ay
+ ome > eo & th
pa *
Se ae eR ae ee
= —_
jactil anton cae AES Wea
i i
f £ a : «
:
3
‘ Fi
H
i
‘
ee,
f
im ‘ 4° PY Ee
aay
ox es a hd 19 oP” ra Kk
Pye i
iste: \ 7 v ; u ia
Cys
Din IM:
ri) ,
oe arene? ef Tipancsh: Ba ar Pdi ee ed i tag TON
2OU RN AL
OF THE
ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY
EDITED BY THE
REY. W.) WILKS; M.A.
SECRETARY
Mi OL Re
bybrid Conference Report
1900
LONDON Printed for the Royal ‘horticultural Socicty BY
SPOTTISWOODE & CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE, E.C.
Fie. 124.—Lmuio-Carrreya Apuroprre Ruts. (Journal of Horticulture.
(CarrneyA Mrenpreni x L&x1A PURPURATA.,)
4 LY Ae
wy
AI cal aM
? NEW Yorn BOTANICAL
VAR DEM: a Ceernt Ss OF VOL. “XXIV.
HYBRID CONFERENCE REPORT.
ARRANGEMENTS OF THE CONFERENCE ........... pobrgsseanEecen Aoeee Aabtaiaisarstenseies sonsec PRINCIPAL PLANTS EXHIBITED .................. SoA CoceaCteneee PRA CPR AD AU DLS OROCEECE Rides bored PAU secu TN EIT NGA Tea OTIS WIC Kan eeiiert-ielaeelosialsleiedleledaieiteie aie ocltelsolnismia es sleciisasisrasels(nsiesie coe THE Banquet at THE HOTEL METROPOLE ........... {qobnogadaacaese Mende ssaaeeacoaredas Inrropuctory Appress. By Dr. M. T. Masters, F.R.S. ........eceeeeee seBAeE conc ae Hypripisation As A Mernop or Screntiric Investicarion. By Mr. W.
SATE ONG VEGAN 9H EUsSen csivca's dis tan cieistiasiainiecnes Des Star ietalclatte sls wets ive sisiers actstia'desieras als FERTILISATION oF ANTHURIUM. By Monsieur DE La DEVANSAYE ......... sndonose noe Hysrivisinc Monsrrosrries. By Professor HUGO DE VRIES............-0eceeeeeree ees HYBRIDISATION AND ITs Famures. By the Rev. Professor Grorce HeEnstow,
ish, OS aE ee Ae a a Pe een avaec wei tcaaeiineicesisdescciseriaasena + Socodeonnd EXPERIMENTS IN Hysripisation. By Mr. C. C. Hurst, F.L.S. ........... Spagducoor THe Untrep Srares DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND Hysripisation. By
Mrs HERBERT J.) WEBBER c.cceco.decdsccecoseeccusersseued eeeatases cochne debnOBDDeS THE SrrucTtURE oF soME NEW Hyprips. By, Mr. Joun H. Winson, D.S8ce.,
MEET Se anes cto e'- aeeng fa lee gets sin cnieicetoitaids s SyERCI A+ oe pose aCs Bestaerantlncene steamers HYBRIDISATION AND Systematic Borany. By Mr. R. Auuen Roure, A.L.S. ...... HYBRIDISATION IN THE UNITED States. By Professor L..H. Barney ............... On Setr-srermity. By Professor Dr. Lupwia ............ dob a500c BOSS Palesaae Ssachoce CROSSINGS MADE Av THE Natruran History Museum ar Paris. By Monsieur
ESELENRY: fe. e.c.00%'- SophOCHnEOonncagsceHCnoTOhecceboos Andon daEnoBananeposode spcreisiete's cise sc SeeGeAnt FiveRmDs. By Monsieur: TH. JOUIN- .......cccccecscecetacseccccscscecseceane “0 On Hysrip Drosera. By Professor J. MurrHeap MacFaruann, D.Se. ..........05 Kucatyptus Hyprips. By Dr. Trapur ................ sbatlodbe Seo ochuacneaee Eanes Sao0toc ON THE INFLUENCE OF EITHER PaRENT. By Dr. L. WITTMACK ........0ceeceeeeeees A Frew Genera Principtes. By Herr Max Letcurui......... sobocSt spn SOC HeBCRDOCEE BREEDING Foop Puants. By Professor WILLET M. HAys ......cssccecseceeecenees - On THE Use or Transparent Paper Baas. By Professor Huco pe Vries ...... Hysrip Crnzrarias. By Mr. R. Irwin Lynch ............ccceeeee danaicejemsecaemes cassis Arrempr To Improye Crocus sativus. By Monsieur Paut CHAPPELLIER ......... Hysrip Dioscornra. By Monsieur CHAPPELLIER ............sscsceeeeneeeeeees Sehognnoehee Hysprip Mrrasitis. By Monsieur CHAPPELLIER .......0.cccseceeesscuenceceneeeeeesenees IvproveMeNT oF Harpy Prants py Hysripisinc. By Dr. Coartes Stuarr...... man, Hyspins. “By Mei i Drumry, BeliS), VeMiE. .2.1....cc0ncecesscenscreeeee ‘
Fern Hysrivs. By Mr. H. B. May .
146 181 209 214
218 237 241 250 252 256 257 266 269 275 278 279 280 288° 298
ll CONTENTS.
Hysrip Linacs. By Monsieur BE. LEMoIne ...............6.. cece Y
Hysrip Ciematis. By Monsieur F. Moren....... Sanevieawelisore Janta ate eee eke
Hyprip Crematis. By Mr. A. G. JAcKMAN ..............- SHAOI0C ANTHURIUM SCHERZERIANUM. By Monsieur Dvvat ....
Brometriaps. By Monsieur Dtvat ........ Beets miele cits Ach seiete sot sa ais ceaSeenene Rete GUOXINIAS: By MonsicUrMDUVAL, 0.5. 0:.0c0cccccrcescoreecsescees Soaeisicdines tees see ance NorEs on some Hysrips. By Mr. ToHomas MEEHAN ................06- SAUD, = CHRYSANTHE MUMS egy ANU eels WV) DK SmR cic is weiss scriels cise ccieneced vasecees aaaieckeeeee cee Fucusias. By Mr. James Lyr........... euan couse :
Nores on some Hyprips. By Mr. W. SuyrHe ..... cies Riottnck Coan oe coe ReRe Notices To FELnows....... Spice ences Prasastes on ae INDEX? Sacto. coca sen EM a erate sitisiiire cisiaciacian sole anctmeaiet
ADVERTISEMENTS.
315 323 326 337 339 341 343 344 B47
at)
JOURNAL
OF THE
RoYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
Vou. XXIV. 1900.
HYBRID CONFERENCE REPORT.
Tue Council of the Society having decided in the Autumn of 1898 to hold a Conference on Hybridisation in July 1899, the following Schedule was drawn up and issued in January 1899. It is reprinted here in full, as being of some historical interest, and also because it may prove suggestive for any future similar meetings :—
Roval Hortic
[fural Societn.
Banat, Soe NS Incorporated
ne
Established
A.D. 1804. SPE: we A.D. 1809. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE. LSOoo:
Tuesday, July I1th, at Chiswick, Wednesday, July 12th, in London. On Hybridisation (the Cross-Breeding of Species) and on the Cross-Breeding of Varieties.
COMMITTEE OF ARRANGEMENT.
F. W. BursipGe, M.A., V.M.H. F. G. Luoyp, F.R.H.S.
Srr Winuiam THIsELToN-DyeEr, Maxwett T. Masters, M.D., K.C.M.G., F.R.S. F.R.S.
JAMES Douguas, V.M.H. T. J. BENNETT-Po#, F.R.H.S.
Rev. G. H. En@neneart, M.A. | CuarnEs E. Sua, F.R.H.S.
Rev. ProressorG. Henstow, M.A.,| Harry J. Verroen, F.L.8.
V.M.H. Rey. Wivu1am Wiss, M.A., Sec. JAMES Hupson, V.M.H. R.H.S.
B
2 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
Nove.
All plant-growers, whether amateurs or nurserymen, are particularly requested to exhibit Hybrid or Cross-bred Plants (whether in bloom or not), with their parents, at the meeting of the Conference at Chiswick on Tuesday, July 11. All plants should arrive at the Society’s Gardens at Chiswick at or before 11.30 A.m., and may be removed at 5 p.m.
The ordinary Committees of the Society will meet at Chiswick on Tuesday, July 11, at 12 punctually, and plants, &c., for Certificate will be placed before them as at the usual meetings in the Drill Hall, but with the exception of plants, &c., for certificate, and hybrids and their parents, no other plants, &c., may be exhibited on this day.
TUESDAY, Juny 11TH (Cutswick). Cass 1. New and Rare Plants and Flowers. Open . . Certificates. 2. New and Rare Fruits and Vegetables. Open . . Certificates. Any New or Rare Plants, &c., may be shown for Certificate exactly in the same way as at the Drill Hall.
N.B.—The Exhibition of Hybrid and Cross-bred Plants, whether in blossom or not, is specially requested, with their parents if possible, and a written account of the origin of the Hybrid; but with the exception of Plants, &c., shown for Certificate, none but such specially indicated plants may be shown. No Groups or Miscellaneous Exhibits. Other Awards will be given to Exhibits of Hybrids, but the following are specifically offered :-—
3. A Veitch Memorial Medal to the raiser of the best new Fruit intentionally raised by cross-breeding or hybridisation in Great Britain, and never previously exhibited.
4. A Veitch Memorial Medal to the raiser of the best new FLOWER (Orchids excluded) intentionally raised by cross-breeding or hybridisation in Great Britain, and never previously exhibited.
. A Veitch Memorial Medal to the raiser of the best new Orcuip intentionally raised by cross-breeding or hybridisation in Great Britain, and never previously exhibited.
6. A Veitch Memorial Medal to the raiser of the best new VEGETABLE intentionally raised by cross-breeding or hybridisation in Great Britain, and never previously exhibited.
7. A Veitch Memorial Medal to the raiser of the best new Fruir intentionally raised by cross-breeding or hybridisation out of Great Britain, and never previously exhibited.
s, A Veitch Memorial Medal to the raiser of the best new Frowrr (Orchids excluded) intentionally raised by cross-breeding or hybridisation out of Great Britain, and never previously exhibited.
9, A Veitch Memorial Medal to the raiser of the best new OrcHrD intentionally raised by cross-breeding or hybridisation out of Great Britain, and never previously exhibited.
10. A Veitch Memorial Medal to the raiser of the best new VeGETABLE intentionally raised by cross-breeding or hybridisation out of Great Britain, and never previously exhibited.
Or
oe
HYBRID CONFERENCE REPORT. 3
The above Medals will only be awarded should the exhibits be con- sidered sufficiently meritorious, and the result of intentional, not accidental, cross-fertilisation.
Exhibitors must give Fruit details in writing as to parentage, and record any other points which may assist the Judges.
11. A Williams Memorial Medal to the best collection of Hybrid and Cross-bred PuaNnts.
MEETINGS.
12 noon. Fruit, Floral, and Orchid Committees meet.
12.45. The President of the Society, Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., V.M.H., will receive the invited Members of the Conference.
1 P.M. Luncheon.
2.15 p.m. Conference on Hybridisation and Cross-breeding.
5.0 P.M. Conference adjourns.
6.0 for 6.30 p.m. The Foreign Members of the Conference will be entertained at dinner on the kind invitation of the Horti- cultural Club, under the presidency of Sir John D. T.
' Llewelyn, Bart., M.P., at the Hotel Windsor, Victoria
Street. Morning Dress.
WEDNESDAY, Juty 12TH (Westminster Town Hatz). MEETINGS.
2.0 p.m, Conference continued at Westminster Town Hall.
5.0 p.m. Conference concludes.
6.30 p.m. Reception of Guests by the President of the Society and ( Lady Lawrence at the Whitehall Rooms, Hotel | Métropole.
7.0 p.m. Banquet of the Society. Evening Dress. All Fellows can, as far as space will permit, obtain tickets (price 21s. each) for ladies or gentlemen, by applying (with cheque or postal order) to the Secretary, 117 Victoria Street, before July 5th.
The following arrangements are subject to alteration :—
TUESDAY, Juty 117TH, at CuHiswick, at 2.15 p.m.
1. Introductory observations. Maxwell Masters, M.D., F.R.S., London, Chairman. 2. Hybridisation and Cross-breeding asa Method of Scientific In- vestigation. W. Bateson, Esq., M.A., F. R.S., Cambridge University. 3. Hybridisation as a means af Pingenetic Infection. Professor Hugo de Vries, Amsterdam University. 4. Hybridisation and its Failures. The Rev. Professor Geo. Henslow, M.A., V.M.H., London. 5. Progress of Hybridisation in the United States of America. Professor L. H. Bailey, Cornell University, Ithaca, U.S.A. 6. Experiments in Hybridisation and Cross-breeding. C. C. Hurst, Esq., F.R.H.S., F.L.S., Burbage, Hinckley.
B 2
4 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
WEDNESDAY, Juty 127TH, at THE Town Hatt, WESTMINSTER, AT 2.15 P.M. E . Introductory observations. Sir Michael Foster, K.C.B., Sec. R.S., Charrman. 2. Work of the United States Depatemcnl of Agriculture in Plant Hybridisation ; with Lantern Demonstration. Herbert J. Webber, Esq., Washington, U.S.A.; Special Envoy from the United States Department of Agriculture. 8. The structure of certain New Hybrids (Passiflora, Albuca, Ribes, Begonia, &c.); with Lantern Demonstration. Dr. J. H. Wilson, F.R.S.E., St. Andrews University, Scotland. 4. Hybridisation viewed from the standpoint of Systematic Botany. R. Allen Rolfe, Esq., The Royal Gardens, Kew. . Hybrid Poppies.
Monsieur Henry de Vilmorin, F.R.H.S., Verrieres, France. 6. Self-fertilisation of Plants.
Monsieur Lemoine, F'.R.H.S., Nancy, France.
. Hybrid and Cross-bred Fruits.
Luther Burbank, Esq., San Rosa, California, U.S.A.
T. Francis Rivers, Ksq., V.M.H., Sawbridgeworth.
8. Hybrid or Cross-bred Irises, Begonias, Chrysanthemums, Cinerarias,
Rhododendrons, Clematis, Fuchsias, Violas, Gladiolus, &e.
Sir Michael Foster, K.C.B., Sec. R.S., Monsieur Crozy, Messrs. J. Laing, V.M.H., Chas. E. Shea, W. J. James, F. G. Waterer, Harry J. Veitch, A. G. Jackman, J. Lye, G. Yeld, J. Heal, V.M.H., Monsieur V. Lemoine, and Dr. Stuart have been invited to supply short papers on these subjects.
Papers have already been promised by Monsieur Duval on Gesneriacez, Anthurium, and Bromeliacee ; by Dr. Stuart, on Violas, &c.; by Mr. A. G. Jackman, on Clematis; by Mr. Charles T. Druery, V.M.H., on Ferns ; by Monsieur Truffaut, on Bromelias; by Monsieur de la Devansaye, on Anthuriums; by Mr. James Lye, on Fuchsias ; by Mr. William Smythe, on Cross-breeding; by Professor Ludwig, on Self-fertilisation ; by Mr. T. Meehan, on Hybrids; by Heer Krelage; and by Mr. George Paul, WeNinels”* pé,
The writers of Papers are requested to give all the information possible ; and those who are able to be present in person are requested to give an epitome of their arguments, or to mark off portions of their Papers which can be read within a limit of from 20 to 30 minutes.
The final selection of the Papers to be read at the Meetings and their order must be determined at the time, and will be left to the discretion of the Chairman and Committee ; but all the Papers will be printed in full in the Society’s official report of the Conference.
All MSS. in a foreign language should be sent to the Secretary at least 10 days before the Conference that they may be translated in readiness.
Amateurs, Nurserymen, and Gardeners are requested to send exhibits of True Hybrids, and of any plants known to be of ecross-bred origin ; also of Graft Hybrids; for exhibition at Chiswick on 11th.
—"
On
~1
HYBRID CONFERENCE REPORT. 5
In order that accurate results may be arrived at, and to facilitate com- parisons and deductions, a card (as shown) will be supplied to all exhibitors on application, which it is requested may be carefully filled up with all the necessary details. When either the seed or pollen Parents, or both, are themselves cross-bred, it is particularly requested that the pedigree may be given through as many generations of ancestors as possible. Exhibitors are most earnestly requested to apply for their cards beforehand, and to fill them up accurately and legibly. Each separate plant should be entered on a separate card so as to avoid con- fusion—only one plant on one card.
Anyone who will be so kind as to send plants or cuttings of Hybrids to be grown at Chiswick in readiness for the Conference will receive the best thanks of the Council.
SPECIMEN OF CARD (Reduced).
HYBRID OR CROSS-BRED PLANT.
Raised by Mr. ........ BeReeg es seen ces’ BUCLOUECSSecabe eee cious eee <a cans ren ene Ae Merhibited Of Mr 8.2. ccec..+<.20sacteees AIMATESS Sy sencdatchtes Mntkuee AToten occ Date of Cross NR tee oh aks at
Name of Hybrid Female or Seed | Male or Pollen Ancestral
or Cross-bred. Parent. | Parent. Pedigree.
| |
Remarks on Variation, Size, Form, Colour, &c. :—
The Conference will open at Chiswick on Tuesday, July 11, at 12.45 p.m., when the guests of the Society will be received by the President, Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., V.M.H. Luncheon will take place at 1 p.M., after which the Conference will assemble for business at 2.15 p.m. and sit until 5 p.m.
On Tuesday, July 11, by the kind invitation of the Horticultural
6 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
Club, the foreign members of the Conference will be entertained at dinner at 6 for 6.80 p.m., under the presidency of Sir John D. T. Llewelyn, Bart., M.P., at the Hotel Windsor, Victoria Street, S.W. Morning dress.
On Wednesday, July 12, the Conference will re-assemble in the West- minster Town Hall, Caxton Street, Victoria Street, at 2 p.m. The Con- ference will close at 5 p.m.; after which the Society’s distinguished foreign guests will be entertained at a banquet at the Whitehall Rooms of the Hotel Métropole at 7 p.m., under the Chairmanship of Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bari., President of the Society. Reception of guests by Sir Trevor and Lady Lawrence at 6.30 punctually. Fellows wishing for tickets for the banquet (price 21s. each) for ladies or gentlemen should apply to the Secretary before July 5.
All persons interested in hybridisation or in cross-breeding are requested to assist by every means in their power, and are invited to send written information in the form of short notes for publication in the Report of the Conference to the Secretary, Rev. W. Wilks, 117 Victoria Street, Westminster.
All interested are invited, but special invitation has been sent to the following well-known hybridists and botanists ; and apology is tendered to any whose names have been accidentally omitted :—
Bailey, Professor L. H., Cornell University, Ithaca, U.S.A. Baker, Mr. W., The Botanic Gardens, Oxford. Balfour, Professor J. Bailey, F'.R.S., V.M.H., The Botanic Gardens,
Edinburgh.
Bateson, Mr. W. M. A., F.R.S., Cambridge.
