the sake of determining certain points with respect to inheritance, and without any thought of the effects of close interbreeding, I raised close together two large beds of self-fertilised and crossed seedlings from the same plant of Linaria vulgaris. To my surprise, the crossed plants when fully grown were plainly taller and more vigorous than the self-fertilised ones. Bees incessantly visit the flowers of this Linaria and carry pollen from one to the other; and if insects are excluded, the flowers produce extremely few seeds; so that the wild plants from which my seedlings were raised must have been intercrossed during all previous generations. It seemed therefore quite incredible that the difference between the two beds of seedlings could have been due to a single act of self-fertilisation; and I attributed the result to the self-fertilised seeds not having been well ripened, improbable as it was that all should have been in this state, or to some other accidental and inexplicable cause. During the next year, I raised for the same purpose as before two large beds close together of self-fertilised and crossed seedlings from the carnation, Dianthus caryophyllus. This plant, like the Linaria, is almost sterile if insects are excluded; and we may draw the same inference as before, namely, that the parent-plants must have been intercrossed during every or almost every previous generation. Nevertheless, the self-fertilised seedlings were plainly inferior in height and vigour to the crossed.

My attention was now thoroughly aroused, for I could hardly doubt that the difference between the two beds was due to the one set being the offspring of crossed, and the other of self-fertilised flowers.

Accordingly I selected almost by hazard two other plants, which happened to be in flower in the greenhouse, namely, Mimulus luteus and Ipomoea purpurea, both of which, unlike the Linaria and Dianthus, are highly self-fertile if insects are excluded. Some flowers on a single plant of both species were fertilised with their own pollen, and others were crossed with pollen from a distinct individual; both plants being protected by a net from insects. The crossed and self-fertilised seeds thus produced were sown on opposite sides of the same pots, and treated in all respects alike; and the plants when fully grown were measured and compared. With both species, as in the cases of the Linaria and Dianthus, the crossed seedlings were conspicuously superior in height and in other ways to the self-fertilised. I therefore determined to begin a long series of experiments with various plants, and these were continued for the following eleven years; and we shall see that in a large majority of cases the crossed beat the self-fertilised plants.

Several of the exceptional cases, moreover, in which the crossed plants were not victorious, can be explained.

It should be observed that I have spoken for the sake of brevity, and shall continue to do so, of crossed and self-fertilised seeds, seedlings, or plants; these terms implying that they are the product of crossed or self-fertilised flowers. Cross-fertilisation always means a cross between distinct plants which were raised from seeds and not from cuttings or buds. Self-fertilisation always implies that the flowers in question were impregnated with their own pollen.

My experiments were tried in the following manner. A single plant, if it produced a sufficiency of flowers, or two or three plants were placed under a net stretched on a frame, and large enough to cover the plant (together with the pot, when one was used) without touching it. This latter point is important, for if the flowers touch the net they may be cross-fertilised by bees, as I have known to happen; and when the net is wet the pollen may be injured. I used at first "white cotton net," with very fine meshes, but afterwards a kind of net with meshes one-tenth of an inch in diameter; and this I found by experience effectually excluded all insects excepting Thrips, which no net will exclude. On the plants thus protected several flowers were marked, and were fertilised with their own pollen; and an equal number on the same plants, marked in a different manner, were at the same time crossed with pollen from a distinct plant. The crossed flowers were never castrated, in order to make the experiments as like as possible to what occurs under nature with plants fertilised by the aid of insects. Therefore, some of the flowers which were crossed may have failed to be thus fertilised, and afterwards have been self-fertilised. But this and some other sources of error will presently be discussed. In some few cases of spontaneously self-fertile species, the flowers were allowed to fertilise themselves under the net; and in still fewer cases uncovered plants were allowed to be freely crossed by the insects which incessantly visited them. There are some great advantages and some disadvantages in my having occasionally varied my method of proceeding; but when there was any difference in the treatment, it is always so stated under the head of each species.

Care was taken that the seeds were thoroughly ripened before being gathered. Afterwards the crossed and self-fertilised seeds were in most cases placed on damp sand on opposite sides of a gla.s.s tumbler covered by a gla.s.s plate, with a part.i.tion between the two lots; and the gla.s.s was placed on the chimney-piece in a warm room. I could thus observe the germination of the seeds. Sometimes a few would germinate on one side before any on the other, and these were thrown away. But as often as a pair germinated at the same time, they were planted on opposite sides of a pot, with a superficial part.i.tion between the two; and I thus proceeded until from half-a-dozen to a score or more seedlings of exactly the same age were planted on the opposite sides of several pots.

If one of the young seedlings became sickly or was in any way injured, it was pulled up and thrown away, as well as its antagonist on the opposite side of the same pot.

As a large number of seeds were placed on the sand to germinate, many remained after the pairs had been selected, some of which were in a state of germination and others not so; and these were sown crowded together on the opposite sides of one or two rather larger pots, or sometimes in two long rows out of doors. In these cases there was the most severe struggle for life among the crossed seedlings on one side of the pot, and the self-fertilised seedlings on the other side, and between the two lots which grew in compet.i.tion in the same pot. A vast number soon perished, and the tallest of the survivors on both sides when fully grown were measured. Plants treated in this manner, were subjected to nearly the same conditions as those growing in a state of nature, which have to struggle to maturity in the midst of a host of compet.i.tors.

