Ɛpsilon

To W. T. Thiselton-Dyer   21 July 1875

Down, | Beckenham, Kent. | Railway Station | Orpington. S.E.R.

July 21. 75

My dear Mr Dyer

I am very much obliged for the books (returned by this post) & for all the many references1  I am glad to see that even you admit that the L. davuricum seems good.2 I remember the orchid case too well, for I was struck with horror on reading Hildebrand’s paper, for on finding ovules in my plant of Acropera I stated in my book that the species was probably diœcous.3

You told me that there were some wrong references in my book, & I should be greatly obliged if you could let me have them

Yours very sincerely | Ch Darwin

LS

1
The letter from Thiselton-Dyer has not been found; CD had asked for help with references and corrections to the second edition of Variation (see letter to W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 7 July 1875, and letter from W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, 12 July 1875).
2
In Variation 2d ed. 1: 431, CD added the case of Lilium davuricum (now L. dauricum, the Dahurian lily) and L. bulbiferum (the orange or fire lily) that, when reciprocally fertilised, produced fruit like that of the pollen-bearing species.
3
Friedrich Hildebrand determined that in many orchids ovules are not developed until weeks or months after pollen-tubes have penetrated the stigma (Hildebrand 1863 and 1865). CD referred to Hildebrand’s papers in ‘Fertilization of orchids’ (1869), p. 153, noting his previous error in supposing that the sexes of Acropera luteola were separate (Orchids, pp. 206–9).

Please cite as “DCP-LETT-10084,” in Ɛpsilon: The Charles Darwin Collection accessed on 5 June 2025, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/dcp-data/letters/DCP-LETT-10084