From Federico Delpino1 9 October 1869
Firenze
addè 9. 8bre 1869
Celeberrimo uomo!
Ho ricevuto i lavori “On the specific difference between Primula veris etc,” “Offspring from the illegitimate unions of dimorphic and trimorphic plants etc.” notes on the fertilization of orchids.2 Io ne rendo alla S. V. le più sentite grazie. Si sto studiando col massimo impegno, come si deve per ogni cosa che esce dalla penna e dalla mente del più grande naturalista di questo secolo.
Mi permetto alcune rispettose osservazioni. Una infinità di dati mi persuadono che per molti fiori tropicali (e probabilmente per molti delle Orchidee) larghissima e importante parte alla fecondazione debbono prendere gli uccelli mellisugi (Trochilus, Ornismya, Nectariania, Melitreptus e simili).3 O io verso in grave errore, o non mi so spiegare come la S. V. non abbia prego detti pronubi in Speciale considerazione.
Così, contemplando la struttura dei fiori di Corianthes, vedendo la enorme nettaroconea, e la enorme secrezione di liquido dolciastro, dissi tra me: questo fiore deve essere fecondato da un trochilide specialissimo. Ora mi accadde in seguito che sfogliando la opera di Gould sui trochilidi, vidi per lo appunto una tavola ove si scorge un trochilo singolare con becco curiosamente ricurvo visitare i fiori di corianthes, e sorbire il copioso liquido della nettaroconea.4 All’ incontro la spiegazione del Dott. Crüger mi sembra pochissimo fiducievole. La natura non fa glandule melliflue, nè perfettamente lavorate nettaroconche, semplicemente per inumidire le ali di una Euglossa.5 Io mi rimetto ad ulteriore guidizio della S. V.
Mi riuscì oltremodo istruttivo lo apprendere che alcuni insetti vanno sui fiori di orchidee non già per suggere miele ma per rodere speciali escrescenze.6 Questa era una idea che già da un pezzo mi girava per la mente. Piacemi che i fatti corrispondano a questa idea. Tra le orchidee nostrali senza dubbio deve succedere la stessa cosa pel genere Serapias (S. lingua, cordigera, neglecta ecc.)7 Nel fondo del fiore non vi è miele; ma invece vi si trova una grossa escrescenza tinta in purpureo che deve appunto fornir cibo ai pronubi.
Ho ricevuto un numero del giornale ove è comparsa una parte del mio lavoro sulla pangenesi.8 La pangenesi può essere considerata sotto due aspetti; sotto l’aspetto monistico e sotto l’aspetto dualistico.
Sotto l’aspetto monistico mi pare, salvo errore, che non possa concepirsi colle leggi chimiche.
Sotto l’aspetto dualistico, la pangenesi è una mirabile, una grande teoria, che aggruppa felicemente, a mio parere, tutti quanti i fenomeni della genesi degli organismi. Ammettendo la esistenza di gemulle di sostanza immateriale, si sfuggono le objezioni della chimica, si spiega la metagenesi, la generazione alternante, la dislocazione, la moltiplicazione, la diminuzione degli organi, i fenomeni di atavismo ecc. ecc. Io sono compreso di ammirazione per la S.V. che ha saputo formulare una così grande teoria, e sarò lieto se potrò in breve pubblicare una scrittura non indegna dell ’alto argomento, sotto il titolo —Apologia della pangenesi sotto il punto di vista dualistico—9
Gradisca il tenuissimo dono di due miei opuscoli con cui ho cercato di utilizzare per la geografia botanica le nozioni sulla dicogamia e di estendere l’albero genealogico delle Marantaceo, nel cui stilo credo di aver ravvisato la parte omologa al rostello (!) delle orchidea.10
Ho l’onore di dichiarararmi della S.V. | Ossequentissimo discepolo
Federico Delpino
Footnotes
Bibliography
Correspondence: The correspondence of Charles Darwin. Edited by Frederick Burkhardt et al. 29 vols to date. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985–.
Dressler, Robert L. 1968. Pollination by euglossine bees. Evolution 22: 202–10.
‘Fertilization of orchids’: Notes on the fertilization of orchids. By Charles Darwin. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 4th ser. 4 (1869): 141–59. [Collected papers 2: 138–56.]
‘Illegitimate offspring of dimorphic and trimorphic plants’: On the character and hybrid-like nature of the offspring from the illegitimate unions of dimorphic and trimorphic plants. By Charles Darwin. [Read 20 February 1868.] Journal of the Linnean Society of London (Botany) 10 (1869): 393–437.
‘Specific difference in Primula’: On the specific difference between Primula veris, Brit. Fl. (var. officinalis of Linn.), P. vulgaris, Brit. Fl. (var. acaulis, Linn.), and P. elatior, Jacq.; and on the hybrid nature of the common oxlip. With supplementary remarks on naturally produced hybrids in the genus Verbascum. By Charles Darwin. [Read 19 March 1868.] Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 10 (1869): 437–54.
