Pen
Re Ra
Ue etirn ty Mt
irae
Hehe
i
nes
Ove a
se Yara
iy tale
SPE aL
Hehe
Nex
ee
art
ALBERT R.. MANN LIBRARY
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE
IN PRESS:
THE EVOLUTION OF OuR NATIVE FRUITS.
Uniform with this volume. Profusely illustrated.
THE SURVIVAL OF THE
UNLIKE
A COLLECTION OF EVOLUTION ESSAYS
SUGGESTED BY THE STUDY OF
DOMESTIC PLANTS
BY
L. H. BAILEY
The study of domestic productions will rise immensely in value.
—Darwin, Origin of Species.
Botanists have generally neglected cultivated varieties as beneath their notice.
—Darwin, Animals and Plants under Domestication.
SECOND EDITION
Netw Work
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., Lrp.
1897
All rights reserved
Mann
SPEC.
COE.
QR
G%O
Bet.
Ia9 7
COPYRIGHT, 1896
By L. H. BAILEY
Set up and electrotyped August, 1896
Reprinted March, 1897
Mount Pleasant Printery
J. Horace McFarland Company
Harrisburg, Pa.
THE MEMORY OF
. dksa Gray
--LAMENTED AND LOVED OF ALL
WHO LOVE NATURE—
IS THE AUTHOR’S UNCEASING
INSPIRATION.
PREFACE.
For several years it has been my habit, when
called upon to address horticultural societies, to choose
some topic intimately associated with the evolution of
domestic plants. My motives have been several. I
have chiefly desired to attempt to answer many of the
common questions which puzzle horticulturists by ap-
pealing to the evidences of evolution, for I am con-
vinced that many of these questions can be answered
in no other ‘way. I have also desired to spread a
knowledge of the evolution speculations and of the
methods of research which they suggest, amongst those
who deal with plants and animals, and who lead a
rural life. Again, I have wished to make a record
of a great class of most common and significant facts
vitally related to the study of organic evolution, but
which are almost wholly overlooked by students and
philosophers. In making these essays, I have con-
stantly had in mind the collation and publication of
them, and I have, therefore, endeavored to discuss the
leading problems associated with the variation and
evolution of cultivated plants, in order that the final
collection should be somewhat consecutive.
The results of this intermittent labor I now give
(1)
2 PREFACE.
to those for whom it was from time to time conceived,
—for horticulturists first, for evolutionists next. The
essays are of unequal merit, and there are necessarily
repetitions in them; but I conceive that they are the
more valuable for having been written at different
times and for different occasions, for they thereby pre-
sent the subjects in more diverse aspects. The audi-
ences to whom the greater number of the essays have
been addressed have been composed of persons who
observe widely of facts, but who are unused to mak-
ing broad inductions from ‘them. It is only in the
first two essays that I have ventured to state any
general convictions respecting the bolder: problems of
organic evolution, but I count these of much less
merit than the statements of many plain and simple
facts of observation and experiment which are made
in the humbler essays. If the author has been fortu-
nate enough to make any contribution to positive sci-
ence in these pages, it is probably that associated
with the vexed question of bud-variation, which is
chiefly presented in the third essay; but even this is
novel only in its treatment. The underlying motive
of the collection is the emphasis which is placed upon
unlikenesses, and of their survival because they are
unlike. The author also denies the common assump -
tion that organic matter was originally endowed with
the power of reproducing all its corporeal attributes,
or that, in the constitution of things, like produces
like. He conceives, as explained on pages 20 to 24,
PREFACE. ‘3
that heredity is an acquired force, and that, normally
or originally, unlike produces unlike.
It may be well to state what are the chief lines
of proof of evolution as they appeal to the author.
A priori reasons for belief in the hypothesis are the
two facts, that there must be struggle for existence
from the mere mathematics of propagation, and that
there have been mighty changes in the physical char-
acter of the earth. These facts argue that organisms
must either have changed or perished. To me, the
chief demonstrative reason for belief in evolution is
the fact that plants and animals can be and are modi-
fied profoundly by the care of man. In fact, I should
be convinced that the organic creation is an evolution
if I had no other proof than this. But the proofs
are abundant:
1. Those afforded by paleontology.
2. Those of embryology.
3. Those of comparative anatomy and structure.
4. Resemblances of types, which allow the objects
to be classified. If species were specially created,
there would have been no relationships.
5. The successive increase in complexity and dif-
ferentiation, or divergence, in this classification, or the
growth of the “‘tree of life.”’
6. The fact of adaptation to environment.
7. The vagaries of distribution, (See Essay XV.)
4 PREFACE.
8. The fact of variation, and the frequency of in-
tergradient forms.
9. The observed behavior of animals and plants
under the hand of man.
The reader who desires more explicit information
upon the means of producing new varieties may con-
sult ‘*Plant-Breeding,’’ in which some of the more ob-
vious speculations which are concerned with the breed-
ing of plants are set forth in some detail. Histori-
cal narratives of our indigenous cultivated fruits will
be found in ‘‘The Evolution of our Native Fruits.”
L. H. BAILEY.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY,
Irnaca, N. Y., September 1, 1896.
Note to the Second Issue.
In this issue, a few minor alterations have been
made, and a fuller statement is given to the conclud-
ing paragraph of the first Essay. The author takes
this occasion to say—— what, it’ would seem, is per-
fectly obvious — that in his denial of design, he uses
the word design in its biological significance, and that
he ‘has no reference to the larger question of pur-
posiveness in the creation. He refers to the notion
of immediate or proximate interference in shaping
the forms of life. The larger question of purposive
design is one which can be neither denied nor af-
firmed from biological evidence; but the author would
argue that the entire evolution scheme is a nobler
conception of purposive creation than any mere in-
terjection of special forces into a discontinuous, and,
therefore, in a meaningless, creation.
November 17, 1896,
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
THE publishers having called for a second edition
of this book, I take occasion, in addition to making
a few corrections and minor changes in the plates,
to more fully express my convictions upon two or
three points to which reviewers have taken exception.
I do this not as a defense, but for the purpose of
making my contention more clear. I should say,
also, that the book, from its very nature, is not a
treatise, and that it does not attempt to construct
any philosophy of the progress of the evolution of
plants,— a subject which the author may hope to con-
sider at another time.
It has been objected that the statement that un-
like produces unlike cannot be strictly true, since it
might follow that the offspring should be so different
from the parents as not to carry over any of the
parental characteristics. In other words, its logical
termination might be a general scattering of forms
and the absence of resemblances. All this is perfectly
true, but the reader is expected to bear in mind the
fact that hypotheses are methodological: their great-
est purpose is to suggest a method rather than to
(5)
6 PREFACE.
proclaim a definite fact. The statement is fully as
defensible, from the logical standpoint, as the com-
moner phrase that like produces like is. The object
of my phrase is to oppose the notion that the forms
of life originally possessed hereditary power, or ‘that
it was a part of their constitution that like should
rigidly produce like, and that all variation must, there-
fore, be attributed to definite agencies. My own con-
ception is that the original forms of life had no cor-
poreal characters (using the word character in its tech-
nical or natural history sense), and therefore needed
only powers of propagation, not of heredity. As
the characters arose from the normal variations be-
cause of the necessities of environment, so the heredi-
tary power arose at the same time. In other words,
the constant reproducing of a given variation by
recurring similar environments developed a tendency
to its perpetuation. The evolution of the organic
creation seems to me to have been a constant pro-
cess of suppression and elimination of miscellaneous
or indefinite ‘variations, resulting in the perpetuation
of certain type stems and the obliteration of the in-
termediates; and early in the process the normal
plasticity of the life- plasma must have been the
source of some of this variation, and it is not im-
probable that this type of plastic or fortuitous varia-
tion is not yet wholly eliminated from the vegetable
kingdom. Or, to state the matter in another form, I
conceive the organic creation to have started out with
PREFACE. q
no definite tendencies so far as the corporeal forms
of organisms are concerned, but these tendencies have
all been developed—heredity amongst the rest—by the
environmental necessities of later time; whilst varia-
tion or plasticity was a normal and necessary feature
of the original form of life, this constitutional elastic-
ity has been constantly bred out by the pressure of
circumstances, and the subsequent variation has come
to be more and more the result of definite environ-
ments. In some groups, in which the decline to-
wards extinction has now well progressed, or when
environments are very stable, organisms reproduce
themselves with considerable rigidity, so that it may
be said that like produces like. In some of the
variable groups, which, presumably, have not yet
reached the height of their development, it might
with equal truth be said that unlike produces unlike.
But in any event, the normal or original fact is con-
ceived to be that unlike produces unlike. At the
present time it would be truer to say that similar
produces similar.
It has been doubted whether the conception of the
phyton be worth the while (Botanical Gazette, xxii.,
501). The reviewer asks: “But do noteworthy dif-
ferences exist between the successive internodes of a
shoot?” It is by no means essential to the concep-
tion of the phyton that the different phytons upon
any branch shall be unlike; although it should be
remembered that, as a matter of fact, no two branches
8 PREFACE.
on a plant are alike, and yet every branch springs
from a phyton. The point is that any phyton is ca-
pable of making a new plant, and the characters of
that new plant will be very markedly determined by
the conditions under which it grows. The phyton is
simply the unit of asexual propagation as the seed is
of sexual propagation (see the contrasts of the keime
and the knospen in Mobius’ recent “Beitrige zur
Lehre von der Fortpflanzung der Gewiachse”). The
word bud might be substituted for phyton, but that
word now has two or three technical uses; and, more-
over, it is not always necessary that actual buds be
present in order that phytons shall grow when made
into cuttings or grafts. “Potentially, every node and
internode of the plant is an individual, for it pos-
sesses the power, when removed and properly cared
for, of expanding into what we call a plant, and
of perfecting flowers and seeds and of multiplying
its kind” (page 83).
A fuller consideration of the species-dogma (see
Essay IV.) was published as “The Philosophy of
Species-Making” .in Botanical Gazette for last De-
cember.
L. H. BAILEY.
IrHaca, N. Y.,
March 4, 1897.
II.
IV.
CONTENTS.
PART I.
Essays TOUCHING THE GENERAL Fact AND PHILOSOPHY OF
EVoLurion.
Page
The Survival of the Unlike... ......... 13
Neo-Lamarckism and Neo-Darwinism ........ 55
The Plant Individual in the Light of Evolution.
The Philosophy of Bud-Variation, and its Bearing
upon Weismannism ......... 2. ee eee 81
Experimental Evolution amongst Plants ....... 107
Van Mons and Knight, and the Production of Varieties 138
VI.
Vi.
VIII.
IX.
Some Bearings of the Evolution-Teaching upon Plant-
Cultivation: 8c ei ce Bee ek ee Re 162
Why have our Enemies Increased? ....... 180
Coxey’s Army and the Russian Thistle. A Sketch of
the Philosophy of Weediness..........- 193
Recent Progress in American Horticulture. ..... 202
PART II.
Essays EXPOUNDING THE Fact AND CAUSES OF VARIATION.
A. The Fact. Page
X. On the Supposed Correlations of Quality in Fruits 219
XI. The Natural History of Synonyms ..... . 237
XII. Reflective Impressions of the Nursery Business . 245
XII. The Relation of Seed-Bearing to Cultivation . . 251
B. The Causes.
XIV. Variation after Birth. ..... a a ee 256
(9)
10
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.
XXII.
XXIII.
XXIV.
CONTENTS.
Page
A Pomological Alliance. Sketch of the Relation -
ship between American and Eastern Asian
Froit®; 6 « % <4 5 4 2 BR ee ae ee ee 267
Horticultural Geography ....- ++ ++ ees 278
Some Emphatic Problems of Climate and Plants.
Comprising “Speculative Notes upon Phenol-
ogy (the Physiological Constant, and the Cli-
matal Modification of Phenological Phenom-
ena) ;” and “Some Interrelations of eee
and Horticulture” ......+.--. 288
Are American Fruits Best Adapted to aang
Conditions? ..... bet ee . 311
Acclimatization: Does it Occur? ..... . . « 320
On the Longevity of Apple Trees. ..... . . 334
Sex in Fruits . : sf > ASE SA cat. ods 347
Are Novelties Worth their Cost? ... .. . . 356
Why Do Promising Varieties Fail? ....... 364
Reflections upon the Longevity of Varieties.
Comprising “Do Varieties Run Out?” “Are
the Varieties of Orchard Fruits Running Out?”
“Studies in the Longevity of the Varieties of
Tomatoes? = 2 4 6s & Se eS OR ee Coals 376
PART III.
Essays TRACING THE EVOLUTION OF PARTICULAR TYPES OF
XXV.
XXVI.
XXVIII.
XXVIII.
PLANTS.
, Page
Whence Came the Cultivated Strawberry?. . . . 400
The Battle of the Plums. ......... - . 418
The Evolution of American Grapes. ..... . 481
The Progress of the Carnation. Comprising
“Types and Tendencies in the Carnation;”
“John Thorpe’s Ideal Carnation;” and “Bor-
der Carnations” ...... SP ak Ss - . 438
PREFACE.
XXX. The Amelioration of the Garden Tomato. Com-
prising “ The Origin of the Tomato from a Mor-
phological Standpoint ;” “History of the
Trophy Tomato;” “The Probable Course of
Evolution of the Tomato;” and “Direction of
Contemporaneous Improvement of the To-
mato”
a
11
Page
I.
THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE.’
WE all agree that there has been and is evolution; but
we probably all disagree as to the exact agencies and
forces which have been and are responsible for it. The
subject of the agencies and vehicles of evolution has been
gone over repeatedly and carefully for the animal crea-
tion, but there is comparatively little similar research
and speculation for the plant creation. This deficiency
upon the plant side is my excuse for calling your atten-
tion, in a popular way, to a few suggestions respecting
the continuing creation of the vegetable world, and to a
somewhat discursive consideration of a number of illus-
trations of the methods of advance of plant types.
T,
Nature of the Divergence of the Plant
and the Animal.
” It is self-evident that the development of life upon our
planet has taken place along two divergent lines. These
lines evidently originated at a common point. The
common life-plasma was probably at first more ani-
1 Originally an address before the Philosophical Club of Cornell University,
April 20, 1896. Revised and presented, in part, before the American Philosophical
Society, Philadelphia, May 1, 1896, and printed in the proceedings of the Society.
vol. xxxv. pp. 88 to 110.
14 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. {.
mal-like than plant-like. The stage in which this life-
plasma first began to assume plant-like functions is
closely and possibly exactly preserved tous in that great
class of organisms which are known as mycetozoa when
studied by zodlogists and as myxomycetes when studied
by botanists. At one stage of their existence, these or-
ganisms are amceba-like, that is, animal-like, but at
another stage they are sporiferous or plant-like. The
initial divergencies in organisms were no doubt con-
cerned chiefly in the methods of appropriating food,
the animal-like organisms apprehending their food at
a more or less definite point, and the plant-like or-
ganisms absorbing food throughout the greater or even
the entire part of their periphery. It is not my purpose
to trace the particular steps or methods of these diver-
gencies, but to call your attention to what I believe to be
a characteristic distinction between the two lines of de-
velopment, and one which I do not remember to have
seen stated in the exact form in which it lies in my mind.