Beale, Mr. E. J., V.M.H., Teddington.
Bean, Mr. W. J., Kew Road, Richmond.
Benary, Herr F., Erfurt.
Bennett, Mr. Alfred, Cobham, Surrey.
Bennett-Poé, Mr. John P., Ashley Place, Westminster.
Bleu, Monsieur A., Avenue d’Italie, Paris.
Bonayia, Dr. E., Worthing.
Bunyard, Mr. G., V.M.H., Maidstone.
Burbank, Mr. Luther, San José, California, U.S.A.
3urbidge, Mr. F. W., M.A., V.M.H., The Botanic Gardens, Trinity College, Dublin.
Calvat, Monsieur E., Grenoble,
Chamberlain, The Rt. Hon. Joseph, M.P., Birmingham.
Chappellier, Monsieur P., Faubourg Poissonniére, Paris.
Cookson, Mr. Norman, Wylam-on-T'yne.
Cornu, Professor Maxime, Jardin des Plantes, Paris.
Crozy, Monsieur M., Rue de la Guilloti¢re, Lyons.
Culverwell, Mr. W., Thorpe-Perrow, Yorks.
De Kerchove, Count Oswald, Biervelde, Ghent.
De Graaff, Herr Simon, Leyden.
De la Devansaye, Monsieur A., Noyant, Maine-et-Loire.
De Vries, Professor Hugo, The University, Amsterdam.
De Vilmorin, Monsieur Henry, Verricres-le-Buisson.
De Vilmorin, Monsieur Maurice, Quai d’Orsay, Paris.
HYBRID CONFERENCE REPORT.
Dewar, Mr. Daniel, Botanic Gardens, Glasgow.
Dickson, Mr. Alex., Newtownards, Ireland.
D’Ombrain, Rev. H. H., M.A., V.M.H., Westwell, Kent.
Douglas, Mr. James, V.M.H., Great Bookham, Surrey.
Druery, Mr. C. T., V.M.H., Acton.
Duval, Monsieur F., Rue de l’Hermitage, Versailles.
Kckford, Mr. H., Wem, Salop.
Elwes, Mr. H. J., F.R.S., V.M.H., Colesbourne, Gloucester. Engleheart, Rev. G. H., M.A., Appleshaw, Andover.
Fairchild, Mr. D. G., Agricultural Department, Washington, U.S.A.
Farmer, Professor M. A., Royal College of Science, South Kensington.
Focke, Dr. W. O., The University, Bremen.
Foster, Sir Michael, K.C.B., Sec. R.S., V.M.H., Cambridge. Frobel, Herr Otto, Ziirich. Girdlestone, Mr. T. W., M.A., Sunningdale, Berks.
Hays, Professor Willett M., The University, Minnesota, U.S.A. Heale, Mr. John, V.M.H., Chelsea.
Henriques, Professor, Coimbra, Portugal.
Henry, Monsieur L., Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. Henslow, Rev. Professor G., M.A., V.M.H., London.
Hooker, Sir J. D., F.R.S., V.M.H., Sunningdale, Berks. Horner, Rev. F. D., M.A., V.M.H., Burton-in- Lonsdale. Hudson, Mr. James, V.M.H., Gunnersbury.
Hurst, Mr. C. C., F.L.8., Burbage, Hinckley.
Jackman, Mr. A. G., Woking.
James, Mr. W. J., Farnham Royal.
Jouin, Monsieur E., Bronvaux, Metz.
Ker, Mr. R. Wilson, Liverpool.
Krelage, Herr E. H., Haarlem.
Laing, Mr. John, V.M.H., Forest Hill, Kent. Latour-Marliac, Monsieur R., Temple-sur-Lot.
Lawrence, Sir Trevor, Bart., V.M.H., Burford, Dorking. Laxton, Mr. W., Bedford.
Leichtlin, Herr Max, Baden-Baden.
Lemoine, Monsieur V., Nancy.
Lindsay, Mr. R., Murrayfield, Midlothian.
Llewelyn, Sir J. D. T., Bart., M.P., Swansea.
Lloyd, Mr. F. G., Langley, Slough.
Lowe, Mr. E. J., F.R.S., Shirenewton, Monmouth.
Ludwig, Professor I’., The University, Greitz.
Lye, Mr. James, Easterton, Market Lavington.
Lynch, Mr. R. Irwin, The Botanic Gardens, Cambridge. Macfarlane, Dr. J. M., The University, Philadelphia, U.S.A. Maron, Monsieur C., Rue Montgeron, Brunoy, Seine-et-Oise. Martin, Mr. J., Reading.
Masters, Dr. Maxwell T., F.R.S., London.
May, Mr. H. B., Edmonton.
Meehan, Mr. T., Germantown, Philadelphia, U.S.A.
Micheli, Monsieur Mark, Chateau du Crest, Jussy, Geneva. Moore, Mr. F. W., V.M.H., The Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, Dublin.
8 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
Morel, Monsieur F’., Rue de Souvenir, Lyon-Vaise.
Moser, Monsieur J. J., Rue S. Symphorien, Versailles.
Naudin, Monsieur Charles, Antibes.
Nicholson, Mr. George, V.M.H., Royal Gardens, Kew.
O’Brien, Mr. James, V.M.H., Harrow.
Paul, Mr. George, V.M.H., Cheshunt.
Paul, Mr. William, V.M.H., Waltham Cross.
Pearson, Mr. A. H., Nottingham.
Pearson, Mr. C., Chilwell, Notts.
Penzance, the Right Hon. Lord, Esher.
Perby, Miss D. F. M., Cambridge.
Pfitzer, Herr W., Stuttgart.
Pynaert, Herr E., Ghent.
Rivers, Mr. T. Francis, V.M.H., Sawbridgeworth.
Robinson, Mr. W., Gravetye, Sussex.
Rolfe, Mr. R. Allan, The Herbarium, Kew.
Salter, Mr. C. J., Woodhatch, Reigate.
Sander, Mr. F., V.M.H., St. Albans.
Sargent, Professor C. §., The Arnold Arboretum, Mass., U.S.A.
Saunders, Miss E. R., Cambridge.
Schmidt, Herr Carl, Erfurt.
Seden, Mr. John, V.M.H., Chelsea.
Scott, Dr. D. H., M.A., F.R.S., Richmond, Surrey.
Shea, Mr. Charles E., Foot’s Cray, Kent.
Simonite, Mr. Ben., Sheffield.
Smith, Mr. Martin R., V.M.H., Hayes, Kent.
Smith, Mr. Thomas, Newry, Ireland.
Smythe, Mr. W., Basing Park, Alton.
Strickland, Sir Charles, Bart., Hildenley, Yorks.
Stuart, Dr. Charles, Chirnside, N.B.
Sutton, Mr. Arthur W., F.L.S., V.M.H., Reading.
Swingle, Mr. W. T., Department of Agriculture, Washington, U.S.A.
Thiselton-Dyer, Sir William T., K.C.M.G., F.R.S., The Royal Gardens, Kew.
Trabut, Dr., Rue Desfontaines, Algiers.
Truffaut, Monsieur Georges, Avenue de Picardie, Versailles.
Veitch, Mr. Harry J., Kast Burnham Park, Slough.
Ward, Professor Marshall, F.R.S., Botanic Laboratory, Cambridge.
Waterer, Mr. F. G., Bagshot.
Watson, Mr. William, Royal Gardens, Kew.
Webber, Mr. Herbert J., Department of Agriculture, Washington, U.S.A.
Weeks, Mr. H., Thrumpton, Derby. ;
Whitton, Mr. J.
Wilks, Rev. W., M.A., Sec. R.H.S., Shirley, Surrey.
Wilson, Mr. G. F., V.M.H., F.R.S., Weybridge.
Wilson, Dr. J. H., The University, St. Andrews, N.B.
Wittmack, Professor L., The University, Berlin.
Wolley-Dod, Rev. C., M.A., V.M.H., Edge Hall, Malpas.
Yeld, Mr. George, M.A., York.
HYBRID CONFERENCE REPORT. 9
The Conference, it will be noticed, was preceded by one of the ordinary fortnightly meetings of the Society’s Fruit, Floral, and Orchid Commit- tees, held in the Great Vinery, for the details of which the reader is referred to the Society’s Journal, vol. xxiii., pages evi, cxxix, and clii.
A special exhibition of Hybrid Plants and their parents was held in the Great Vinery. The Awards made by the Council, together with a list of the more noticeable plants, are appended.
AWARDS MADE BY THE COUNCIL.
Gold Flora Medal. To Messrs. James Veitch, of Chelsea, for Hybrid Orchids, Nepenthes, Saracenias, Rhododendrons, Ferns, Begonias, and Graft-hybrids.
Gold Medal. To Monsieur Duval, of Versailles, for Hybrid Vriesias and Tillandsias. To Monsieur Maron, of Brunoy, for Hybrid Orchids. To Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., Burford Lodge, for Hybrid Orchids. To Leopold de Rothschild, Esq., Gunnersbury House, for Hybrid Water-lilies. To Messrs. H. B. May, of Edmonton, for Hybrid Ferns.
Silver-gilt Flora Medal. To The Royal Gardens, Kew, for Kalanchoé flammea. To Monsieur Morel, of Lyons, for Hybrid Clematis. To Messrs. Jackman, of Woking, for Hybrid Clematis.
Silver-gilt Banksian Medal. To C. T. Druery, Esq., V.M.H., Acton, for Hybrid Ferns.
Silver Banksian Medal. To Professor Macfarlane, of Philadelphia, for a Hybrid Drosera. To Herr Van Tubergen, of Haarlem, for Hybrid Lilies. To Dr. Wilson, of St. Andrews, for Hybrid Passion-flowers, &c. To Sir Frederick Wigan, Bart., East Sheen, for Hybrid Orchids. To de Barri Crawshay, Esq., of Sevenoaks, for Hybrid Orchids.
- To Messrs. Wallace, Colchester, for Hybrid Lilies.
To Messrs. Paul & Son, Cheshunt, for Hybrid Roses.
Other Awards. Veitch Memorial Medal. To Monsieur Duval, of Versailles (Class No. 6), for Bromeliads.
Williams Memorial Medal. To Leopold de Rothschild, Esq. (Class No. 9), for Nympheas.
First-class Certificate.
To Kalanchoé flammea, from the Royal Gardens, Kew. This new and strikingly beautiful plant from Somaliland is closely allied to the Crassulas. The flowers are of a bright red-orange, and continue a remarkably long time in bloom. The plant is about a foot or 15 in. high, stout, erect, branching, with thick fleshy leaves only slightly glaucous. It will probably require the same treatment as the Crassulas. (Fig. 1.)
Fic. 1.—KAuLANCHOE FLAMMEA.
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED. 11
LIST OF THE
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED
ORCHIDS CATTLEYA.
C. BreautiaAna=C. Loddigesu? x C. superbagd. Raised by Mons. Maron, Brunoy, Paris; exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart.
C. Gaupu=C. guttata Leopold? x C. Loddigesig. Raised and exhibited by Mons. Maron. Crossed, April 11, 1894. Does not vary much.
C. puncTULATA=C. Aclandi@ 2 x C. intermedia albag. Raised and exhibited by Mons. Maron. Crossed, January 21, 1895.
C. ‘Eno ’=C. Mossie? x C. Warscewicziié. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch.
CYPRIPEDIUM
C. ‘Aurrep Hontineton’=C. ciliolareg xC. levigatumg. Ex- hibited by Messrs. Hugh Low, Bush Hill Park, Middlesex.
C. ‘ AnicE’=C. Stonei? x C. Spicerianum g. Raised by Mr. Drewett, Riding Mill; exhibited by Messrs. James Veitch, 544 King’s Road, Chelsea, and by Messrs. Low. Form, nearer the seed parent; colour, intermediate; habit, nearer the pollen parent.
C. AsHBuRToNIa=C. barbatum? xC. insignegd. Raised by Mr. Cross, Melchet Court; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, form, and colour, intermediate ; habit, nearer the pollen parent.
C. ‘ Curip’=C. cardinaleg xC. Lindleyanumé. Raised and ex- hibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, form, and colour, nearer the seed parent.
C. DomintanumM=C. caricinum 2 x C. caudatum g. Raised by Messrs. Veitch; exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., Burford.
C. Drurio-LawrenceanumM=C. Lawrenceanum 9 x C. Druryi g. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size and form, nearer the pollen parent; colour, intermediate; habit, nearer the seed parent.
C. ‘ Eueanor’=C. selligerwm majus 2 x C. superbiens 3 (C. selligerum majus=C. barbatum? xC. Philippinense¢). Raised by Mr. Drewitt ; exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart.
C. ‘EKuryate’=C. Lawrenceanum? x C. superbiens g. Raised by Messrs. Veitch ; exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., and by Messrs. Veitch. Nearer the seed parent.
C. Frasert=C. hirsutissimum@? x C. barbatum ¢. Raised by Messrs Veitch ; exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart.
12 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
C. PAnson1 GicantsuM=C. Morgane ¢ x C. Rothschildianum 8. Exhibited by Messrs. Low. . C. cranpE=C. longifolium Hartwegii? x C. caudatum $. Raised
Fia. 2.--CypRIPEDIUM GRANDE x.
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED. 13
and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, form, and colour, intermediate; habit, nearer the seed parent. (Fig. 2.)
C. HARRISIANUM SUPERBUM=C. villosum@ xX C. barbatwn%. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. This sprang from the same seed-capsule as C. Harrisianum, but its flowers are much larger and more richly coloured.
CO. LAWRENCEANUM-MAsTERSIANO=C. Mastersianum? x C. Lawren- ceanumg. Exhibited by Messrs. Low.
C. LEUcoRHODUM=C. longifolium Hartwegug x C. Schlimii albi- florum%. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, form, and colour, intermediate; habit, nearer the seed parent.
C. MACROPTERUM = C. superbiens 9 x C. Loww &. Exhibited by Messrs. Low.
C. MARMOROPHYLLUM=C. Hookere 9 xC. barbatumg. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, form, and colour, inter- mediate ; habit, nearer the seed parent.
C. Mirmanur=C. Lawrenceanum 2 x C. levigatum $. Exhibited by Messrs. Low.
C. Moraanrm=C. Stoner? x C.superbiens g. Raised by Messrs. Veitch ; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch and by Messrs. Low. Size, larger than either parent; form and habit, nearer the pollen parent ; colour, intermediate.
C. orPHANUM=C. barbatum 2 or allied sp. x C. Druryi ¢. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Parentage, uncertain.
C. ‘ Perseus ’=C. Lindleyanum 2 x C. x Sedenit porphy- veum 3. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Entirely intermediate.
C. ‘ Pluto’ L=C. x politum 2 x C. Boxalli-atratum 3 (C. politum = C. venustum x C. barbatum). Raised by Mr. Reg. Young, Sefton Park, Liverpool; exhibited by Mr. C. C. Hurst Burbage, Hinckley. Crossed, 1891; sown, 1892. Habit and form of leaf, nearer pollen parent. Colour, nearer C. venustum.
C. ‘Puuro’ Il.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Nearer venustum in colour of leaves.
C. ‘Puuto’ III.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit, nearer the pollen parent. Colour of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and C. venustum.
C. ‘Puuto’ [V.=[Identical with Pluto I.}] Habit, nearer the pollen parent. Colour of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and C. barbatum.
C. ‘Pruro’ V.=jIdentical with Pluto I.] Form, nearer the pollen parent. Habit and colour of leaves, nearer C. venustum.
C. ‘Pruto’ VI.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit, nearer the pollen parent. Colour of leaves, nearer C. venustum.
C. ‘Pnuro’ VII.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit and colour of leaves, nearer the pollen parent; form, nearer C. barbatum.
C. ‘Puuto’ VIII.=(Identical with Pluto I.] Habit and form of
14
Q
C.
C
C.
C
C
C.
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
leaves, nearer the pollen parent; colour, derived from C. bar- batum and C. venustum. ‘i
. ‘Puuto’ IX.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit, derived from the pollen parent and C. venustum; colour of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and C. barbatum.
. ‘PLutTo’ X.= [Identical with Pluto I.| Habit, identical with C. Pluto IX.; form, derived from C. Boxalli and C. barbatum ; colour of leaves, derived from C. barbatum and C. venustum.
‘Puutro’ XI.=[Identical with Pluto I.}] Form of leaves, nearer C. barbatum; colour, derived from ©. barbatum and C. venustum.
. ‘Puuto’ XII.={Identical with -Pluto I.}] Habit and form of leaves, nearer the pollen parent; colour, derived from C. Boxalli and C. venustum.
. ‘Puuto’ XIII.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit, nearer C. venustum; form of leaves, nearer C. barbatum; colour of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and C. venustum.
. ‘Puuto’ XIV.=[lIdentical with Pluto I.] Habit and form of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and C. barbatum.
. ‘Puuto’ XV.={Identical with Pluto I.] Habit and colour of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and C. barbatum; form of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and C. venustum.
. ‘Pnuto’ XVI.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit, nearer C. barbatum ; colour and form of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and ©. barbatum.
‘ Pruro’ XVII.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit, nearer the pollen parent; form of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and C. barbatum; colour of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and C. venustum.
. ‘Puuro’ XVIII.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit, nearer C. venustum; form of leaves, nearer C. barbatum; colour of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and C. venustum.
. ‘Puuto’ XIX.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit, nearer C. barbatum ; form and colour of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and C. barbatum.
. ‘Pruro’ XX.==[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit and form of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and C. venustum.
. ‘PLuto’ XXI.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit, derived from C. Boxalli and C. barbatum; form and colour of leaves, nearer C. Boxalli.
. ‘Puutro’ XXII.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit and form of leaves, nearer ©. barbatum; colour of leaves, derived from C. Boxalli and C. barbatum.
‘Puuro’ XXIII.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit, derived from C. Boxalli and C. venustum ; form of leaves, nearer C. barbatum ; colour of leaves, nearer the pollen parent.
. ‘Pruro’ XXIV.=[Identical with Pluto I.] Habit, nearer
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED, 15
©. venustum ; form of leaves, nearer C. barbatum ; colour of leaves, derived from C. barbatum and C. venustum.
C. ponirum=C. barbatum x C. venustum. Raised by the late Mr. R. Warner, Broomfield, Chelmsford; exhibited by Mr. C. C. Hurst. Colour of leaves, nearer C. venustum.
C. SEDENIL CANDIDULUM=C. longifolium 2 x C. Schlimu albi- florumg. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size and colour, intermediate ; form, nearer the pollen parent ; habit, that of the seed parent.
C. SELLIGERUM MAJUS=C. barbatum@? x C. philippinenseS. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. From the same seed-capsule as C. selligerum, but a more robust plant with larger flowers of a brighter colour.
C. SUPERCILIARE=C. barbatum 2 x C. superbiens$. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, form, and colour, inter- mediate ; habit, nearer the pollen parent.
C. ‘T. W. Bonp’=C. Curtis 2 x C. hirsutissimumd. Exhibited by Messrs. Low.
C. VERNIXIUM=C. Argus 2 (spotted foliage) x C. villosumé (green foliage). Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size and colour, intermediate; form, that of pollen parent; foliage, ereen.
