From W. E. Darwin [24 April 1877?]1
Basset, | Southampton.
Tuesday
My dear Father
I am sorry to say I have no dried Rhamnus cath.cus. at all.
I find I marked 11 shrubs in June 1867, and I think I remember going to the Isle of W. afterwards to see about the fruit and finding I was too late to judge.2 I am sure I did
I also find mem: to measure size of anthers & length of stamens, & that when I went over in June 1867 the flowers were too withered.3
I do not suppose these notes are any good.
“In the buds the petals of each kind (i.e. short & long pistilled males) about the same size, in one bud of short pistilled the anthers were larger than in any of the long pistilled, this is probably always the case”
“Short styled wither soonest?” the only distinguishing marks to the naked eye (between the short & long pistilled males) are smaller flowers (slightly) and decidedly shorter pedicals in the shortpistilled, also the stamens & petals rather shorter, especially the stamens”4
“Certainly so says my Father. The stamens are more aborted in the females than the pistils in the males”5
I find I have 2 sketches of long pistilled females & short pistilled females, and written underneath “stamens entirely abortive in each” “The short pistilled (female) ripest the soonest, larger ovary and ovules, disc more cup shaped than in long-pistilled.”6
Rhamnus lanceolata
petal two lobed, embracing anther, (in one longpistilled & one shortpistilled) the petals of S-pistilled were largest, the length of filament when the anther had been pulled off came up just to the bifurcation of petal, while in long pistilled it fell some little way short of it also in this pair of flowers the anthers were a good dead smaller in the shortpistilled—
in long pistilled top of stigma reaches nearly up to base of stamen— but in another long pistilled the filaments reached up almost above the bifurcation of petal.7
I enclose diagram & measurements shewing pollen grains in L-pistilled Rh. Lanceolata to be the largest8 Rhamnus flowers soon so I could easily run over in May & measure stamens.
My impression is that there is little difference in the stamens of the two female forms.,
Your affect son | W. E. Darwin
P.S. As far as can be seen & measured from my sketches the much greater depth of calyx tube in the long styled male in Rh. cath. (and it is also much deeper in lanceolata) just makes two pairs of equal heights from base of ovary to top of stigmas or stamens—viz
height | of longstyled males | = | height | of long pistilled female |
" | of short styled male | = | " | of sh. p-d female |
“in long styled Male of Cath. & (of lanceolata?) the ridges of the stamens in some cases are carried down inside of disc and form a wheel looking appendage to ovary sometimes attached to it & sometimes not”,— this was not the case in the short styled males as far as my notes9
[Enclosure 1]
diameters of Short & Long pistilled are placed on two lines, leaving out z as it is nearly twice the size is probably an error
on measuring it is seen that 15 of S— pistilled equal 14 of L— pistilled therefore L— pistilled pollen grains the largest.
[Enclosure 2]
[Enclosure 3]
therefore 10 short p— diameters = L— p—d diamet
∴ L— pistilled pollen are largest
CD annotations
‘Long | Short |
1 | 1 + × |
1 | 1 - × |
1 + × | 1 - × |
1 + × | 1 |
1 + × | 1 |
1 - × | 1 - × |
1 + × | 1 |
1 + × | 1 + × |
1 | 1 + × |
1 + × | 1 + × |
1 | |
1’ |
Footnotes
Bibliography
Correspondence: The correspondence of Charles Darwin. Edited by Frederick Burkhardt et al. 29 vols to date. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985–.
Forms of flowers: The different forms of flowers on plants of the same species. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1877.
Summary
Sends notes made in June 1867, on Rhamnus catharticus and R. lanceolatus. Encloses diagrams and measurements relating to pollen size in R. lanceolatus.
Letter details
- Letter no.
- DCP-LETT-10343
- From
- William Erasmus Darwin
- To
- Charles Robert Darwin
- Sent from
- Bassett
- Source of text
- DAR 109: A44, A71–6
- Physical description
- ALS 4pp †, encl 4pp †
Please cite as
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 10343,” accessed on 28 March 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-10343.xml