Both lines probably started out with a more or less
well marked circular arrangement of the parts or organs.
This was consequent upon the peripheral arrangement of
the new cells in the development of the multicellular or-
ganism from the unicellular one. A long line of animal
life developed in obedience to this peripheral or rotate
type of organization, ending in the echinoderms and
some of the mollusks. This type long ago reached its
zenith. No line of descent can be traced from it, ac-
cording to Cope. The progressive and regnant type of
animal life appeared in the vermes or true worms, forms
which are characterized by a two-sided or bilateral, and.
therefore more or less longitudinal, structure. The ani-
mal-like organisms were strongly developed in the
1.] ANIMALS AND PLANTS CONTRASTED. 15
power of locomotion, and it is easy to see that the rotate
or centrifugal construction would place the organism at
a comparative disadvantage, because its seat of sensation
is farthest removed from the external stimuli. But the
worm-like organisms ‘‘being longitudinal and bilat-
eral,’’? writes Cope, ‘‘one extremity becomes differen-
tiated by first contact with the environment.’’ In other
words, the animal type has shown a cephalic, or head-
forming, evolution in consequence of the bilateralism of
structure. The individual has become concentrated.
Out of this worm-form type, therefore, all the higher
ranges of zodtypic evolution have sprung, and one is al-
most tempted to read a literal truth into David’s lamen-
tation that ‘‘I am a worm, and no man.”’
If, now, we turn to plants, we find the rotate or peri-
pheral arrangement of parts emphasized in all the higher
ranges of forms. The most, marked bilateralism in the
plant world is amongst the bacteria, desmids, and the
like, in which locomotion is markedly developed; and
these are also amongst the lowest plant-types. But
plants soon become attached to the earth, or, as Cope
terms them, they are ‘‘earth-parasites.’’? They therefore
found it to their advantage to reach out in every direc-
tion from their support in the search for food. Whilst
the centrifugal arrangement has strongly tended to dis-
appear in the animal creation, it has tended with equal
strength to persist and to augment itself in the plant
creation. Its marked development amongst plants be-
gan with the acquirement of terrestrial life, and with the
consequent evolution of the asexual or sporophytie type
of vegetation. Normally, the higher type of plant bears
its parts more cr less equally upon all sides, and the
limit to growth is still determined by the immediate en-
16 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. [1.
vironment of the given individual or of its recent ances-
tors. Its evolution has been acephalic, diffuse, or head-
less, and the individual plant or tree has no proper con-
centration of parts. For the most part, it is filled with
unspecialized plasma, which, when removed from the
parent individual (as in cuttings and grafts), is able to
reproduce another like individual. The arrangements of
leaves, branches, the parts of the flower, and even of
seeds in the fruit, are thus rotate or circular, and in the
highest type of plants the annual lateral increments of
growth are disposed in like fashion; and it is significant
to observe that in the composite, which is considered to
be the latest and highest general type of plant-form, the
rotate or centrifugal arrangement is most emphatically
developed. The circular arrangement of parts is the
typical one for higher plants, and any departure from
this form is a specialization, and demands explanation.
The point I wish to urge, therefore, is the nature of
the obvious or external divergence of plant-like and ani-
mal-like lines of ascent. The significance of the bilateral
structure of animal-types is well understood, but this
significance has been drawn, so far as I know, from a
comparison of bilateral or dimeric animals with rotate or
polymeric animals. I want to puta larger meaning into
it, by making bilateralism the symbol of the onward
march of animal evolution, and circumlateralism (if I
may invent the term), the symbol of plant evolution.
The suggestion, however, applies simply to the general
arrangement of the parts or organs of the plant body,
and has no relation to structural characteristics and
relationships. It is a suggestion of analogues, not of
homologues. We may, therefore, contrast these two
great lines of ascent which, with so many vicissitudes,
1.J ARE PLANTS CATAGENETIC ? 17
have come up through the ages, as Dipleurogenesis and
Centrogenesis.
The two divergent directions of the lines or phyla of
evolution have often been the subject of comment, but
one.of the sharpest contrasts between the two was made in
1884 by Cope, when he proposed that the vegetable king-
dom has undergone a degenerate or retrogressive evolu-
tion. ‘‘The plants in general,’’ he then wrote, ‘‘in the
persons of their protist ancestors, soon left a free-swim-
ming life and became sessile. Their. lives thus became
parasitic, more automatic, and in one sense degenerate.’’
The evolution of the plant creation is, therefore, held to
be a phenomenon of ecatagenesis or decadence. This, of
course, is merely a method of stating a comparison with
the evolution of the animal line or phylum, and is,
therefore, of the greatest service. For myself, however,
I dislike the terms retrogressive, catagenetic, and the like,
as applied to the plant creation, because they imply in-
trinsic or actual degeneracy. True retrogressive or de-
generate evolution is the result of loss of attributes.
Cope holds that the chief proof of degeneracy in the plant
world is the loss of a free-swimming habit; but it is
possible that the first life-plasma was stationary: at any
rate, we do not know that it was motile. Degeneracy is
unequivocally seen in certain restricted groups where the
loss of character can be traced directly to adaptive
changes, as in the loss of limbs in the serpents. Re-
tarded evolution expresses the development of the plant
world better than the above terms, but even this is erro-
neous, because plant types exhibit quite as complete an
adaptation to an enormous variety of conditions as ani-
mals do, and there has been rapid progress towards spe-
cialization of structure. Asa matter of fact, the vege-
2 SUR,
18 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. [x.
table world does not exhibit, as a whole, any backward
step, any loss of character once gained, nor any station-
ary or retarded periods; but its progress has been widely
unlike that of the animal world, and it has not reached
the heights which that line of ascent has attained. The
plant phylum cannot be said to be catagenetic, but it is
sui generis; or, in other words, it is centrogenetic, as
distinguished from dipleurogenetic.
The hearer should be reminded, at this point, of the
curious alternation of generations which has come about
in the plant world. One generation performs sexual
functions, and the product of the sexual union is an
asexual generation, and this, in turn, gives rise to an-
other sexual generation like the first. In the low sex-
plants, as in some of the alge, the sexual generation—
or the gametophyte, as it is called—generally comprises
the entire plant body, and the asexual generation—or
sporophyte—develops as a part of the fructifying struc-
ture of the gametophyte, and is recognizable as a sepa-
rate structure only by students of special training. In
the true mosses, the gametophyte is still the conspicuous
part of the plant structure. It comprises all that part of.
the moss which the casual observer recognizes as ‘‘the
plant.’’ The sporophytic generation is still attached to
the persistent gametophyte, and it is the capsule, with its
stem and appendages. In the ferns, however, the gamet-
ophytic stage is of short duration. It is the incon-
spicuous prothallus, which follows germination of the
spore. Therefrom originates ‘‘the fern,’’ all of which
is sporophytic, and the gametophyte perishes. With
the evolution of the flowering plants, the gametophyte
becomes still more rudimentary, whilst the sporophyte
is developed into the plant, tree or shrub, as we see it.
i GENESIS OF DIFFERENCES. 19
The gametophytic generation is associated with the act
of fertilization, the male prothallus or gametophyte de-
veloping from the pollen grain and soon perishing, and
the female prothallus or gametophyte developing in
the ovule, and either soon perishing, or persisting, at
least in the conifer-like plants, in the form of the
albumen of the seed. The great development of the
sporophyte in later time is, no doubt, a consequence of
the necessity of assuming a terrestial life; and with
this development has come the perfection of centro-
genetic form.
IL.
The Origin of Differences.
The causes which have contributed to the origin of
the differences which we see in the organic creation have
been and still are the subjects of the most violent con-
troversy. Those persons who conceive these differences
to have come into existence full-formed, as they exist at
the present time, are those who believe in the dogma of
special creations, and they usually add to the doctrine a
belief in design in nature. This doctrine of special cre-
ation receives its strongest support when persons con-
trast individual objects in nature. Certainly nothing
can seem more unlike in very fundamental character
than an insect and an elephant, a star fish and a potato,
a man and an oak tree. The moment one comes to
study the genealogies of these objects or groups, how-
ever, he comes upon the astonishing fact that the an-
cestors are more and more alike the farther back they
are traced. In other words, there are great series of
20 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. (1.
convergent histories. Every naturalist, therefore, is
compelled to admit that differences in nature have some-
how been augmented in the long processes of time. It
is unnecessary, therefore, that he seek the causes of pres-
ent differences until he shall have determined the causes
of the smallest or original indifferences. It is thus seen
that there are two great and co-ordinate problems in the
study of evolution,—the causes of initial differences,
and the means by which differences are augmented.
These two problems are no doubt very often expressions
of the same force or power, for the augmentation of a
difference comes about by the origination of new degrees
of difference; that is, by new differences. It is very
probable .that the original genesis of the difference is
often due to the operation of the very same physiological
processes which gradually enlarge the difference into a
gulf of wide separation.
In approaching this question of the origin of unlike-
nesses, the inquirer must first divest himself of the effects
of all previous teaching and thinking. We have reason
to assume that all beings came from one original life-
plasma, and we must assume that this plasma had the
power of perpetuating its physiological identity. Most
persons still further assume that this plasma must have
been endowed with the property of reproducing all its
characters of form and habit exactly, but such assump-
tion is wholly gratuitous and is born of the age-long
habit of thinking that like produces like. We really
have no right to assume either that this plasma was or
was not constituted with the power of exact reproduction
of all its attributes, unless the behavior of its ascendents
forces us to the one or the other conclusion. Inasmuch
as no two individual organisms ever are or ever have
1.] UNLIKE PRODUCES UNLIKE. 21
been exactly alike, so far as we can determine, it seems to
me to be the logical necessity to assume that like never did
and never can produce like. The closer we are able to
approach to plasmodial and unspecialized forms of life in
our studies of organisms, the more are we impressed
with the weakness of the hereditary power. Every tyro
in the study-of protoplasm knows that the amceba has
no form. The shapes which it assumes are individual,
and do not pass to the descendants. To my mind, there-
fore, it is a more violent assumption to suppose that this
first unspecialized plasma should exactly reproduce all its
minor features than to suppose that it had no distinct
hereditary power, and therefore, by the very nature of
its constitution, could not exactly reproduce itself. The
burden of proof has been thrown upon those who attempt
to explain the initial origin of differences, but it should
really be thrown upon those who assume that life-matter
was originally so constructed as to rigidly recast itself
into one mould in each succeeding generation. I see
less reason for dogmatically assuming that like produces
like than I do for supposing that unlike produces unlike.
I advanced this proposition a year ago in my ‘‘Plant-
Breeding’’* (pages 9 and 10), and I am now glad to
find, since writing the above paragraph, that H. S.
Williams has reached similar conclusions in his new
‘Geological Biology.’’ He regards mutability as the
fundamental law of organisms, and speaks of the prev-
alent notion that organisms must necessarily reproduce
*As an example of the common and unreserved acceptance of the notion that
like produces like, I may cite the opinion of A. S.,in a review of Plant-Breeding
in the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanica] Club (April, 1896). He dogmatically asserts
that the statement that inherent plasticity of organisms may allow of variation
without an immediate inciting cause, is ‘‘ certainly unscientific,” It is only fair
to ask that he explain why it is,
22 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. fi.
themselves exactly as ‘‘one of the chief inconsistencies in
the prevalent conception of the nature of organisms.’’
‘‘While the doctrine of mutability of species has gener-
ally taken the place of immutability,’’ he writes, ‘the
proposition that like produces like in organic generation
is still generally, and I suppose almost universally,
accepted. It therefore becomes necessary to suppose
that variation is exceptional, and that some reason for
the accumulation of variation is necessary to account for
the great divergencies seen in different species. * * * *
The search has been for some cause of the variation; it
is more probable that mutability is the normal law of
organic action, and that permanency is the acquired
law.’’ I do not suppose that Professor Williams makes
definite variation an inherent or necessary quality of
organic matter, but that he conceives this matter to
have had no original hereditary power, and that its
form and other attributes in succeeding generations have
been moulded into the environment, and that the bur-
den of proof is thrown upon those who assume that
life-matter was endowed with the property that like nec-
essarily produces like. At all events, this last is my own
conception of the modification of the lines of ascent.
This conception of the unstable constitution of the
original forms of life is by no means novel, but it ap-
pears to have been held most freely by those thinkers
who are not themselves professed biologists. One of
the best statements of it which I know is that of E. P.
Powell in his powerful book, ‘‘Our Heredity from
God.’’ “But Nature never fails to remind us,”’ he says,
‘that heredity is only a slowly established tendency, and
that permutation is the original tendency in nature; for,
if you succeed in breaking up an established order or
L] HEREDITY AN ACQUIRED CHARACTER. 23
species, you will find the most persistent effort necessary
to prevent unlimited variation. * * * The difficulty is
not so much to secure a new variety or a new species as
it is to establish and confirm it.’’
In other words, I look upon heredity as an acquired
character, the same as form or color or sensation is, and
not as an original endowment of matter. The hereditary
power did not originate until, for some reason, it was
necessary for a given character to reproduce itself, and
the longer any form or character was perpetuated, the
stronger became the hereditary power.
It is now pertinent to enquire what determined the
particular differences which we know to have persisted.
The mere statement that some forms became sessile or
attached to the earth, and that others became or re-
mained motile, is an assumption that these differences
were direct adaptations to environment. Every little
change in environment incited a corresponding change
in the plastic organization; and the greater and more
various the changes in the physical attributes of the
earth with the lapse of time, the greater became the
modifications in organisms. I believe, therefore, that
the greater part of present differences in organisms are
the result, directly and indirectly, of external stimuli,
until we come into those higher ranges of being in
which sensation and volition have developed, and in
which the effects of use and disuse and of psychological
states have become increasingly more important as fac-
tors of ascent. The whole moot question, then, as to
whether variations are definite or multifarious, is aside
from the issue. They are as definite as the changes in
the environment are, which determine and control their
existence. More differences arise than can persist, but
24 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. (1.
this does not prove that those which are lost are any the
less due to the impinging stimuli. Those who write of
definite variation usually construe the result or outcome
of some particular evolution into a measure of the vari-
ation which is conceived to have taken place in the
group. Most or all of the present characters of any
group are definite because they are the survivals in a
process of elimination; but there may have been, at va-
rious times, the most diverse and diffuse variations in
the very group which is now marked by definite attri-
butes. As the lines of ascent developed, and generation
followed generation in countless number, the organiza-
tion was more and more impressed with the features of
ancestral characters, and these ancestral characters are
the more persistent as they have been more constant in
the past. But these characters, which appear as hered-
itary or atavistic variations in succeeding generations,
were no doubt first, at least in the plant creation, the
offspring, for the most part, of the environment react-
ing upon the organism. As life has ascended in the
time-scale and has become increasingly complex, so the
operation of any incident force must ever produce more
diverse and unpredictable results. What I mean to say
is that, in plants, some of the variations seem to me to
be the resultants of a long line of previous incident im-
pressions, or to have no immediate inciting cause. Such
variation is to all appearances fortuitous. It is, there-
fore, evident that the study of the effects of impinging
environments at the present day may not directly eluci-
date the changes which similar conditions may have pro-
dueed in the beginning.
