Chapter X: Means of Fertilisation (3)

A related point is worth notice. I remarked in my Origin of Species that in Britain a much larger proportion of trees and bushes than of herbaceous plants have their sexes separated; and so it is, according to Asa Gray and Hooker, in North America and New Zealand. (10/60. I find in the ‘London Catalogue of British Plants’ that there are thirty-two indigenous trees and bushes in Great Britain, classed under nine families; but to err on the safe side, I have counted only six species of willows. Of the thirty-two trees and bushes, nineteen, or more than half, have their sexes separated; and this is an enormous proportion compared with other British plants. New Zealand abounds with diclinous plants and trees; and Dr. Hooker calculates that out of about 756 phanerogamic plants inhabiting the islands, no less than 108 are trees, belonging to thirty-five families. Of these 108 trees, fifty-two, or very nearly half, have their sexes more or less separated. Of bushes there are 149, of which sixty-one have their sexes in the same state; whilst of the remaining 500 herbaceous plants only 121, or less than a fourth, have their sexes separated. Lastly, Professor Asa Gray informs me that in the United States there are 132 native trees (belonging to twenty-five families) of which ninety-five (belonging to seventeen families) “have their sexes more or less separated, for the greater part decidedly separated.”) It is, however, doubtful how far this rule holds good generally, and it certainly does not do so in Australia. But I have been assured that the flowers of the prevailing Australian trees, namely, the Myrtaceae, swarm with insects, and if they are dichogamous they would be practically diclinous. (10/61. With respect to the Proteaceae of Australia, Mr. Bentham ‘Journal of the Linnean Society Botany’ volume 13 1871 pages 58, 64, remarks on the various contrivances by which the stigma in the several genera is screened from the action of the pollen from the same flower. For instance, in Synaphea “the stigma is held by the eunuch (i.e., one of the stamens which is barren) safe from all pollution from her brother anthers, and is preserved intact for any pollen that may be inserted by insects and other agencies.”) As far as anemophilous plants are concerned, we know that they are apt to have their sexes separated, and we can see that it would be an unfavourable circumstance for them to bear their flowers very close to the ground, as their pollen is liable to be blown high up in the air (10/62. Kerner ‘Schutzmittel des Pollens’ 1873 page 4.); but as the culms of grasses give sufficient elevation, we cannot thus account for so many trees and bushes being diclinous. We may infer from our previous discussion that a tree bearing numerous hermaphrodite flowers would rarely intercross with another tree, except by means of the pollen of a distinct individual being prepotent over the plants’ own pollen. Now the separation of the sexes, whether the plant were anemophilous are entomophilous, would most effectually bar self-fertilisation, and this may be the cause of so many trees and bushes being diclinous. Or to put the case in another way, a plant would be better fitted for development into a tree, if the sexes were separated, than if it were hermaphrodite; for in the former case its numerous flowers would be less liable to continued self-fertilisation. But it should also be observed that the long life of a tree or bush permits of the separation of the sexes, with much less risk of evil from impregnation occasionally failing and seeds not being produced, than in the case of short-lived plants. Hence it probably is, as Lecoq has remarked, that annual plants are rarely dioecious.

Finally, we have seen reason to believe that the higher plants are descended from extremely low forms which conjugated, and that the conjugating individuals differed somewhat from one another,--the one representing the male and the other the female--so that plants were aboriginally dioecious. At a very early period such lowly organised dioecious plants probably gave rise by budding to monoecious plants with the two sexes borne by the same individual; and by a still closer union of the sexes to hermaphrodite plants, which are now much the commonest form. (10/63. There is a considerable amount of evidence that all the higher animals are the descendants of hermaphrodites; and it is a curious problem whether such hermaphroditism may not have been the result of the conjugation of two slightly different individuals, which represented the two incipient sexes. On this view, the higher animals may now owe their bilateral structure, with all their organs double at an early embryonic period, to the fusion or conjugation of two primordial individuals.) As soon as plants became affixed to the ground, their pollen must have been carried by some means from flower to flower, at first almost certainly by the wind, then by pollen-devouring, and afterwards by nectar-seeking insects. During subsequent ages some few entomophilous plants have been again rendered anemophilous, and some hermaphrodite plants have had their sexes again separated; and we can vaguely see the advantages of such recurrent changes under certain conditions.

Dioecious plants, however fertilised, have a great advantage over other plants in their cross-fertilisation being assured. But this advantage is gained in the case of anemophilous species at the expense of the production of an enormous superfluity of pollen, with some risk to them and to entomophilous species of their fertilisation occasionally failing. Half the individuals, moreover, namely, the males, produce no seed, and this might possibly be a disadvantage. Delpino remarks that dioecious plants cannot spread so easily as monoecious and hermaphrodite species, for a single individual which happened to reach some new site could not propagate its kind; but it may be doubted whether this is a serious evil. Monoecious plants can hardly fail to be to a large extent dioecious in function, owing to the lightness of their pollen and to the wind blowing laterally, with the great additional advantage of occasionally or often producing some self-fertilised seeds. When they are also dichogamous, they are necessarily dioecious in function. Lastly, hermaphrodite plants can generally produce at least some self-fertilised seeds, and they are at the same time capable, through the various means specified in this chapter, of cross-fertilisation. When their structure absolutely prevents self-fertilisation, they are in the same relative position to one another as monoecious and dioecious plants, with what may be an advantage, namely, that every flower is capable of yielding seeds.