C. WARNHAMENSE=C. Curtisii 2 x C. philippinensed. Raised by Mr. Lucas, Warnham Court, Horsham ; exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart.
DENDROBIUM
D. rHopostoma=D. Hutton? xD. sangwinolentumg. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, small; form, nearer the seed parent ; colour, intermediate.
DISA
D. ‘Cui0o’=D. x Veitchii2 xD. grandiflorag. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch.
D. KEWENSIS=D. grandiflora 2 x D. tripetaloides 8. Raised by Mr. W. Watson, Royal Gardens, Kew; exhibited by the Royal Gardens, Kew, Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., and Messrs. Veitch. Size, form, and colour, intermediate.
D, LancLEyEnsIs=D. tripetaloides 2? x D. racemosag. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch.
D. VerrcHu=D. grandiflora? xD. racemosag. Raised and ex- hibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, form, and colour, inter- mediate.
EPIDENDRUM
EK, ELEGANTULUM=E#. x Eindresio- Wallisii? x E. Wallisiig. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size and form, intermediate; colour, very variable ; habit, nearer the pollen parent.
K. O’BrientanumM=E. evectum? x EH. radicansé. Raised and
16 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size and colour, intermediate ; form and habit, nearer the pollen parent.
E. RADICANTE-VITELLINUM=E. vitellinum? x E.radicans 6. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size and habit, inter- mediate ; form, that of seed parent; colour, nearer the seed parent.
EPIPHRONITIS E. Verrcnu=Sophronitis grandiflora x Epidendrum radicans é. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, somewhat larger than pollen parent; form, nearer the pollen parent ; colour and habit, intermediate. (Fig. 3.)
EPI-LZLIA B.-L. CHarnteswortai = Lelia cinnabarina 2 x Epidendrum radicans . Exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, near the pollen parent; form and habit, nearer the pollen parent ; colour, intermediate.
LALIA
L. ‘ Eurerrse ’=L. Dayana? xL. purpuratag. Raised by Messrs. Veitch -* exhibited by Sir Frederick Wigan, Bart., Hast Sheen.
L. NIGRESCENS=L. pumilaQ? xl. tenebrosag. Raised and ex- hibited by Mons. Maron. Does not vary much.
L. ‘Srenta’=L. crispa? x L. elegans Wolstenholme gs. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Flower, larger than either parent; growth, nearer the pollen parent ; form and colour, nearer the seed parent.
LAZLIO-CATTLEYA L.-C. ‘ApHropITE’ = Lelia purpurata 9 x Cattleya Mendelu 3. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, equal to pollen parent ; form and habit, nearer pollen parent.
L.-C. ‘BertHe Fournrer’=Lelia elegans? x Cattleya auread. Raised and exhibited by Mons. Maron. Crossed, July 16, 1891. All the plants obtained from this seed-pod differ inter se.
L.-C. caLLIsTOGLOssA=Lelia purpurata? x Cattleya Gigas imperi- alis$. Raised and exhibited by Mons. Maron. Seedling, March 10, 1893. Some extra good forms came out of this seedling.
L.-C. CANHAMIANA= Lelia purpurata? x Cattleya Mossied. Raised by Messrs. Veitch ; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch and by Sir F. Wigan, Bart. Size, form, and habit, those of seed parent ; colour, intermediate.
L.-C. CANHAMIANA ALBIDA= Cattleya Mossie 2 x Lelia purpuratad. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, form, and habit, those of seed parent ; colour, intermediate.
L.-C. DuvatianA=Lelia purpurata? x Cattleya speciosissima var. Luddemannianag. Raised and exhibited by Mons. Maron.
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED,
Fig. 3.—EpiIrpHRONITIS VEITCHII x.
~I
18 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
Crossed, July 7, 1894. The few plants which have bloomed at present all have the same intensely dark lip,
L.-C. ‘Eupora’=Lelia purpurata Schrodere 3 x Cattleya Men- dellig. Raised and exhibited by Mons. Maron. Crossed, March 5, 1892. Does not vary much in size and colour.
L.-C. ‘ KuporA’ sPLENDENS=Lelia purpurata? x Cattleya Men- delig. Raised by Mr. Ingram, Godalming; exhibited by Sir F, Wigan, Bart.
L.-C. Eximta=Lelia purpurata? x Cattleya labiata Warnerié. Raised by Messrs. Veitch; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch, Sir F. Wigan, Bart., and by W. P. Burkinshaw, Esq., Hessle, Hull. Size, equal to pollen parent ; form and habit, nearer the pollen parent.
L.-C. ‘Hiprotyta’ = Cattleya Mossieg? x Lelia cinnabarinaé. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, intermediate ; form and colour, nearer pollen parent; habit, nearer seed parent.
L.-C. INTERMEDIO FLAVA=Cattleya imntermediag x Lela flavad. Raised and exhibited by Mons. Maron. Crossed, March 5, 1894. Varies very much, especially in colour.
L.-C. Martineti=Cattleya Mossie 2 x Lelia tenebrosa ¢. Raised and exhibited by Mons. Maron. Crossed, April 20, 1895. A few plants gave a very different colour, and were mentioned in the Orchid Review under the name of L.-C. Martineti var. flavescens.
L.-C. Mosstz puRPURATA=Cattleya Mossie imperialis 2 x Lelia purpuratag. Raised and exhibited by Mons. Maron. Crossed, May 6, 1892. Some forms are superior to others, but all of them keep the transparent veins in the divisions.
L.-C. rapiata=Lelia purpurata 2 x Cattleya nobiliord. Raised and exhibited by Mons. Maron. Crossed, May 21, 1894. A little variation in the colour of the lip.
L.-C. SrpnzNERIANO-Harpyana (form, Henry Greenwood)= Lelia elegans Stelzneriana 2 x Cattleya Hardyana g. Raised and exhibited by Mons. Maron. Crossed, July 18, 1893. Does not vary much in size and form of the flower, but varies in the colour.
L.-C. ‘ ZepHyra ’=Cattleya Mendelli? x Lelia xanthina g. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size and colour, intermediate ; form, nearer the seed parent.
MASDEVALLIA M. ‘Asax’=WM. Chelsoniti 9 x M. Peristeria & (M. Chelsonii=M. Veitchiana x M. amabilis). Raised by Messrs. Veitch; ex- hibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart. M. GarriaAnA=WM, Veitchiana 9 x M. Davisii ¢. Raised and ex- hibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, form, and habit, nearer the pollen parent ; colour, intermediate,
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED. 19
M. Heatan=W. Vetichiana? x M. igneag. Raised by Miss Heath, Cheltenham ; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, intermediate ; form and colour, nearer the seed parent.
M. Hincxs1ana=WM. tovarensis 2 x M. ignea g. Raised by Captain Hincks, Thirsk, Yorkshire ; exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart.
M. ‘ImoaEen ’=WM. Schlumu 9 x M. Veitchiana g. Raised and ex- hibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size and form, nearer seed parent ; colour, intermediate ; habit of blooming, like seed parent more than one flower on a spike.
M. ParRLATOREANA=WM. Barleana 9 x M. Veitchii g. Raised by Messrs. Veitch; exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart.
ODONTOGLOSSUM
O. Cooxsonn, var. CRAwsHAYANUM =O. Hallii 9 x O. crispum hlacinumg. Raised and exhibited by de B. Crawshay, Esq., Rosefield, Sevenoaks. Crossed, June 21, 1894; seed sown, September 18, 1895; germinated, March 6, 1896; bloomed, June 28, 1899. Has size of seed parent. The blotching of sepals divided by influence of pollen parent; petals have denti- culated edge from pollen parent; lip quite intermediate, with a smaller apiculus than the seed parent.
O. EXCELLENS = O. triwmphans9 xO. Pescatoreig or vice versd. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size and colour, intermediate.
O. EXCELLENS SANDERH. Exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart. Supposed natural hybrid between O. Pescatorei and O. triumphans.
PHALANOPSIS
P. Lipps-viotacEsa=P. violacea? x P. Liiddemannianag. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, exceeds either parent; form, that of pollen parent; colour, intermediate.
SOBRALIA
8. Verrcan = S. macrantha 9 x S. xantholeuca g. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size, nearer the seed parent ; form and colour, intermediate; habit, variable, some dwarfer than either parent.
SPATHOGLOTTIS
S. AUREO-VIEILLARDI=S. Vieillardi? x S. aureag. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Size and form, those of seed parent; colour, intermediate; habit, stronger grower than the pollen parent.
THUNIA
T. Verrcan=T. Marshallig (white with yellow throat) x T. Ben- sone g (purple). Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch.
Size and form, equal to either parent ; colour, intermediate. c2
20 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
VANDA V. «Miss Joaquim’=V. teresxV. Hookeriana. Raised by Miss Joaquim, Singapore ; exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart. Which was the seed parent is not known.
FERNS ADIANTUM
A. Baussi = A. scutum x A. trapeziforme. Raised by Mr. Bause, Anerley ; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. The strong habit and pale colour of A. trapeziforme; form of pinnules, as in A. scutum, but of drooping habit.
A. Coutisi = A. scutwm x A. gracillimum. Raised by Mr. Bause ; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Finely divided like A. gracil- limum, and size of growth and colour of foliage of A. scutum. In every respect intermediate.
A. KercHoveanum = A. Henslovianum x A. diaphanum. Raised by Mr. E. Pynaert, Ghent, Belgium; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Evergreen and compact in habit, like A. diaphanum ; pinnules arranged like A. Henslovianum, and same shape.
A. Lecranpu = A. gracillimum x A. Pacottii. Raised by Mr. Walleam Legrand, Ghent, Belgium ; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Has the fine divisions of A. gracillimum, with compact habit of A. Pacottii.
ATHYRIUM
A, FILIX F@iMINA, Var. CONGESTUM EXCURRENS = 4. f. f. congestum x A. f. f. excurrens. Parents both wild. Raised by Messrs. F. W. & H. Stansfield, Sale, near Manchester; exhibited by Mr. C. T. Druery, 11 Shaa Road, Acton. Crossed, 1888-9. Ex- currens, has all terminals truncate and thorned ; congestum, is dense and dwarf. The cross shows both characters clearly combined.
A. FILIX F@MINA COUSENSIT PLUMOSUM = A. ff. f. percristatum Cousens x A. f. f. plumosum. Raised and exhibited by Mr. C. T. Druery. Crossed, about 1895. Cousensii, raised ; plumosum, found. The long falcate pinnules and plumose character of plumosum has lengthened the parts and increased the foliose character of Cousensii.
DAVALLIA D. IntTeERMEDIA = D. Mooreana x D. decora. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Habit, similar to D. decora (drooping) ; colour and division of fronds, like D. Mooreana.
LASTREA L. DILATATA LEPIDOTA oRISTATA = L. dilatata lepidota x L. dila- tata cristata. Raised by Messrs. F. W. & H. Stansfield; ex- hibited by Mr. C. T. Druery. Crossed, 1898. <A very striking
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED. 21
chance cross ; the crest transmitted, together with a slight ex- pansion of the parts of lepidota.
LOMARIA L. GIBBA PLATYPTERA = L. gibba x Blechnum braziliense. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Intermediate between the two parents, with dark colouring of fronds, as in B. braziliense ;
plant barren.
POLYPODIUM
P. AUREO-VULGARE=P.aureum x P.vulgare. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Habit and size of frond, intermediate between the two parents; colour, nearer that of P. vulgare than P. aureum ; rhizome, like that of P. aureum.
P. NERIIFOLIUM CRISTATUM=P. neriifolium x P. vulgare cristatum. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Same habit as P. nerifolium, with fronds crested as those of P. vulgare cristatum ; rhizome, similar to that of P. neriifolium.
P. NIGRO-GRANDICEPS=P. migrescens x P. vulgare arandiceps. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Strong habit of P. nigrescens and with same arrangement of fructification ; fronds, crested as in P. vulgare grandiceps; rhizome, similar to that of P. vulgare nigrescens.
P. ScHNEIDERI=P. aureum x P. vulgare elegantissimum. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Intermediate in every respect between the two parents. Plant exhibited showed foliage in all stages of development; rhizome, that of P. aureum ; plant barren.
P. VULGARE, Var. ELEGANTISSIMUM CRISTATUM=P. v. elegantissi- mum x P. v. bifido-cristatum. Parents both wild. Raised by Mr. Clapham, Scarborough ; exhibited by Mr. C. T. Druery. Crossed, about 1886-7. A remarkable cross. P. y. elegan- tissimum partially reverts to normal, a feature seen in the cross, which partially reverts to the other parent bifido- cristatum instead, whose peculiar cresting is exactly trans- mitted. Compare P. Schneiderii for same feature derived from same parent.
P. No. V:=P. sporodocarpum x P. neriifolium. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Intermediate between the two parents; foliage divided as in P. neriifolium and colour intermediate.
POLYSTICHUM
P. ANGULARE, var. LINEARE POLYDACT\LUM=P. angulare polydac- tylum x P. ang. var. lineare. Polydactylum, found wild; lineare, raised. Exhibited by Mr. C. T. Druery. Crossed, about 1890. Very distinct combination. A type of a large number of crosses with the polydactylum parent, which invariably transmits its irregularities—i.c. occasional normal pinne.
22 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
P. ANGULARE DIVISILOBUM GRANDICEPS=P. ang. var. stipulatwn, Carbonell x P. ang. var. grandiceps, Moly. Raised by Mr. Carbonell ; exhibited by Mr. C. T. Druery. Stipulatum, raised ; erandiceps, Moly, wild find, Dorset. A very remarkable com- bination of the stipulate character with the cresting, accompanied by a coarsening of the divisions.
P. ANGULARE, Var. ROTUNDATO-CRUCIATUM=P., ang. var. rotundatum x P. ang. var. cruciatum. Parents both wild. Exhibited by Mr. C. T. Druery. The rounded pinnules of rotundatum are conjoined with the cruciate pinn of cruciatum ; the upper half of frond is also only affected.
PTERIS
P. CurIupsil, parentage uncertain. Raised by Mr. Childs, Eltham ; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch.
P. TREMULA SMITHIANA=P. tremula x P.serrulata cristata compacta. Raised by Mr. Smith, Worcester; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Habit of P. tremula, crested as in P. serrulata cristata compacta.
SCOLOPENDRIUM
S. CetERAcH=S. vulgare x Ceterach officinarwm. Both native species, normal. Raised by My. E. J. Lowe, F.R.S., Shire- newton, Chepstow; exhibited by Mr. C. T. Druery. An indubitable hybrid. The fronds are of Ceterach form, but modified by confluence at the tip and quite devoid of scales. The fructification near the base is in faced pairs, the sign manual of Scolopendrium.
S. VULGARE, var. CRISPUM LACERATUM=S. v. erispum diversifrons xX S. v. laceratum. Both wild finds. Raised by Messrs. F. W. & H. Stansfield ; exhibited by Mr. C. T. Druery. Crossed, 1892. The broad basal extension (sagittate) of S. v. laceratum is clearly conveyed, and in addition the peculiar corrugated surface of S. v. crispum diversifrons.
S. VULGARE, var. CRISPUM MURICATUM=S. v. crispum fertile x S. v. muricatum. Both wild finds. Raised by Mr. E. J. Lowe; exhibited by Mr. C. T. Druery. 5S. v. crispum fertile is frilled ; S. v. muricatum is muricate. The cross is slightly frilled and muricate.
S. VULGARE, var. SUPRALINEATUM GRANDICEPS=S. vulg. var. supra- lineatum x S. v.grandiceps. Parents both wild. Raised by the late Col. A. M. Jones, Clifton; exhibited by Mr. C. T. Druery. An intentional cross, a clear combination of the grandiceps ramose cresting with the supralineate character. Note the raised line and crenate edge of supralineatum.
RHODODENDRONS
fAll raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch of Chelsea. | RHODODENDRON R. ‘ Aurora’=R. Crown Princess of Germany 2 x R. javamicum S .
Dit hm
a
by ob
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED. 23
. BALSAMIN#XFLORUM ROSEUM. Obtained from an unnamed seed-
ling. The parent was a flower which had petaloid stamens and was fertilised with its own pollen. Rose, white, yellow, salmon, and carmine coloured varieties were obtained from the one pod of seed.
‘DrapEM’=f. javanicum 2 x f. Duchess of Edinburgh é.
.‘Ensian ’=R. multicolor 2 x R. Duchess of Connaught é.
‘ImMoGEeNnE ’=Ffi. Teysmannu? xf. Taylorié.
. ‘Inpran Curer’=f. Crown Princess of Germany? x R. javani-
cumé.
. JASMINIFLORUM CARMINATUM=fi. jasminiflorum 2 x R. javani-
cum. Raised from two species; the white and orange pro- duced a carmine-coloured flower in this instance, while in R. P. Royal the colour was pink. This plant resembles the seed more than the pollen parent.
. ‘Lirrne Beauty’=f. Monarch? x R. Malayanum g. Exhibited
to show enlarged foliage of pollen parent. The flowers are much larger than those of the pollen parent, but not so large as those of seed parent; colour deeper than that of the pollen parent.
. LUTEO-ROSEUM=f. Princess Alexandra? xR. javanicum sé. . ‘MarpeEn’s Brush ’=R. Princess Alexandra? xR. Brookianwm
gracileg. A cross between a white and an orange flowered species.
. ‘MonarcH ’=f. Princess Alexandrag x Rk. Duchess of Edin-
burghé.
. ‘Mrs. Heau’ (Multicolor Section)=R. multicolor? (pale straw
colour) x &. Princess Beatrice & (light salmon). Partakes of habit of seed parent, but with white flowers. The only pure white flowered seedling raised.
. Ng Puus Untra=Rf. javanewm? x BR. Duchess of Edinburgh é. .‘Neprune’ (Multicolor Section)\=R. Minerva? x R. multicolor
Curtisw 2.
. ‘Nestor’ (Multicolor Section)=f. Teysmannii? x R. Curtisii d
(species).
.*OpHEeniA’=L. Princess Alexandra? x R. javanicum é.
.‘ PRESIDENT ’= Fi. Crown Princess of Germany 2 + R.javanicumé . . ‘PrimrosE’=f. Maiden’s Blush x R. Teysmannii é.
. ‘Princess ALEXANDRA’ = fi, Princess Royal? x R. jasmini-
florwmg. The second hybrid raised of the javanico-jasminiflorum section.
‘Princess Roya ’=R. javanicum? (deep orange) x R. jasmini- florum 3 (white). The first hybrid raised of the javanico- jasminiflorum section. Flowers intermediate in size. Yellow and white produced pink flowers.
. ‘ Purity’=R. Teysmannii? x R. Taylorié. . ‘Rose Perrection ’=R. Princess Alexandrag x R. javanicum¢.
24 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
R. ‘ Rupr’ (Multicolor Section}=R. jasminijlorum carminatum@ x R. multicolor Curtisiig. The pollen parent is a small flowered rosy-crimson species.
