a vast array of facts telling all the same tale, that it becomes impossible to refuse assent to the Darwinian generalisation, "Nature abhors perpetual self-fertilisation."

FIG. 1. Feverfew. A central flower just expanded: (a) anther-tube closed. FIG. 2. Feverfew. A flower somewhat less central: (a) anther-tube broken open, and the pollen escaping.

FIG. 3. Feverfew. A still more peripheral flower. The style projecting from (a) the anther-tube; (c) the stigmas exposed ; (b) tufts on extremities of style.

FIG. 4. Phaseolus coccineus. Front view, (a) standard; (b) right ala, pulled somewhat aside; (c) left ala, cut off at point where it adheres to carina; (e) vertical carina; (d) terminal opening of carina, with tip of stigma protruding.

Phas. cocc.

FIG. 5.
FIG. 6.

Phas. cocc.

Lateral view. Letters as in fig. 4.

End of style and stigma, highly magnified: (a) stigma with hairs round it; (b) long hairs of style; (c) opening at end of carina.

FIG. 7. Fumitory. The two outer petals cut off. A and B the two inner petals, united at c and expanded laterally at E into a landingplace; F the fissure through which the reproductive organs issue; D the diadelphous stamens and the style.

FIG. 8. Erica tetralix. The filaments not represented excepting cut ends of two at d; (c) ovary; (e) hypogynous disk; (b) style surrounded by circlet of anthers; (a and a,) these letters point to the processes of one and the same anther. So also do (b) and (b). The cell to which a belongs coheres with the cell to which b belongs externally, in the part removed farthest from the processes. FIG. 9. Erica tetr. Single stamen: lateral view; (a) processes; (b) filament, cut short, (c) pore.

FIG. 10. Vaccinium myrt. Two stamens in situ, showing how the terminal pores are set against the style.

FIG. 11. Vacc. myrt. A single stamen: (a) terminal pores; (b) filament; (c) processes.

FIG. 12. Arbutus. Two stamens in situ in mature flower; their pores against the style.

FIG. 13. Arbutus. Two stamens in situ in bud: (a) the closed pores. The stamen on the left is attached by its sharp end to the style by a thread.

• The various mechanical contrivances described in the preceding paper have never, so far as I know, been described before. But my acquaintance with botanical literature is next to nothing, so that it is quite possible that such descriptions may have been given repeatedly without my knowing it. Should such be the case, my ignorance must be my apology for passing over any previous observations without notice.

173

THE TURRET-SHIPS MONARCH AND CAPTAIN.

By S. J. MACKIE, C.E.

[PLATE LX.]

ITHIN the last few months considerable attention has been attracted to the subject of sea-going rigged turret-ships, and the performances of the first two vessels worthy this titlethe Monarch and the Captain-have been viewed with the greatest interest. There were, it is true, previously in our navy several turret-ships, but of these the Royal Sovereign and the Prince Albert had scarcely any pretensions to sail power, being really coast-defence vessels: while the Scorpion and Wyvern, the famous Birkenhead rams, although masted and rigged, could not be trusted at sea without a convoy. The latter vessels, it will be remembered, were purchased in 1865 from their builders, Messrs. Laird; and soon afterwards, in the early part of January 1866, the Admiralty ordered the Monarch. The Captain was commenced about a year later. Both the vessels are now completed, the Monarch having been in active service for some months; the Captain is almost ready for sea, and has been tried at the measured mile, besides making the passage from Birkenhead to Portsmouth. It will be interesting, therefore, to compare the principal features of these two fine vessels, as they have little in common beyond the turret armament, and as so much has been said at various times respecting the advantages and disadvantages of the two types they represent.

The Monarch represents the high freeboard type of turretship, and was designed at the Admiralty by Mr. E. J. Reed, the chief constructor of the navy; the Captain represents the low freeboard type, and, as is well known, was designed by the Messrs. Laird, under the direction of Captain Coles, the Admiralty having thus put into the hands of that gentleman the power of giving the fullest expression to his ideas—a power for which he had often asked. Under these circumstances, the Monarch must be regarded as the Admiralty model for a rigged turret-ship; and the Captain as Captain Coles' model vessel, he

having doubtless received considerable assistance in working out his plans from the eminent firm to whom the construction of the ship was entrusted.

The Monarch (Pl. LX., fig. 1) presents externally an appearance closely resembling that of a broadside iron-clad. Her sides rise to the height of 14 feet above water, and she has a complete upper deck and forecastle, on which the greater part of the ropes are worked, just as in a broadside vessel. Her armour is also disposed on a plan identical with that of our recent broadside ships, a belt (indicated by the black portion in the figure in the plate) protecting the region of the water-line throughout the whole length, and a central battery or chamber constructed amidships. On the belt the armour rises to the height of about 43 feet above the water; while, on the central battery, it rises to the full height of 14 feet. At the bow and stern also the armour is carried up above the belt, in order to form protected batteries for bow and stern guns, or, as they are technically termed, "chasers." The lower edge of the armour belt is five feet below water. In the central protected chamber on the main deck the turrets are placed, their top parts projecting about 6 feet above the upper deck, the engines for turning them being placed on the lower deck beneath their bases. By this arrangement the turret-guns are carried at a height of about 16 feet above the water. The high freeboard of the vessel has been adopted in order to ensure this great height of the guns above the water, for, in consequence, the capability of the ship to fight in a sea-way has been largely increased.

