the former species the pollen-grains are as 100 to 78, and in the latter as 100 to 93 in diameter. In the two forms of Suteria the pistil differs but little in length, whilst the pollen-grains are as 100 to 75 in diameter. These cases seem to prove that the difference in size between the grains in the two forms is not determined by the length of the pistil, down which the tubes have to grow. That with plants in general there is no close relationship between the size of the pollen-grains and the length of the pistil is manifest: for instance, I found that the distended grains of Datura arborea were .00243 of an inch in diameter, and the pistil no less than 9.25 inches in length; now the pistil in the small flowers of Polygonum fagopyrum is very short, yet the larger pollen-grains from the short-styled plants had exactly the same diameter as those from the Datura, with its enormously elongated pistil. Notwithstanding these several considerations, it is difficult quite to give up the belief that the pollen-grains from the longer stamens of heterostyled plants have become larger in order to allow of the development of longer tubes; and the foregoing opposing facts may possibly be reconciled in the following manner. The tubes are at first developed from matter contained within the grains, for they are sometimes exserted to a considerable length, before the grains have touched the stigma; but botanists believe that they afterwards draw nourishment from the conducting tissue of the pistil. It is hardly possible to doubt that this must occur in such cases as that of the Datura, in which the tubes have to grow down the whole length of the pistil, and therefore to a length equalling 3,806 times the diameter of the grains (namely, .00243 of an inch) from which they are protruded. I may here remark that I have seen the pollen-grains of a willow, immersed in a very weak solution of honey, protrude their tubes, in the course of twelve hours, to a length thirteen times as great as the diameter of the grains. Now if we suppose that the tubes in some heterostyled species are developed wholly or almost wholly from matter contained within the grains, while in other species from matter yielded by the pistil, we can see that in the former case it would be necessary that the grains of the two forms should differ in size relatively to the length of the pistil which the tubes have to penetrate, but that in the latter case it would not be necessary that the grains should thus differ. Whether this explanation can be considered satisfactory must remain at present doubtful.