skip to content

Darwin Correspondence Project


From Daniel Oliver   23 April 1862


Wednesday | 23. Apr. 1862

Dear Sir

Here are the flowers of Oxalis as requested. I do not perceive anything distinctly dimorphic.—1

My examining of the plant had reference chiefly to the aestival small flowers: they are very remarkable.— I altered a little the “definition” of the two groups of dimorphism in the paper which you so kindly looked over (& tho’t worth printing!).—2 Making one group with the Dimorphism manifest in, primarily, a separation more or less of the sexual organs, accompanied or not by alteration in the outer whorls.— (Thus including all wholly or partially diclinous plants,—Catasetum, Primula, &c) & the other group marked primarily by alteration primarily in envelopes of the flower without separation of the sexes.

Of course this is only the morphologl. definition

After discussing their function &c. we may class them in corresponding group by other characters.

Very sincerely yours | Danl. Oliver


See letter to Daniel Oliver, 20 [April 1862] and n. 2. There are observational notes relating to these specimens, dated 24 April 1862, in DAR 109 (ser. 2): 5. CD subsequently concluded that Oxalis acetosella was not dimorphic (see Forms of flowers, pp. 181–3).
[Oliver] 1862c. See letter to Daniel Oliver, 15 April [1862].


Distinguishes two kinds of floral dimorphism: that affecting sexual organs and that affecting outer envelopes.

Letter details

Letter no.
Oliver, Daniel
Darwin, C. R.
Sent from
Source of text
DAR 173.1: 14
Physical description

Please cite as

Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 3515,” accessed on 26 October 2016,