Whilst the steadily ascending line of the plant crea-
tion was fitting itself into the changing moods of the
1.] THE GROWTH-FORCE, 25
external world, it was, at the same time, developing an
internal power. Plants were constantly growing larger
and stronger or more specialized. The accumulation of
vital energy is an acquired character, the same as pecu-
liarities of form or structure are. It is the accumulated
result of every cireumstance which has contributed to
the well-being and virility of the organism. The gar--
dener knows that he can cause the plant to store up
energy in the seed, so that the resulting crop will be the
larger. Growth is itself but the expression or result of
this energy which has been picked up by the way
through countless ages. Now, mere growth is varia-
tion. It results in differences. Plants cannot grow
without being unlike. The more luxuriant the growth,
the more marked the variation. Most plants have ac-
quired or inherited more growth-force than they are able
to use, because they are held down to certain limitations
by the conditions in which they are necessarily placed
by the struggle for existence. J am convinced that
many of the members of plants are simply outgrowths
resulting from this growth-pressure, or, as Bower sig-
nificantly suggests (‘‘A Theory of the Strobilus in Ar-
chegoniate Plants,’’ Annals of Botany, viii. 358, 359),
they are the result of an ‘‘eruptive process.’’ The push-
ing out of shoots from any part of the plant body, upon
occasion, the normal production of adventitious plant-
lets upon the stems and leaves of some begonias (espe-
cially Begonia phyllomaniaca), bryophyllum, some ferns,
and many other plants, are all expressions of the growth-
foree which is a more or less constant internal power.
This growth-force may give rise to more definite varia-
tions than impinging stimuli do; but the growth-force
runs in definite directions because it, in its turn, is the
26 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. [r.
survival in a general process of elimination. Many of
the characters of plants which—for lack of better ex-
planation—we are in the habit of calling adaptive, are
no doubt simply the result of eruption of tissue.
Very likely some of the compounding of leaves, the
pushing out of some kinds of prickles, the duplication
of floral organs, and the like, are examples of this kind
of variation. "We know that the characters of the ex-
ternal bark or cortex upon old tree trunks are the re-
sult of the internal pressure in stretching and splitting
it. This simply shows how growth-force may origi-
nate characters of taxonomic significance when it is
expressed as mere mechanical power acting upon tissue
of given anatomical structure. This power of growth
is competent, I think, to originate many and important
variations in plants. I suppose my conception of it to
be essentially the same as that of the bathmism of Cope,
and the ‘‘theory of the organic growth’’ of Eimer.
Darwin seems to have come near to the same law when
he supposed that excess of food supply is the chief cause
of variation, for he thereby recognizes the correlation
of growth and variability; but in his conception, the
growth is the result of a direct and immediate external
stimulus, and not an internal acquired force.
We have now considered two general types of forces
or agencies which start off variations in plants,—purely
external stimuli, and the internal acquired energy of
growth. There is still a third general factor, crossing,
or, as Eimer writes it, ‘‘sexual mixing.’’ The reason
for the very existence of sex, as we now understand
it, is to originate differences by means of the union of
two parents into one offspring. (See Essay II.) This
sexual mixing cannot be considered to be an original
1.] DARWIN’S PHILOSOPHY. 27
cause of unlikeness, however, since sex itself was at first
a variation induced by environment or other agencies,
and its present perfection, in higher organisms, is the
result of the process of continuous survival in a conflict
of differences.
The recent rise of Lamarckian views seems to have
been largely the result of an attempt to discover the vera
causa of variations. Darwin’s hypothesis of natural
selection assumes variability without inquiring into its
cause, and writers have therefore said that Darwin did
not attempt to account for the cause of variations.
Nothing can be farther from his views. Yet some of
our most recent American writings upon organic evo-
lution repeat these statements. Cope, in his always
admirable ‘‘Primary Factors of Organie Evolution,’
writes that ‘‘Darwin only discussed variation after it
came into being.’’ Yet Darwin’s very first chapter in
his ‘‘Origin of Species’? contains a discussion of the
‘Causes of variability,’’ and the same subject is gone
over in detail in ‘‘ Variation of Animals and Plants
under Domestication.’’ Darwin repeatedly refers the
cause or origin of variation to “‘changed conditions of
life,’’ which is essentially the position maintained by the
Lamarckians, and he as strenuously combats those who
hold that definite variation is an innate attribute of life.
‘But we must, I think, conclude * * *,’’ writes
Darwin in the latter book, ‘‘that organic beings, when
subjected during several generations to any change what-
ever in their conditions, tend to vary.’’ He discussed
at length the particular agencies which he considered to
be most potent in inducing variability, and enumerated,
amongst other factors, the kind and amount of food,
climate, and crossing. ‘‘Changes of any kind in the
28 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. [r.
condition of life,’’ he repeats, ‘‘even extremely slight
changes, often suffice to cause variability. Excess of
nutriment is perhaps the most efficient single exciting
eause.’”?’ (See Essay XIV.) Cope, in his discussion of
the ‘‘Causes of variation,’’ starts out with the propo-
sition ‘‘to cite examples of the direct modifying effect
of external influences on the characters of individual
animals and plants;’’ and he closes with this paragraph:
‘‘T trust that I have adduced evidence to show that the
stimuli of chemical and physical forces, and also molar
motion or use and its absence, are abundantly sufficient
to produce variations of all kinds in organic beings.
The variations may be in color, proportions, or details of
structure, according to the conditions which are present.’’
This is, in great part, the thesis to which Darwin ex-
tended the proofs of a most laborious collection of data
from gardeners and stock-breeders and from feral nature.
It has been the great misfortune of the interpretation of
Darwin’s writings that his hypothesis of natural selec-
tion has so completely overtopped everything else in the
reader’s mind that other important matters have been
overlooked.
Whilst the one central truth in the plant creation is
the fact that differences arise as the result of variations
in environment, there are, nevertheless, many exceptions
to it. There are various types of differences, which are
merely incidental or secondary to the main stem of
adaptive ascent. Some of these are such as arise from
the cessation of the constructive agencies, and others are
mere correlatives or accompaniments of type differences.
As an example of the former, we may cite the behavior
of the potato. By high cultivation and careful breeding,
the plant has been developed to produce enormous crops
1.] PANMIXIA, 29
of very large tubers, so heavy a crop that the plant has
been obliged’ to spare some of its energy from the pro-
duction of pollen and berries for the purpose of main-
taining the subterranean product. It is evident that
this high state of amelioration can be maintained only by
means of high cultivation. The moment there is a let-
down in the factors which have bred and maintained the
plant, there is a tendency towards a breaking up and
disappearance of the high-bred type. This is an illus-
tration of the phenomenon of panmixia, as outlined by
Weismann, except that the force which has ceased to act
is human selection rather than natural selection. ‘‘This
suspension of the preserving influence of natural selec-
tion,’’ Weismann writes, ‘‘may be termed Panmixia.’’
In his opinion, ‘‘the greater number of those variations
which are usually attributed to the direct influence of
external conditions of life are to be attributed to pan-
mixia. For example, the great variability of most
domesticated animals and plants essentially depends
upon this principle.’’ In other words, certain differences
are preserved through the agency of natural selection,
and certain differences are lost; if the organism is re-
moved from this restraining and directing agency, all
variations have the chance of asserting themselves.
‘‘All individuals can reproduce themselves,’’? Weismann
explains, ‘‘and thus stamp their characters upon the
species, and not only those which are in all respects, or
in respect to some single organ, the fittest.’’? I am con-
vineed that this term expresses a very important truth,
and one which, as Wiesmann says, is particularly ap-
parent in domestic animals and plants; but panmixia
does not express an original force. If new differences
arise in consequence of the cessation of the directive
30 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. [r.
agency of natural selection, it is because they were im-
pressed upon the organization by some unaccountable
agency; or, if there is simply a falling away from ac-
cumulated characters, the residuary or secondary features
which appear are probably the. compound and often
‘deteriorated result of various previous incident forces.
In short, panmixia is a name for a class of phenomena,
and it eannot be considered as itself an original cause of
variation. It is, to my mind, largely the unrestrained
expression or unfolding of the growth-force consequent
upon the removal of the pressure under which the plant
has lived.
Il.
The Survival of the Unlike.
The one note of the modern evolution speculations
which has resounded to the remotest corner of civiliza-
tion and which is the chief exponent of current specu-
lation respecting the origin and destiny of the organic
world, is Spencer’s phrase, ‘‘ the survival of the fittest.’’
This epigram is an epitome of Darwin’s law of natural
selection, or ‘‘ the preservation, during the battle for life,
of varieties which possess any advantage in structure,
constitution or instinct.’’? In most writings, these two
phrases—‘‘ natural selection’’ and ‘‘the survival of the
fittest ’’—are used synonymously; but in their etymology
they really stand to each other in the relation of process
and result. The operation of natural selection results in
the survival of the fittest. One must not be too exact,
however, in the literal application of such summary ex-
pressions as these. Their particular mission is to afford
1.J PHRASEOLOGY OF EVOLUTION. 31
a convenient and abbreviated formula for the designation
of important principles, for use in common writing and
speech, and not to express a literal truth. Darwin was
himself well aware of the danger of the literal interpre-
tation of the epigram ‘‘ natural selection.’’? ‘‘The term
‘natural selection,’’’ he writes, ‘‘is in some respects a
bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but this
will be disregarded after a little familiarity.’? This tech-
nical use of the term ‘‘natural selection’’ is now gen-
erally accepted unconsciously; and yet there have been
recent revolts against it, upon the score that it does not
itself express a literal principle or truth. If we accept
the term in the sense in which it was propounded by its
author, we are equally bound to accept ‘‘ survival of the
fittest’? as a synonymous expression, because its author
so designed it. ‘‘ By natural selection or survival of the
fittest,’’ writes Spencer, ‘‘“—by the preservation in suc-
cessive generations of those whose moving equilibria
happen to be least at variance with the requirements,
there is eventually produced a changed equilibrium
completely in harmony with the requirements.’’
It should be said that there is no reason other than
usage why the phrase ‘‘ survival of the fittest’? should
not apply to the result of Lamarckian or functional evo-
lution as well as of Darwinian or selective evolution. It
simply expresses a fact without designating the cause or
the process. Cope has written a book upon the ‘‘Origin of
the Fittest,’’ in which the argument is Lamarckian. The
phrase implies a conflict, and the loss of certain contest-
ants and the salvation of certain others. It asserts that
the contestants or characters which survive are the fittest,
but it does not explain whether they are fit because en-
dowed with greater strength, greater prolificness, com-
39 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. {r.
pleter harmony with surroundings, or other attributes.
I should like to suggest, therefore, that the chief merit
of the survivors is unlikeness, and to call your attention
for a few minutes to the significance of the phrase—
which I have used in my teaching during the last year —
the survival of the unlike.
This phrase—the survival of the unlike—expresses no
new truth, but I hope that it may present the old truth
of vicarious or non-designed evolution in a new light.
It defines the fittest to be the unlike. You will recall
that in this paper I have dwelt upon the origin and pro-
gress of differences rather than of definite or positive
characters. Iam so fully convinced that, in the plant
creation, a new character is useful to the species because
it is unlike its kin, that the study of differences between
individuals has come to be, for me, the one absorbing
and controlling thought in the contemplation of the pro-
gress of life. These differences arise as a result of every
impinging force,— soil, weather, climate, food, training,
conflict with fellows, the strain and stress of wind and
wave, and insect visitors,—as a complex resultant of
many antecedent external forces, the effects of crossing,
and also as the result of the accumulated force of mere
growth; they are indefinite, non-designed, an expression
of all the various influences to which the passive vege-
table organism is or has been exposed; those differences
which are most unlike their fellows or their parents find
the places of least conflict, and persist because they thrive
best, and thereby impress themselves best upon their off-
spring. Thereby there is a constant tendency for new
and divergent lines to strike off, and these lines, as they
become accented, develop into what we, for convenience
sake, have called species. There are, therefore, as many
1.] . SPORTS. 33
species as there are unlike conditions in physical and
environmental nature, and in proportion as the condi-
tions are unlike and local are the species well defined.
But to Nature, perfect adaptation is the end; she knows
nothing, per se, as species or as fixed types. Species
were created by John Ray, not by the Lord; they were
named by Linneeus, not by Adam.
I must now hasten to anticipate an objection to my
phrase which may arise in your minds. I have said
that when characters are unlike existing characters, they
stand a chance of persisting; but I do not desire to say
that they are useful in proportion as they are unlike
their kin. I want to express my conviction that mere
- sports are rarely useful. Sports are no doubt the result
of very unusual or complex stimuli or of unwonted re-
frangibility of the energy of growth, and not having
been induced by conditions which act uniformly over a
course of time, they are likely to be transient. I fully
accept Cope’s remark that there is ‘‘no ground for be-
lieving that sports have any considerable influence on
the course of evolution. * * * The method of evolution
has apparently been one of successional increment and
decrement of parts along definite lines.’’ Amongst do-
mestie animals and plants the selection and breeding of
sports, or very unusual and marked variations, has been
a leading cause of their strange and diverse evolution.
In fact, it is in this particular thing that the work of
the breeder and the gardener is most unlike the work
of nature. But in feral conditions, the sport may be
likened to an attribute out of place; and I imagine that
its chief effect upon the phylogeny of a race—if any
effect it have—is in giving rise in its turn to a brood of
less erratic unlikenesses. This question of sports has
3 SUR.
34 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. (i.
its psychological significance, for if the way becomes
dark the wanderer invokes the aid of this ignis fatuus
to cut short his difficulties. Sir William Thomson
suggests that the basis of life may have come to earth
upon a meteor, and Brinton proposes that man is a
sport from some of the lower creation. It is certainly a
strange conception which ascribes a self-centered and
self-sufficient power to the tree of life, and then, at the
very critical points, adopts a wholly extraneous force,
and one which is plainly but a survival of the old cata-
clysmic doctrines; and it is the stranger, too, be-
cause such type of explanation is not suggested by ob-
servation or experiment, but simply by an insuperable
barrier of our present ignorance of: natural processes.
If evolution is true at all, there is reason to suppose
that it extends from beginning to finish of creation,
and the stopping of the process at obscure intervals
can be only a temporary satisfaction to one who is not
yet fully committed to the eternal truth of ascent.
The tree of life has no doubt grown steadily and grad-
ually, and the same forces, variously modified by the
changing physical conditions of the earth, have run on
with slow but mighty energy until the present time.
Any radical change in the plan would have defeated it,
and any mere accidental circumstance is too trivial to
be considered as a modifying influence of the great on-
ward movement of creation, particularly when it as-
sumes to account for the appearing of the very cap-
stone of the whole mighty structure.
Bear with me if I recite a few specific examples of
the survival of the unlike, or of the importance, to or-
ganic types, of gradually widening differences. Ilus-
trations might be drawn from every field of the organic
1.] THE GARDENER’S POWER. 35
creation, but I choose a few from plants because these
are the most neglected, and because I am most familiar
with them. These are given to illustrate how important
external stimuli are in originating variation, and how it
is that some of these variations persist.
Let me begin by saying that a good gardener loves
his plants. Now, a good gardener is one who grows
good plants, and good plants are very unlike poor plants.
