We have discussed this already; we saw that experiments instituted
by Darwin proved that seedlings which had arisen through
cross-fertilization were superior to those arising through
self-fertilization, and that in many cases the mother-plant itself
produced fewer seeds when self-fertilized than when cross-fertilized.
This discovery afforded an explanation of the cross-fertilization
of flowers by insects which Sprengel had previously observed. We
understand how the flowers must have become so adapted through
processes of selection that they were unable to fertilize themselves,
but attracted insects, and, so to speak, compelled these to dust them
with pollen from another plant of the same species. We also understand
how self-fertilization remained possible for many flowers in the
event of cross-fertilization through insects not being effected,
since after a certain period of waiting, a curvature of the stamens
or the pistil may take place and lead to the stigma being dusted with
the pollen of the same flower. Obviously the development of _fewer_
seeds is preferable to complete sterility. It is a well-known fact
that peculiar inconspicuous and closed flowers, designed solely for
self-fertilization, may occur along with the open flowers, as in the
case of the so-called cleistogamous flowers of the violet (_Viola_)
and the little dead-nettle (_Lamium amplexicaule_), and the phyletic
origin of these becomes intelligible as soon as it is established that
cross-fertilization is more advantageous than self-fertilization.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account