Chapter CCXIII: Letter 583: TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 19th, 1856

I thank you warmly for the very kind manner with which you have taken my request. It will, in truth, be a most important service to me; for it is absolutely necessary that I should discuss single and double creations, as a very crucial point on the general origin of species, and I must confess, with the aid of all sorts of visionary hypotheses, a very hostile one. I am delighted that you will take up possibility of crossing, no botanist has done so, which I have long regretted, and I am glad to see that it was one of A. De Candolle's desiderata. By the way, he is curiously contradictory on subject. I am far from expecting that no cases of apparent impossibility will be found; but certainly I expect that ultimately they will disappear; for instance, Campanulaceae seems a strong case, but now it is pretty clear that they must be liable to crossing. Sweet-peas (583/1. In Lathyrus odoratus the absence of the proper insect has been supposed to prevent crossing. See "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume II., page 68; but the explanation there given for Pisum may probably apply to Lathyrus.), bee-orchis, and perhaps hollyhocks are, at present, my greatest difficulties; and I find I cannot experimentise by castrating sweet-peas, without doing fatal injury. Formerly I felt most interest on this point as one chief means of eliminating varieties; but I feel interest now in other ways. One general fact [that] makes me believe in my doctrine (583/2. The doctrine which has been epitomised as "Nature abhors perpetual self-fertilisation," and is generally known as Knight's Law or the Knight-Darwin Law, is discussed by Francis Darwin in "Nature," 1898. References are there given to the chief passages in the "Origin of Species," etc., bearing on the question. See Letter 19, Volume I.), is that NO terrestrial animal in which semen is liquid is hermaphrodite except with mutual copulation; in terrestrial plants in which the semen is dry there are many hermaphrodites. Indeed, I do wish I lived at Kew, or at least so that I could see you oftener. To return again to subject of crossing: I have been inclined to speculate so far, as to think (my!?) notion (I say MY notion, but I think others have put forward nearly or quite similar ideas) perhaps explains the frequent separation of the sexes in trees, which I think I have heard remarked (and in looking over the mono- and dioecious Linnean classes in Persoon seems true) are very apt to have sexes separated; for [in] a tree having a vast number of flowers on the same individual, or at least the same stock, each flower, if only hermaphrodite on the common plan, would generally get its own pollen or only pollen from another flower on same stock,--whereas if the sexes were separate there would be a better chance of occasional pollen from another distinct stock. I have thought of testing this in your New Zealand Flora, but I have no standard of comparison, and I found myself bothered by bushes. I should propound that some unknown causes had favoured development of trees and bushes in New Zealand, and consequent on this there had been a development of separation of sexes to prevent too much intermarriage. I do not, of course, suppose the prevention of too much intermarriage the only good of separation of sexes. But such wild notions are not worth troubling you with the reading of.