Mary Lua Adelia Davis Treat - Tangled Traps

Tangled Traps

Darwin’s teacher and mentor at Cambridge, John Stevens Henslow, had a clear understanding of the morphology of Utricularia plants (Walters, 2001), but was perplexed by the working mechanics of their traps. Darwin fared no better with this botanical conundrum, wrongly concluding that animals entered the traps by forcing their heads through the slit-like orifice; their heads serving as a wedge. In a letter to Treat he informs her that this subject drove him ‘half-mad’ (Darwin correspondence 1876). Treat became ‘so deeply interested’ in this plant that ‘she scarcely took note of time’ and describes how ‘the small hours of the morning frequently found her absorbed in her work’ (Treat, 1875). Through long hours of observing the trapping sequence under her microscope she realised that the hairs around the entrance to the trap were sensitive and part of the process by which Utricularia traps opened, contributing new knowledge on the range of microscopic animal prey caught in these traps and the digestive processes they were subjected to. Treat concluded that ‘these little bladders are in truth like so many stomachs, digesting and assimilating animal food’ (Treat, 1875). Darwin was so impressed with Treat’s work on carnivorous plants that he referenced her, both within the main text and in footnotes, throughout his publication Insectivorous Plants (1875). One such reference states that:

‘Mrs Treat of New Jersey has been more successful than any other observer, and has often witnessed in the case of Utricularia clandestina the whole process’ (Darwin, 1875, page 408).

By making such public affirmations of Treat’s scientific work Darwin, as Gianquitto states, ‘takes Treat out of the home, privileges her skill as a professional person, and places her in a dialogue with a circle of established scientists’ (Gianquitto, 2003 p. 149-150). Gianquitto’s opinion is, however, not reflected by all writers discussing Treat’s scientific identity, Norwood, for example, considers Treat to be ‘much more Susan Cooper’s soul-mate than she was Darwin’s colleague’ (Norwood, 1993, p. 42). Rossiter echoes Norwood’s opinion of Treat as inhabiting predominantly domestic spaces, but notes that Treat’s work needs ‘further analysis’ (Rossiter, quoted in Gianquitto, 2003).

In the case of Treat’s correspondence with Darwin a recent increase in the availability of on-line databases has allowed for new research opportunities on their exchanges (see http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/) and relevant others. Previously Treat’s relationship to Darwin, was filled with what Canning terms, ‘blank spaces, small snapshots and silences’ (Canning, 2005 p. 61). Perhaps Rossiter’s call for ‘further analysis’ can now be answered and further evidence of Treat as ‘Darwin’s colleague’ forthcoming.