ion
of parts, and had given rise to some theory of dedoublement.

Having nothing on earth to do here, I have dissected all the spiral
vessels in a flower, and instead of burning my diagrams [Figures 10 and
11], I send them to you, you miserable man. But mind, I do not want you
to send me a discussion, but just some time to say whether my notions
are rubbish, and then burn the diagrams. It seems to me that all parts
alternate beautifully by fours, on the hypothesis that two short
stamens of outer whorl are aborted (615/1. The view given by Darwin is
(according to Eichler) that previously held by Knuth, Wydler, Chatin,
and others. Eichler himself believes that the flower is dimerous, the
four longer stamens being produced by the doubling or splitting of the
upper (i.e. antero-posterior) pair of stamens. If this view is correct,
and there are good reasons for it, it throws much suspicion on the
evidence afforded by the course of vessels, for there is no trace of the
common origin of the longer stamens in the diagram (Figure 11). Again,
if Eichler is right, the four vessels shown in the section of the ovary
are misleading. Darwin afterwards gave a doubtful explanation of this,
and concluded that the ovary is dimerous. See Letter 616.); and this
view is perhaps supported by their being so few, only two sub-bundles
in the two lateral main bundles, where I imagine two short stamens
have aborted, but I suppose there is some valid objection against this
notion. The course of the side vessels in the sepals is curious, just
like my difficulty in Habenaria. (615/2. See Letter 605.) I am surprised
at the four vessels in the ovarium. Can this indicate four confluent
pistils? anyhow, they are in the right alternating position. The nectary
within the base of the shorter stamens seems to cause the end sepals
apparently, but not really, to arise beneath the lateral sepals.

I think you will understand my diagrams in five minutes, so forgive me
for bothering you. My writing this to you reminds me of a letter which I
received yesterday from Claparede, who helped the French translatress
of the "Origin" (615/3. The late Mlle. Royer.), and he tells me he had
difficulty in preventing her (who never looked at a bee's cell) from
altering my whole description, because she affirmed that an hexagonal
prism must have an hexagonal base! Almost everywhere in the "Origin,"
when I express great doubt, she appends a note explaining the
difficulty, or sa