assured that, whether he follows embryological development, or searches for the merest rudiments, or traces gradations between the most different beings, he is pursuing the same object by different routes, and is tending towards the knowledge of the actual progenitor of the group, as it once grew and lived. Thus the subject of Homology gains largely in interest.
Although this subject, under whatever aspect it be viewed, will always be most interesting to the student of nature, it is very doubtful whether the following details on the homological nature of the flowers of Orchids will be endured by the general reader. If, indeed, he should care to see how much light, through far from perfect, hornology throws on a subject, this will, perhaps, be nearly as good an instance as could be given. He will see how curiously a flower may be moulded out of many separate organs,—how perfect the cohesion of primordially distinct parts may become,—how organs may be used for purposes widely different from their proper function,—how other organs may be entirely suppressed, or leave mere useless emblems of their former existence. Finally, he will see how enormous has been the total amount of change from the simple parental or typical structure which these flowers have undergone.
Robert Brown first clearly discussed the homologies of Orchids,[1] and left, as might be expected, little to be done. Guided by the general structure of monocotyledonous plants, and by various considerations, he propounded the doctrine that the flower properly consists of three sepals, three petals, six anthers in two whorls or circles (of which only one anther belonging to the outer whorl is perfect in all common forms), and of three pistils, with one of them modified into the rostellum. These fifteen organs are arranged as usual, alternately, three within three, in five whorls. Of the existence of three of the anthers in two whorls, R. Brown offers no sufficient evidence, but believes that they are combined with the labellum, whenever that organ presents crests or ridges. In these views Brown is followed by the greatest living authority on Orchids, namely, Lindley.
Brown traced the spiral vessels in the flower by making transverse sections,[2] and only occasionally, as far as it appears, by longitudinal sections. As spiral vessels are developed at a very early period of growth, which always gives much value to an organ in making out homologies; and as they are apparently of high functional importance, though their function is not well known, it appeared to me, guided also by the advice of Dr. Hooker, to be worth while to trace upwards all the spiral vessels from the six groups surrounding the ovarium. Of the six ovarian groups of vessels, I will call (though not correctly) that under the labellum the anterior group; that under the upper sepal the posterior group; and the two groups on both sides of the ovarium the antero-lateral and postero-lateral groups.
The result of my dissections is given in the following diagram. The fifteen little circles represent so many groups of spiral vessels, in every case traced down to one of the six large ovarian groups. They alternate in five whorls, as represented; but I have not attempted to give the actual distances at which they stand apart. In order to guide the eye, the three central groups running to the three pistils are connected by a triangle.
- ↑ I believe his latest views are given in his celebrated paper, read Nov. 1-15, 1831, in the 'Linnæan Transactions,' vol. xvi. p. 685.
- ↑ 'Linn. Transac.' Vol. xvi. p. 696-701. Link in his 'Bemerkungen iiber der Bau der Orchideen' ('Botanische Zeitung,' 1849, s. 745) seems to have also trusted to transverse sections. Had he traced the vessels upwards I cannot believe that he would have disputed Brown's view of the nature of the two anthers in Cypripedium. Brongniart in his admirable paper ('Annales des Sciences Nat.' Tom. xxiv. 1831) incidentally shows the course of some of the spiral vessels.
