Has examined Leschenaultia and concludes the external viscid surfaces have nothing to do with the stigmatic surface. Agrees with CD's style and nectary conclusions; accounts for their form and position in irregular flowers by describing floral development.
[Enclosed are some queries by CD with answers by JDH. Gives information on seed setting by Mucuna
and an opinion on the abruptness of N. and S. limits of plant ranges.]
I have had a pretty good examination of Leschenaultia, but have not found pollen-tubes in any part of stigma or style. I have however I think satisfied myself that the external viscid surfaces (there are 2, one on each lip) have nothing whatever to do with the stigmatic surfaces,
1 They have not the structure.
2. They are outside the bundles of nutrient Vessells of style.
3 They do not & cannot communicate with conducting tissue of style.
4 There is a perfectly good & normal stigmatic surface directly communicating with the conducting tissue, where it ought to be, at the base of the cup inside, on each lip, but most developed on the smaller lip. These surfaces are bona fide structurally, ie. histologically ``stigmatic''—& I have no doubt, had we fine weather & impregnated flowers, we should find pollen tubes in them.
Brown remarks that some species are impregnated after Expansion, by pollen of other flowers,—I know not on what facts he goes—others he says by pollen retained in the indusium on its closing.
I see no flaw in your style & nectary conclusions— In most (all?) irregular flowers the greatest development of perianth & stamens is towards axis of plant (or turned away by resupination of flower) & is balanced by greater development of nectary on opposite side of flower. This appears to me to throw the curvature of the style necessarily in the position you indicate.— it is as it were pushed towards the side where the development of perianth &c is greatest & this is in
[DIAG HERE] nectary sepal sepal pet pet
part counteracted by the endeeavor of style as central organ to keep straight—which results in bend of stigma to nectary side. I think this is so in all plants whether they have nectaries or no— It is a case of force & direction of growth.
Ever yrs affy | Jos D Hooker
P.S. No record of Digitalis with 5th. rud. stamen.— ask Masters.
There is in Herb. Hook. a specimen of a Primula collected at Over, Cheshire May 1824 by W. Wilson Esq. of which that excellent Brit. Botanist says,
``Primula elatior, with simple & umbellate flower-stalks,— I think this specimen (having the leaves of the proper shape assumed by Sir J. E. Smith) as a character for P. elatior would have convinced him of that being only a variety of P. vulgaris''
In Hook Herb. there seem to be all sorts of intermediates in foliage & inflorescence.
There is a good remark by H.C.W. in Hook & Arn. Brit. Flora, that all the forms of Cowslip & Cowslip--oxlip have short tomentum— all of Primrose & Primrose--oxlip have long villous hairs (on scape &c). I find this holds pretty well in all the Herb. Hook specimens: but is at best rather hazy character.
- f1 2774.f1Dated by the relationship to the letters to Joseph Dalton Hooker, 26 April  and 27 April . In 1860, 28 April was a Saturday.
- f2 2774.f2Brown 1814, pp. 559--61.
- f3 2774.f3Maxwell Tylden Masters was an expert on plant teratology. CD had expressed interest in Masters's recent lecture on the subject (Masters 1860), given at the Royal Institution on 16 March (see letters to M. T. Masters, 7 April  and 13 April ). See CD note and n. 14, below.
- f4 2774.f4There were apparently two enclosures sent with the letter, each containing answers to some of the questions posed by CD in the letters to J. D. Hooker, 26 April  and 27 April . The first enclosure is in DAR 166.2: 262. It was dated by CD `April 28/1860' and further marked in pencil: `Ch. 4.—'. The second enclosure (see CD note) was a list of queries in CD's hand, perhaps given to Hooker during his recent visit to Down and now returned by Hooker with his answers added. See nn. 9--14, below.
- f5 2774.f5William Wilson had described several mosses for Hooker 1844--7; he had also contributed to the second edition of James Edward Smith and James Sowerby's English botany (1832--46).
- f6 2774.f6Hooker refers to Hewett Cottrell Watson, as cited in William Jackson Hooker and George Arnott Walker Arnott's British flora (1850).
- f7 2774.f7CD's annotation refers to chapter 3 of Natural selection, `On the possibility of all organic beings occasionally crossing'.
- f8 2774.f8CD's annotation refers to chapter 4 of Natural selection, on variation under nature.
- f9 2774.f9The note is in DAR 100: 157. On it Hooker wrote his response to CD's queries. The first page was crossed by CD in pencil. A paragraph in Hooker's hand relating to the northern and southern limits of plants (see n. 13, below) was also crossed in pencil. CD marked the bottom of the note `Ch. 3' in brown crayon. See n. 7, above.
- f10 2774.f10Hooker's answer to the first question reads: `see back Mucuna never set any seed till impregnated, by us, in our great Palm Stove when fruit ripened & seeds were raised.' Mucuna is a tropical and subtropical genus of leguminous vines.
- f11 2774.f11Hooker's answer reads: `—See note in letter'. Hooker refers to the first enclosure. CD had come across a report of this abnormal flower stem in Masters 1860, p. 224.
- f12 2774.f12Hooker's answer reads: `— translation of quotation enclosed'. In Masters 1860, p. 225, Masters stated that Siegfried Reissek (in Reissek 1843) had been led `in some measure, to anticipate the views of Mr. Darwin'. The translation to which Hooker refers was one prepared by Frances Harriet Hooker of a passage from Reissek 1843, pp. 653--4. It is bound in CD's copy of Masters 1860 (Darwin Pamphlet Collection--CUL). See also letter to J. D. Hooker, 30 April  and n. 3. Thesium is a tropical parasitic plant.
- f13 2774.f13Hooker's answer reads: `see back of this Bentham's observations on limits of plants did not refer to N. & S. limits, but to abrupt termination of certain Spanish plants in S. France towards Cevennes— The more I think, the more I feel satisfied that N. & S. limits of plants are not at all abrupt like of animals.' The reference is to Bentham 1826, p. 6.
- f14 2774.f14Hooker's answer reads: `see letter'.