imperfectly known, he adds, "Nature has something more in view than that
its own proper males would fecundate each blossom." In 1811 Kolreuter
plainly hinted at the same law, as did afterwards another famous
hybridiser of plants, Herbert. (1/6. Kolreuter 'Mem. de l'Acad. de St.
Petersbourg' tome 3 1809 published 1811 page 197. After showing how well
the Malvaceae are adapted for cross-fertilisation, he asks, "An id
aliquid in recessu habeat, quod hujuscemodi flores nunquam proprio suo
pulvere, sed semper eo aliarum suae speciei impregnentur, merito
quaeritur? Certe natura nil facit frustra." Herbert 'Amaryllidaceae,
with a Treatise on Cross-bred Vegetables' 1837.) But none of these
distinguished observers appear to have been sufficiently impressed with
the truth and generality of the law, so as to insist on it and impress
their beliefs on others.

In 1862 I summed up my observations on Orchids by saying that nature
"abhors perpetual self-fertilisation." If the word perpetual had been
omitted, the aphorism would have been false. As it stands, I believe
that it is true, though perhaps rather too strongly expressed; and I
should have added the self-evident proposition that the propagation of
the species, whether by self-fertilisation or by cross-fertilisation, or
asexually by buds, stolons, etc. is of paramount importance. Hermann
Muller has done excellent service by insisting repeatedly on this latter
point.

It often occurred to me that it would be advisable to try whether
seedlings from cross-fertilised flowers were in any way superior to
those from self-fertilised flowers. But as no instance was known with
animals of any evil appearing in a single generation from the closest
possible interbreeding, that is between brothers and sisters, I thought
that the same rule would hold good with plants; and that it would be