Turning to the Captain (Pl. LX., fig. 2), we find an entirely different arrangement. The upper deck proper is only a few feet above water; the original intention was to have had a freeboard of 8 ft., but this has been decreased to about 6 ft., by causes which will be hereafter referred to. The hull is armoured throughout the length to the height of the upper deck; and the lower edge of the armour was intended to be about 5 ft. below water. The turrets stand upon the lower deck, and project about 6 ft. above the upper deck, the height of the turretports above water being actually about 8 ft. only, instead of the originally intended height of 10 ft. This statement makes it evident that in fighting power in a sea-way the Captain must prove inferior to the Monarch, as her ports have only about half the elevation above the sea, whatever the relative capabilities of the two vessels may be in other respects. The most important feature in the Captain remaining to be noticed in this general view, is the "flying deck," which extends from the poop to the fore-castle at a height of about 11 ft. above the upper deck, and to which access is obtained by means of a large deck-house, or casing, placed between the turrets. This

MONARCH AND

deck is about 25 ft. wide, and on it are placed the bitts and other gear usually fixed on the upper deck of a sailing ship. In fact, the working of the ship will be conducted from this deck; and on it will be stowed the boats, spare spars, and gear usually carried on the upper deck. The Monarch, as has been said, has a complete upper deck of the usual kind; and the principal difference between her and broadside ships is, that the boats are carried on a small flying deck, extending from the foremast to the main-mast, in order to leave the deck free for the fire of the turret-guns, while the shrouds are arranged in an unusual manner for the same purpose. The Captain has tripods in the place of lower masts and shrouds.

Passing on from this general description, it will be proper to compare more closely the dimensions and other particulars of the two ships. The Monarch is 330 ft. long, 57 ft. broad, and has a deep-load draught of about 244 ft.; her burden being 5,099 tons. The Captain is 320 ft. long, 531 ft. broad, and has a burden of 4,272 tons; her mean draught of water, when fully equipped, was intended to be 23 ft., but it will really be more than 25 ft. When tried on the measured mile recently, her actual draught exceeded the estimated load draught by 22 in., and as she then was only in the condition of a ship stored for a complement of 400 men and officers, while her actual complement is to be 500, she is likely to sink several inches more, thus decreasing her freeboard still further. This miscalculation is very greatly to be regretted, as it is a serious feature, inasmuch as it reduces the ship's fighting capabilities, and makes the work of propulsion so much the heavier. The causes of this increased immersion have been mainly due, without doubt, to the attempt to do more on the dimensions than could be done in combination with such structural arrangements as have been adopted on the hull; and as the result, we have the actual weight of the ship exceeding the estimated weight by not less than 800 or 900 tons-something near one-ninth or one-tenth of the total weight of the ship. We have heard more than once of the greater results obtained in the Captain, on smaller dimensions, as compared with the Monarch; but it should be remembered, that though the tonnage of the Captain is 800 tons less than that of the Monarch, her load-displacement is only about 400 or 500 tons less, and her mean draught of water about a foot more.

Keeping these facts in view, let us pass on to notice the armour and armaments of the two vessels. The Monarch's broadside is protected with 7-inch plates, 12-inch teak backing, and an inner skin of 14-inch iron, supported by strong vertical and longitudinal frames, or girders. The protection of the Captain is of about equal strength, except in the wake of the

turrets, where the side armour is increased to 8 inches instead of 7-inch, as in other parts. The turrets of both vessels are of nearly equal strength-namely, 8-inch plates-except at the ports, where 10-inch plates are used. This armour is supported by 10 or 11-inch backing, and 14-inch skin-plating in the Monarch, and 1-inch skin in the Captain. The low upper deck of the latter vessel, being exposed to injury from the depressed fire of an enemy, has also to be protected; and for this end is covered with 14-inch or 1-inch plating. The Monarch's upper deck obviously does not require similar protection, being so much higher. This condition also renders any jamming of the turrets much less probable in the Monarch than in the Captain.

The turret armaments of both ships are of equal power, and consist of four 25-ton 600-pounder rifled guns. But in both the range of the guns in a horizontal direction-that is, technically, their "arcs of training"-is limited. The original idea of a turret-ship was that she would possess "all-round fire"in other words, that her guns could be pointed at an enemy in any and every direction; but the necessity of protection from the weather or from the sea-in short, the fitting the turretships for ocean-going purposes, has induced modifications which very largely restrict this essential quality, and leave now but very little difference between the utmost extent of the horizontal range of the guns in turret and broadside ships. The poop and forecastle of the Captain, for example, prevent the turret-guns from being trained nearer to the fore and aft directions than angles of 23 degrees forward and 25 degrees aft. In the Monarch a similar limitation occurs. The latter ship, however, possesses absolute fore and aft fire in the 6-ton guns (115-pounders), carried as bow and stern chasers in the protected batteries previously referred to; while the Captain has no fore and aft fire from "protected guns "-a very important deficiency in an armoured ship-although she does carry two similar 6-ton guns on the forecastle and poop, which would be of service at long ranges. The "all-round" protected fire which the Monarch in this way possesses, and her greater capacity for fighting in a sea-way, obviously render her superior to the Captain in offensive powers; and although the Monarch may be slightly inferior to her competitor in the strength of some portions of the side-armour, she is, on the whole, a more efficient war-ship. She is, of course, larger and more costly; but she is also more commodious and more speedy, and these qualities are most important in fighting ships.

The Monarch is the fastest iron-clad yet built. She is driven by engines of 1,100 horse-power nominal, working up to about seven times, and on her measured mile trial made very nearly