They are unlike because the gardener’s love for them
has made them so. The plants were all alike in Novem-
ber; in January, the good gardener’s plants are strong
and clean, with large, dense leaves, a thick stem, and an
abundance of perfect flowers; the poor gardener’s plants
are small and mean, with curled leaves, a thin, hard
stem, and a few imperfect flowers. You will not believe
now that the two lots were all from the same seed-pod
three months ago. The good gardener likes to save his
own seeds or to make his own cuttings; and next year
his plants will be still more unlike his neighbor’s. The
neighbor tries this seed and that, reads this bulletin and
that, but all avails nothing, simply because he does not
grow good plants. He does not care for them tenderly,
as a fond mother cares for a child. The good gardener
knows that the temperature of the water and the air,
the currents in the atmosphere, the texture of the soil,
and all the little amenities and comforts which plants so
much enjoy, are just the factors which make his plants
successful; and a good crop of anything, whether wheat
or beans or apples, is simply a variation.
And do these unlikenesses survive? Yes, verily!
The greater part of the amelioration of cultivated plants
has come about in just this way,—by gradual modifica-
tions in the conditions in which they are grown, by
36 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. [1.
means of which unlikenesses arise, and then by the se-
lection of seeds from the most coveted plants. Even at
the present day, there is comparatively little plant-
breeding. The cultivated flora has come up with man,
and if it has departed immensely from its wild proto-
totypes, so has man. The greater part of all this has
been unconscious and unintended on man’s part, but it
is none the less real.
As an illustration of how large the factors of unde-
signed choice and selection are in the amelioration of
the domestic fiora, let me ask your attention to the bat-
tle of the seed-bags. In the year 1890 the census rec-
ords show, for the first time, the numbers of acres in
the United States devoted to the growing of seeds. I
give the acreage of three representative crops, and these
figures I have multiplied by the average seed-yields per
acre, in order to arrive at an approximate estimate of the
entire crop produced, and the number of acres which
the crop would plant. I have used low averages of
yields in order to be on the safe side, and I have like-
wise used liberal averages of the quantity of seed re-
quired to plant an acre when making up the last column:
Acres in Average yields Approximate
seed-crops. per acre. crop of seeds. Would plant
Cabbage .... 1,268 200 Ibs. 253,600 Ibs. 1,014,400 acres.
Cucumber . - 10,219 120 “ 1,226,280 ‘* 613,140
Tomato «4,356 80 ‘* 368,480 ‘ 1,473,920
The last column in this table has particular interest,
because it shows the enormous acreage which these
seeds, if all planted, would cover. We are now curious
to know if such areas really are planted to these species,
and if they are not, it will be pertinent to inquire what
becomes of the seeds. Unfortunately, we have no sta-
tistics of the entire acreages of these various truck-
garden crops, but the same census gives the statistics of
1.] BATTLE OF THE SEED-BAGS. 37
the commercial market-gardens of the country. Inquiry
of seed-merchants has convinced me that about one-
fourth of all the seeds sold in any year go to market-gar-
deners. I have therefore multiplied the census figures of
market gardens by four for the purpose of arriving at an
estimate of the total acreage of the given crops in the
United States; and I have introduced the last column
from the previous table for purposes of comparison :
Acreage of Probable There are seeds
market-gardens. total acreage. enough to plant Difference.
Cabbage. ....- 77,094 308,376 1,014,400 acres. 706,024 acres.
Cucumber .. 4,721 18,884 613,140 ** 594,256 ‘
Tomato. . . 22,802 91,208 1,473,920“ 1,382,712 “*
It will thus be seen that there are enough cabbage
seeds raised in this country each year—if the census year
is a fair sample—to plant nearly three-quarters of a
million acres more than actually are planted; about the
same surplus of cucumber seeds; and a surplus of tomato
seeds sufficient to plant over one and a quarter million
acres. It is possible, of course, that the figures of actual
acreage of these crops are too low; but such error, if it
occur, must be much overbalanced by the large quanti-
ties of home-grown and imported seeds which are used
every year. These startling figures would not apply so
well to many other crops which are detailed in the cen-
sus bulletin. For instance, the peas raised in this coun-
try would plant only about 46,000 acres, whilst there are
over 100,000 acres actually grown; but this discrepancy
is probably accounted for by the fact that the larger part
of the seed peas are grown in Canada, and therefore do
not figure in our census. There is a somewhat similar
discrepancy in the watermelon, but in this crop the seeds
are very largely home-saved by the heavy planters in the
south and west. I do not give these figures for their
38 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. Lt.
value as statistics, but simply for the purpose of graph-
ically expressing the fact that many more seeds are raised
by cultivators each average year than are ever grown
into plants, and that struggle for existence does not
necessarily cease when plants are taken under the care of
man.
What, now, becomes of this enormous surplus of
seed? Let us take a rough survey of the entire seed
erop of any year. In the first place, a certain percentage
of the seeds are laid aside by the seedsman as a surety
against failure in the year to come. Much of this old
stock never finds its way into the market, and is finally
discarded. We will estimate this element of waste as 20
per cent. Of the 80 per cent. which is actually sold,
perhaps another 10 per cent. is never planted, leaving
about 70 per cent. which finds its way into the ground.
These two items of loss are pure waste, and have no
effect upon the resulting crop. Now, of the seeds which
are planted, no more than 75 per cent. can be expected
to germinate. That is, there is certainly ‘an average loss
of 25 per cent. in nearly all seeds—and much more in
some—due to inherent weakness, and 75 per cent. rep-
resents the survival in a conflict of strength. We have
now accounted for about half of the total seed product
of any year. The remaining half produces plants; but
here the most important part of the conflict begins. In
the crops mentioned above, much less than half of the
seeds which are grown ever appear in the form of a crop.
We must remember, moreover, that in making the esti-
mate of the number of acres which these seeds would
plant, I have used the usual estimates of the quantity of
seeds required to plant an acre. Now, these estimates
of seedsmen and planters are always very liberal. Every
1.] DISRUPTION OF SPECIFIC TYPES. 39
farmer sows from five to twenty times more seed than he
needs. Some years ago, I sowed seeds according to the
recommendation of one of our best seedsmen, and I
found that peas would be obliged to stand four-fifths
of an inch apart, beets about twenty to the foot, and
other vegetables in like confusion. I suppose that of all
the seeds which actually come up, not more than one
in ten or a dozen, in garden vegetables, ever give ma-
ture plants. What becomes of the remainder? They
are thinned out for the good of those which are left.
This simple process of thinning out vegetables has
had a most powerful effect upon the evolution of our
domestic flora. It is a process of undesigned selection.
This selection proceeds upon the differences in the seed-
lings. The weak individuals are disposed of, and those
which are strongest and most unlike the general run are
preserved. It is a clear case of the survival of the un-
like. The laborer who weeds and thins your lettuce bed
unconsciously blocks out his ideas in the plants which
he leaves. But all this is a struggle of Jew against Jew,
not Jew against Philistine. It is a conflict within the
species, not of species against species. It, therefore,
tends to destroy the solidarity of the specific type, and
helps to introduce much of that promiscuous unlikeness
which is the distinguishing characteristic of domestic
plants.
Let us now transfer this emphatic example to wild
nature. There we shall find the same prodigal pro-
duction of seeds. In the place of the gardener unde-
signedly moulding the lines of divergence, we find the
inexorable physical circumstances into which the plastic
organisms must grow, if they grow at all. These cir-
cumstances are very often the direct causes of the
40 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. {r.
unlikenesses of plants, for plants which start like when
they germinate may be very unlike when they die.
Given time and constantly but slowly changing condi-
tions, and the vegetable creation is fashioned into the un-
likenesses which we now behold. With this conception,
let us read again Francis Parkman’s picturesque descrip -
tion of the forests of Maine in his ‘‘ Half-Century of
Conflict:’’ ‘‘For untold ages Maine had been one un-
broken forest, and it was so still. Only along the rocky
seaboard or on the lower waters of one or two great
rivers a few rough settlements had gnawed slight in-
dentations into this wilderness of woods, and a little
farther inland some dismal clearing around a blockhouse
or stockade let in the sunlight to a soil that had lain in
shadow time out of mind. This waste of savage vege-
tation survives, in some part, to this day, with the same
prodigality of vital force, the same struggle for existence
and mutual havoc that mark all organized beings, from
men tomushrooms. Young seedlings in millions spring
every summer from the black mold, rich with the decay
of those that had preceded them, crowding, choking,
and killing each other, perishing by their very abun-
dance; all but a scattered few, stronger than the rest, or
more fortunate in position, which survive by blighting
those about them. They in turn, as they grow, inter-
lock their boughs, and repeat in a season or two the
same process of mutual suffocation. The forest is full
of lean saplings dead or dying with vainly stretching
towards the light. Not one infant tree in a thousand
lives to maturity; yet these survivors form an innumer-
able host, pressed together in struggling confusion,
squeezed out of symmetry and robbed of normal de-
velopment, as men are said to be in the level sameness
1.] EVOLUTION OF THE ROOT. 41
of democratic society. Seen from above, their mingled
tops spread in a sea of verdure basking in light; seen
from below, all is shadow, through which spots of timid
sunshine steal down among legions of dark, mossy
trunks, toadstools and rank ferns, protruding roots,
matted bushes, and rotting carcasses of fallen trees. A
generation ago one might find here and there the rugged
trunk of some great pine lifting its verdant spire above
the indistinguished myriads of the forest. The woods
of Maine had their aristocracy; but the axe of the wood-
man has laid them low, and these lords of the wilderness
are seen no more.”’
In such bold and generalized examples as this, the
student is able to discern only the general fact of pro-
gressive divergency and general adaptation to conditions,
without being able to discover the particular directive
forces which have been at the bottom of the evolution.
It is only when one considers a specific example that he
can arrive at any just conclusions respecting initial
causes of modification. Of adaptive modifications, two
general classes have been responsible for the ascent of
the vegetable kingdom; one a mere moulding or shaping
into the passive physical environments, the other the
direct result of stress or strain imposed upon the organ-
ism by wind and water, and by the necessities of a
radical change of habit from aquatic to terrestrial life,
and later on by the stimuli of insects upon the flowers.
One of the very best examples of the mere passive ascent
is afforded by the evolution of the root as a feeding
organ; and a like example of development as a result of
strain is afforded by the evolution of the stem and vas-
cular or fibrous system. Our present flora, like our pres-
ent fauna, is an evolution from aquatic life. The first
42 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. [x.
sessile or stationary plants were undoubtedly stemiess.
As the waters increased in depth, and plants were driven
farther and farther from their starting points by the
struggle for place and the disseminating influence of
wind and waves, the plant body became more and more
elongated. Whilst the plant undoubtedly still absorbed
food throughout its entire periphery, it nevertheless
began to differentiate into organs. The area chiefly
concerned in food-gathering became broadened into a
thallus, a constricted or stem-like portion tended to
develop below, and the entire structure anchored itself
to the rock by a holdfast or grapple. This holdfast or
so-called root of most of our present sea-weeds is chiefly
a means of holding the plant in place, and it probably
absorbs very little food. As plants emerged into
amphibian life, however, the foliar portion was less and
less thrown into contact with food, and there was more
and more demand upon the grapple which was anchored
in the soil. The foliage gradually developed into organs
for absorbing gases, and the root was forced to absorb
the liquids which the plant needed. I do not mean to
say that there is any genetic connection between the sea-
weeds and the higher plants, or that the roots of the two
are homologous; but to simply state the fact that, in
point of time, the hold-fast root developed before the
feeding-root did, and that this change was plainly one
of adaptation. Specialized forms of flowering plants,
which inhabit water, still show a root system which is
little more than an anchor, and the foliage actively
absorbs water. The same environmental circumstances
are thus seen to have developed organs of similar physi-
ological character in widely remote times and in diverse
lines of the plant evolution. ‘‘As the soil slowly became
1.] EVOLUTION OF THE ROOT. 43
thicker and thicker,’’ writes King in his book upon
“The Soil,’’ ‘‘as its water-holding power increased, as
the soluble plant food became more abundant, and as the
winds and the rains covered at times with soil portions
of the purely superficial and aérial early plants, the days
of sunshine between passing showers and the weeks of
drought intervening between periods of rain became the
occasions for utilizing the moisture which the soil had
held back from the sea. These conditions, coupled with
the universal tendency of life to make the most of its
surroundings, appear to have induced the evolution of
absorbing elongations, which by slow degrees and cen-
turies of repetition came to be the true roots of plants as
we now know them.’’ Some aquatic flowering plants
are, as we have seen, still practically rootless, and they
absorb the greater part of their food directly by the
foliar parts; but the larger number of the higher plants
absorb their mineral food by means of what has come to
be a subterranean feeding organ, and the foliar parts
have developed into gas-absorbing organs, and they take
in water only when forced to do so under stress of cir-
eumstances.
But as a mere feeding organ, the root requires no
fibrous structure. It is still a hold-fast or grapple, and
its mechanical tissue has developed enormously, along
with that of the stem, in order to preserve the plant
against the strain of the moving elements and to main-
tain its erectness in aérial life. When this self-poised
epoch arrives, the vegetable world begins its definite and
steady ascent in centrogenie form. Whilst the animal
creation leaves its centrogenic arrangement early in its
own time-scale, the plant creation assumes such arrange-
ment at a comparatively late epoch in its time-scale.
44 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. (1.
Perhaps the best illustration which I can bring you
of the origin of the unlike by means of environmental
conditions, and the survival of some of this unlikeness in
the battle for life, is the development of the winter qui-
escence of plants. What means all this bursting verdure
of the liquid April days? Why this annually returning
miracle of the sudden expansion of the leaf and flower
from the lifeless twigs? Were plants always so? Were
they designed to pass so much of their existence in this
quiescent and passive condition? No! The first plants
had no well-defined cycles, and they were born to live,
not to die. There were probably no alternations of sea-
sons or even of days, in the primordial world. The ac-
count in Genesis places the creation of plants in the third
cosmogonic day, and the setting of ‘‘lights in the firma-
ment of heaven’’ to ‘‘ be for signs, and for seasons, and
for days, and years,’’ in the fourth day. As late as the
Carboniferous time, according to Dana, the globe ‘‘ was
nowhere colder than the modern temperate zone, or be-
low a mean temperature of 60° F'.”’ The earth had be-
come wonderfully diverse by the close of the Cretaceous
time, and the cycads and their kin retreated from the
poles. Plants grew the year round; and as physical
conditions became diverse and the conflict of existence
increased, the older and the weaker died. So a limit to
duration,—that is, death,— became impressed upon the
individuals of the creation; for death, as seen by the
evolutionist, is not an original property of life-matter,
but is an acquired character, a result of the survival of
the fittest. The earth was, perhaps, ages old, even after
life began, before it saw a natural death; but without
death all things must finally have come to a standstill.
When it became possible to sweep away the old types,
1.] ‘THE VARIATION IN LONGEVITY. 45
opportunity was left for new ones; and so the ascent
must continue so long as physical conditions which are
not absolutely prohibitive of life shall become unlike.
Species have acquired different degrees of longevity,
the same as they have acquired different sizes and shapes
and habits,—by adaptation to their conditions of life.
