Some plants have evolved flowers of extraordinary depth, a phenomenon which puzzled Darwin1. Darwin suggested that the evolution of deep flowers could be a response to a kind of 'race' with pollinating insects: the length of the tongues of pollinating insects could increase as a result of a general size increase, or because it increased their nectar foraging efficiency. As this occurred, plants with relatively shallow flowers could be disadvantaged since pollen transfer, which is effected by physical contact between the pollinator and the anthers or stigma of the plant, could be reduced when the insect tongue is long relative to flower depth. This could lead to the evolution of increasing flower depth which in turn could drive the evolution of a further increase in insect tongue length. Various predictions of Darwin's proposal were tested here for orchid species with deep flowers that are pollinated by moths. It was found that insects do indeed insert their probosces no further than necessary to obtain nectar; that an experimental reduction in flower depth reduces both the male and female components of fitness; and that in natural populations there is a correlation between flower depth and female fitness measured by fruit set. These results all support Darwin's hypothesis to explain the evolution of flower depth.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Darwin, C. On the Various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects (Murray, London, 1862).
Darwin, C. On the Origin of Species (Murray, London, 1859).
Rothschild, L. W. & Jordan, K. Novit. zool. 9 (suppl.), 1–972 (1903).
Nilsson, L. A., Jonsson, L., Rason, L. & Randrianjohany, E. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 26, 1–19 (1985).
Nilsson, L. A. Bot. Notiser 131, 35–51 (1978).
Miller, R. B. Evolution 35, 763–774 (1981).
Gregory, D. P. Aliso 5, 357–419 (1963–1964).
Nilsson, L. A. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 87, 325–350 (1983).
Nilsson, L. A., Jonsson, L., Ralison, L. & Randrianjohany, E. Biotropica 19, 310–318 (1987).
Nilsson, L. A. & Rabakonandrianina, E. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 97, 49–61 (1988).
Miller, R. B. S. West. Nat. 30, 69–76 (1985).
Inoue, K. J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo Univ. 13, 285–374 (1983).
Grant, V. & Grant, K. A. Bot. Gaz. 144, 280–284 (1983).
Grant, V. & Grant, K. A. Proc. natn Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 80, 1298–1299 (1983).
Grant, V. Bot. Gaz. 144, 439–449 (1983).
Darwin, C. On the Various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects 2nd edn (Murray, London, 1877).
Inoue, K. Pl. Spec. Biol. 1, 207–215 (1986).
Løjtnant, B. Feddes Rep. 89, 13–18 (1978).
Vogel, S. Blütenbiologische Typen als Elemente der Sippengliederung (Fischer, Jena, 1954).
About this article
Cite this article
Nilsson, L. The evolution of flowers with deep corolla tubes. Nature 334, 147–149 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1038/334147a0
How Are the Flower Structure and Nectar Composition of the Generalistic Orchid Neottia ovata Adapted to a Wide Range of Pollinators?
International Journal of Molecular Sciences (2021)
Comparative analysis of corolla tube development across three closely related Mimulus species with different pollination syndromes
Evolution & Development (2021)
Food Reward Chemistry Explains a Novel Pollinator Shift and Vestigialization of Long Floral Spurs in an Orchid
Current Biology (2021)
Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae (2020)
Are all butterflies equal? Population-wise proboscis length variation predicts flower choice in a butterfly
Animal Behaviour (2020)