chosen that whatever the result is they will be of
value. But always remember that not one naturalist out of a dozen cares
for really philosophical experiments.

LETTER 645. TO J. SCOTT. Down, May 31st [1863].

I am unwell, and must write briefly. I am very much obliged for the
"Courant." (645/1. The Edinburgh "Evening Courant" used to publish
notices of the papers read at the Botanical Society of Edinburgh. The
paper referred to here was Scott's on Oncidium.) The facts will be of
highest use to me. I feel convinced that your paper will have permanent
value. Your case seems excellently and carefully worked out. I agree
that the alteration of title was unfortunate, but, after all, title does
not signify very much. So few have attended to such points that I do
not expect any criticism; but if so, I should think you had much better
reply, but I could if you wished it much. I quite understand about the
cases being individual sterility; so Gartner states it was with him.
Would it be worth while to send a corrected copy of the "Courant" to the
"Gardeners' Chronicle?" (645/2. An account of Scott's work appeared in
the "Gardeners' Chronicle," June 13th, 1863, which is, at least partly,
a reprint of the "Courant," since it contains the awkward sentence
criticised by Darwin and referred to below. The title is "On the
Fertilisation of Orchids," which was no doubt considered unfortunate as
not suggesting the subject of the paper, and as being the same as that
of Darwin's book.) I did not know that you had tried Lobelia fulgens:
can you give me any particulars on the number of plants and kinds used,
etc., that I may quote, as in a few days I shall be writing on this
whole subject? No one will ever convince me that it is not a very
important subject to philosophical naturalists. The Hibiscus seems a
very curious case, and I agree with your remarks. You say that you are
glad of criticisms (by the way avoid "former and latter," the reader is
always forced to go back to look). I think you would have made the
case more striking if you had first showed that the pollen of
Oncidium sphacelatum was good; secondly, that the ovule was capable of
fertilisation; and lastly, shown that the plant was impotent with its
own pollen. "Impotence of organs capable of elimination"--capable here
strictly refers to organs; you mean to impotence. To eliminate impotence
is a curious expression; it is removing a non-existent quality. But
style is a trifle