R. ‘ScaRLET Crown’=£. Duchess of Edinburgh 2 x R.javanicum 2.
R. ‘SouvenrR DE J. H. Manetzes’ = R&R. Crown Princess of Germany 2? x R. javanicumg. (Fig. 4.)
R. Taytori=f. Princess Alexandra? xR. Brookianum gracile g. (R. Princess Alexandra=R. Princess Royal x R. jasminitiorum. R. Princess Royval=R. jasminiflorum x R. javanicum.)
Fic. 4.—RHopopENDRON ‘ SOUVENIR DE J. H. MANGLEs.’
R. ‘ Yevtow Perrection ’=R. x Lord Wolseley 2 x R. Teysmannii 3 (species from Sumatra).
R. Unnamep (Multicolor Section) = BR. jasminiflorum carmi- natum? xh. Curtisud.
R. Unnamep (Multicolor Section)=R. Princess LPredericag x Lh. multicolor Curtisv 2.
R. Unnamep (Multicolor Section) = R. Princess Royal? x fh. Curtisvi 2. ;
bo On
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED.
R. UnnamepD= Rf. Princess Royal? x R. Teysmannii 3. R. UnnaMED= Rf. x Lord Wolseley 2 x Azalea indica Stellag. This
/ sp aan bag : hm
WY
Fic, 5.—NEPENTHES DIcKSONIANA.
plant, which is now only 3 in. high, is sixteen years old, having been raised in 1883.
26
R R
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
. UnnamMep=f. Teysmanni 9? x R. Maiden’s Blush é. . UnnAMED (Multicolor Section) =R. Teysmannii? x R. multicolor Curtis f.
PITCHER PLANTS
[Raised and Exhibited by Messrs. Veitch, of Chelsea. |
NEPENTHES N. BALtFrourt= WN. x mixta ? x N. x Mastersiana &. Habit, inter-
A
mediate ; pitcher, intermediate in form and mottled; texture of pitcher, very leathery.
. CHELSONI=N. sp.¢ x NV. Rafflesianad.
. CYLINDRICA=N. Veitch? xN. hirsuta glabrescens 3.
. DicxsontaAna=NV. Rafflesiana? x N. Veitchiis. (Fig. 5.)
. Dominti=N. sp.2 x N. Rafflesiana dg.
. FoRMOSA=N. Chelson? x N. distillatoria gd.
. HYBRIDA MACULATA=WNV. sp.? x N. khasianaé.
. INTERMEDIA=N. sp.¢ x N. Rafflesiana g.
. MAsTERSIANA=N. sanguinea? x N. khasianaé.
. mixTa=N, Northiana? xN. Curtisiig. Partakes more of size
of seed parent, and colour of pollen parent. (Fig. 8, p. 54.)
. Moreantaz=N. Phyllamphora g x N. Sedenw 3d. Raised in
America; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. The Pitchers are much larger than in the pollen parent, but with colour of pollen parent intensified. (Fig. 6.)
. SEDENI=an waunamed species? x N. khasianad. . Tiveyi=N., Curtisw superbag xN. Veitchiig. Form, inter-
mediate ; colour, nearer the seed parent.
. Wittri=N, Curtisu? xN. sp.d.
. WriGgLEYANA=N. Phyllamphora? x N.x Sedewg¢. Raised in America; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Pitchers, considerably larger than pollen parent; colour, nearer the pollen parent.
SARRACENIA
. CHELSONI=S. Mooreanag? x S. purpurea é. . CourTU=S. purpurea? x S. psittacina 3. . EXONIENSIS=S. purpurea? x 8. crispatad. Exhibited by Messrs.
Veitch,
. MELANORHODA=S. StevenswQ? xS. purpuread. . WRIGLEYANA=S. Drununondi? xS. psittacinaé.
BROMELIADS
TILLANDSIA
ib
- Duvani=T. Lindent major x T. Lindent vera var. swperba
Raised and exhibited by M. Duval & Sons, Versailles.
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED. 27 VRIESIA [All raised and exhibited by Monsieur Duval, of Versailles.’ V. ‘Aurora Rex’=V. Aurora x V. Rex. V. Carpinatis= V. brachystachys x V. Kramert.
—————=
& Rs
\4
Ay \\ \ 7 WA . Way Wt N
Fic. 6.—NEPENTHES MorGANIE.
28
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
. DrvaAnsayANna=V. brachystachys x V. Krameri.
. FENESTRALO-FULGIDA= V. fenestralis x V. fulgida.
. Henrici=V. splendens x V. splendida.
. ‘Imperator ’=V. Magnisiana x V. Rex.
. Kirreniana=V. Saundersi x V. Barilleti.
. KITTELIANO-CONFERTA= V. Kitteliana x V. conferta. . Kirreniano-ReEx=V. Kitteliana x V. Rex.
. Maenirica=V. Zahn x V. splendens.
. MorEnno-Bariuteti=V. Barilleti x V. Morenno.
. PortmMani=V. gloriosa x V. Van Geerti.
. Rex=V. Morenno-Barilleti x V. cardinalis.
. REX NIGRESCENS= V. Morenno-Barilleti x V. Rex.
. Rex superBA=V. Morenno-Barilleti x V. Rex.
. ‘Spainx’=V. Fenestralis x V. splendens major.
. VASSILLIERA= V. Fenestralo-fulgida x V. Devansayana. . VIGERI MAJOR= V. Rodigasiana x V. Rex.
. WARMENGI REx=V. Warmengi x V. Rex.
BERBERIS
BERBERIS
B,
B.
STENOPHYLLA = B. Darwimi x B. empetrifolia. Raised by Messrs. Fisher & Sibray, Handsworth, Sheffield; exhibited by Mr. C. C. Hurst, Burbage, Hinckley. The original hybrid and parent of all the variations ; 90 per cent. of which are true intermediates, and 10 per cent. variable.
[Raised and exhibited by Mr. C. C. Hurst, of Babage, Hinckley. |
. STENOPHYLLA=B. x stenophylla 9 x B. stenophylla g (each
parent=4 B. Darwinii 5 B. empetrifolia). One of the 90 per cent. of true intermediate forms.
. STENOPHYLLA I. = B. x stenophylla ¢ x B. x stenophylla g
(each parent= 4 B. Darwinii 4 B. empetrifolia). One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetyrifolia.
. STENOPHYLLA I].={Identical with stenophylla I.| One of the
10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetyrifolia.
. STENOPHYLLA IIJ.={Identical with stenophylla I.| One of the
10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetrifolia.
. STENOPHYLLA IV.=(Identical with stenophylla I.| One of the
10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. Darwinii. STENOPHYLLA VI.={Identical with stenophylla I.| One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring b. empetrifolia.
. STENOPHYLLA VII.={Identical with stenophylla I.| One of the
10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. Darwinii. This is the most extreme form of all.
. STENOPHYLLA VIII.=(Identical with stenophylla I.| One of
the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetrifolia. STENOPHYLLA IX.={Identical with stenophylla I.) One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetrifolia.
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED. 29
B. steNoPpHYLLA X.=[Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms fayouring B. Darwinii.
B, stenopHytLA XI.=[Identical with stenophylla I.| One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetrifolia.
B. stenopuyLya XII.=[Identical with stenophylla I.| One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetrifolia.
B. stenopHyLuA XIII.=[Identical with stenophylla I.| One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetrifolia.
B. stenopuynia XIV. = [Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetrifolia.
B. STENOPHYLLA XY. = [Identical with stenophylla I.} One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. Darwinii.
B, stENopHYLLA XVI. = [Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetrifolia.
B. stENopHYLLA XVII. = [Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. Darwinii.
B. stenopHyLLA XVIII. = {Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. Darwinii.
B, sTENOPHYLLA XIX. = [Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. Darwinii.
B. sTENOPHYLLA XX. = [Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetrifolia.
B. stENoPHYLLA XXI. = [Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetrifolia.
B. sTENOPHYLLA XXY. = [Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetrifolia.
B, STENOPHYLLA XXX. = [Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetrifolia.
B. sTENOPHYLLA XXXIV. = [Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. empetrifolia.
B. stENoPHYLLA XXXVI. = [Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. Darwinii.
B. sTENOPHYLLA XX XVII. = [Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. Darwinii.
B, stENOPHYLLA XXXVIII. = {Identical with stenophylla I.] One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. Darwinii.
B. sTENOPHYLLA XXXIX. = [Identical with stenophylla I.j One of the 10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. Darwinii.
B. stenopHyytyaA XLI. = [Identical with stenophylla I.| One of the-10 per cent. of extreme forms favouring B. Darwinii.
CINERARIAS (Raised and exhibited by Mr. R. Irwin Lynch, Botanic Garden, Cambridge. SENECIO. S. Heritiert x S. cruentus, Hort. Kew. non D.C. S. Heritieri x florist’s Cineraria.
30
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
S. multiflorus x S. cruentus, Hort. Kew.
S. multiflorus x S. Heritieri.
S. Tussilaginis x S. cruentus, Hort. Kew. S. Tussilagims B. x Cineraria, garden var.
ROSES
[All raised by Mr. G. L. Paul and exhibited by Messrs. Paul & Son, of Cheshunt. ]
ROSES
R. UNNAMED=Poly. Caroline Souwpert 2 x Fortune’s Yellow ¢.
Crossed, 1890. Showing growth of pollen parent, but freer blooming and much hardier.
R. UNNAMED=C. Soupert 2 x Fortune’s Yellowd. Crossed, 1890.
Habit of seed parent, valueless, does not open.
R. Unnamep=C. Soupert 2 x Fortune’s Yellows. Crossed, 1890.
Growth of pollen parent.
R. UnnameD= Poly. C. Sowpert 2 x Fortune’s Yellow g. Crossed,
1890. Habit of pollen parent. Foliage, intermediate.
R. H. T. ‘Dawn ’=Caroline Testout H. T.2 x Bourbon Mrs. Paul é.
R.
R.
Crossed, 1890. Very vigorous grower, intermediate in foliage. Habit similar to but stronger than pollen parent. Shape of almost single flower like pollen parent; colour and autumn flowering from seed parent.
H. P. ‘Royvan Scaruet’=H. P. Cheshunt Scarlet 2? x Marie Radyé%. Crossed, 1890. Habit and growth like seed parent. Spines and wood slightly after pollen parent and has the Marie Rady scent. P ‘PsycHE’=Crimson Rambler 2 x Golden Fairys. Crossed, 1894-5. Climbing habit of seed parent; flower, intermediate ; colour, near pollen parent.
R. UnnAMED= Crimson Rambler (Poly) 2 x Tea Beauté inconstante 3 -
R.
R.
Crossed, about 1895. Climbing; showing variable colouring inherited from seed parent.
. ‘TxHe Lion’ = Crimson Rambler 2 x Beauté inconstanteé.
Crossed, 1896. Vigorous climber; large flower, with character
of seed parent. UnnaMED=Crimson Rambler 2 x Tea Beauté inconstante g.
Very vigorous climber, slightly perpetual.
. ‘ScaRLeET CLIMBER ’=Pol. Crimson Rambler? x Tea Beauté
inconstanted. Crossed, 1896. Strong climber, flowering to
ground. ‘Watt FLrowEer ’=Pol. Crimson Rambler? x Tea Beauté incon- _stanted. Flower, larger and looser than in seed parent; srowth, leaves, colour, size, and autumn flowers from pollen
parent. .
. Hyb. Bourb. ‘J. B. M. Camm ’=H. P. Me. Gabriel Luizet9 x
Bourb. Mrs. Paulg. Flowers, shape of seed parent. Habit wood, growth and foliage, nearer pollen parent.
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED. 31
CLEMATIS
[All raised and exhibited by Monsieur Morel, of Lyons.] CLEMATIS
C. COCCINEO-MEGALANTHA=C, megalantha No. 1409 x C. coccinea 2. Colour, nearer the seed parent. Habit, similar to the pollen parent. This plant is always barren.
C. cocctnEo-PrrcHERI=C. Pitcheri? x C. coccinea g. All the plants from this cross are very similar, and almost intermediate between the parents. The flowers are earlier than Pitcheri, and have a scent like Vanilla.
C.‘Francots Moret ’=C. Star of India @ x C. Viticella rubro- grandiflora 3 .
C. ‘La FraicHeur ’=C. No. 137 (pale rose) 2 x C. Viticella albag. As strong growing as Viticella, but with large flowers.
C. ‘Or1IFLAMME ’=C. F’. Morel 2 x C. Viticella Kermesina 3. The markings of the sepals of the seed parent have been preserved, but on a much more vivid ground colour.
C. ‘PERLE D’AzUR’=C. lanuginosa ceruleaQ? x C.Viticella modesta g . Very strong growing, forming shoots as strong as C. montana.
C. ‘VintE pve Lyon’=C. megalantha No. 5 2 x C. coccineo- Pitcherig. Plant very robust, but barren.
C. ‘Vinne pe Lyon’ Il.=C. megalantha No. 5 2 x C. coccineo- Pitcheri$. Plant exactly resembling the seed parent. The pollen parent seems to have done nothing but make the plant barren.
C. No. 401=C. Oriflamme 2 x C..coccineag. Foliage nearer the pollen parent, flowers nearer C. megalantha,
WATER-LILIES
[All raised by Monsieur R. Latour Marliac, Temple-sur-Lot, France, and exhibited by Leopold de Rothschild, Esq. (gr., Mr. J. Hudson).]
NYMPHAA
N. AURORA.
N. CAROLINIANA.
N. c. NIVEA.
N. Enwistana.
N. Gnortosa.
N. LAayDEKERI FULGENS.
N. L. Limacea.
N. L. rosea.
N. LUCIDA.
N. MARLIACEA ALBIDA,. N. RopInsonlit.
N. M. CARNEA. N. SEIGNOURETI.
M. CHROMATELLA. M. FLAMMEA.
M. IGNEA.:
M. RosEA.
M. RUBRO-PUNCTATA. M. SANGUINEA.
. ORDORATA EXQUISITA. . O. SULPHUREA.
AA AAA ww wz
. PYGM#A HELVEOLA.
32 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY,
VARIOUS
ALOE }
A. INSIGNIS=A. drepanophylla x <A. echinata. Exhibited by the Royal Gardens, Kew.
A. UnnamepD=A. latifolia x V- striata. Exhibited by the Royal Gardens, Kew.
A. Lyncnu=<A. striata x A. verrucosa. Exhibited by the Royal Gardens, Kew.
ANTHURIUM
A. FRAXINENSE OR FRAXINIANUM=A. cordifolium? x A. colocasie- folium g. Raised and exhibited by M. dela Devansaye, Angers. Crossed, 1895.
A. RoTHsSCHILDIANUM=A. Scherzerianum 2 x A. Scherzerianwm album g. Raised by M. Bergman, Ferriéres, France ; exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. Flowers as large as those of seed parent ; colour, intermediate, some being spotted more deeply and intensely than others.
BEGONIA
B. ACERIFOLIA=B. Burkei? x B.decorag. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch.
B. ‘Basinc Park Hysrip’ = B. weltoniensis 9 x B. Scarlet Seedling 6. Raised by Mr. Wm. Smythe, Basing Park ; exhibited by Mr. Wm. Smythe, Alton, Hants. Crossed, 1892. Flowers bright crimson, produced in great profusion; stand any amount of rough rainy weather. Compact grower. The tubers are distinct from the ordinary Tuberous Begonia, taking more after the seed parent.
B. ‘Kupoxa’=B. Burkei? x B.decorag. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch.
B. MARGARITACEA=B. Arthur Mallet 9 x B. coccineag. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch.
B. UnnamMep=B. Burkei 9 x B. Rex section &. Raised and ex- hibited by Messrs. Veitch. Habit, that of seed parent, but stronger growing, the seedlings showing many shades of varie- gation.
BRAYVOA
B. KEWENSIS=B. geminiflora x B. Bulliana. Exhibited by the Royal Gardens, Kew.
CALCEOLARIA C. BurpiGEr=C. deflexa (= C. fuchsiefolia) 9 x C. Pavonié. Raised by Mr. F'. W. Burbidge, V.M.H., Trinity College Botanic Gardens, Dublin. Crossed, 1879. Grows 10-15 feet planted out in cool greenhouse, 2-4 feet high in pots. Flowers, clear yellow, produced in autumn, winter, and spring. Coloured plate and history in Garden, May 4, 1895, p. 806.
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED. 33
CAMPANULA
C. Bancurintana = C. isophylla alba 2 x C. fragilisg$. Raised by Mr. William Mitten, Hurstpierpoint ; exhibited by Mr. Richard Dean, Ealing, W. Crossed, 1892. (C. isophylla alba, a white variety “of C. isophylia, a North Italian species; C. fragilis, species from South Italy.) C. fragilis is the earliest to bloom ; C. isophylla alba is now showing bud; C. Balchiniana in the case of the plant shown blooms imperfectly ; it is blue-flowered, like the pollen parent.
C. UnnameD=C. isophylla albag x C. pyramidalis albag. Raised and exhibited by Mr. E. H. Jenkins, of Hampton Hill. The habit of the hybrid was somewhat akin to typical C. isophylla, but in all other respects it differed from both parents. Its colour was a very curious shade of blue, both parents being white varieties of blue species.
DROSERA D. nyBRIDA=D. filiformis x D. intermedia. Discovered and sent by Dr. Macfarlane, University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. See longer notice in the ‘‘ Proceedings of the Conference,” p. 241.
HOLLYHOCK H. ‘Primrose QueEN’=Althea ficifolia 2 x A. rosea g. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch. (Fig. 7.)
HYMENOCALLIS
H. ‘ Dapune ’=H. speciosa Q x Ismene(Hymenocallis) calathina 2. Raised by Heer C. G. van Tubergen, jun., Haarlem, Holland. This hybrid was raised with the view of ascertaining the supposed origin of Hymenocallis macrostephana, which is con- sidered to be H. speciosa x Ismene calathina. The result of this cross turned out to be a very different plant. Foliage of both the hybrid, its parents, and also that of H. macrostephana was sent. Unfortunately, the cross itself, H.‘ Daphne,’ was not then in flower.
KALO-ROCHEA K. LANGLEYENSIS=Kalosanthes coccinea 9 x Rochea falcata 2. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch.
LILIUM
L. Burpanxi=Z. Washingtonianum 9 x L. pardalinum ¢. ‘Raised by Mr. L. Burbank, California; exhibited by Messrs. R. Wallace & Co., Colchester. Only a weak spike from bulbs planted last March, and. not. sufficiently strong to show its free-flowering habit obtained from the seed parent.
L. Dauuansoni = L. dalmaticum? x L. Hansonig. Exhibited by Messrs. R. Wallace & Co.
L, Marnan=Z.Martagon album? x L. Hansonig. Raised by Heer C. G. van Tubergen, jun. Out of 500 seedlings of this cross, most of which turned out the ordinary purple-flowered
D
354 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
L. Martagon, about a dozen intermediate varieties appeared, otf which a few of the most distinct are herewith being sent. Bulb, foliage, and everything else are intermediate between the parents.
It is especially noteworthy that although the white-flowered form of Iu. Martagon always comes true from seed, not one of
Fic. 7.—Howiynock ‘ PRIMROSE QUEEN.’
the seedlings of this cross turned out white—all, except about a dozen, reverted to the typical purple-flowered L. Martagon.