Annual plants comprise about half of the vegetable king-
dom, and these are probably all specializations of com-
paratively late time. Probably the greater part of them
were originally adaptations to shortening periods of
growth,— that is, to seasonal changes. The gardener, by
forceful cultivation and by transferring plants towards
the poles, is able to make annuals of perennials. Now,
a true annual is a plant which normally ripens its seeds
and dies before the coming of frost. Many of our gar-
den plants are annuals only because they are killed by
frost. They naturally have a longer season than our
climate will admit, and some of them are true perennials
in their native homes. These plants are, with us, plur-
annuals, and amongst them are the tomato, red pepper,
ege-plant, potato, castor bean, cotton, lima bean, end
many others. But there are some varieties of potatoes
and other plants which have now developed into true an-
nuals, normally completing their entire growth before
the approach of frost. It is all the result of adaptation
to climate, and essentially the same phenomenon is the
development of the annual and biennial flora of the earth
from the perennial. An interesting example of the effect
of climate upon the seasonal duration of plants is the
indeterminate or prolonged growth of plants in England
as compared with the same plants in America. The
cooler summer and very gradual approach of winter in
England develop a late and indefinite maturity of the
46 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. i.
season’s growth. When English plants are grown in
America, they usually grow until killed by fall frosts;
but after a few generations of plants, they acquire the
quick and decisive habit of ripening which is so charac-
teristic of our vegetation. I once made an extended test
of onions from English and American seeds (Bull. 31,
Mich. Agric. College), and was astonished to find that
nearly all of the English varieties continued to grow
until frost and failed to ‘‘bottom,’’ whilst our domestic
varieties ripened up in advance of freezing weather.
This was true even of the Yellow Danvers and Red
Wethersfield, varieties of American origin and which
could not have been grown very many years in Eng-
land. Every horticulturist of much experience must
have noticed similar unmistakable influences of climate
upon the duration of plants.
A most interesting type of examples of quick infiu-
ence of climate upon plants—not only upon their dura-
tion but upon habit and structural characters—is that
associated with the growing of ‘‘stock seed’’ by seeds-
men. Because of uncertainties of weather in the eastern
states, it is now the practice to grow seeds of onion, lima
bean and other plants in California or other warm
regions; but the plants so readily acquire the habit of
long-continuing growth as to be thereafter grown with
difficulty in the northeastern states. It is, therefore,
necessary that the seedsman shall raise his stock seed
each year in his own geographical region, and this seed
is each year sent to California for the growing of the
commercial seed crop. In other words, the seed of Cali-
fornia-grown onions is sold only for the purpose of
growing onion bulbs for market, and is not planted for
the raising of a successive crop of seed. This results in
1.] THE WINTER PASSIVITY. 47
growing only a single generation of the crop in the warm
country. Onion seed from stock which has been grown
in California for several years is considered to produce
onions which do not ‘‘bottom,’’ much as I found to be
the case with the English onion seed.
But some plants, in geologic time, could not thus
shorten up their life-history to adjust themselves to the
oncoming of the seasons. They ceased their labors with
the approach of the cold or the dry, tucked up their
tender tissues in buds, and resigned themselves to the
elements. If a man could have stood amongst those
giant mosses and fern forests of the reeking Carbonif-
erous time, and could have known of the refrigeration
which the earth was to undergo, he would have ex-
claimed that all living things must utterly perish.
-Consider the effects of a frost in May. See its wide-
spread devastation. Yet, six months hence the very
same trees which are now so blackened will defy any
degree of cold. And then, to make good the loss of
time, these plants start into activity relatively much
earlier in spring than the same species do in frostless
climates. This very day, when frosts are not yet passed,
our own New York hillsides are greener with surface
vegetation than the lands of the Gulf states are, which
have been frostless for two months and more. The frogs
and turtles, the insects, the bears and foxes, all adjust
themselves to a-climate which seems to be absolutely
prohibitive of life, and some animals may freeze dur-
ing their hibernation, and yet these April days see
them again in heyday of life and spirits! What a
wonderful transformation is all this! This enforced
period of quiescence is so impressed upon the organiza-
tion that the habit becomes hereditary in plants, and
48 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. [t.
the gardener says that his begonias and geraniums and
callas must have a ‘‘rest,’’ or they will not thrive. But
in time he can so far break this habit in most plants as
to force them into activity for the entire year. These
budding days of April, therefore, are the songs of re-
lease from the bondage of winter which has come on as
the earth has grown aged and cold.
I must bring still one more illustration of the survi-
val of the unlike, out of the abundance of examples
which might be cited. It is the fact that, as a rule, new
types are variable and old types are inflexible. The stu-
dent of fossil plants will recall the fact that the lirio-
dendrons, ginkgos, sequoias, sassafrasses and other types
came into existence with many species, and are now go-
ing out of existence with one or two species. Williams
has considered this feature, for extinct animal forms, at
some length in his new ‘‘Geological Biology.’’ ‘‘ Many
species,’’ he writes, ‘“which by their abundance and
good preservation in fossil state give us sufficient evi-
dence in the case, exhibit greater plasticity in their char-
acters at the early stage than in later stages of their
history. A minute tracing of lines of succession of
species shows greater plasticity at the beginning of the
series than later, and this is expressed, in the systematic
description and tabulation of the facts, by an increase
in the number of the species.’’ ‘‘When species are
studied historically, the law appears evident that the
characters of specific value * * * present a greater
degree of range of variability at an early stage in the
life-period of the genus than in the later stages of that
period.’’ So marked is this incoming of new types in
many cases that some students have supposed that actual
special creation of species has occurred at these epochs.
f,,| PLASTICITY OF NEW TYPES. 49
It should be said that there is apt to be a fallacy in ob-
servation in these instances, because the records which
are, to our vision, simultaneous in the rocks may have
extended over ages of time; but it is nevertheless true
that some important groups seem to have come in some-
what quickly with many or several species, and to have
passed out with exceeding slowness.
To my mind, all this is but the normal result of the
divergence of character, or the survival of the unlike.
A new type finds places of least conflict, it spreads rap-
idly and widely, and thereby varies immensely. It isa
generalized type, and therefore adapts itself at once to
many and changing conditions. A virile plant is intro-
duced into a country in which the same or similar plants
are unknown, and immediately it finds its opportunity
and becomes a weed, by which we mean that it spreads
and thrives everywhere. Darwin and Gray long ago
elucidated this fact. The trilobites, spirifers, conifers,
ginkgos, were weed-types of their time, the same as
the composites are to-day. They were stronger than
their contemporaries, the same as our own weeds are
stronger than the cultivated plants with which they
grow. After a time, the new types outran their oppor-
tunity, the remorseless struggle for existence tightened
in upon them, the intermediate unlikenesses had been
blotted out, and finally only one or two types remained,
struggling on through the ages, but doomed to perish
with the continuing changes of theearth. They became
specialized and inelastic; and the highly specialized is
necessarily doomed to extinction. Such remnants of a
vanquished host remain to us in the equisetums and
tree-ferns, in our single liriodendron, the single ginkgo
and sassafras, and the depleted ranks of the conifers.
4 SUR.
50 THE SURVIVAL OF THE UNLIKE. {r.
My attention was first called to this line of thought
by contemplating upon the fact that cultivated plants
differ widely in variability, and I was struck by the fact
that many of our most inextricably variable groups—as
the cucurbits, maize, citrus, and the great tribes of
composites—are still unknown in a fossil state, presum-
ably because of their recent origin. Many other varia-
ble genera, to be sure, are well represented in fossil spe-
cies, as roses (although these are as late as the Eocene),
pyrus, prunus, and musa; but absolute age is not so
significant as the comparative age of the type, for types
which originated very far back may be yet in the com-
parative youth of their development. The summary
conclusions of a discussion of this subject were pre-
sented to the American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science two years ago.* . 52 | Carpet-beetle . exe « - 184
Bryophyllum, piowile. -forcein.. 25 | Carpinus Betulus.......- 297, 331
—propagation... ... . .101 | Carriére,mentioned ..... -93, 98
Budd, quoted .... . 827, 332 | Caspian Sea, thistle at ... - 193
Buds, detachable .-...-- 100 | Castor bean, duration of. . - 295
Bud-variations . . 72, 82, 89, 169 239,378 | Catagenesis .-.-.- - 17
Buffalo beetle... .. .+- .184 | Catalogues ......+.--. . 203
—berry . . - «2... .210 | Catalpa.. . . . 297, 381
Buffalos, dispersion of ». .. «272 | Caterpillars in Naw Bingen > » «192
502 INDEX.
PAGE PAGE
Caterpillars, repellants ...... 52 | Climate, peaches and frost. - 808
Cats and bumblebees . . ..182 | —phonology .. . 288 et seq. ; 309
Cayuga Lake, peaches on ... 806 | — plants, effects on . - 170, 379
Centrogenesis ... ... «+ 17 | —saceharine qualities . . . 294
Ceratophyllums 2 - 100 | — seeds, effects on - 46, 309
Chamomile see «eee + ~=©6©6§2 | —shortening period of growth 45
Chaptal, mentioned . . . - . .142 | —speciesand..... - 312
Chemical test of quality . . . . 234 | — variability and - 82, 44
Chenopodiumalbum .. .. .259 | —-varietiesand ...... - 208
Cherries, Knight's varieties . -158 | — weather ........- - 802
—qualityin .... . 221, 222, 26, 232 | — winter, effects of . . 7 47
Cherry. .. - 187 | Cloudiness and plant-growing - 307
Cherry, acolimatization, 328, 833 | Clover and bumble bees 6 fe oe A82
—flower-bearing ..... .. .852 | —alsike..... $04 - 261, 263
—nativityof........2.2... 276 | —inmeadows....... . 189
—progressin ........... 208 | —red . fa + . 259, 261 262
—strugglein .......2-- 88 to kill weeaa fe Bawa 198
—unfixityof .. ....... .368 | ~white............ 259, 261
Chestnut, nativityof ....... 277 | Codlin-moth . . » 191
—progressin... . .. . .210 (See also Worm, under ‘Appte:)
China, exploration in + «+ .276 | Colorado, acclimatization . . - 826
—Soy beanof...... - « «1382 | — potato beetle... . . . 184, 185, 187
—tulip-treein. . +... .275 | Colorandclimate .... . . 227
Chrysanthemum........ ~.187 | Colorsathigh altitudes .. .. 294
—progressin....... ...205 | Comfrey .. Bae at ore ee eID
— sports in a Aa ae hte ter 92
Chrysobothris femorata . . - . 184
Cions, choice of ... a8 - 249
Cion, heredity of sie » + . 168
Cireumlateralism ........ 16
Citron, nativity of...... + 277
Citrous fruits on Pacific coast. . . 276
Citrus 22 see fs » . 50, 133
Clarke, aioted Pe ses + - 289, 290
Climate, acclimatization . . 320, et seq.
—altitudes .........200. 294
—apples... 99, 174, 244, 282, 283, 337
—cloudiness........... .307
—oloramd «5 «seas « + 227, 204
—Cooperon...... ee Be 58
—distributionand ........ 274
— essays on + e+. . 288, 298, 302
— flower seasons ... .... . 289
frost a es - 295, 303
— grapes andfrost ...... 306
—latitude .... . . 295, 297, 298, 379
(See also, Latitude.)
—onions ......2.22... 46
Communal intangity ite tee 2 TBS
Communism and weeds .. . . . 199
Composites.. ...... 16, 49, 50
Congress and Russian thistle . 193, 199
Conifers ....... -19, 49
Connecticut, apple-maggotin . . 184
Constant, physiological ...... 288
Continuity of germ-plasm . 72, 103, 106
Convolvulus, propagating . 70
Cooking fruits .. .. .220etseq,
Cooper, Joseph, quoted -.. 151
Cope, mentioned . . . » 14, 26, 31
—quoted....... . .15,17, 27,
28, 33, 61, 104, 492
Copernicus . . ji - 108
Corbett, L. C., mctitlonsdl het ete 297
Corispermum hyssopifolium. . . 197
Corn. vi ee wes - 127-129, 137, 153
— acclimatization ....... 329, 379
—andcow-peas .......... 188
—and latitude . avin Gy car wee was 32008
—and pumpkins .. ..... .259
-- selectionin. . . . . (see Maize) 154
INDEX. 508
PAGE PAGE
Cornell Exp. Sta., quoted - 300, 306, | Dandelions, variationin. . . . .258
"877, 393, 394, 396, 399, 487
Correlation in variation. . . 219
Cotton, duration of... « » 45, 295
Cow, lossofhorn .... .... 77
Cow-peasandcorn....... - 188
Coxe, quoted .... . . 152, 314, 316,
319, 384, 386, 387, 419
Coxey’s army ... a «=e 2193
Crab apples........ 316, 318, 361
Crab-apples, insects and diseases . 183
— seed-production in - 229, 258
Crab-grass . wie = B50)
Cranberry, progressin . ... . 210
Crandalleurrant ......... 210
Crates, progressin ........ 215
Cretaceoustime....... 44,
Cross-breeding and in-breeding . . 382
Crossing ....... 26, 32, 177, 218
—Cooperon... . .... «154
— Knight on. . 5 157 et seq.
Crozier, quoted. . . . 294, 299, 825, 450
Cucumber, forcingof .....- 213
Cueumber, seed-crops .. 86, 87
Cucurbits .. . o+. 450
Cultural degeneracy . . . 835
Cultivation and seed-bearing . . 251
— effect on insects and fungi,
fie: ave Ae ee Oe 183 et seq.
—man’sand nature’s.. . ..170
Cureulios . - - A - 180, 191
Currant, Geaiaan @ ee)
—Dutch.....- 7 374
Currants, Rowerioaing: — 352
—nativityof ..- 1.2... eee 277
—qualityin ... . . 221, 223, 226, 232
Currant-worms . «...+.-. 180
Curtis, W., cited. . s 2 « 457
Cut-leaved, varieties. . ..... 92
Cuttings, propagation by. . . . 16, 69,
85, 94, 262
— experiments with ......-. - 296
Daggett, Ezra. -- ee eee 216
Daisies inmeadows ...--... 196
Dakotas, camels, etc.,in .... .271
— Russian thistlein. ...... . 193
Dalmais and the carnation. .. . 442
Dana, quoted Pe eM OS Ble 4
Daniel, mentioned . . - 86, 93
Darwin, mentioned . . . 26, 27, 28, 49,
56, 57, 62, 64, 76, 82, 86, 87,
92, 94, 108, 110, 140, 141, 148,
151, 158, 164, 166, 169, 189, 259,
274, 290, 349, 374, 382, 493, 495
Darwin, quoted . .. . 27,30,
31, 57, 59, 60, 89, 91,
93, 94, 111, 166, 178, 323, 330, 333
Darwinism ....... 57, 64, 80, 166
Date, nativity of. . .......277
David, quoted . ...-..- a dd:
Dawson, Sir J. W., quoted... .273
Death, originof.. ....... 44
Decadence. .
Decaisne.... » 2.6464... 405
DeCandolle, cited. . . . . . . 270, 274,
297, 330, 331, 405, 412
——Prodromus . . - 113, 128, 139
Definite variations. ....-..-. 23
Degenerate evolution ....- .- eT
Department of Agriculture and
Russian thistle, ...... 195, 199
Desmids.... .- Ses BD
Dessert fruits 220, et seq., 231
De Varigny, quoted .. . . 107, et seq.
