FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   464   465   466   467   468   469   470   471   472   473   474   475   476  
477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497   498   499   500   501   >>   >|  
that the light-sensitiveness resided exclusively in the tip. The experiment undoubtedly proves that the sensitiveness is much greater in the tip than elsewhere, and that there is a transmission of stimulus from the tip to the region of curvature. But Rothert (Rothert, Cohn's "Beitrage", VII. 1894.) has conclusively proved that the basal part where the curvature occurs is also DIRECTLY sensitive to light. He has shown, however, that in other grasses (Setaria, Panicum) the cotyledon is the only part which is sensitive, while the hypocotyl, where the movement occurs, is not directly sensitive. It was however the question of the localisation of the gravitational sense in the tip of the seedling root or radicle that aroused most attention, and it was on this question that a controversy arose which has continued to the present day. The experiment on which Darwin's conclusion was based consisted simply in cutting off the tip, and then comparing the behaviour of roots so treated with that of normal specimens. An uninjured root when placed horizontally regains the vertical by means of a sharp downward curve; not so a decapitated root which continues to grow more or less horizontally. It was argued that this depends on the loss of an organ specialised for the perception of gravity, and residing in the tip of the root; and the experiment (together with certain important variants) was claimed as evidence of the existence of such an organ. It was at once objected that the amputation of the tip might check curvature by interfering with longitudinal growth, on the distribution of which curvature depends. This objection was met by showing that an injury, e.g. splitting the root longitudinally (See F. Darwin, "Linnean Soc. Journal (Bot)." XIX. 1882, page 218.), which does not remove the tip, but seriously checks growth, does not prevent geotropism. This was of some interest in another and more general way, in showing that curvature and longitudinal growth must be placed in different categories as regards the conditions on which they depend. Another objection of a much more serious kind was that the amputation of the tip acts as a shock. It was shown by Rothert (See his excellent summary of the subject in "Flora" 1894 (Erganzungsband), page 199.) that the removal of a small part of the cotyledon of Setaria prevents the plant curving towards the light, and here there is no question of removing the sense-organ since the greater par
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   464   465   466   467   468   469   470   471   472   473   474   475   476  
477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497   498   499   500   501   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

curvature

 

sensitive

 

Rothert

 

question

 

experiment

 

growth

 
showing
 
objection
 

cotyledon

 

Setaria


Darwin

 
amputation
 

longitudinal

 

depends

 
horizontally
 

occurs

 

sensitiveness

 
greater
 

Journal

 

Linnean


exclusively

 

resided

 

checks

 
remove
 

existence

 
longitudinally
 

splitting

 

objected

 

interfering

 

distribution


proves

 

injury

 

undoubtedly

 

interest

 

Erganzungsband

 

removal

 

subject

 

excellent

 

summary

 

prevents


removing
 

curving

 

general

 

geotropism

 

evidence

 

categories

 

Another

 

depend

 

conditions

 

prevent