L. Parryi x Leoparp = L. Parryi 2 x L. pardalinum & (a dark <mall-flowered form). Raised and exhibited by Mr. J. ‘Snow Whall, Worksop, Notts. Generally the plant seems midway between its parents, approaching the ‘pollen parent in the
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED. 35
flower ; the bulb, leaves, and shape of buds being nearer the seed parent. It has also the scent of the seed parent. The flowers are more numerous than in the seed parent, and the stem taller, being over 4 ft. on the tallest plant. The spikes sent have been grown in the open without protection. They are from one seed-pod, but differ somewhat in colour, markings, and colour of pollen-grains.
PASSIFLORA
P. KEwENSIS=P. Raddiana x P. cawrulea. Exhibited by the Royal Gardens, Kew.
-PELARGONIUM
P. ‘ Henry Jacopy, Var.’ —Mr. Chas. E. Pearson, of Chilwell, Notts, sent a white variegated sport from P.‘ Henry Jacoby.’ This was very interesting, because the original ‘ Henry Jacoby’ was the offspring of seed from a parent which had been crossed with white and variegated Pelargoniums with a view to raising new ornamental foliaged varieties. As is well known, ‘ Henry Jacoby’ has a very dark-green leaf, and was raised more than thirty years ago, and now, after existing and being propagated for so long, the variegation endeavoured to be produced by the hybridising thirty years ago suddenly becomes apparent. The influence of the pollen parent had lain dormant thirty years. A similar sport occurred some few years ago, but was too delicate to rear.
‘TACSONIA.
T. MOLLISSIMA SPLENDENS = TJ. mollissima 2 x T. Smytheana 2. Raised by Mr. W. Smythe, Basing Park; exhibited by Mr. W. Smythe, Alton, Hants. Crossed 1891. The flowers are of much the same colour, but larger, and the plant is a much freer grower and distinctly more floriferous, producing flowers in great abundance. :
T. SmyrHEANA = 7’. mollissima? xT. manicatag. Raised by Mr. W. Smythe, Basing Park; exhibited by Mr. W. Smythe, Alton, Hants. Crossed, 1889. The colour is a bright scarlet, with a funnel-shaped tube of good length. 4 in. long. The flowers stand out conspicuously from the foliage, instead of having the ‘drooping habit of the seed parent.
VARIOUS HYBRIDS,
Sent by the Rev. C. Wottey Don, M.A., V.M.H., Edge Hall, Malpas, Cheshire.
I send a few out of many accidental (spontaneous) hybrids of hardy plants which have appeared in my garden in the last ten years. I haye sent, where I have been able, flowers of the supposed parents.
Da
36 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
I have added “fertile” or “ barren ’’ according to my own experience. . I have found many hybrids fertile, but none constant from seed. I have never been able to obtain anywhere or to get authentic information of a true hybrid constant from seed. Many hybrids come of which it is hardly possible to say which is the seed parent, or what the hybrid is between. This is especially the case in Aquilegia and Dianthus. I may remark that in my garden, seed of Dianthus cesius, saved from collected wild specimens, at once departs from the type, generally in the direction of the garden Pink, commonly called D. plumarius, but I suspect that D. cesius is an important factor in garden Pinks. It passes in about three. or four generations into a double garden Pink ; it may of course be ferti- lised in every generation by the pollen of the garden Pink, said to be D. plumarius. The seed parent—and in most cases I have certain means- of knowing—is the first on the labels of the specimens sent.
POLEMONIUM
Polemonium hybridises very freely; hybrids mostly barren, P. cwrv- leum x P. reptans seems to be an exception.
P. flavum x P. ceruleum.—These frequently come from seed of P.. flavum. They may be at once recognised by feeling the heads after flowering. The hybrid has an empty calyx; the species P. corulewm swells the seed pod directly.
P. ceruleum (var.) x P. humile.
ORCHIS
Orchis foliosa x O. maculata.—These come up by the side of clumps of O. foliosa, but like some other plants ail the spontaneous seedlings are. hybrid, and none ever comes typical.
HEUCHERA Heuchera sanguinea x H. cylindrica (fertile). ie = x H. hispida (fertile). I have raised seedlings. from both these hybrids ; they come gorgeous nondescripts.
CAMPANULA
Campanula rhomboidalis x C.rotundifolia.—I cannot be certain which is the seed parent, but where they grow together intermediate forms. in every degree are endless. Many of them produce abnormal corollas ;
but these abnormal forms are not confined to hybrids. ’
LILIUM
Liliwvm Martagon, var, dalmaticum x L. Hansoni (fertile).—'These have: come in several parts of my garden from seed collected from L. Martagon in a frame, and sown broadcast, I send also a curious effect of a cross between L. Martagon, var. dalmaticum, and L. Martagon type, showing mired flowers.
VERBASCUM
Verbascum phaniceum x V. nigrum.—Barren in my experience, but My. Lynch has sent me from Cambridge seed of V. cuprewmn, which is a
PRINCIPAL HYBRID PLANTS EXHIBITED. D7
hybrid of the two named, and it ;has come up, but is not yet in flower. Godron, in “Flore de France,’ states that hybrids of Verbascum are always barren.
VEGETABLES BEANS
Unnamed=Smythe’s Hybrid Dwarf 2 x Runner Painted Lady $ Raised by Mr. W. Smythe, Basing Park; exhibited by Mr. W. Smythe, Alton, Hants. Crossed, 1895. The flowers are of a scarlet colour, partaking of Painted Lady, with broad fleshy pods, and of fine flavour when cooked.
‘GouatH’ = Smythe’s Hybrid Dwarf 2 x Champion Scarlet Runner 3 (Canadian WonderxNe Plus Ultva=Champion Scarlet). Raised by Mr. W. Smythe, Basing Park; exhibited by Mr. W. Smythe, Alton. Crossed, 1895. Flowers, light pink ; thick fleshy pods of the Runner type. With its long racemes of flowers, they continue bearing through the season. Seeds black, and grows to a height of 2 ft.
‘Scarber JuBILEE’=Smythe’s Hybrid Dwarf 2 x Champion Scarlet Runner $ (Canadian Wonder x Ne Plus Ultra = Champion Scarlet). Raised by Mr. W. Smythe, Basing Park ; exhibited by Mr. W. Smythe, Alton. Crossed, 1895. This variety bears scarlet flowers like the Runner, and grows to a height of 18 to 20 in. The pods are of a thick fleshy character, and produce seed the colour of Scarlet Runner.
FRUITS .
RASPBERRY ‘GQLDEN QUEEN’ = Raspberry Superlative? x Rubus laciniatusé. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch.
Rusus HYBRID (RASPBERRY-BLACKBERRY) = Raspberry Belle de Fontenay 2 x Rubus fruticosus¢. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch.
SrrRAwBERRY ‘LorD KircHENER’= Waterloo? x British Queen é. Raised and exhibited by Messrs. Veitch.
38 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
LIST OF HYBRID GRAFTS
Exhibited at CHiswick ConrerENcE by Messrs. JAmes Verrcu, of Chelsea, July 11, 1899.
a. Athrotaxis . ; : . grafted on Cryptomeria.
a. Cotoneaster : : elles a8 5, nor.
a. Photinia . » Quince.
a. Aucuba 3 » Garrya.
a. Garrya : : 2 De gh ae , Aucuba.
a. Chionanthus ts , Fraxinus.
b. Amelanchier - , Pyrus Aucuparia. a. Olea: : : : 11 , Ligustrum.
a. Phillyrea a ,», Ligustrum.
a. Osmanthus : : rane » Ligustrum.
a. Rhaphiolepis . we As 7) eri:
a. Lilac . 3 . eee ,, Ligustrum.
c. Lilac . : . ; he 5, Phillyrea.
b. Genista a » Laburnum.
a. Cytisus a », Laburnum.
a. Ligustrum . a », Lilac.
c. Magnolia . : ; a , Liriodendron. b. Castanea . : ; abe », Quercus Robur. a. Ligustrum . : : > a ,, Phillyrea.
a. Osmanthus ; : ee » Phillyrea.
a. Rhaphicfepis 4 ,, Crateegus Pyracantha. a. Crategus . < 5, Quince.
a. Kriobotrya a ,, Rhaphiolepis. b. Eriobotrya . - » Quince.
a. Choisya. : . eh yee » Skimmia.
b. Amelanchier . ; Ae , Thorn. —
a. Phillyrea . ; . ms », Olea.
b. Pyrus japonica . ' Pl ,» Quince.
b. Rosa Wichuriana variegata __,, ,, Rubus.
a. Eleagnus . ; 5 Sl eee ,, Hippophaé.
a. Cupressus nutkaensis . fe et ,, Biota orientalis. c. Kalmia , ‘ 4 a abe ,, Rhododendron. a. Phillyrea . ; ; ney ,, Osmanthus.
a. Doing well. b. Doing fairly well. c. Doubtful.
THE LUNCHEON. 39
After the Exhibition a luncheon was given by the Council, to which all whose names appear on pp. 6-8 were invited, together with all the members of the Scientific, Fruit and Vegetable, Floral, Orchid, and Narcissus Committees; Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., President of the Society, being in the chair.
Luncheon ended, the President rose and proposed the toast of Her Gracious Majesty the Queen, Empress of India, patron of the Society. The toast was received with acclamation and drunk by all upstanding.
The President again rose and said: Ladies and Gentlemen,—I am sure that we, none of us, wish that the proceedings of the Conference should be delayed by speech-making, but there is one thing that I cannot deny myself the pleasure of doing, and it is this: on behalf of the Royal Horticultural Society to tender to all our friends who have gathered around us to-day, and especially to the gentlemen who have travelled from abroad on purpose to join in our Conference, a most hearty greeting and a most hearty welcome. I am sure that we are very grateful to those foreign friends whom we see around us, distinguished in horticul- ture and in botany, for their presence here to-day. We know that they have come at great expense and at no little inconvenience to join in our deliberations because, like ourselves, they are devoted to the science and the art of gardening. And we, we haye been obliging enough to provide them with an almost tropical temperature, so that I do not think that when they go back to their own countries, even though they be countries ordinarily warmer than our own, they will any of them have cause to complain of any lack in the warmth of our reception. In this country, rightly or wrongly, we manage things somewhat differently to the way in which they are managed abroad. When we go abroad to gatherings of this sort we receive the most cordial and friendly—I might say the most magnificent hospitality at the bands of our horticultural friends ; and this hospitality is extended to us not only by them but by the municipalities and by the Governments of the countries where the gather- ings are held. I hadthe honour of being a Member of the House of Commons for several years, and I venture to wonder what would happen if I were to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the Royal Horticultural Society a grant to enable it to entertain its distinguished visitors in a due and worthy manner. I know very well what the result would be. But I am sure that, notwithstanding the unavoidable dis- advantages of our position, no more cordial weleome could be extended to our foreign friends in any country than that which every Fellow of the Royal Horticultural Society now desires to convey to them through me. I hope therefore that our distinguished visitors will accept our apologies for all defects in our arrangements, and will make allowance for any shortcomings they may discern, resting assured that our one hope is that they may carry home with them such a sense of the sincerity of our British welcome as may induce them to give us the pleasure and the honour of seeing them again amongst us on many similar occasions.
Asa proof of the cordial feeling entertained by our foreign friends for the horticulturists of this country I may mention that a letter has this moment been received announcing that it has pleased His Majesty the King of the Belgians to bestow the high honour of the Insignia of an
40 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
Officer of the Order of Leopold upon our distinguished friend Dr. Maxwell Masters, F.R.S., who is to take the chair at the first session of our Conference to-day. ;
The announcement of the honour conferred on Dr. Masters came as a complete surprise to all present, and was received with continuous rounds of cheering and applause.
After the luncheon the first session of the Conference was held in a marquee on the lawn. (See p. 55.)
In the evening the foreign and distinguished guests were entertained at dinner, at the Hotel Windsor, Westminster, by the members of the Horticultural Club, under the presidency of Sir John D. T. Llewelyn, Bart., M.P. The dinner was of an informal nature, and was thoroughly appreciated by all present. The guests were delighted by the friendliness and enthusiasm of the greeting given them, one foreign Professor remarking that the dinner reminded him of his student days at the University, and that he had no idea the English could unbend so far ; another writing afterwards, “‘ As long as I am alive I shall remember that dinner at the Horticultural Club.”
The heartiest thanks of the Royal Horticultural Society are due to the Horticultural Club for providing so enjoyable an evening for the Society’s guests.
The second session of the Conference was held on Wednesday, July 12, at 2 p.m., at the Westminster Town Hall. (See p. 127.)
In the evening a grand banquet was given by the Society to all the members of the Conference at the Whitehall Rooms of the Hotel Métropole. The tables were most beautifully decorated with a profusion of the rarest and most exquisite flowers presented by Messrs. Cutbush, Laing, G. Paul, W. Paul, Sander, Turner, and Veitch. The thanks of the Society are due to these gentlemen, but more especially to Mr. James Hudson, V.M.H., who devoted the whole day to arranging them, and also contributed all the beautiful hybrid Water-lilies which were so universally admired. The magnificent fruit was contributed by Mr. Geo. Monro, V.M.H. Itis due to both of these gentlemen to record that the authori- ties of the hotel bore witness that they had never in all their experience seen such a wealth of flowers and fruit, or any so beautifully arranged.
Covers were laid for 180, and, besides the foreign and distinguished members of the Conference (see pp. 6-8), the guests included His Excellency the Belgian Minister, His Excellency the Netherlands Minister, the Right Hon. Lord Justice Lindley, Master of the Rolls, the Right Hon. the Earl of Annesley, Sir Edward Fry, J. Rutherford, Esq., M.P., the Master and Wardens of the Worshipful Company of Gardeners, R. McLachlan, Ksq., F.R.S., T. Dorrien-Smith, Esq., R. Milne-Redhead, Esq., Sidney Courtauld, Esq., and Mrs. Courtauld, T. B. Heywood, Esq., Dr. Fripp, N. N. Sherwood, Ksq., and Miss Sherwood, Frederick G. Lloyd, Esq., and Mrs. Lloyd, J. Wigan, Esq., Charles EK. Shea, Esq., Harry J. Veitch, sq., the Rev. P. Edwards, M.A., the Rev. Geo. H. Kngleheart, M.A., i. Gofton Salmond, Esq., and others.
THE BANQUET. 41
The chair was taken by Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., President of the Society, who was accompanied by Lady Lawrence. Dinner being ended, the following toasts were proposed :—
1. “ Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen and Empress.” (Patron of the Society.) Proposed by the Chairman, Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart. 2. “ Horticulture.” Proposed by the Rev. Professor George Henslow, M.A., V.M.H., &ce. Responded to by Herbert J. Webber, Esq., Special Envoy from the United States Department of Agriculture. Professer Hugo de Vries, Amsterdam University.
Monsieur Henry de Vilmorin, Horticultural Society of France. 3. “ Hybridists.”
Proposed by W. Bateson, Esq., F.R.S., Cambridge University.
Responded to by Monsieur de la Devansaye. Walter T. Swingle, Esqy., Washington, U.S.A.
4. “ The Royal Horticultural Society.”
Proposed by the Master of the Rolls (Lord Justice Lindley).
Responded to by the President of the Society (Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart.) 5. “ The Visitors.” Proposed by Charles E. Shea, Esq., Member of Council. Responded to by His Excellency the Belgian Minister. 6. “ The Chairman.” Proposed by Monsieur Mark Micheli, Geneva, Switzerland. Responded to by Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart. (President of the Society.)
In proposing the first toast, the President, Sir TRevor LAWRENCE, said :—Your Excellencies, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—The toast that I have to propose to you is “The health of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen, Empress of India, the Prince and Princess of Wales, and the Rest of the Royal Family.” It is not necessary for me to say a single word about Her Majesty the Queen. During the many years that she has reigned over us we have becom? more devoted to her year by year. Her Majesty the Queen is the patron of our Society, and in years past Her Majesty’s illustrious consort was President of the Society, and did all he possibly could to promote its welfare. With regard to Their Royal Highnegses the Prince and Princess of Wales, without claiming for them that they are special devotees of the art and science of horticulture, I have had the honour of escorting His Royal Highness and Her Royal Highness and the Duke and Duchess of York round the exhibitions of the Society at the Inner Temple and elsewhere on more than one occasion, and they have always expressed themselves highly delighted, as indeed they may well have been, with what they saw. I propose to you ‘‘ The health of Her Gracious Majesty the Queen, Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales, and the Rest of the Royal Family.”
In proposing the second toast, the Rev. Professor HENsLow said :— Your Excellencies, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—No one can regret more than myself that I am speaking to you at the present moment. We hoped to hear Sir Michael Foster, Secretary of the Royal Society, on this occasion; but at the last. moment, I regret to say, he is laid on a bed of sickness and cannot be with us to-night. Having been asked by Sir Trevor Lawrence, at a moment's notice, to take his place, you can imagine that it was with no
42, JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
great feelings of pleasure that I undertook the responsibility. I thought, “What can I say about horticulture?’ If I deal with it in its modern aspects I shall not know where to begin, what to say, or how to end. J thought, if I speak on the horticulture of past days, there is little or nothing left to be said. If we ask, what did the ancients know about horticulture—had they any ideas about horticulture as we have ? we find a great gap, an absolute silence. All we can find about their gardens is that they were “herb” gardens. We have all heard of a certain king who robbed a man of his estate and turned it into a garden of herbs. We have all heard about the paradise of the Greeks, that consisted of trees, walks, and so forth. But when we turn to see what they did in the cultivation of flowers, it is extraordinary that history is perfectly silent. The great writersof the early centuries of this era, or a little before it, scarcely spoke of gardens at all. I think probably twenty-five varieties of plants would cover everything in their gardens; but then in their regions wild flowers were so abundant and beautiful that there was no necessity to grow flowers in their gardens. I remember Seneca, in denouncing the luxurious habits of the Roman nobles of his time, speaks of the extravagance of making dishes of larks’ tongues, and adds that they literally stripped the fields of their flowers to adorn their feasts. Ovid speaks of a Rose garden, but I doubt whether this was more than a few wild Roses. When we come to the dark ages of the fifteenth century—(we hear of nothing before, except a few Lettuces and such things, though, that reminds me, the Romans were proud of their gardens, and some of the great families named themselves after Beans and Lettuces)—coming down to the middle ages, there is nothing tobe said. In the sixteenth century, flowers at last began to be cultivated. But if we look at our own country, we do not find much in the way of flowers until the eighteenth century, and it isin the nineteenth century we get them coming in witha rush. The Chrysanthemums came dribbling in between the tens, twenties, and thirties of this century, and with a great rush in 1842. The Calceolarias also came in during this time. And then a few gardeners began to cross plants, which is the subject which brings us here to-night. The idea of crossing hitherto was unknown. The ancients were quite aware of it so far as the Palm was concerned. I mean the Date Palm; and we suppose that they artificially fertilised the Fig; but they knew nothing about the sexes of plants; they knew that if an enemy was in the country the first thing to be done was to cut down the male trees, so as to ruin the crop of Dates without having to destroy the Date-bearing trees. It is attributed to Sir Thomas Midleton that he first suggested that the pollen and stigma should be united to make seed. Linneus took it up as you know ; but it was not until Knight, the President of the Royal Horti- cultural Society, and Dean Herbert took up the subject of crossing that we entered on an entirely new field that transcends to-day everything else in the realm of horticulture. I have travelled as quickly as I could over that vast subject of. ‘ Horticulture’? which has been entrusted to me, and I will only ask you to drink continued success to it, coupled with the names of those eminent exponents of it—Mr. Herbert J. Webber, of the Department of Agriculture and Horticulture-of the United States of
THE BANQUET. 43:
America; Professor Hugo de Vries, of the University of Amsterdam ; and Monsieur Henry de Vilmorin, Vice-President of the Société Nationale d’ Horticulture de France.