Dewberry... .- - 210, 367, 374
Differences, origin of .....- 19
Diplevtrogenesis .....-+-+ + 17
Diplogenesis.. ....- - oo 104
Disbudding carnations ..... . 460
Diseases and varieties... . . 371, 389
Distribution 268 et seg.; 269, 296
Divergence of character . . . . 49, 189,
259, 290, 374
Division of labor. .....+.+- 61
Docks in orchards .... - . 259
Dodd, Wm. ....+-+--+++++ +421
Dorner, F., cited .....-. 444, 450
Double flowers. .-..-- eee - 351
Doubling of flowers .-.....-.- 26
Douglas, Robt., quoted ..... . 326
Downer, J. S., mentioned... . . 424
Downing, mentioned ..... 147, 205
— quoted . & . 218, 240, 314,
815, 316, 384, 385, 419, 422, 424
Downy-mildew . . 181, 188, 190, 313, 426
504 INDEX.
PAGE PAGE
Dressing carnations. ..... - .455 | Fertilizing land, effect of. . . 169, 257
Droughts ..... . 808, 324, 332 | Fig, nativity of ...... .. 277
Drummond, and phlox.......- 468 | Filbert, nativity of ........277
Duchesne . 163,401,402,404,405,406,412,415
Duhamel, cited ...... . 405, 412
Dunal, on tomatoes . . 112 et seq.; 477
Earth-parasites ...... = .- 15
Echinoderms ....... os. 14
Ecology, study in....... - 156
Education, spread of ...... .217
Egg-coll ...... o + +» 60
Egg-plant, duration of . . 45, 295
Egypt, plaguesin ...... . .192
Ehrhart, cited .......... -405
Eimer, quoted. ..... . . 26,71, 88
Elsagnus, nativity of . . 277
Elephant, in Dakota, ete. . 271, 272
Elks, dispersionof........+. 272
Endemic plants .... . + + 282
Enemies, why increased. .... . 180
England, exportation of apples to . 215
—rhododendrons in. ...... . 286
Englishapples.. ....... 227
— plantsin America. ....... 45
Entomogenous fungi. ...... : eM
Environment, adaptation to. . 171,174
Eocene-time. .. .... «. 50
Equal, plants start... ... . . 256
Equilibrium in nature. . . . . 181, 187,
190, 197, 214
Equisetums ........ .. 49
Erieaceous plants ....... - 285
Estimates of animals and plants . . 139
Europe, fruits of . 811 et seq.
Evaporated fruits ........ 217
Evolution, history of ...... . 162
' Exhibitor’s Manual,” quoted. . . 441
Experimental evolution. ..... 107
Experiment stations, number of. . 218
— station tests ..........171
Exposition, Columbian .. . . . 278
Extinction of types... . . 48, 49, 877
Falkland Islands, plants of... . . 269
Fashions in varieties. .... . .390
Ferns... . +. ++... . 18,47, 49
—growth-forcein...... - 25
Fertile flowers. ......... .351
Fertilizers and variation . . . 262, 264
First-class tree, whatis a... . . 247
Fishes, numberof. .... . .139
Fixing of varieties... .. oo « » 867
Fitz,quoted ... . . + . 824
Plakes' «2 se aw x me Mee 438 et seq.
“Floricultural Cabinet,” anor 467, 469
Flower seasons ... . - 289
Flowering, latitude and ..... . 299
Flowers and insects ..... 1 « 158
Fluvialperiod ...... - 272
Focke, cited ... . c@e= 198
Food supply and variations . . 27, 87,
98, 169, 189
~-— Knighton ..... ee. . 159
Forcing, and cloudiness . . - » 307
—evolutionof.......... .156
— houses, . ot fas ty ear @) a) Bh ows 213
Forest, conflict in ........ 40
—strugglein. . see e 2 189
Forests and climate ...... .308
— results of cutting off .. .. .181
Fortuitous variation . ae ad Qe
Fossil plants ...... - » «48, 50
Fourcroy, mentioned . . - . 142
Fragaria ananassa . - 404, 409, 412
—ealyculata........46. 405, 415
—Chiloensis ..... 403, 409 et seq.
—elatior .. .wc.aeeee 402
—gyrandiflora..... . . 405, 408, 409
—Grayana.. ...... ~. . 413
— moschata gue see 5 2 408
—tincta.... - 406, 412
ST VOSCR. 2g se ee - 402
— Virginiana - 402, 405, 409 ei seq
France, vine in at « - 323
French apple stocks a + 286
— naturalists ..... 1... .168
Fresenius oe » » 235
Fressant stam beeny, a -. «400
Frezier, Capt. ieee ae e & 2408
Frost and plants. . . . 295, 303 et seq,
Fruits, American for America,
- 811 et seq.
“ Pruits eid Fruit Trees,” men-
tioned .. 12 6 we ee ee e147
INDEX. 505
PAGE PAGE
Fruits, quality im....... .219 | Grafts a sellen ae oo apie 6!
WORKIN, 226 Gi se ao ser ep ss 347 | Grape ..... . + «187
Fruit trees, seed-bearing of . . . . 252 | — acclimatization of . ee 828
Fungi, entomogenous .. . 214 | — Catawba. a - 144
— repellants - + «+. . 68% | —dominant types .. -175
—sexless...... 99,102 | —epochin... we eee 406
— why increased + + + «180etseq. | —Isabella . BM See yw OTE
Gallesioon citrus ......... 163 | —nativityof........6...
Gametophyte. . -18, 73 | —onPacifieslope. ....... 276
“Garden,” quoted . . 320 | — progress in ese ae coe Sew a DLO
Gardener loves his plants... . 35 | — running out kei gba aes 389
Gaudichaud . ........ 83, 84 | —standard of ... ... . .878,481
Gay, quoted . ++ ee. + . 404,405 | — wild, experimenton.. ... .235
Gemmules. .... ... . 60 | Grapes, American...... . 312,313
“Genesis,” quoted. ..... 44 | —andfrost....... é . . 806
Geocentrie doctrine oe -108 | —hybrid.. .. ... -177
Geography, horticultural .. ..278 | —fromMaine,ete. . .. . .298
“* Geological Biology,” quoted . .21,48 | —qualityin.. .. .. .221, 223,
Georgia, peachesin .. 2 = 2823 226, 227, 230, 282, 235
Geraniums, rest in. . . 48 | — evolution of +. + . 481 et seq.
Gerarde and the carnation _. 453, 454 | Grasshoppers . 188
Germination affected by latitude . . 298
Germ-plasm..... . 62, 65et seq.;
101, 103, 106, 262, 265
Glants-« 6 sea ewes - . 360
Gift-package . oS eget y(QI5
Ginkgo. .... =. = 827:
— fossil ... : » » 48, 49
— in geologic fim St itataste Cah 97
—leaves.-..- 2... ae. 95
—nativity of .. «2.277
Glacialepoch .. . » 271
Glasgow Botanical Garden . 466, 468
Glass houses, evolution of. . . 212
Glycine hispida a a » «182
—Soja....... . 182
Goethe, mentioned . euienm oat? 200)
Gooseberries, American ...... 312
—qualityin... . 221, 223, 226
— successful cultivation of + 286
Gooseberry, Houghton. . + » 874
— nativity of .. + ee a OTE
—progressin . -.-. - . 210
Gourds, acclinietivation She 2 BOL
Government and weeds - 193 et seq.
Graft-hybrids ....-.. . . 98
Grafting ... - 86, 93
—root, originof......+... .156
Gray, Asa, mentioned. . . 49, 127, 135,
267, 270, 274, 377, 380, 413, 427
——quoted. . . . 268, 272, 273, 332, 382
Greeks, evolution amongst. . 108, 163
Greenhouse, effect on plants . . . 213
—evolution of...... - 212
Greenland, flora of ae . 273
Grenadins .. ...... + + . 439
Growth-force . . . 25, 30, 32, 53, 61, 351
Gypsy moth... ... . ...191
abit’ as HR he ee Sy ». 55
Habitat . lg: eg eee BB:
Heckel, quoted ..... 111, 121, 165
“‘Half-Century of Conflict,” quoted. 40
Hairs, origin of. . oie aay BB
Hand, T. J., and Trophy tomato, 481,485
Handling, progressin. ..... 215
Hardiness .. . eo = B24
Harris,quoted. .. .. ...184
Harrison, J., and petunia . . 467 et seq.
Harvey, James Si earth Be Hee a 423
Heer, mentioned. ......... 274
Henderson, P., and Trophy tomato,
ab aa os ee ©6480, 486
Henslow, qaobed -70, 74
Heredity an acquired force. .... 22
Heredity and evolution. .... 59, 62
506 INDEX.
PAGE PAGE
Hickories, propagation. .....+.- 85 | Jamaica, Flora of, on beans .. .131
Himalayan plants. .... 270, 272, 275
Hoffman, cited. ..-...+-+..-+ 78
Hofmeister, cited .......-. 67
Holm, cited .... 2-6-5 e ess 96
Homocentric doctrine ... . - 108
Hooker, Sir W.J., and petunia, 467, 468
Horse-radish..... deco cael 99
—seed-bearingin ....... - .252
Horses in Dakota, etc... . . «271, 272
Horticultural geography ... . . 278
Horticulture, progress in . ... . 202
Horticulturist, evolution of ... . 217
Host-plants..- .. - 183 et seq.
Horse-leeks ..- 1.1 eee sees 101
Hovey, cited ..... « - 147, 407, 408
Hovenia, nativity of. ..... 277
Humidity of air... ... « ~ - 308
Hybridization ..... - 177, 322
Hybrid petunias - 467 et seq.
iy brids) 636 & 2 6b W ew w w 94
106 ABO. v.66 Bae ace kw es «271
Iceland, plants of .....+- ~ . 269
Idaho apples... ....... . 283
Illinois, acclimatization .... . . 326
—applesin.......-..2 4. «3870
—apple-maggotin.. .... .184
—at World's Fair . 280, 282 et seq.
Immortality of one-celled organ-
ISMS «6 bee ow eee eee 61
Immune varieties .... . . . 371, 389
Impotent varieties........ 350
In-breeding and cross-breeding _. 382
Indiana maize... 1. eee eee 330
—weedsin ...........- .192
Indian corn (see Corn) . . 127-129, 153
“Insects Injurious to Fruits,’
quoted .. eee Sa. We, nal aera oe we BE
Insects and flowers ....... .158
—and varieties ...... . «371, 389
—number of... ++ .5+ ++... 139
—why increased .... . . 180 et seq.
Introducing varieties ...... . 369
Inventory of nature. ...... .139
Ireland, plantsof ........ .270
Irrigation, effect of ....... .169
Isotherms .. ...-++..-e + » 308
Jackson. imsntioned , eee. 421
Japan, cornof.....+...+-+ 129
—explorationsin ...
—fruitsof . ... 211, 267 et seq.
—Soy bean of.... ... «. 182
Javanese arrow-poison . -. . 52
dew against Jew... .... «+ 39
Josselyn, John, quoted ...... 192
dJuglans regia... ..+e-2+..+-. 52
Jujube, nativity of .....+-+ . 277
duneberry .......+242+ +210
June grassinlawns ....... . 196
Juniperus Virginiana ..... . 326
Jussieu and petunia ....... . 465
Kaki, nativity of. ........ .277
Kalm, cited .........- « . 330
Kansas maize ...... e+. - 830
Katabolic changes ........ . 348
Kensett, Thomas ........ .216
Kew herbarium, mentioned, 120, 121, 126
King, quoted. .... o + + 48
Knight, Thomas A., mentioned - . 138
147, 155 et seq.; 164, 252, 406
——-acclimatization .. .. .3%
Keelreuter, mentioned. ..... 157
Kumquat, nativity of . eae ve 27:
Lacene, mentioned ... ... .442
Lady-bug, Australian ....... 215
Lake-eress.. ..... ». .101
Lake Michigan, illustration near .
Lake Superior, plantsof .... .275
Lamareckism....... . 27, 31, 55
Lamarck, hypothesis of - 55, 56,
59, 76, 82, 166
Lamarck, mentioned aie oS « 140)
Lange on tomato . . - 121, 127
Latitude and plants, . - 295 et seq.;
320 et seq.; 379
Deans ss see oe ew 299)
