First for Dimorphism; I do not AT PRESENT like the term "Dioecio-dimorphism;" for I think it gives quite a false notion, that the phenomena are connected with a separation of the sexes. Certainly in Primula there is unequal fertility in the two forms, and I suspect this is the case with Linum; and, therefore I felt bound in the Primula paper to state that it might be a step towards a dioecious condition; though I believe there are no dioecious forms in Primulaceae or Linaceae. But the three forms in Lythrum convince me that the phenomenon is in no way necessarily connected with any tendency to separation of sexes. The case seems to me in result or function to be almost identical with what old C.K. Sprengel called "dichogamy," and which is so frequent in truly hermaphrodite groups; namely, the pollen and stigma of each flower being mature at different periods. If I am right, it is very advisable not to use the term "dioecious," as this at once brings notions of separation of sexes.
...I was much perplexed by Oliver's remarks in the 'Natural History Review' on the Primula case, on the lower plants having sexes more often separated than in the higher plants,--so exactly the reverse of what takes place in animals. Hooker in his review of the 'Orchids' repeats this remark. There seems to be much truth in what you say ("Forms which are low in the scale as respects morphological completeness may be high in the scale of rank founded on specialisation of structure and function."--Dr. Gray, in 'Silliman's Journal.'), and it did not occur to me, about no improbability of specialisation in CERTAIN lines in lowly organised beings. I could hardly doubt that the hermaphrodite state is the aboriginal one. But how is it in the conjugation of Confervae--is not one of the two individuals here in fact male, and the other female? I have been much puzzled by this contrast in sexual arrangements between plants and animals. Can there be anything in the following consideration: By ROUGHEST calculation about one-third of the British GENERA of aquatic plants belong to the Linnean classes of Mono and Dioecia; whilst of terrestrial plants (the aquatic genera being subtracted) only one-thirteenth of the genera belong to these two classes. Is there any truth in this fact generally? Can aquatic plants, being confined to a small area or small community of individuals, require more free crossing, and therefore have separate sexes? But to return to our point, does not Alph. de Candolle say that aquatic plants taken as a whole are lowly organised, compared with terrestrial; and may not Oliver's remark on the separation of the sexes in lowly organised plants stand in some relation to their being frequently aquatic? Or is this all rubbish?
...What a magnificent compliment you end your review with! You and Hooker seem determined to turn my head with conceit and vanity (if not already turned) and make me an unbearable wretch.
With most cordial thanks, my good and kind friend, Farewell, C. DARWIN.
[The following passage from a letter (July 28, 1863), to Prof. Hildebrand, contains a reference to the reception of the dimorphic work in France:--
"I am extremely much pleased to hear that you have been looking at the manner of fertilisation of your native Orchids, and still more pleased to hear that you have been experimenting on Linum. I much hope that you may publish the result of these experiments; because I was told that the most eminent French botanists of Paris said that my paper on Primula was the work of imagination, and that the case was so improbable they did not believe in my results."]
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. April 19 [1864].
...I received a little time ago a paper with a good account of your Herbarium and Library, and a long time previously your excellent review of Scott's 'Primulaceae,' and I forwarded it to him in India, as it would much please him. I was very glad to see in it a new case of Dimorphism (I forget just now the name of the plant); I shall be grateful to hear of any other cases, as I still feel an interest in the subject.