On other occasions, from the want of time, the seeds, instead of being allowed to germinate on damp sand, were sown on the opposite sides of pots, and the fully grown plants measured. But this plan is less accurate, as the seeds sometimes germinated more quickly on one side than on the other. It was however necessary to act in this manner with some few species, as certain kinds of seeds would not germinate well when exposed to the light; though the gla.s.ses containing them were kept on the chimney-piece on one side of a room, and some way from the two windows which faced the north-east. (1/7. This occurred in the plainest manner with the seeds of Papaver vagum and Delphinium consolida, and less plainly with those of Adonis aestivalis and Ononis minutissima.

Rarely more than one or two of the seeds of these four species germinated on the bare sand, though left there for some weeks; but when these same seeds were placed on earth in pots, and covered with a thin layer of sand, they germinated immediately in large numbers.)

The soil in the pots in which the seedlings were planted, or the seeds sown, was well mixed, so as to be uniform in composition. The plants on the two sides were always watered at the same time and as equally as possible; and even if this had not been done, the water would have spread almost equally to both sides, as the pots were not large. The crossed and self-fertilised plants were separated by a superficial part.i.tion, which was always kept directed towards the chief source of the light, so that the plants on both sides were equally illuminated. I do not believe it possible that two sets of plants could have been subjected to more closely similar conditions, than were my crossed and self-fertilised seedlings, as grown in the above described manner.

In comparing the two sets, the eye alone was never trusted. Generally the height of every plant on both sides was carefully measured, often more than once, namely, whilst young, sometimes again when older, and finally when fully or almost fully grown. But in some cases, which are always specified, owing to the want of time, only one or two of the tallest plants on each side were measured. This plan, which is not a good one, was never followed (except with the crowded plants raised from the seeds remaining after the pairs had been planted) unless the tallest plants on each side seemed fairly to represent the average difference between those on both sides. It has, however, some great advantages, as sickly or accidentally injured plants, or the offspring of ill-ripened seeds, are thus eliminated. When the tallest plants alone on each side were measured, their average height of course exceeds that of all the plants on the same side taken together. But in the case of the much crowded plants raised from the remaining seeds, the average height of the tallest plants was less than that of the plants in pairs, owing to the unfavourable conditions to which they were subjected from being greatly crowded. For our purpose, however, of the comparison of the crossed and self-fertilised plants, their absolute height signifies little.

As the plants were measured by an ordinary English standard divided into inches and eighths of an inch, I have not thought it worth while to change the fractions into decimals. The average or mean heights were calculated in the ordinary rough method by adding up the measurements of all, and dividing the product by the number of plants measured; the result being here given in inches and decimals. As the different species grow to various heights, I have always for the sake of easy comparison given in addition the average height of the crossed plants of each species taken as 100, and have calculated the average height of the self-fertilised plant in relation to this standard. With respect to the crowded plants raised from the seeds remaining after the pairs had been planted, and of which only some of the tallest on each side were measured, I have not thought it worth while to complicate the results by giving separate averages for them and for the pairs, but have added up all their heights, and thus obtained a single average.

I long doubted whether it was worth while to give the measurements of each separate plant, but have decided to do so, in order that it may be seen that the superiority of the crossed plants over the self-fertilised, does not commonly depend on the presence of two or three extra fine plants on the one side, or of a few very poor plants on the other side. Although several observers have insisted in general terms on the offspring from intercrossed varieties being superior to either parent-form, no precise measurements have been given (1/8. A summary of these statements, with references, may be found in my 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication' chapter 17 2nd edition 1875 volume 2 page 109.); and I have met with no observations on the effects of crossing and self-fertilising the individuals of the same variety. Moreover, experiments of this kind require so much time--mine having been continued during eleven years--that they are not likely soon to be repeated.

As only a moderate number of crossed and self-fertilised plants were measured, it was of great importance to me to learn how far the averages were trustworthy. I therefore asked Mr. Galton, who has had much experience in statistical researches, to examine some of my tables of measurements, seven in number, namely, those of Ipomoea, Digitalis, Reseda lutea, Viola, Limnanthes, Petunia, and Zea. I may premise that if we took by chance a dozen or score of men belonging to two nations and measured them, it would I presume be very rash to form any judgment from such small numbers on their average heights. But the case is somewhat different with my crossed and self-fertilised plants, as they were of exactly the same age, were subjected from first to last to the same conditions, and were descended from the same parents. When only from two to six pairs of plants were measured, the results are manifestly of little or no value, except in so far as they confirm and are confirmed by experiments made on a larger scale with other species. I will now give the report on the seven tables of measurements, which Mr. Galton has had the great kindness to draw up for me.

["I have examined the measurements of the plants with care, and by many statistical methods, to find out how far the means of the several sets represent constant realities, such as would come out the same so long as the general conditions of growth remained unaltered. The princ.i.p.al methods that were adopted are easily explained by selecting one of the shorter series of plants, say of Zea mays, for an example."

TABLE 1/1. Zea mays (young plants). (Mr. Galton.)

Heights of Plants in inches:

Column 1: Number (Name) of Pot.

Column 2: Crossed, as recorded by Mr. Darwin.

Column 3: Self-fertilised, as recorded by Mr. Darwin.

Column 4: Crossed, in Separate Pots, arranged in order of magnitude.

Column 5: Self-fertilised, in Separate Pots, arranged in order of magnitude.

Column 6: Crossed, in a Single Series, arranged in order of magnitude.

Column 7: Self-fertilised, in a Single Series, arranged in order of magnitude.

Column 8: Difference, in a Single Series, arranged in order of magnitude.