COMM, ee ee Soe + 298, 379
— grapes 2-2 see se aa sis » « 208
—melons .....+-+..... 299
— plums CeCe re aera - 299
—poplars........... « . 297
—potatoes.... ....e eee 298
Lavoisier, mentioned ...... .142
Lawns, weedsin......... 196
Laws and weeds..........201
INDEX. 507
PAGE PAGE
Leaf-blights ... .... . 181,187 Lyeopersicum cerasiforme, 113, 126, 477
Leafing, latitude and . » -300 | — esculentum - 113, 117, 126, 447
Leaves, compounding - 26 | —Humboldtii . .. . . 122, 127, 128
— germ-plasm in - 66, 70 | — Peruvianum « 123, 127, 128
Lemon, nativityof .. .. . .277 | —pimpinellifolium, - 118, 119, 127,
Lemons..... 133, 137 128, 397, 398, 479
Lemoine, mentioned . +++ +. 450 | —puberulum ........ . 125,127
Lettuce, effect of Hind hips 39 | —pyriforme . 118, 117, 125, 126, 447
— progressin. = #8 ...... 207 | —racemiforme.... . + + 121,127
Leucanthemum vulgare .. ..301 | —racemigerum... . - . «127
life-events ........ » . . 288 | Lyon, T. T., cited 220, 315-317, 328
Life-zones ............ .295 | Macfadyenon beans.. .. - 131
Lily propagation... ..... 101 | Macfarlane, mentioned ...... 93
Lima bean (see Bean, Lima). Machinery, progress in os. 212
Lime ..... ihe ‘ahs ge cok Sayuyebai 133 | Madeira, vine in... . . - 828
—nativityof .. . .... .277 | ‘Magazine of Horticulture,” men-
— propagating .. . Fz 70 tioned -....... - 147
Lindley and the patuiia . 467 et seq. | Magellan, Straits of Ss . 269
— Geo., cited de ice ad -407 | Magic ...... ei - 140
Links, missing . . . 176 | Magnolias, distribution of... . 275
Linnewus, definition of species. .110 | Magnolia grandiflora var. ..... 327
—mentioned ... é . 83 | Maids and the clover crop . . - 182
—onbeans ... ag . 129 | Maineforests ........ ~. 40
Linneus’ work... ... . . -189 | —grapesfrom. ..... . .298
Linsser, quoted... . . 292, 293,301 | —poplarsfrom ......... 297
Lintner, quoted . 186, 187 | Maize (see Corn). 50, 127, 129, 153
Lions, dispersion of ...272 | Mallow .... ... ... . 261
Liriodendrons, fossil . ..... 48 | Malmaison carnations. ... . . 439
Liriodendron leaves . . 96 | Malva rotundifolia . oa e 2 261
— Tulipifera . . 2 . 297, 331 | Mammals, repellants . . . .» 52
Lippincott, quoted. . 7 . 330 | Mandarin, analyses of. . . 236
Litchi, nativity of . . i . .277 | — nativity of » 277
Locusts .. .... .188 | Manning, Robert, mentioned. - 146, 147
Loiseleur - Dadlsngehans, qnatedl Map, fruit... .. .. + +870
“ ae AR . 144, 147,148 | Marguerite carnations.... . . 439
London: dcumstoes in. . .216 | Marketfruits ..... 220 et seq.; 231
Longevity of apple trees... ... 334 | Marsh, quoted. ...- . - 833
—offruittrees ..... . ... .231 | Martens, Von, on beans so + 2 129
— of species . wo ee a es. 45 | Martyn, quoted - 120, 128, 457
—variationsin ...... .. 45 | Maryland, peach-treesin ... . 323
Lonsdale, cited . . - 443,459 | —pDlumsfrom... . s+ + 800
Loquat, nativityof ... . .277 | Mass. Agric. College, quoted. . bt 234
Louis XU. ., strawberries in reign Massachusetts, apple-maggot,ete.,in 184
of ey Bere nS . —gypsymothin . .. . - 191
Lords andl ladies. . - +.» 52 | —Hort. Soc., quoted . . . 107, 432, 453
Louisiana, grapesfrom .... . .298 | Massee,quoted ......... 51
Lucerne, to kill weeds. .-...- 198 | Mastodon in Dakota, etc. - 271, 272
Lycopersicum agrimonizfolium, 123,127
Matlack, Colonel, mentioned .. . 154
508 INDEX.
PAGE PAGE
Maximowicz, on Soy bean... .132 | Musa, fossil shay SS Eee ears 50
May-apple.... ......-..101 | Mutilations .. ... en aa UT
Meadow, struggle in . 189,196 | Mycetozoa . Seah 28 @ TE
Medicago lupulina . . .. .259 | Myrica, nativity of. oe Rome ae. SQM
Medick . . a a Gace Ben 259, 261 | Myxomycetes . . 38 . 14
Medlar, aistivity of i be . .276 | Nasturtium lacustre . - 101
Mell, P. H., Jr., cited ...... .325 | Native fruits . ea 2210
Melons s-4 4-4. a -aee eee 137 | Nativity of fruits. . ee 276
Melons, tedinmticatioa ibe Rey 331 | Naturalists, the French .. . - 163
—andlatitude. ..... . 299 | Natural selection sac as, 80
Melon, selectionin . 8 . 154 | — — adequacy of Seo? 178
Merriam, quoted ‘ ... .296 | ——4efinition of... .. 57
Mesozoic time . . 97 | Naudin, cited. . - 331
Meteorological bureaus . .804 | Nectarine, eet: vucideies - 158
Mexico,ecornof .. ......6. 128 | — origin of . -90, 91
Mice and clover seed. . ... .182 | Nettles... . ce aa ee
Michigan Hort. Soc., quoted. . . .220 | Neo-Darwinism. ...... 55, 61,
—maize..... a - 330 64, 65, 167, 256, 265
Mildew (see Downy- mildew), Neo-Lamarckism ._ . 55, 64, 65, 79, 80
Miller, Phillip, cited . . . 120,127,128, | Neurism . ... «sss - 492
404, 410, 455, 456, 457,459 | New Brunswick déra. eo aw «BOL
‘Miller's Dictionary,” quoted . 120, 455 | New England, apple- iasaot in . 183
Miner, mentioned « «+ « «482 | —applesin.. «.....28. 175
Minnesota, Sunleste Of «ae ww 282 ~_ Plagues im... - 192
—fruitsin... we eee es . 809 | “New England's Rarities,” quoted 192
Missinglinks ........... 176 | New Jersey, peach treesin.. . . 323
Mississippi Valley, apple-maggot in, 183 | New South Wales at World's Fair,
Missouri apples ...... .. . 288 - 281, 282 et seq.
Mixed planting .....- oe 855 New Yolk, apple-maggot in . - 184
Mixing of tomatoes .... . .896 | —— Canada thistle in. - 201
MeMahon, quoted. . 204, 205, 207,208, | ——cornfrom .... + 298
212, 384, 385, 419, 421 | — — grapes and frost . 807
“Modification of Plants by Cli- ——-— from. . ‘ . 298
mate,” quoted . 294, 299, 325 | —— peach trees in ww = BBB
Mollusks ......... 14 | ——poplarsfrom.. . . - 297
Monism.... «...e-. 164 | —— weedsin - 192
Monnier, cited... .... . .332 | —— western, dategnrwingl in. . . 246
Monotypie genera... ... 268, 270 | —— at World's Fair . . 279, 282 et seq.
Monroe, James, mentioned . - 216 | Nicholson, quoted ots . 460
Moore's grapes ........ - 485 | Nierembergia Atkinsiana .. . . 469
Morphology oftomato....... 473 | Nile, example in acclimatization 324
IMORSOS% 95.8: 825 aoe: 6 a ew 18 | Noah, mentioned . - 359
—propagationof ......... 72 | North Dakota, Tuselaat thistle i in . 198
Mt. Katahdin. ........ .275 | Northwards, taking plants... . . 295
— Marcy, plantson ....... .275 | Novelties, numbers of. ...... 366
Mulberries ........ « . 206,210 | — value of . 356, 364
Multifarious variations . .... . 23 | Numbers of peste and plants . . 139
Munson, T. V., cited ...-... .435 | Nurseries, European. ...... . 285
INDEX.
PAGE
Nursery business, impressions of . 245
Oaks, borerin.......... .184
Oak, propagating. . -70, 85
Offshoots, officeof... .... . 252
Ohio maize . . a eR - 330
Olives: ss. Se Ss Bid ey - 276
— nativity of ....-......-: 277
Oneness ......2-.- - 164
Onion, top. .....- 99
Onions, effect of imate on. 46, 47
—seed-bearingin .........- 252
Orange ..... ape - 187
—nativity of ..... ee oo BT
— tribe, developmentof..... 164
—treescale ...
Oranges, analysesof...... - - 236
Orchard, insects in . ... . . 183, 186
Orchards, weedsin. .....+.. . 259
—why barren. ..-.+..-+ «249
Orchids, inereaseof -...... +211
Oregon, acclimatization ....-- 326
apples - aOR: + . 283
“ Origin of Floral Stcucteres:? quo. 74
Origin of our flora. ... - . 274
“Origin of Species,’ ‘snentioned « iil
Ornamentals, hybrid wg -177
“ Our Heredity from God,’ quoted 22
Ovum... »; . + 60
Pacific coast, piiende oh sis tay Bah 206
—-—vedaliaon . + -s-+s 215
—slope, appleson ....- oe 01TH
—-—pomology of .-.- ...«.- «275
Packages, progress in . ... -215
Pammel, quoted. «.++-++--+s 294
Pumpas, cardoonson .....-. - 200
Pangenesis -- +++-++- 60, 64, 67
Panicum sanguinale....... . 259
Panmixia ...-+-+-+-+--s 29
Parallelism in variation ....-.- 220
Parasites ...-- ye 4 Seon 214
Parkman, randy quoted . ». 40
Farsons, quoted .... - eee. 236
Paul, mentioned. .....-.. - 450
Pea,Cooperon..-....+.- » - 158
— Knight’s work ........ .158
—seed-crop ---+-+-+>s
—variationin........ « .378
Peas, experiments on -...-.-
Peas, seed-productionin. .... . 251
"VANOY oases 6 ae cae ee we ww es LOD
Peach .. .
—borerin... .........184
— dominant types..... 175, 176
— growing and climate...... 303
— Hill’s Chili, ete. .... + » 240, 241
—nativity of ........ ~. -276
—running out. ......... .389
—yellows.. . - 188, 427
Peaches, quality in . . 221, 223, 226, 232
—inearlydays ........--. 215
Peach-trees, acclimatization . . 323, 325
Pear, acclimatization ... . . 328, 333
— American vs. European... . .316
— Bergamot... gies gee i 5
—blight..... é - 188
—hborerin..«.. .. o. + 184
—dominant types. .... -175
—Knight’s work ...... - 158
—nativityof. ....... . - 276
—progressin... .......207
—psylla. 1 wene wasn ees 191
—running out . . . . 385, 386, 389, 390
—unfixity of ...... - 369
—Virgalieu .......-. ose 144
Pears, blight-proof. ...... .372
—exporting.... «eee eee 216
— hybrid a cy oa GS as Re -Be Re Te 177
— quality in . 221, 204, 226, 227, 230, 232
—sterile and fertile. .. .. . 353
—Van Mons’ ......2.-2..-5- 146
Pecan, progress in. . ..... .210
Pelargoniums, from cuttings. . . . 447
Pennock, quoted. ...-+...-- 451
Pennsylvania at World’s Fair . . 282
Pepper, red (see Red Pepper).
Perennials at the north . . - + 295
—natureof..... «eee 45
Perry, Commodore ...... . 270
Persimmon, Japanese . -. . 211
—nativityof.. .-... - 277
Petunia, evolution at se eae 465
—experiment with ...... .262
—intermedia . .-.-.- - 469
—WNixenii.. «22 - eee es 471
— marginata ee sed tee teeter oe hte 471
—nyctaginiflora .... . «465 et seq.
510 INDEX.
PAGE PAGE
Petunia, phonicea. ...... . .467 | Plum, Knight's varieties. ..... 158
—violacea ....-- + « « 467 et seq. —knot 2.6.62 ee ee 188, 426
—vVittatd ss wee ees s .. 471 | —nativity of ae a 216
Petunias, from cuttings . . . 447 |'— progress in..... - « 208
Phaseolusinamonus. . ... .1381 | —running out...... » . 385
—lIunatus... .. .... «181 | —synonyms in.....-... . 248
—multiflorus .......... .180 | —WildGoose...-.... . 874
—nanus. .... . + .129 | Plums, futile! «4: 0+ «a a oll
—vulgaris. .... . «4 2 129 || = Mative: ok oe we ew 210, 361
Phenology .....- . . .288 | —andlatitude........ . . 299
Philistine against Jew. . - 89 | —insects and diseases... - - 183, 426
Phillippi, on tomato. ....... 127 | —quality in .... 221, 224, 226, 232
Philosophy, theold ..... .162 | Plur-annuals ... . 45, 295
Phlox Drummondii . . . 467,468 | Plowshares and pruning-hooks. . 215
Phosphate of ammonia . .262 | Poisons, originof... . .. 52
S—potash . 22s ee wan . 262 | Poiteau,quoted . ...... . .142
—soda .... ».. ««. 262 | Pollen, office of .. 334 et seq.
Phrenism ....... .... .492 } Pomegranate, nativityof ..... 277
Phryma Leptostachya..... 270, 273 | Pomological alliance. . « «267
Phylloxera ..... - » «190,313,426 | Poplar, Lombardy. ...... 297
Phytomer eh SRS BES 72 | Populus alba . 297, 331
Phyton...... -. . . . 84, 101 | —dilatata..... a hw OLE
Physiological constant. .... 288 | Potamogetons . eee ee «100, 252
munities tee ane es 8 . 296 | Potash, fertilizing with . . . . 262
Picotees .... - .438 et seq. | —phosphateof .. ...... . 262
Pigeon-grass. .. 0 - ee ee eee 259 | —ratiotosugar... . . 234
Pigweed. .- 2.22. . 196, 259, 261 | —sulphateof...... « » 2 262
Pineapple .....- Sah tee ae 299) Potato beetle . . 180, 184, “185, 187, 188
Pines by cuttings ......... 85 | —Cooperon........ ee 0153
Pink (see Carnation). —durationof..... . .. 6
Pinus ponderosa. . . - . .826 | — Knight’s work dees io 68
Pinus sylvestris... . ... .827 | —latitudeand ....... = . .297
Pistachio, nativity of ... .277 | —mixinginthe hill........ 90
Plains and prairie floras. .....318 | —rumningout. ......... 380
Plane-tree, evolutionof ..... 97 | —seed-bearing in. .... . . 252,351
Plant-breeding, mystery of ....161 | —variation of........... 28
“ Plant-Breeding,” quoted . 21, 153, 396 | Potatoes, rotting . . oy «181
“Plantes Potageres,”’ mentioned .127 | Powell, E.P.,quoted ....... 22
Plant-lice .. - ae . . 188 | Prairie and plains floras - . . 318
“Plant World,” wieead »» « 61 | Predaceans . ..... 214
Plum ...... + «+... .137 | Preserving, progressin .. .. . 215
—acclimatization ....... . .833 | ‘Press, Phila.,” quoted... .. . 326
— American vs. European, .. ..317 | Prickles,originof ...... - 26, 52
—borerin..... ++ «+. 184 | Prince, quoted. ......... .407
—Cooper .-....... «.. .152 | Progress in horticulture. .... . 202
—Green Gage... ... . 145,176 | Promising varieties, why fail . . 364
—impotent ... ...... ..852 | Propagation and longevity. .... 343
— Japanese . , 211, 275, 314, 427
— of nursery trees... ....,. .249
INDEX. 511
PAGE PAGE
Prothallus ..... see... 19 | Ray, John, cited... . . . 33, 110, 453
Prune ae ea aie a ce ee 276 | Red pepper, duration of . . 45, 295, 331
Pruning ... . . 87, 88, 169, 257 | Red-root .. .... . . 259, 260, 261
—andlongevity... .... .845 | Religionandevolution ... . . 162
— hooks and plowshares +a e4@lS | Retimants.. c645 225% 4 « OB
Prunus Americana ...... 300,425 ) Restinplants........ 48,170
— angustifolia. . $i BAS ee gis 300 | Retrogressive evolution ...... 17
—cerasifera... .... . .300,428 | Reversions.... oe. .96, 98
—domesticoa... ....... .428
—fossil.... ogee ae ee OO)
—hortulana ........... 300
—Simonii..... «wee . 276, 300
— spinosa . Be Sls 52
—trifora ........... . . 300
—umbellata. ..... » + » 428
Pseud-annual aves Shapira yep as ee:
Pseudotsuga Douglasii .... . . 326
Psychological states. . ..... 23
Psylla... ee a + 191
Pumpkin «4 £686. ee wa 137
Pumpkinsand corn . . wee 2 259
Purslane. . i aac We . » 259
Pyrenees, plants of ete or e269.
Pyruscoronaria . ....... 318
fossil sie 5 ».. 50
—Toonsis .. «eae ee es - . 818
MAUS 4.) cae ea, 258
Quack-grass, weed on ~ . 252
Quadrupeds, number of . « . 139
Quality, correlatives of .....- 219
Quebee apples. .... aw ere wo BBD
Quiescence of plants ..... .44, 47
Quince, nativity of... ..... .277
Rabbits in Australia. ... . . 200
Racesin apples - . oe a 5 240
Ragweed ......- 259, 260, 261, 262
Raisin industry ..... x . 276
Ranunculus acris ..... . . 801
Raspberries, American .. . . 312, 361
—analysesof «6 + 4 ve a 6 285
—flower-bearing .. . . «852
—hybrid ....... .. = ..177
—qnalityin ....... 221, 225, 226
— suecessful cultivation of . . 286
Raspberry, nativityof.. ... .277
—novelties ... oee «3 ~ 867
—progressin .....-+--e-e- 210
— propagation .
e
Rhine, example in acclimatization, 324
Rhinoceros, in Dakota, ete. . . 271, 272
Rhizomes .... . . . 294
Rhododendrons ..... 2.» 285
Rice, acclimatization ..... . 381
Ricketts, J. H., mentioned. . . . . 433
Riley, quoted .. % - » 139
Rivers, mentioned . . . a cep ca, OR
Robin, mentioned ...... . 492
Rogers, E.8., mentioned... .... 433
Rommel, Jacob . OR eee og AO,
Root, evolution of... ..... 41
Root-grafting, originof .. . . 156
Roots, Knighton ........ .155
Rose-chafer . . 6 4 dee 4 2 188
Rose-growing .. . ..... . 286
Roses, Asa Gray on . . 134-187
—evolutionin..... oe ee 6 138
“fossil 2s. sees bee » 80
— prickles of ee aid GPs De . 51
—sportsin ....... . . 92,93, 94
—sterile..............35L
Rotation, to kill weeds, ete. . . 198, 214
Rowan, Martin, quoted . ... . 438
Running out . 145, 157, 161, 335, 356,376
et seq.; 382 et seq.; 392 et seq.; 445
Russia, hardy plants from. . - 327
Russian cactus ..... és - 193
—fruits..... 8 58 tere ae BIT:
—thistle. ..... + - - 193 et seq.
