Dear Sir,

When your letter reached me I was suffering from a slight attack of congestion of the brain and was not able, on that account, to attend immediately to your request;¹ indeed it was only the day before yesterday that I was able to set out in search of your Ophrys, but regret now to say that it was in vain. O apifera has always been a rare plant in this neighbourhood, but this year more so, it appears, than usual, as not a single individual was to be found. If at any future period I am more lucky, I shall not fail to observe a sufficient number of them as respects their manner of fertilisation and make you acquainted with the results. Indeed I should have done it long since on my own account, had opportunity offered, for I was much struck by the difference of arrangement of pollinia in O. apifera & O. arachnites, when I read your able dissertation on the subject in the work you were so kind as to send me.²

Let me now thank you for your paper on “two forms in Linum”.³ This was quite new to me; but we are becoming acquainted with so many cases of this kind, that I have no doubt many others will still present themselves. You may have seen what I have said on different genera of Rubiaceæ where dimorphism of this class is observable (Hist. nat. Quinq., pp. 21, 80 & 82; tab. 3 bis, 22 & 23)⁴   I do not, at this moment, call to mind, any other of a remarkable kind, except in Valerianæ, cases of which I have figured in the 2 vol. of my flora of the Andes.⁵ Many of the so said polygamous flowers in this genus, come, I suspect, under this head. A singular case of an hermaphrodite flower in which fecundation does not take place by the agency of its own stamens is met with in Cynomorium. This you will see a mention of in my paper on this plant, a copy of which I had the pleasure of forwarding to you through Baillière some time ago.—⁶

I remain, my dear Sir, Your’s very sincerely | H A Weddell.