are included in a pouch or bursicula, he describes and figures perforations in the back of the pouch, through which the fecundating matter is communicated from the glands to the stigma; and one of the figures is intended to represent a gland in the act of parting with the fecundating matter.
It is impossible to judge correctly of Mr. Bauer's theory until all the proofs and arguments in its favour are adduced. I may observe, however, that those already published are by no means satisfactory to me.
For, in the first place, in the very early stage in which, [694 according to this theory, impregnation is supposed to be effected, it appears to me that the pollen is not in a state to impart its fecundating matter, nor the stigma to receive it; and it may be added, though this is of less weight, that the ovula have neither acquired the usual degree of development, nor that position which they afterwards take, and which gives the apex of the nucleus or point of impregnation the proper direction, with regard to the supposed impregnating surface.
Secondly, in the figure which may be said to exhibit a demonstration of the correctness of the theory,—in that, namely, representing the gland in the act of parting with the fecundating matter,—the magnifying power employed (which is only fifteen times) is surely insufficient for the establishment of a fact of this kind; while the disengagement of minute granules, which no doubt often takes place when the gland is immersed in water, may readily be accounted for in another way.[1]
- ↑ This second observation ought not now to be taken into account, as in the second part of Mr. Bauer's Illustrations the following correction occurs respecting the figure alluded to (Tab. 3. fig. 8). "This is in some measure an ideal figure to represent in what way the fecundating matter is supposed to leave the caudicula and stigmatic gland; for this reason there has been no attention paid to preserving a proportion between the pollen mass and the fecundating matter." I may here, however, remark, that it was evidently not my intention, in the observation in question, to throw any doubt on the correctness of Mr. Bauer's figure, being aware that very minute granular matter, separating from the gland when immersed in water, is actually visible with a lens of about half an inch focus. I objected to it only as a satisfactory proof of the theory referred to.