Saccharine qualities . . 294, 309
Sachs, quoted . . ok Hedy age 72)
St. Hilaire, mentioned ..... . 220
Salisburia (see Ginkgo).
Salix Babylonica ...... -. . 327
Salpiglossis integrifolia ...... 466
Salsola Kali var. Tragus . . 198, 199
Salter,quoted...... ome a OY
San Francisco, Tasmanian apples in,215
Sargent, Professor, cited ..... 326
512 INDEX.
PAGE PAGE
Sassafrasses, fossil ...- +++ +> 48 | Solanumracemiflorum..... . -127
Sassafras leaves . «iv 94 | Solanums, insect of . oa « 84
Saunders, quoted . . “184, 827 | Soldier, lossofeye .-+--+++> V7
Seale, orange-tree. -+ + . 215 | Solidagos, in New Brunswick - - . 301
Scandinavian plants... .. +269 | Solomon,quoted.. . . «+ . 201
Scotch plants ..- 269 | Soma-plaam ..... . 62, 65 et seq.
Scotland, exportation of clon fos 215 | Sonchus oleraceus...-.-- « «26h
Schizocodon - . 275 | South Carolina, cornfrom... . 298
Schmidtt and the éarnation: . .. .442 | “Southern Apple and Peach Cul-
Schools, numberof .-... « .218 turist,’’ quoted Sa .. . 824
Schouw, quoted... . . . 268, 269,274 | Sow-thistle ... - - . . . 261, 268
Schiibeler, quoted. .....-- 299,828 | Soybean . ..... «ee - A82
“Seience,” quoted... +. - €7 | Spain, plantsof....... ..270
Seasons, effects of. . . . . ..170 | Specialereation .. ... 19,168
Sedges . . ... .134note | Species, characterof.......- 32
Seed-bags, battle i in, 243 . 36 | —definitions of . . 33, 110, 111, 121, 129
— bearing and cultivation .... .251 | —dogma .. . s« « +208
— change of . . 151, 153, 177 | —making........... 134
— crops and imate be ie ee a OOD
— crops, growing a ee “ee ah ge ee LED
— production and quality . . . 228, 251
—steck #o§ 4% #4 29 ne we 46
Selection, importance of .. . 160, 178
Sequoias, fossil ......... 48
Syringe,quoted.... . .. .412
Setariaglauca. . 1 we eee 259
Sex in fruits... .. ‘ eres
— significance of. . . . . . 26, 63, 166,
168, 238, 348
—terminologyof ..... esate 10M
Sexual mixing . . ee: ZC
— reproduction, meaning of. ~. 63
Shaw,quoted =. ..... 198
Shepherd’s Purse . . . 259, 261, 262
Shortia . : ea ib wae 2 « 864
Variegation ..... oa 192
Varietal difference . . 536, $39
Vedalia c Se Soa ay wy lS
Vegetables, mia Of va . 139
Vergil, quoted... ... ....201
Vermes. Sie ake Wee) Jeg IA
Westiges: sci oan eat 288
Vilmorin, cited . . 438, 453, 469, 472
— on tomato a wt eo oe 418, 187
Vine, acclimatization of + «823
Violets,sportsin. . ae @ @ 2
Virginia, Albemarle Pippin oo e 2 244
Vitality of fruit-trees . . . . . 230
Vitis Labrusca .. . - « 235, 432
— vinifera - 423 et seq.
Volta, mentioned .... .. .142
Von Martens. on beans .... . - 129
—Mohl, mentioned . ..... 85
Vroom, quoted < es «= 20
Waite, M.B., cited . . . 353
Wales, New South, at ‘World's
Fair, ete... ..- « . 281, 282
Wallace, quoted - 182, 220, 333
Walnut i oh 2. BR
— acclimatization... ..... 826
—nativity of .. 4 Sos ROE
Ward,cited ... tw ee 97
Waring, Geo. E., and the Trophy
tomato . - 480 et seq.
Washington, acclimatization . «326
—at’World’s Fair . . . 281, 282 et seq.
Watermelon, seed-crop ..... 37
—selectionin - © eee bd
Watermelons to Purdue's a) Yee ZIG
Watson on maize teen ww o 3 128
Weatherandplants .. .... .302
Weediness vee «2193
Weeds in the Gaadigt. sae E18:
—fromabroad ...... + «188
—spreadof ...... 192, 193 et seq.
Weed-types . . Seas US é 49.
Weeping varieties a Rs ated onda" 9D
Weismann, quoted. . . . 29, 62, 63, 65,
70, 72, 78, 75, 77, 78, 102, 265, 348, 495
— mentioned . . 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70,
71, 76, 101, 103, 106, 167, 168, 261, 263
Weismannism. . 64, 79, 81, 103, 167, 264
Wheat: ws. 6 wa al ee DBT
— acclimatization ........ .382
—andclover.........+.. .259
—and Russian thistle... .. .195
— variation in . a ee Sy SOT
Williams and Morrow, mentioned, 270
—H.S8.,quoted....... 21, 48, 492
Williamson, cited ........ 2441
Willows fies ta a - 100
Willow, weeping ...-...... 99
Windbreaks .... 0 «2 ee ss . 808
Winds and fruit culture: +s ee . 808
INDEX. 015
PAGE PAGE
‘Wineberry, nativityof ...... 276 | Wright, Charles, mentioned . . . . 270
Winslow, Isaac, mentioned » 216 | Yellows of peach . - 188, 427
Winter, adaptation to. . . 44,47 | Zea amylacea Daa? » “ieheeide. 1B fe 128
Wisconsin at World's Fair . 280 et seq. | —amylea-saccharata .......- 128
— fruits in . goa Wo Bie 309 | —canina ..... ee) te hes a gl 8:
Wood, Wm., quoted 2... . 421 | —everta iow Bw Gey ee 128
World's Fair, carnations at... .463 | —indentata.. . «.«.2+.+ 128
—— exhibit at . . . 278 | —saccharata Bas Bea Be Se 128
Worms, numberof ..... - .139 | —tunieata....-- o« 2 128
—true. . see ee. TS | Zizania aquatica... .. fen B29
Wormwood stanewaea se £82) Bones of plantg «+ 2 «5 x we 2 285
The Rural Science Series.
Edited by Pror. L. H. BAILEY.
THE SOIL.
.
ITS NATURE, RELATIONS, AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT,
By FRANKLIN H. KING,
Professor of Agricultural Physics, University of Wisconsin.
16mo. Cloth. 303 pages. Price, 75 cts.
CONTENTS: Introduction.—Sunshine and its Work, The Atmosphere and its
‘Work, Water and its Work, Living Forms and their Work, Over and Over
Again; The Nature, Functions, Origin, and Wasting of Soils; Texture,
Composition, and Kinds of Soil ; Nitrogen of the Soil ; Capillarity, Solution,
Diffusion, and Osmosis; Soil Water ; Conservation of Soil Moisture ; Dis-
tribution of Roots in the Soil; Soil Temper vate ; Relation of Air to Soil;
Farm Drainage; Irrigation; Physical Effects of Tillage and Fertilizers.
COMMENTS. *
“T consider it a most desirable addition to our agricultural literature, and a
distinct advance over previous treatises on the same subject, not only for
popular use, but also for students and specialists, who will find many new and
useful suggestions therein.” E. W. H1LGarp,
Director of Agricultural Experiment Station, Berkeley, Cal.
THE SPRAYING OF PLANTS.
By E, G. LODEMAN,
Instructor in Horticulture in Cornell University.
16mo. Cloth. 399 pages. Price, $1.00.
CONTENTS.
ParTI. The History and Principles of the Spraying of Plants.
ParRT II. Specific Directions for the Spraying of Cultivated Plants.
COMMENTS.
‘““This volume of the Rural Science Series not only gives a complete history
of this comparatively new and important subject, but is a valuable manual as
well, which should bein the hands of every farmer, gardener and fruit-grower.
I shall take pleasure in recommending it to my students and others,”
7 5 : 4 B. C. BUFFUM,
The University of Wyoming Agricultural College, Laramie, Wyo.
“This is a book for every gardener and every one who has a garden, for
every fruit-grower and every farmer. The necessity of spraying for a great
variety of garden, field, and fruit crops is now so generally recognized that a
manual on the subject has become a necessity. The destruction of injurious
insects and fungi occupies an important place in the operations of gardeners,
farmers, and fruit-growers, and the very careful and elaborate manner in
which the subject is treated in this volume is highly creditable to the author,
and commends it to the attention of every cultivator."—Vick's Monthly, ;
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
66 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK.
The Rural Science Series.
Edited by Pror. L. H. BAILry.
IN THE PRESS.
THE APPLE.
By L. H. BAILEY.
The work is tocomprise two parts—the ‘first treating of all the practicai
matters of apple-growing, and the second of such scientific matters as the
botany of the apple, its history and evolution, piecaetae of new varieties,
and the like. It is expected that the work will be completed and ready for
publication in the fall,
MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS.
By H. H. WING.
THE FERTILITY OF THE LAND.
By I. P. ROBERTS.
Other volumes tn the series to follow are:
Physiology of Plants. By J. C. ARTHUR, of Purdue University.
Grasses. By W. H. BREWER, of Yale University.
Bush Fruits. By F. W. Carp, of University of Nebraska.
Plant Diseases. By B. T. GanLoway, HE. F. Smitu, and A. F.
Woods, of the United States Department of Agriculture.
Seeds and Seed Growing. By G. H. Hicks, of the United States
Department of Agriculture.
Leguminous Plants. By E. W. Hincarp, of the University of
California.
Feeding of Animals. By W. H. Jordan, of Maine Experiment
Station.
Irrigation. By F. H. Kine, of the University of Wisconsin.
IN PREPARATION.
EVOLUTION OF OUR NATIVE FRUITS.
By L. H. BAILEY.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
66 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK.
The Garden - Craft Series.
Edited by Pror. L. H. BAILEy.
‘THE HORTICULTURIST’S RULE-BOOK.
a COMPENDIUM OF USEFUL INFORMATION FOR FRUIT-GROWERS, TRUCK-
GARDENERS, FLORISTS, AND OTHERS.
By L. H. BAILEY,
Professor of Horticulture in Cornell University.
Third Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Recast, with Many Additions.
16mo, 302 pages. Cloth, Limp, 75 Cents.
This volume is the only attempt ever made in this country to codify and con-
dense all the scattered rules, practices, recipes, figures and histories relating
to horticultural practice in its broadest sense. All the approved methods of
fighting insects and plant diseases used and discovered by all the experiment
stations are set forth in shape for instant reference. sy
Among the additions to the volume in the oa edition are: A chapter
upon ‘Greenhouse and Window-garden Work and Estimates ;” a chapter on
“Literature,” giving classified lists of the leading current writings on Ameri-
can horticulture ; lists of self-fertile and self-sterile fruits; a full account of
the method of predicting frosts and of averting their injuries; a discussion of
the aims and methods of phenology; the rules of nomenclature adopted by
botanists and horticultural societies; score-cards and scales of points for
judging various fruits, vegetables and flowers; a full statement of the metric
system, and tables of foreign money. *
PLANT -BREEDING.
By L. H. BAILEY.
16mo. 293 pages. Cloth, Limp, $1.00.
Uniform with ‘The Horticulturist's Rule-Book.”
CONTENTS.
The Fact and Philosophy of Variation. Borrowed Opinions, of B. Verlot, E.
The Philosophy of the Crossing of A. Carriére, and W. O. Focke, on
Plants. . Plant-Breeding.
Specific Means by which Garden Detailed Directions for the Crossing
Varieties originate. of Plants.
COMMENTS.
, ‘I have read the work on ‘ Plant Breeding’ by Prof. L. H. Bailey with keen
interest, and find it just what I expected from such a source; viz.) a most sat-
isfactory treatise on a subject of most pressing horticultural importance. I
shall earnestly commend the work to ray horticultural classes.”
¢ - . E. J. WicKxson,
Agricultural Experiment Station, Berkeley, Cal.
“The treatment is both scientific and practical, and will enable gardeners
and horticulturists to experiment intelligently in cross-breeding, The sub-
ject is fully elaborated, and made clear for every intelligent reader. Professor
pales enon: nnded upon Oe labor and observations in original
vestigations, is still further enhance the presentati i
aaual Pees Mone y presentation of this excellent
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY,
66 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK.
The Garden-Craft Series.
Edited by Prof. L. H. BaILey.
THE NURSERY-BOOK.
By L. H. BAILEY.
New Edition. Thoroughly recast and revised.
16 mo, Cloth, $1.
This little manual has been one of the most popular of all current horti-
cultural books, It contains no discussions of the theory or physiology of the
propagation of plants, but it isa simple and practical account of all the ways in
which plants are multiplied. It has found a wide circulation, both amongst
nurserymen and amateurs. Many new illustrations have been made for this
edition, bringing the number of cuts up to over 150. In its revised form, the
Nursery Book is the most complete propagating manual in the language.
THE, FORCING- BOOK,
A MANUAL OF THE CULTIVATION OF VEGETABLES IN GLASS HOUSES.
By L. H. BAILEY.
16 mo, Cloth, $1,
This is a handbook of instructions upon the forcing of vegetables for mar-
ket, and is the completest work of the kind yet published in this country.
It is based on years of careful experimentation at the Cornell University
Station, and a long familiarity with the forcing business as practiced in many
parts of the country.
It contains full estimates of the cost of heating forcing houses, and of the
labor necessary torun them. There is also an illustrated chapter on the con-
struction of forcing houses, and another on their management.
IN PREPARATION.
THE PRUNING-BOOK.
By L. H, BAILEY.
It is strange that the one subject upon which horticulturists have always
asked the most questions should be wholly without a treatise. The subject of
pruning is so vitally connected with every horticultural occupation, and the
questions which it presents are so numerous and so difficult of answer, that
nothing less than an entire volume can ever set people right in respect to it.
Professor Bailey has been making definite experiments and observations upon
the subject for a number of years, and the resultsof these labors are now
approaching readinesss for publication. The work will comprise the culture
tange of the theory and practice of pruning, both of fruit and ornamental
trees and bushes, and it is expected to be on sale early in 1897.