Mr. Hersert J. Wesser :—Sir Trevor Lawrence, your Excellencies, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—It gives me the greatest pleasure to have this honour of addressing you this evening, and I have furthermore pleasure in bringing to you across the seas the greeting—the most friendly greeting—of the Secretary of Agriculture of America, who has the greatest hopes for the future of horticulture and in the final develop- ment and advancement of all its allied industries, not only in America and the United States, but in the entire world. He looks upon our present condition as simply a formative one, and likely to lead to more important advancement and results, and in this I think the experience of this Conference bears our Secretary out. It seems to me, from what has been brought out at our meetings, that we are on the eve of a great advancement, and what has been done is simply a herald of the advance that is to come in the future. It is, however, a great misfortune, as was so forcibly brought out in our meeting this afternoon, that there is no way by which the originator of a new fruit or flower can reap the equiva- lent benefit. There is no doubt a certain amount of honour and pleasure and personal satisfaction in having originated something of this kind ; but, after all, that is not quite sufficient reward. There should be more just and satisfactory recompense at the same time. How this can be brought about, gentlemen, is, of course, matter for consideration, but it lies with us to largely compensate the man—the originator of a new fruit or flower—to give him his just dues. It seems to me that the man who in any way lightens the struggle of humanity, or puts bread into the mouths of the starving, by improving our crops or giving us better yields, more appetising fruits or more delightsome flowers, is worthy of more honour than the man who invents a new pill, or a new kind of soap, or who writes a new novel, or than the man who makes war. After all, we should be at peace. We scientific men are at peace with one another. Science is an international thing. What we have to do is to popularise our work so that any development may meet with its just reward; and it seems to me I can look forward into the very near future and see the time rapidly approaching when a new discovery in horticulture in this land will meet its just recompense of reward.
Professor Huco pE Vrirs :—Mr. Chairman, your Excellencies, my Lord, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—One of the ideas of this Conference that has struck me most has been the desire to bring together men of science and of horticultural practice to exchange views. Almost all the papers showed clearly this tendency. Formerly there was very little feeling of community or of continuity between practice and science, but now on both sides this estrangement is being diminished, and the same sort of bonds that have brought engineering and electricity and all applied sciences to act together, in order to allow such magnificent results, must be brought into action in order to unite scientific and practical horti- culturists in the realms of hybridisation. It seems that the objects we aim at are not to be so soon reached as we all wish. But what I have most enjoyed in this Conference is to see that feeling of fellowship
44 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
stretched far wider than I have ever known it before. The interest of your experiments are so wide that even zoologists have been brought to this Conference, and even they by attending to the work of the hybridist may gain some new light. The first paper we listened to yesterday was by Mr. Bateson, whose views, I believe, were founded on discontinuity in nature. Discontinuity is here the basis of continuity, for this gathering of different nations and sciences must needs lead to a greater union.
M. Henry pe Vinmorin :—My Lords, your Excellencies, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—I feel it a duty to thank the Royal Horticultural Society of Great Britain for the compliment paid to myself and my country in being invited to this meeting—most opportunely called together by the Royal Horticultural Society. Too much cannot be said about the importance and the value of horticulture as a part of the national wealth of any country. Horticulture has been said to be, and is certainly, the highest and most perfect form of agriculture. It is the science that brings out the highest results from the soil, and that constitutes most of the wealth of any and every nation. But horticulture, like every economical under- taking, is at the present time working under difficulties. New competition and new difficulties are creeping up every year; and now when this century is waning and another is coming we have to be considering harder than ever how best to improve the condition of horticulture in every country in this world. ‘The difficulties of horticulture, for example, are increasing in relation to the increased price of coals. We see in many parts of the world, and in this part in particular, that coals are used very largely for promoting the quick growth of plants, especially of fruit. But at the same time you see that the progress of navigation is so rapid that it is becoming an awkward problem in many cases whether it is more profitable to use coals to heat steamers to steam ten or fifteen miles an hour to bring fruit from distant countries, or to use the coal to bring forth earlier crops in our own countries at home. But if we could so alter the varieties of fruits that we could raise them by heat in a few weeks, then we should know what to do. Itis to our hybridists, then, that we must look to make our old varieties earlier and able to be brought to maturity in a short time. Our efforts must be made to bring this about. Plants are our tools. They are the organs by which we obtain all precious results in horticulture. By improving our tools we are doing what all sorts of industry are trying to obtain—an improvement of their finished productions.
In proposing the third toast, that of ‘‘ Hybridists,’”’ Mr. W. Barrson, F.R.S., said :—Mr. Chairman, your Excellencies, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—I hardly knew to what I owed the honour of being chosen to propose this toast of ‘‘ Hybridists’”’ to-night until I recollected that perhaps I was the only man in the room who could say he had never produced a single hybrid. For this toast is practically the toast of our- selves. ‘There must be very few here present who are not included in the term ‘‘ hybridists.”’ I think it is not difficult to anticipate that this toast will be drunk with alacrity. What is a hybridist ? If you turn up the dictionary you find it is connected with the Greek word tprc, which means ‘‘ lawless.” But in these two days that it has been my great
THE BANQUET. 45
privilege to associate with hybridists from many parts of the world, I have come to believe there is no more law-abiding body to be found than the hybridists assembled here to-night. Their business is to find out what the law which governs hybridism and kindred phenomena is, and they are determined to do it. It is with the law that governs natural things as it is with the law of the land, you never know what it is until you get at the point of breaking it, if I may say so in the presence of one of Her Majesty’s most eminent Judges. You must go on until you break the law, and then, at last, you know its limitations. The man who invented the metric system and incubators—the Chinese invented incubators, of course; but I mean the man who invented incu- bators we could use—in his interesting book, said one of the projects he set himself to carry out was to hybridise a rabbit and a fowl. But there, as Professor Henslow would say, his experiments in hybridisation failed. He found he had reached the confines of law. But without going so far as that there are many, many laws which we are perfectly certain we can find out, and which, if found out, would produce a most effective development in science and practice. It is the motto of our sister society, the Royal Agricultural Society, “Science with practice ”’ ; and a great deal has been said of the possibilities before us if we adopt this motto too. I believe the Agricultural society, in saying ‘science with practice,’ meant to imply that practice is to gain by its asso- ciation with science. I am afraid that in hybridising all the gain is going to be on the side of science. If we could fully ally science with practice in horticulture, it seems to me that the gain would be all to science, for on the subject of hybridisation scientific people have little or nothing to tell us as yet. There was once a society that existed for the purpose of mending the clothes of the poor—darning and sewing on buttons, and so forth. Once an Irishman, of whom you may have heard, came to that society with a button in his hand and said, “Tf you would be so good as to sew a shirt to this button, I should be very much obliged.” That is like science and practice in horticultural hybridisation. Science produces the button and practice has to bring the shirt. But by-and-by that will be all adjusted. Everybody knows how things began with electricity, chemistry, and so forth, and so it will be in horticulture and hybridisation. When I think of those who are to respond to this toast, Mr. Swingle, who is associated with that extra- ordinary development the Bureau of Agriculture in America, which has experiment stations all over that vast continent; when I think of the opportunities which they have which we in England have not, for in England, apart from private enterprise, there is nothing of the sort going on; when we think of all this, of the time that must elapse before equip- ment for scientific research can be set up, and any valuable results be gained, it is essential that some permanent record be made. As one sees sometimes in legal documents, “ Time is of the essence of the contract.’’ Without having the guarantee that these experiments will be carried on beyond our lifetime, many people think it is not worth while to begin them. We need a permanent home, so that the work that has been done will not be swept away into oblivion when we ourselves happen to go. Surely sooner or later someone will come forward and offer
46 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
this grand old Society such an establishment. I believe there is nothing that is so likely to revolutionise the scientific knowledge of animals and plants as such an establishment as I am _ speaking of would; and I think the best result of such a Conference as this is to stir up people’s minds and make them think seriously of my sugges- tion. It is perfectly certain that there are great successes to be reached in these fields. I feel certain our experiments will not prove sterile, but will produce flowers and fruit which will be awarded by posterity with an “BR.C.C.” This means—I explain for the benefit of the uninitiated—that the fruit of this Congress will be hereafter judged and awarded a first- class certificate.
Monsieur DE LA DrvANSAYE (who spoke in French) :—Sir Trevor Lawrence, your Excellencies, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—It gives me the greatest delight to respond to this toast. Hybridisation has been one of the great pleasures of my life. I see in it the potentiality of quite an amazing extension of the world of plants, and that not in the very far distant future as world periods are reckoned. There appears to me to be practically no limit to what the hybridist may accomplish. Of course I mean no limit within that boundary of natural laws which Mr. Bateson has so humorously referred to. Gentlemen, I wish I could address you in your own language, but it is too hard for me. Ithank you for inviting me to this most interesting Conference, and I hope it may be continued and reopened at our great Exhibition next year in Paris, when we shall be only too proud to give you as hearty a welcome in my country as we foreign guests have so heartily appreciated and enjoyed in yours.
Mr. Water T. Swiyeue, Department of Scientific Agriculture, Washington, U.S.A. :—It is with particular pleasure that I, a cousin from across the sea, rise on this occasion to respond to the toast of “ Hybridists.”” It seems particularly appropriate that the Conference should be held in England, for it is in this island that Thomas Fairchild made the first hybrid known to the learned world. I don’t think it was the first hybrid that existed, but it was the first hybrid known. It is also with particular pleasure that it is under the auspices of the Royal Horticultural Society, which has published the magnificent work of Dean Herbert, that I respond to this toast. It seems to me it is scarcely possible for us to over-estimate the future of the hybridist. When we recollect that scarce two hundred years ago Thomas Fairchild made the first hybrid ever known, and that now there have come people from all parts of the world deeply interested in the subject, and when we think of what a tremendous future there is for the improvement of our flowers, our fruits and foodstuffs, and all that appeals to our pleasure and our sense of beauty, we realise that hybridisation is the best and noblest branch of horticulture.
In proposing the toast of “The Royal Horticultural Society,’ Lord Justice LinpuEy, Master of the Rolls, said:—Mr. President, your Kx- cellencies, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—It will probably be a matter of some speculation and perhaps surprise that an old lawyer like myself should be invited to propose to you the toast of the Royal Horticultural Society. The reason is known to a few, and I will state it to those who are unaware of it. Iam the bearer of a name which-I am
THE BANQUET. AT
proud to say was borne by a man who in his day for thirty-five years was the life and soul of the Royal Horticultural Society. I am not old enough to recollect the creation of the Society, for it was started in 1804 ; but I am old enough to recollect those days which were the glorious, prosperous days of the Society—the days of the great Chiswick fétes in May, June, and July, when all the rank and fashion of London and the country went down to enjoy those great fétes. They developed in my own time from that iron skeleton of a tent which used to stand in the arboretum of the Society till they culminated in those wonderful shows at Chiswick, and later on at Kensington. These were days when the Horticul- tural Society’s exertions took the form of sending out explorers and col- lectors all over the globe, and the work they did was astonishing to those who are aware of their results. Irecollectsome of them. There was that fiery Douglas, who went out to Oregon and the Far West and met his death by being gored by a buffalo, as I recollect. Then I recollect Robert Fortune, a Scotchman, who, thanks to his high cheek-bones, his knowledge of Chinese, and his extraordinary dexterity with chopsticks, held his own in those outlandish Chinese places where he risked his life in order to obtain information. Those are the days that are past. Those are the days when money came in from the wealthy and from those who visited the Society. I recollect the time when the Emperor Nicholas was at Chiswick. There were more than 14,000 people present ; and then came a time of depression. The Horticultural Society had certainly given an enormous spur to the life of gardening. But times were not prosperous. Chiswick Gardens were curtailed, and the arboretum had to be given up. Then we came to South Kensington, and there came again a time of outward prosperity, followed by a terrible blight. These tactics were changed. You appealed to scientific men rather than to the wealthy. You pursued a new course of utility. You adopted a distinctly horticultural policy with a lower rate of subscriptions, and, thanks to these things, but, above all, to the energy of your Presi- dent, Sir Trevor Lawrence, and your hard-working and genial Secretary, Mr. Wilks, the Society now is entering upon a career which I trust will be as prosperous, if not more so than in the past. I have heard some- thing about hybridisation, of which I know little. I have heard something which leads me to suppose that the development of that art may react upon the profession to which I have the honour to belong. Without being a prophet, I seem to see before me a vista of patent hybrids ! What a treat for the patent lawyers! and what an accession of work for Her Majesty’s Judges! I invite you to drink to the health of the Royal Horticultural Society as heartily as I have had the honour to propose it. The Chairman (Sir TREvor Lawrence) :—The Master of the Rolls, your Excellencies, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—I must confess it was with peculiar satisfaction that I received an intimation from the Master of the Rolls that he would give us the honour of his company here to-night. It is quite impossible for anyone who remembers the invaluable services which were rendered by his father to the Royal Horticultural Society and to the cause of the science of botany to do other than rejoice that a man who, like the Master of the Rolls, has made his mark in the world, though in a different direction from that of
48 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
his father, should be present here as our guest to-night. The Master of the Rolls has referred to some of the early parts of the history of this Society. The Society, as he has justly and correctly said, was founded in 1804, and our excellent and most energetic Secretary is already asking us how we are going to celebrate our centenary. There are numerous suggestions, and I am not going to trouble you with them to-night; but I think I may fairly claim for the Royal Horticultural Society that during the nearly hundred years that it has existed it has done very valuable work, not only in the cause of horticulture, but for the advance- ment of that which has giyen incalculable pleasure and delight to the people of this country. I very much wonder whether that very distinguished botanist, Sir Joseph Banks, in co-operation with Mr. Andrew Knight, whose name is so well known to hybridists, quite foresaw the yery valuable work they were setting on foot when they met together at 187 Piccadilly, then occupied by Messrs. Hatchard, the booksellers, to inaugurate this Society. The objects of the Society were these, to foster and encourage every branch of horticulture and all arts and sciences connected with it. And when a few years later the Society had a Charter, a Royal Charter, granted to it, the objects were set forth very briefly—the improvement of horticulture in all its branches, ornamental as well as useful. As the Master of the Rolls has already told you, the Society in those early days sent out many collectors—not only those whom he has mentioned, but many others besides. I venture to think that when the Royal Horticultural Society sent Robert Fortune to China it was hardly aware that it was laying the foundation for the revolution of a great trade, for trans- ferring to one country a great trade which up to that time had been the property of another country. I mean the shifting of the tea trade to a great extent from China to India. For it was owing to the fact that Robert Fortune was sent out by this Society to China that the cultivation of tea was undertaken in the Himalayas. It spread thence to Ceylon, and so, as we know, at the present time the great bulk of the tea which is consumed in Western countries comes, not from China, but from those countries into which Robert Fortune introduced it. With regard to the Scotchman who could not get out of the way of the bullock, he was gored to death in the Sandwich Islands, I believe. But with regard to Douglas he has introduced so many valuable plants that it is justly remarked his efforts and those of his colleagues have had marvellous results—results which have affected all parts of England. ‘ For nowhere can a day’s ride now be taken where the landscape is not beautified by some of the introduc- tions of the Royal Horticultural Society.’’ That is a quotation from a quarto volume which has some value, though not as much as it ought to have, by Mr. Andrew Murray, who wrote an account of the Royal Horticultural Society. The Master of the Rolls has referred to the Chiswick Shows. I have always been of opinion, and every day I live my opinion is strengthened, that when any society depends upon the some- what fickle favours of fashion sooner or later it is certain to come to grief. So far as the fashionable world was coneerned, as the Master of the Rolls has observed, it used at one time to favour Chiswick. Then something else attracted its attention, and at
THE BANQUET. 49
the same time the elements were most unpropitious, and the Chiswick Shows came to an end. If the Royal Horticultural Society during recent years has had the advantage of greater prosperity, it has not been due, allow me to say, as I have been President for several years—it has not been due to the exertions either of the President or Council. It has been due to the fact that the President and Council of late years have adopted the only true policy, which is—to stick to horticulture. As long as any society, for which there is really any public demand—as long as it sticks to the subject which it is created to develop, so long will that society succeed. Our success, then, has been due, not to individuals, but to the policy inaugurated some twelve years ago, viz. that the Royal Horticultural Society existed, and should be con- sidered to exist, wholly and solely for the promotion of scientific and practical horticulture. There is one thing with regard to the Congress we have been lately holding which I think has hardly perhaps been suf- ficiently recognised—that is the enormous obligation which the public owe to the hybridist and the horticulturist. There is scarcely a flower which grows in our gardens which has not been created, or which has not been enormously improved, by the work of hybridisation and selection. There is scarcely a fruit on our tables which we do not owe to the successes of the hybridist. Do you want early Strawberries? You get them. Do you want late Strawberries? Yougetthem. All the result of hybridisa- tion! If you want early or late Peaches you get them, the result of hybridisation. With Grapes it is the same ; and so it is with vegetables, Peas, French Beans, Cauliflowers, Broccoli, Lettuces, you get them early and late—all the result of skilful hybridisation or of careful selection. I venture to think the public at large owe a great debt of gratitude to the horticultural profession for the enormous amount of work done in that direction. Well now, I do not wish to detain you any longer; but there is one thing I want to say before sitting down. The Royal Horticultural Society has no doubt been progressing of late years by leaps and bounds. We are now not far short of five thousand Fellows, a number which has never been approached in former times, but a number which, so far as I can see, will be by no means the limit of the popularity of the Society. We are not wealthy, but we are at all events in fair water. But we want two things. The Royal Horticultural Society wants a hall in London. If I had the good fortune to be addressing an audience not of my fellow-Lon- doners, but of the people of Manchester, or Liverpool, or one of our great northern cities, I believe in all probability some one would get up and say, “Twill build you that hall.”’ Now, is it impossible in this enormously rich metropolis that some gentleman who has had the greatest possible plea- sure and delight from horticulture will come forward with some few thousands of his many millions and build us that hall? I cannot but believe that such a man will shortly appear. We want another thing—a new garden. Chiswick is too small,and too near London smoke. We want a garden which will be called, I hope, the New Chiswick ; we cannot abandon the old name. We want a new garden, and for that we want money. I am thankful to say that the only card that has gone round the tables to-night is on behalf of the photographer. We are not going to send round the card to invite ladies and gentlemen to subscribe on 19
50 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
this occasion ; but if any lady—and I appeal more particularly to the ladies, for they are great admirers of flowers, and have a great influence on the opposite sex—if any lady present happens to have influence with any millionaire, I ask her to be good enough to urge the claims of the Royal Horticultural Society for a hall in London, and whether she succeeds or not, the Society will be deeply indebted to her. I wish, in conclusion, to say once more how grateful we are to our foreign friends who are gathered round us in such numbers to-day. I beg to thank the guests who have been good enough to be here to-night. This will be a red-letter day in the history of the Society, and I hope on some future occasion to have the great pleasure of seeing you all here again.
