difference the trimerous, tetramerous, etc., divisions
of flowers, the ovules being erect or suspended, their attachment being
parietal or placental, and even the shape of the seed when of no service
to the plant.

Now, I have thought, and want to show, that such differences follow in
some unexplained manner from the growth or development of plants which
have passed through a long series of adaptive changes. Anyhow, I want
to show that these differences do not support the idea of progressive
development. Cassini states that the ovaria on the circumference and
centre of Compos. flowers differ in essential characters, and so do
the seeds in sculpture. The seeds of Umbelliferae in the same relative
positions are coelospermous and orthospermous. There is a case given by
Augt. St. Hilaire of an erect and suspended ovule in the same ovarium,
but perhaps this hardly bears on the point. The summit flower, in Adoxa
and rue differ from the lower flowers. What is the difference in flowers
of the rue? how is the ovarium, especially in the rue? As Augt. St.
Hilaire insists on the locularity of the ovarium varying on the same
plant in some of the Rutaceae, such differences do not speak, as it
seems to me, in favour of progressive development. Will you turn
the subject in your mind, and tell me any more facts. Difference in
structure in flowers in different parts of the same plant seems best
to show that they are the result of growth or position or amount of
nutriment.

I have got your photograph (697/2. A photograph by Mrs. Cameron.) over
my chimneypiece, and like it much; but you look down so sharp on me that
I shall never be bold enough to wriggle myself out of any contradiction.

Owen pitches into me and Lyell in grand style in the last chapter of
volume 3 of "Anat. of Vertebrates." He is a cool hand. He puts words
from me in inverted commas and alters them. (697/3. The passage referred
to seems to be in Owen's "Anatomy of Vertebrata," III., pages 798, 799,
note. "I deeply regretted, therefore, to see in a 'Historical Sketch'
of the Progress of Enquiry into the origin of species, prefixed to the
fourth edition of that work (1866), that Mr. Darwin, after affirming
inaccurately and without evidence, that I admitted Natural Selection to
have done something toward that end, to wit, the 'origin of species,'
proceeds to remark: 'It is surprising that this admission should not
have been made earlier, as Prof. Owen now believes that he