stated here that even the first observations made in this direction have
clearly confirmed Darwin's ideas. The new evening primroses which have
sprung in my garden from the old form of Oenothera Lamarckiana, and which
have evidently been derived from it, in each case, by a single mutation, do
not differ from their parent species in one character only, but in almost
all their organs and qualities. Oenothera gigas, for example, has stouter
stems and denser foliage; the leaves are larger and broader; its thick
flower-buds produce gigantic flowers, but only small fruits with large
seeds. Correlative changes of this kind are seen in all my new forms, and
they lend support to the view that in the gradual development of highly
adapted structures, analogous correlations may have played a large part.
They easily explain large deviations from an original type, without
requiring the assumption of too many steps.

Monstrosities, as their name implies, are widely different in character
from natural species; they cannot, therefore, be adduced as evidence in the
investigation of the origin of species. There is no doubt that they may
have much in common as regards their manner of origin, and that the origin
of species, once understood, may lead to a better understanding of the
monstrosities. But the reverse is not true, at least not as regards the
main lines of development. Here, it is clear, monstrosities cannot have
played a part of any significance.

Reversions, or atavistic changes, would seem to give a better support to
the theory of descent through modifications. These have been of paramount
importance on many lines of evolution of the animal as well as of the
vegetable kingdom. It is often assumed that monocotyledons are descended
from some lower group of dicotyledons, probably allied to that which
includes the buttercup family. On this view the monocotyledons must be
assumed to have lost the cambium and all its influence on secondary growth,