In proposing the toast of ‘‘The Visitors’? Mr. CHartes EK. SHEA said :—I believe somewhere there is a telegram telling me I should have to propose the toast that Sir John Llewelyn had undertaken to propose. I had not the advantage enjoyed by Professor Henslow of receiving that telegram before I started, but on arriving I received the digestion- destroying command of the Secretary to take the place of Sir John. Of course the Secretary has made an enemy of me for life. But at the same time I felt that the toast was one that should be so easy, so pleasant, to propose that I accepted it. The occasion is graced to-night by the presence of many ladies, not only from England, but from abroad. Sir Trevor Lawrence has just laid a rather heavy charge on the ladies to build us a hall. Now they know what they have to do. Sir Trevor Lawrence has in his mind what we are all thinking—‘“ the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world,’’ and we of the Royal Horticultural Society would be the first to submit to and to admit the sweet sway which they have over us all. I do not think that we horticulturists altogether appreciate the great good which ladies have done for horticulture. We have to-night many distinguished visitors. We have the Ministers—the Belgian Minister, who is the representative of a country famed all the world over for its love of and its skill in horticulture. Then we have the Netherlands Minister, a keen friend of horticulture, who, in the Nether- lands, holds the same position as Sir Trevor Lawrence does here. Time necessitates my passing by our English friends—Mr. Bateson, whose name we all know; Sir Michael Foster, whose absence, through illness, we all so much regret. But I will pass to the foreigners. We have among us no less than four representatives of our cousins across the water. We receive them to-night not only in their individual capacity, but as sent by the Government of the United States of America as a token of friendship and appreciation. We have Mr. Webber, Mr. Hays, Mr. Fairchild, and Mr. Swingle. France sends us many guests to-night—Monsieur de la Devansaye, the two Messieurs de Vilmorin, and others. Germany sends us again our friend Herr Schmidt, and we have from Holland our distinguished guest Professor Hugo de Vries and Herr Simon de Graaf. There are many others here that lack of time alone prevents me from mentioning. But let me deal for one moment with the impressions that the Conference has left on my mind. I think the impression our visitors will take back with them, as I shall take away with me, is the immense practical use of the Congress we have held. Our visitors, I think, will take back certain lessons.
THE BANQUET. 51
They cannot help doing so. They, on their part, have taught us many lessons. I refer more to the American, because the Continental methods are so much more allied to our own that it is difficult to differentiate between ours and theirs. Perhaps we, of Europe, are too speculative and less practical than we ought to be. I admire scientific speculation tending towards the elucidation of first causes; but I was deeply im- pressed by the fierce, practical, utilitarian methods of the Americans, as Mr. Webber laid them before us this afternoon in a very strong and practical manner. Our American cousins know what they want, and they go straight at it. They get a “freeze’’ among the Oranges, and they say at once, “‘ We must get Oranges that will withstand a frost,” and they go straight at it. They try other Oranges and make a multitude of experiments towards the desired goal. Another point that has struck me very much, a point accentuated by Mr. Webber's lecture, was this—the large support which is given to the important matters of horticulture and agriculture by the Government of the United States. In our own country, if we went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask for an extra hundred or so for Kew, we should be met by the usual official and departmental frown. Mr. Webber has told us that horti- culture brings us all together, arouses in us those sympathies, those friendly feelings, which have been exhibited so largely the last few days. At the Hague there has been a conference with the object of making nations settle their disputes without going to war. It seems not to have suggested itself to the representatives of the Great Powers that there is one way which would render ironclads and Maxim guns drugs on the market—that all these nations should become Fellows of the Royal Horticultural Society.
His Excentency THE Bexta@ian Minister :—Mr. Chairman, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—To. be called upon to respond to the toast which you have just honoured is always regarded by every member of the body to which I belong not only as a matter of international courtesy, but as a very great personal pleasure. The exceedingly kind manner in which it was proposed and acknowledged encourages me to ask a yet further favour at your hands—that you will not take any poor words of mine as expressing my full sense of your kindness, and of the honour you have done to the visitors. This is no ordinary occasion. It is one which every one of us here will long remember for reasons which are common to us all. But each of us, no doubt, will have some special reason for its recollection. Speaking for myself, it will hold a leading place among my memories of all the kindness, all the hospitality, all the friendship that I have enjoyed since I first found myself at home among Englishmen. I say “at home”’ advisedly, for I know how much that word means here, and all that it meansin England. It is, further- more, our common diplomatic experience that British hospitality, not only in the special sense in which we enjoy it here this evening, but in the friendly offices of every day, is unsurpassed throughout-the world. But, if this be true of the official representatives of all countries, how much more true must it be for the countries which are so specially and honourably represented here this evening. Speaking specially for the country and the Sovereign I have the honour to serve, | need not remind
22
E 4
52 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
you of the cordial friendship and admiration of that country for your own. You are aware also how deeply interested my august Sovereign is in all that concerns horticulture, to which he is very sincerely devoted, asit is also one of our national tastes. Gentlemen, I can now only ask you to accept our warmest thanks for this evening’s welcome, and for the great honour you have conferred upon us by giving that welcome such cordial expression, and I fervently wish that our thanks could be as eloquent as they are sincere.
Monsieur Mark Micweui, of Geneva, Switzerland, in proposing the health of the Chairman, said:—Mr. Chairman, your Excellencies, and Gentlemen,—Allow me a very few words. At one time there was a little disagreement between botany and horticulture. Some botanists look down a little on horticulture; some look down a little on the horticul- tural varieties of plants. But what would be our garden—what would be the worth of the flower without the work of horticulture, and the work of the hybridist ? We have many instances of it around us. These flowers that cover the table here are due to the horticultural art. It is due to the efforts of horticulturists that we have all these beautiful Water- lilies that are gracing our table, and now from a practical point of view the botanist can only look on the hybridist and horticulturist with very sreat satisfaction. From a practical point of view, hybridisation and horticulture are very useful to botany; but besides that from a scientific point of view, we have heard to-day at the meetings that the question of hybridisation might be treated from a scientific point of view, and we have had some papers which were of a scientific nature. One of the best ways to obtain our ends is by well-organised societies which will facilitate the work and help the workers on in their enterprise. I think not many societies are so well blessed as your Royal Horticultural Society, which is so ably directed by your most admirable President, Sir Trevor Lawrence, our Chairman to-night, to whom I am most happy to raise my glass, and invite you all to do likewise.
The toast was drunk with ‘ three times three.”’
The CHarrman :—M. Micheli, your Excellencies, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—I am extremely obliged for the very kind way in which you have referred to the Society and to myself. I think I may venture to say on behalf of the Society that we greatly admire the fluency and the admirable way in which our foreign guests have spoken to us in English to-night. I am afraid when we have the honour of visiting Ghent, or Geneva, or Amsterdam, or wherever it may be, that we shall be unreasonable enough to expect the inhabitants of those countries to listen to our English speech. That reminds me. I have ason just going into the Army, and concerning him I had the honour of asking Lord Wolseley’s advice. He said: ‘‘ There are two things your son ought to be able to do—to ride very well and to speak foreign languages.” I am afraid the latter art is not cultivated so much as it ought to be in this country. I ami sure of one thing—that we are very grateful to our foreign guests for the very successful efforts they have made in expressing what they desired to say in our somewhat stubborn and difficult tongue. I can only repeat what I have said before, that we have been very pleased indeed to see the cordiality with which our foreign guests have come
LUNCHEON AT CROYDON. D3
round us. We appreciate their presence exceedingly. We know what valuable work they are doing in the cause of horticulture. We know what they have said about the Society has been said from their hearts, and we thank them most heartily for what they have said.
* * * * *
The proceedings of the Conference were brought to a close by a most enjoyable Luncheon and Garden Party on Thursday, July 13, given by the Master of the Worshipful Company of Gardeners, Philip Crowley, Esq., F.L.S., F.Z.8., &e., &e., at his residence, Waddon House, near Croydon. Covers were laid for 120, and among the guests invited were the Right Hon. C. T. Ritchie, M.P., and Mrs. Ritchie, Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., and Lady Lawrence, Sir John Llewelyn, Bart., M.P., and Lady Llewelyn, Sir Frederick and Lady Edridge, Sir William and Lady Farmer, Colonel and Sheriff Probyn and Mrs. Probyn, the Mayor and Mayoress of Croydon, the Master of the Leathersellers’ Company, the Rev. Canon and Mrs. Pereira, and all the foreign and distinguished members of the Conference.
Special trains conveyed the guests from London, setting them down at the very boundary of Mr. Crowley’s gardens. Luncheon was served in a marquee, a military band being in attendance. After luncheon, Mr. Crowley received upwards of 250 guests at a Garden Party, and when the time came for the special train to convey the members of the Con- ference back to London all were agreed that a most delightful conclusion had been given to the Conference by the hearty welcome and unbounded hospitality of the Master of the Gardeners’ Company.
54 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
Fic. 8.—Nepenrues mixta. (Journal of Horticulture.) (N. Currist x N. NorrHiana.)
CONFERENCE. 55
CONFERENCE.
TuEsDAY, JuLY 11, 1899, ar CHISWICK. .
Introductory Address by Dr. Maxwetu T. Masters, F.R.S., Officer of the Order of Leopold, &c., &e.
Our first duty, and a very pleasant one it is, is to welcome our foreign cuests, our friends from across the sea as I prefer to call them, to thank them for their presence here to-day, and to express a hope that their sojourn among us may be both agreeable and profitable. At the same time we regret that some such as Dr. Focke, the historian of hybridi- sation, has not been able to preside over this meeting, as we had hoped he might have done. Nor can we at such a meeting do other than express our abiding regret at the loss, though at an advanced age, of the great hybridiser, Charles Naudin.
Our next duty is to thank the Council of the Royal Horticultural Society for this opportunity of meeting once more in these time-honoured gardens to discuss what, I venture to think, is one of the, if not the most important subject in modern progressive experimental horticulture. I use the words progressive and experimental because I believe that the future of horticulture depends very greatly on well-directed experiment.
So far as the details of practical cultivation are concerned we are not so much in advance of our forefathers. We have infinitely greater advantages, and we have made use of them, but if they had had them they would have done the same. We are able to bring to bear on our . art not only the ‘‘ resources of civilisation ’’ to a degree impossible to our predecessors, but we can avail ourselves also of the teachings of science, and endeavour to apply them for the benefit of practical gardening. We are mere infants in this matter at present, and we can only dimly per- ceive the enormous strides that gardening will make when more fully guided and directed by scientific investigations. One object of this Con-
ference is to show that cultural excellence by itself will not secure progress, and to forward this progress by discussing the subject of cross- breeding and hybridisation in all their degrees, alike in their practical and in their scientific aspects.
To appreciate the importance of cross-breeding and hybridisation we we have only to look round our gardens and our exhibition-tents, or to scan the catalogues of our nurserymen. Selection has done and is doing much for the improvement of our plants, but it is cross-breeding which has furnished us with the materials for selection.
A few years ago by the expression “new plants,’’ we meant plants newly introduced from other countries, but, with the possible exception of Orchids, the number of new plants of this description is now relatively few.
The “new plants ’’ of the present day, like the Roses, the Chrysan- themums, the Fuchsias, and so many others, are the products of the gardener’s skill. From Peaches to Potatos, from Peas to Plums, from
56 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
Strawberries to Savoys, the work of the cross-breeder is seen improving the quality and the quantity of our products, adapting them to different climates and conditions, hastening their production in spring, prolonging their duration inautumn.* Surely inthese matters we have outdistanced our ancestors.
But let us not forget that they showed us the way. Ido not propose to dilate on the share which Camerarius, Millington, Grew, Morland, and others at the close of the seventeenth century had in definitely establish- ing the fact of sexuality in plants; but I do wish to emphasise the fact that it was by experiment, not by speculation, nor even by observation, that the fact was proved; and I do wish to show that our English gardeners and experimenters were even at that time quite aware of the importance of their discovery, and forestalled our Herbert and Darwin in the inferences they drew from it. In proof of which allow me to quote from a work of Richard Bradley, called ‘‘ New Improvements of Planting and Gardening, both Philosophical and Practical,’ published in 1717, cap. ii. After alluding to the discovery of the method of the fertilisation of plants, he says (p. 22) :—
“ By this knowledge we may alter the property and taste of any fruit by impregnating the one with the farina of another of the same class; as, for example, a Codlin with a Pearmain, which will occasion the Codlin so impregnated to last a longer time than usual, and be of a sharper taste ; or if the winter fruits should be fecundated with the dust of the summer kinds they will decay before their usual time; and it is from this acci- dental coupling of the farina of one with the other that in an orchard where there is variety of Apples even the fruits gathered from the same tree differ in their flavour and times of ripening ; and, moreover, the seeds of those Apples so generated, being changed by that means from their natural qualities, will produce different kinds of fruit if they are sown.
“Tis from this accidental coupling that proceeds the numberiess varieties of fruits and flowers which are raised every day from seed
‘Moreover, a curious person may by this knowledge produce such rare kinds of plants as have not yet been heard of by making choice of two plants for his purpose, as are near alike in their parts, but chiefly in their flowers or seed vessels; for example, the Carnation and Sweet William are in some respects alike : the farina of the one will impregnate the other, and the seed so enlivened will produce a plant differing from either, as may now be seen in the garden of Mr. Thomas Fairchild, of Hoxton, a plant neither Sweet William nor Carnation, but resembling both equally, which was raised from the seed of a Carnation that had been impregnated by the farina of the Sweet William.”’
Here we have the first record of an artificially produced hybrid, and you will remark that this was more than forty years before Kolreuter began his elaborate series of experiments. Fairchild was the friend and associate of Philip Miller, and of a small knot of ‘‘advanced”’ thinkers,
* See some interesting observations of MacFarlane on the period of flowering in hybrids as intermediate between that of the parents, Gardeners’ Chronicle, June 20, 1891; and on the structure of hybrids, May 3, 1890. :
OPENING ADDRESS, BY)
and workers who banded themselves together into a ‘‘ Society of Gardeners.”’
“He is mentioned,” says Johnson in his “History of English Gardening,” “ throughout Bradley’s works as a man of general informa- tion and fond of scientific research, and in them are given many of his experiments to demonstrate the sexuality of plants and their possession of a circulatory system. He was a commercial gardener at Hoxton, carrying on one of the largest trades as a nurseryman and florist that were then established. He was one of the largest English cultivators of a vineyard, of which he had one at Hoxton as late as 1722. He died in 1729, leaving funds for insuring the delivery of a sermon annually in the Churel: of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, on Whit Tuesday, ‘ On the wonder- ful works of Godin the Creation ; or, On the certainty of the resurrection of the dead proved by the certain changes of the animal and vegetable parts of the Creation.’ ”’
Fairchild was thus not only the raiser of the first garden hybrid, but the originator of the flower services now popular in our churches.
We do not hear much of intentionally raised hybrids from this time till that of Linneus, in 1759.* The great Swedish naturalist having observed in his garden a Tragopogon, apparently a hybrid between T. pratensis and T. parvifolius, set to work to ascertain by experiment whether this conjecture was correct. He placed pollen of T. parvifolius on to the stigmas of T. pratensis, obtained seed, and from this seed the hybrid was produced.
About the same time (that is, in 1760) Kolreuter began his elaborate experiments ; but these were made with no practical aim, and thus for a time suffered unmerited oblivion.
Some years after the President of this Society, Thomas Andrew Knight, and specially Dean Herbert, took up the work, with what splendid results you all know.
It is curious, however, to note that objections and prejudices arose from two sources. Many worthy people objected to the production of hybrids on the ground that it was an impious interference with the laws of Nature. To such an extent was this prejudice carried that a former firm of nurserymen at Tooting, celebrated in their day for the culture, amongst other things, of Heaths, in order to avoid wounding sensitive susceptibilities, exhibited as new species introduced from the Cape of Good Hope forms which had really been originated by cross-breeding in their own nurseries.
The best answer to this prejudice was supplied by Dean Herbert, whose orthodoxy was beyond suspicion. He, like Linnezeus before him, had observed the existence of naturai hybrids, and he set to work to prove experimentally the justness of his opinion. He succeeded in raising, as Engleheart has done since, many hybrid Narcissi, such as he had seen wild in the Pyrenees, by means of artificial cross-breeding. If such forms exist in nature, there can be no impropriety in producing them by the art of the gardener.
In our own time, Reichenbach, judging from appearances only, described as natural hybrids numerous Orchids. Veitch and others have
* Amen. Acad., ed. Gilibert, vol. i. p. 212.
58 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
confirmed his conjecture by producing by artificial fertilisation the very same forms which the botanist described. ’ |
It remains only to speak of another respectable but mistaken pre- judice that has existed against the extension of hybridisation. I am sorry to say this has been on the part of the botanists. It is not indeed altogether surprising that the botanists should have objected to the inconvenience and confusion introduced into their systems of classi- fication by the introduction of hybrids and mongrels, and that they should object to hybrid species, and much more to hybrid genera; but it would be very unscientific to prefer the interests of our systems to the extension of the truth.
I may mention two cases where scepticism still exists as to the real nature of certain plants: Clematis Jackmani of our gardens, raised, as is alleged, by Mr. Jackman, of Woking (‘‘ Gardeners’ Chronicle,’ 1864, p. 825), was considered by M. Decaisne and M. Lavallée* to be a real Japanese species, and not a hybrid. This may be so, but there is no absolute impossibility in the conjecture that the Japanese plant and the cultivated plant originated in the same way. Again, Mr. Culverwell’s hybrid between the Strawberry and the Kaspberry has been pronounced to be no hybrid, but to be Rubus Leesii. But what, I may ask, is Rubus Leesii? It appears to be a sterile form more closely allied to the Rasp- berry than to the Strawberry. Is it not possible that Mr. Culverwell has produced it artificially ? ;
The days when “ species’’ were deemed sacrosanct, and “ systems ”’ were considered ‘“natural,’’ have passed, and Darwin, just as Herbert did in another way, has taught us to welcome hybridisation as one means of ascertaining the true relationships of plants and the limitations of species and genera.
Darwin’s researches and experiments on cross-fertilisation came as a revelation to many practical experimenters, and we recall with something akin to humiliation the fact that we had been for years exercising ourselves about the relative merits of ‘“‘ pin eyes”’ and ‘‘ thrum eyes”’ in Primroses, without ever perceiving the vast significance of these apparently trifling details of structure.