Translation
From Federico Delpino1 9 October 1869
Florence
9. October 1869
Most illustrious man!
I received the works “On the specific difference between Primula veris etc,” “Offspring from the illegitimate unions of dimorphic and trimorphic plants etc.” notes on the fertilization of orchids.2 I thank you wholeheartedly for them. I am studying them with the utmost care, as one must do with anything coming from the pen and the mind of the greatest naturalist of this century.
I venture a few respectful observations. An infinite number of cases convince me that honeysucking birds (Trochilus, Ornismya, Nectariania, Melitreptus and similar),3 must take a very great and important part in the fecundation of many tropical flowers (and probably of most orchids). Either I am gravely mistaken or I cannot understand how you did not take such pollinators into special consideration.
Thus, while contemplating the structure of the flowers of Corianthes and noticing the enormous nectary cups, and the enormous secretion of sweetish liquid, I said to myself: this flower must be fertilised by a very special trochilus. Now, while skimming through Gould’s work on trochilidae, I happened to see a figure showing a singular trochilus with a curiously bent beak visiting the flowers of corianthes and sucking the abundant liquid from the nectar cup.4 Dr Crüger’s explanation of this seems to me hardly reliable. Nature does not produce honey glands or perfectly designed nectar cups simply to moisten the wings of an Euglossa.5 I would entrust myself to your judgment on this point.
It was extremely informative for me to learn that some insects visit the flowers of orchids not so much to suck honey as to nibble some special outgrowths.6 This idea had been going around in my head for quite some time already. I was pleased that facts correspond to this idea. No doubt the same thing must happen amongst our local orchids, in the genus Serapias (S. lingua, cordigera, neglecta etc.).7 Inside the flower, there is no honey; instead, one finds a large purple outgrowth, the function of which is precisely to provide food for the pollinator.
I have received an issue of the journal in which a part of my work on pangenesis has appeared.8 Pangenesis can be considered from two points of view, that of monism and that of dualism.
From the monistic point of view, it seems to me that, unless I am mistaken, pangenesis is inconceivable within the laws of chemistry.
From a dualistic point of view, pangenesis is a wonderful and great theory that groups together successfully, in my opinion, all phenomena of the genesis of organisms. By admitting the existence of gemmules of non-corporeal substance, we avoid the objections coming from chemistry, we explain metagenesis, the alternation of generations, the dislocation, multiplication, and diminution of organs, the phenomena of atavism etc. etc. I am full of admiration for you for formulating such a great theory, and I will be pleased if I can soon publish a work that is not unworthy of this eminent topic, entitled “Apologia della pangenesi sotto il punto di vista dualistico”.9
Please accept the humble gift of two pamphlets of mine in which I endeavoured to use the notions of dichogamy for botanic geography and to extend the genealogical tree of Marantaceae whose style I recognised as homologous with the rostellum (!) of orchids.10
I have the honour of declaring myself Your Honour’s | Most humble disciple | Federico Delpino
Footnotes
Bibliography
Correspondence: The correspondence of Charles Darwin. Edited by Frederick Burkhardt et al. 29 vols to date. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985–.
Dressler, Robert L. 1968. Pollination by euglossine bees. Evolution 22: 202–10.
‘Fertilization of orchids’: Notes on the fertilization of orchids. By Charles Darwin. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 4th ser. 4 (1869): 141–59. [Collected papers 2: 138–56.]
‘Illegitimate offspring of dimorphic and trimorphic plants’: On the character and hybrid-like nature of the offspring from the illegitimate unions of dimorphic and trimorphic plants. By Charles Darwin. [Read 20 February 1868.] Journal of the Linnean Society of London (Botany) 10 (1869): 393–437.
‘Specific difference in Primula’: On the specific difference between Primula veris, Brit. Fl. (var. officinalis of Linn.), P. vulgaris, Brit. Fl. (var. acaulis, Linn.), and P. elatior, Jacq.; and on the hybrid nature of the common oxlip. With supplementary remarks on naturally produced hybrids in the genus Verbascum. By Charles Darwin. [Read 19 March 1868.] Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 10 (1869): 437–54.
Summary
Acknowledges receipt of CD’s Primula paper [J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 10 (1869): 437–54].
Nectar-sucking birds fertilise tropical flowers.
Writing a "Dualistic apologia for Pangenesis" [see translation in Sci. Opin. 2 (1869): 365–7, 391–3, 407–8].
Homology of the orchid rostellum.
Letter details
- Letter no.
- DCP-LETT-6928
- From
- Federico Delpino
- To
- Charles Robert Darwin
- Sent from
- Florence
- Source of text
- DAR 162: 144
- Physical description
- ALS 4pp (Italian)
Please cite as
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 6928,” accessed on 23 April 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-6928.xml
Also published in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 17