It would occupy too much time were I to dilate upon the labours of Gaertner, of Godron, of Naudin, of Naegeli, of Millardet, of Lord Penzance, of Engleheart, and many others. Nor need I do more than make a passing reference to the wonderful morphological results obtained within our own times by the successive crossings and inter- crossings of the tuberous Begonias, changes so remarkable that a French botanist has even been constrained to found a new genus, Lemoinea, so widely have they deviated from the typical Begonias.
For scientific reasons, then, no less than for practical purposes, the study of cross-breeding is most important, and we welcome the opportunity that this Conference affords of extending our knowledge of the life history of plants, in full confidence that it will not only increase our stock of knowledge, but also enable us still further to apply it to the benefit of mankind.
* Lavallée, Les Clématites ad Grandes Flewrs, p. vi-and p. 9, tab. iv.: Clematis Hakonensis.
HYBRIDISATION AND CROSS-BREEDING. 59
HYBRIDISATION AND CROSS-BREEDING AS A METHOD OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION.
By W. Bateson, M.A., F.R.S., University of Cambridge.
Ir was with a special pleasure that I accepted the kind invitation of the Council to address this Conference of persons interested in hybridisa- tion. Of all the methods which are open to us for investigating the facts of Natural History there is perhaps none which is more likely to bring forth results of first-rate importance. Not only is the field a vast one, but the work is ready to hand. Though the patience and labour needed are very great, the practical methods are simple, and can be in many cases carried out by any person who has leisure and is able to carry out anything accurately. Leisure, accuracy, and a garden of moderate extent are almost the only equipment necessary for such work. On the other hand, the scientific importance of the results to be obtained is transcendent. ;
It is perhaps simpler to follow the beaten track of classification or of comparative anatomy, or to make for the hundredth time collections of the plants and animals belonging to certain orders, or to compete in the production or cultivation of familiar forms of animals or plants. But all these pursuits demand great skill and unflagging attention. Any one of them may well take a man’s whole life. If the work which is now being put into these occupations were devoted to the careful carrying out and recording of experiments of the kind we are contemplating, the result, it is not, 1 think, too much to say, would in some five-and- twenty years make a revolution in our ideas of species, inheritance, variation, and the other phenomena which go to make up the science of Natural History. We should, I believe, see a new Natural History created.
It seemed to me that I could not better make use of this opportunity than by indicating, as far as I can, some of the aims which I think a worker in this field should put before him, and the class of work which, as it seems to me, is most likely to prove fruitful in bringing about the result I have indicated.
The problem, it is assumed, on which all such work is to be brought to bear is the problem of species.
I must ask you for a moment to consider the present position of knowledge in regard to Evolution and the nature of Species—for it is with a clear reference to the problem of species that breeding experi- ments, in the first instance, should, in my opinion, be undertaken. We see all living nature—animals and plants—divided into the groups which we call species, groups often so sharply marked off that there can be no doubt where they begin and end; groups often, on the other hand, so irregularly characterised that no two people would divide them alike. What are the causes that brought this about and keep it so? What are the facts underlying this phenomenon of species? For pheno- menon it is; and, believe as we may that all these forms are related in
60 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
descent, there they are now, grouped into species as we know. How did this come about ? b
We all know the accepted view. We start from the fact that, since of all forms of life many more are born than can possibly survive, some —indeed, nearly all—must perish and leave no descendants. Next we observe the fact of Variation—that even the offspring of the same parents are never precisely alike, but vary. Now, since all cannot survive, it is clear that different individuals have a different chance of survival and of being represented by descendants. For each individual this chance will depend on the degree to which its structure and aptitudes fit it to bear its part in the struggle to which it is exposed. Briefly, on the whole the fittest will survive and breed.
Lastly, as the places in life that the organisms fit are diverse, so the forms of the surviving organisms are diverse too.
Everyone who cares at all for Natural History knows this reasoning, and knows also the difficulties by which its application to the facts of Nature is beset—how simple the theory seems when thus stated in general terms, but how hard it is to apply it in detail to a particular case. ‘
Of all these difficulties the most serious are two. The first is the difficulty which turns on the magnitude of the variations by which new forms arise. In all the older work on evolution it is assumed, if the assumption is not always expressly stated, that the variations by which species are thus built up are small. But if they are small, how can they be sufficiently useful to their possessors to give those individuals an advantage over their fellows? That is known as the difficulty of small or initial variations.
The second difficulty is somewhat similar. Granting that variations occur, and granting too that if they could persist and be perpetuated species might be built up of them, how can they be perpetuated ? When the varying individuals breed with their non-varying fellows, will not these variations be obliterated? This second difficulty is known as that of the swamping effect of intercrossing. Now on each of these two points the work of the hybridist and the experimental breeder comes in exactly. It is he who can see the variations arise, and can note their size and find out exactly how large they are—whether they are great or small—whether offspring do really differ but little from their parents, or whether, in certain cases and in respect of certain characters, the differences in variation may not be very great and definite; whether, also, the supposed swamping effect is a real one or not, or to what extent it is real, and in regard to what characters.
I need not tell a body of persons, most of whom have themselves made experiments of this kind, that in numberless cases both great and thoroughly definite variations do occur. This much every practical man now recognises. But we are far from knowing which kinds of variations may thus be definite and palpable, and which are not. All we know is that both large variations and small variations occur, some in one character and others in other characters, and that characters which in one species may vary greatly and suddenly, in other species vary only slowly or hardly at all. All this isa matter which comes daily under
HYBRIDISATION AND CROSS-BREEDING, 61
the observation of the breeder—especially the cross-breeder of plants or of animais. It is to him that we look for first-hand evidence as to the magnitude of variations.
At this point a word of caution is needed. All those present are aware of the great and striking variations which occur in so many orders of plants when hybridisation is effected. As everyone knows, it is to those extraordinary “ breaks”’ that we owe perhaps the majority of our modern flowers. Such, for example, are Narcissus, Begonia, Pelargonium, Gladiolus, Streptocarpus, a great number of Orchids, Rhododendron, the Cineraria, and the like. JI mention the Cineraria, because I have personal knowledge of these hybrids, and because I notice that the view that our garden Cinerarias are not hybrids is being again repeated, in spite of the clear evidence, both of history and recent experiment, to the contrary.
With such cases in view some may be disposed to say: “‘ Here are the great and striking variations we are seeking. These new forms are like new species—some would even take rank as new genera. May not the natural species have arisen in like manner by hybridisation?” The answer to this question, however, is almost certainly No. And herein I believe most, if not all, professed botanists and zoologists will agree. To go into the matter fully here is impossible ; but for many reasons, most of which have often been repeated, there is, I think, no good evidence for supposing that any natural species, whether of animal or plant, arose by direct hybridisation. Tempting as it may at one time have been to hope that we should thus get a short cut to the origin of species, few, I think, are now sanguine of such an issue. It is not in this direction that we can look for that advancement in knowledge which I believe will surely come from the work of the cross-breeder.
I am far from saying that these striking hybrids are without scientific interest, or that they have no bearing on the problem of species. I wish only to say that it is pretty clear that they have not the direct bearing which they would have if it could be supposed that natural species arose as similar hybrids.
The interest in the cross-breeder’s work lies, as I think, in a somewhat different field. Whatever view we adopt of the origin of species—pro- vided that we believe in the doctrine of Descent at all—we believe that every species has been actually produced from something like itself in general, though different in some particular. Wherever these two closely allied varieties exist, the problem of species is presented in a concrete form: How did variety A arise from variety B, or B from A, or both from something else? This question involves two further questions :—
1. By what steps—by integral changes of what size—did the new form come into being ?
2. How did the new form persist? How was it perpetuated when the varying individual or individuals mated with their fellows ? Why did it not regress to the form from which it sprang, or to an intermediate form ?
To those who admit this reasoning it will be clear that the whole question of the origin of species turns on the relationship of each species
62 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
or each variety to its nearest ullies. We may not yet have an authentic case of a nascent species that will satisfy all doubts, but unquestionably we have lots of nascent varieties. If only we make it our business to observe the way in which these nascent varieties come into being, and especially what happens when these varieties are crossed with their nearest allies, we shall have material from which to answer the main questions of which the Species problem consists.
It is only quite lately that any systematic study of such variations has been undertaken from the point of view of the evolutionist, and already some very clear results have been perceived.
As the first difficulty in applyimg the doctrine of Descent turned on the magnitude of variations, so as soon as careful study of Variation is begun it is found that large and distinct variations are by no means rare, and that in certain classes of characters they are indeed the rule. To this class of variation, in which the variation is found already at its beginning in some degree of perfection, I apply the term discon- tinuous.
We are taught that Evolution is a very slow process, going forward by infinitesimal steps. To the horticulturist it is rarely anything of the kind. In the lifetime of the older men here present it is not Evolution but Revolution that has come about in very many of the best-known Orders of horticultural plants. Even the younger of us have seen vast changes. It may have seemed a slow process to individual men in the case of their own speciality. It may have taken all their lives to obtain and fix a strain; but in Evolution that is nothing. It is going ata gallop !
Whenever, then, it can be shown that a variation comes discon- tinuously into being, it is no longer necessary to suppose that for its production long generations of selection and gradual accumulation of differences are needed, and the process of Evolution thus becomes much easier to conceive. According to what may be described as the generally received view, this process consists in the gradwal transition from one normal form to another normal form. This supposition involves the almost impossible hypothesis that every intermediate form has succes- sively been in its turn the normal. Wherever there is discontinuity the need for such a suggestion is wholly obviated.
The first question was: How large are the integral steps by which varieties arise? The second question is: How, when they have arisen, are such variations perpetuated? It is here especially that we appeal to the work of the cross-breeder. He, and he only, can answer this question: Why do not nascent varieties become obliterated by crossing with the type torm
If you study what has been written on these subjects you will find it almost always assumed that such blending and obliteration of characters is the rule in Nature Whole chapters have been compiled with the object of showing how, in a world in which there is such complete blending, evolution might still go on. There has been a word invented to expressly denote this kind of blending ; the word is Panmixia, a word barbarously and incorrectly formed to denote an idea which is for the most part incorrect likewise. For if instead of abstract ideas the facts of cross-breeding are appealed to, it is found that so far from this blending
HYBRIDISATION AND CROSS-BREEDING. 63
and gradual obliteration of character being the rule, it is nothing of the kind. In many characters, on the contrary, it is at once found on cross- ing that the varying character may be transmitted in as perfect a degree as that in which it was found in the parent. It need scarcely be said that there are many structures and conditions which do not thus retain any integrity when crossed, but there are very many that do. Which characters are thus unblending, and which blend, must be determined by careful cross-breeding ; and this knowledge can be discovered in no other way.
The recognition of the existence of discontinuity in variation, and of the possibility of complete or integral inheritance when the variety is crossed with the type, is, I believe, destined to simplify to us the phenomenon of evolution perhaps, beyond anything that we can yet foresee. At this time we need no more general ideas about evolution. We need particular knowledge of the evolution of particular forms. What we first require is to know what happens when a variety is crossed with its nearest allies. Ifthe result is to have a scientific value, it is almost absolutely necessary that the offspring of such crossing shculd then be exainined statistically. It must be recorded how many of the offspring resembled each parent and how many showed characters inter- mediate between those of the parents. If the parents differ in several characters, the offspring must be examined statistically, and marshalled, as it is called, in respect of each of those characters separately. Even very rough statistics may be of value. If it can only be noticed that the offspring came, say, half like one parent and half like the other, or that the whole showed a mixture of parental characters, a few brief notes of this kind may be a most useful guide to the student of evolution. Detailed and full statistics can only be made with great labour, while such rough statistics are easily made. All that is really necessary is that some approximate numerical statement of the result should be kept. The horticulturist makes a cross: he is perhaps obliged by want of time and space simply to keep what he wants and throw the rest away ; but some- times surely he might put down a few words as to what that “ rest ’’ con- sisted of. If he would do so he would have the gratitude of many a student hereafter. On looking through the literature of hybridisation one is saddened by the thought that while so much skill and money and effort have been expended, for want of a very little more attention to recording immeasurable opportunities have been missed.
We have seen that it is likely that those experiments will be found the most fruitful which deal with the relationship subsisting between a given variety or species and its nearest allies. The essential problem of evolution is how any one given step in evolution was accomplished. How did the one form separate from the other? By crossing the two forms together and studying the phenomena of inheritance, as manifested by the cross-bred offspring, we may hope to obtain an important light on the origin of the distinctness of the parents, and the causes which operate to maintain that distinctness.
Useful contributions to the physiology of inheritance may no doubt be made by experimental crossing of forms only remotely connected. Such work, however, will not supply the particular kind of evidence
64 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
most needed. This can only be got by an exhaustive study of the results of cross-breeding between various forms whose, common origin is not very distant. Such experiments must, besides, be repeated sufficiently often to give a fairly extensive series of abservations on which to base conclusions. Anyone, therefore, who wishes to work on these lines would do well to restrict himself to an examination of the transmitting pro- perties of a small group of closely allied varieties or species, and to explore these properties thoroughly within that group.
Cross-breeding, then, is a method of investigating particular cases of evolution one by one, and determining which variations are discon- tinuous and which are not, which characters are capable of blending to produce a mean form and which are not. It has sometimes been urged as an objection against this method of investigation that the results are often conflicting. It has been said that such work will only lead to accumulations of contradictory evidence. It is, however, in this very fact of the variety of results that the great promise of the method lies. When varieties and species are tested by this method it is found that their mutual relations are by no means alike, and properties are disclosed which can in no other way be revealed.
In illustration, I will refer to three cases of hairy and smooth varieties. In each case there is a well-marked discontinuity between the two varieties ; but, as is shown by the evidence obtained by cross-breeding, the nature of the relationship* of the two forms to each other is different in each case, and the distinctness is maintained by different means.
The plants (produced at the meeting) illustrating the following observations were raised by Miss E. R. Saunders, of Newnham College, Cambridge, who is carrying out a large series of experiments on this subject.
The first case is that of MJatthiola incana, a hoary species, and its smooth variety known in gardens as the Wallflower-leaved Stock. Ex- periments in crossing these two forms were made by Trevor Clarke, and briefly described by him in ‘“ Report of Botanical Congress,” 1866. Amongst other things his investigations showed that on crossing these two varieties the offspring consisted entirely of completely hoary and completely glabrous individuals, no intermediate being present. Miss Saunders’s work entirely confirms thisresult. The type-form used by her was procured from seed of presumably wild specimens growing in the Isle of Wight. The glabrous variety was the ordinary garden form the origin of which is not known to us. In this case discontinuity is manifested in its simplest form.
The second example is that of Lychnis diuwrna. There, again, the normal is hairy. A glabrous variety was found by Professor de Vries, and was by him crossed with the type. All the first generation of cross- breds inherited the hairiness in its complete form. When, however, these plants were crossed again with the smooth form, the result was a mixed progeny, of which some were hairy and others smooth. The same result
*The term “relationship” is somewhat misleading, but I cannot find a better. It is used to denote not simply the blood-relationship of the forms to each other, but those physiological relations subsisting between them which are manifested by
experimental crossing. The word is thus used in a sense similar to that which it bears when we speak of the chemical relations of one substance to another.
HYBRIDISATION AND CROSS-BREEDING. 65
also occurred when the cross-bred plants were bred with each other. Professor de Vries kindly sent seed of his glabrous form to Cambridge, - where Miss Saunders repeated the experiments with the same results. In all the cases of mixed progeny there is a sharp discontinuity. :
The third case is that of Biscutella levigata. A full account of this important case was published by Miss Saunders in “ Proc. Roy. Soe.’’ 1897, vol. lxii. p. 11. Briefly the facts are as follows. The species is common as a hairy plant throughout a great part of the Alps. In a few localities a variety occurs having the swrfaces of the leaves quite devoid of hairs. (There are almost always some hairs on the margins and leaf-teeth.) When present, this smooth form occurs abundantly, mixed with the hairy type. Intermediates are of rare occurrence. If plants of the two kinds breed freely together, as in the natural state we must suppose they do, how is the sharp distinction in their respective characters maintained ? The result of artificial cross-breeding went to show that of the young seedlings of mixed parentage some were hairy, some smooth, and a good many intermediate. But as these seedlings grew, the hairy and the smooth retained their original characters, while the intermediate ones gradually became smooth. The transition was not effected by actual loss of hairs, but after the first few leaves of intermediate character the leaves subsequently produced were smooth.
In all these three cases there is discontinuity, the intermediates between the varieties being absent or relatively scarce. Nevertheless, on examina- tion it is found that the discontinuity is not maintained in the same way in the different cases. The transmitting powers of the one variety in respect of the other are quite different in each case, and it must, I think, be admitted that we have here a fact of great physiological significance. In each of the three cases enumerated the two varieties are seen to stand towards each other in a different relation, and in each the mechanism of inheritance works differently.
From facts like these we perceive how imperfect is the survey of the characteristics of species and varieties which can be obtained by the ordinary methods of anatomy and physiology. There can be no doubt that, tested by the method of breeding and by study of the transmitting powers, the relation of varieties and species would be shown in an entirely new light. Weare accustomed to speak of “ variability ’’ as though it were a single phenomenon common to all living things; and just as the older naturalists spoke of species in general as all fixed and comparable entities, so many of the present evolutionists speak of ‘“‘ varieties’: in general as all comparable. This is a mere slurring of the facts. Not only must variability in respect of different characters be a manifestation of distinct physical processes, but, as we have seen, variability, even in what appears to us to be the same character, may be a wholly different matter.
Our business, then, is to test and examine these different kinds of variabilities according to their behaviour when the different varieties are crossed together. By this means we are enabled to investigate the. properties of organisms in a way that no other method provides.
If I may be allowed to use a metaphor taken from chemical science, regarding species and varieties as substances, we may investigate their
.
ne, 66 JOURNAL OF THE .ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
properties and their powers of entering into genetic combinations, just as the chemist investigates the powers of his bodies to enter into, chemical combinations. : .s
To lump all the different manifestations of variation together as
varieties,’’ and to rest there, is to give up in despair.
Similarly, it is certain that what we call “species’’ is a mixture of different phenomena, or rather of different classes of phenomena con- founded under one name. I look to the study of cross-breeding to un- ravel that extraordinary mass of confusion. I look to this method of investigation to deliver us from the eternal debates on the subject of what is specific rank and what is not.
On the one hand we have at the present day many who devote them- selves entirely to discussions of this nature, though they know in their hearts that their views correspond to no natural fact whatever. On the other hand, many in disgust and impatience reject the whole thing. “There is no such thing as species,” say they. Both sides are surely wrong: there is such a thing as species, and we have to find out what are the properties of species.
It is true that, as to most species and varieties, artificial breeding is impossible, but in numerous cases a beginning can be made. Take merely the phenomenon of local varieties, or local species, or local races, about which such weary discussions have arisen. Each of these offers a particular example of the Evolution problem. In numbers of such cases an investigation of the behaviour on crossing could be practised, and a very few such experiments would, I venture to predict, do more to establish true views of the relation of species and varieties than the labours of systematists will do in ages.
To come much nearer home, we do net know for certain the true relationships—in this special sense—between the varieties of the com- monest domestic animals and plants. For example, I have been trying to investigate these relationships between the several kinds of comb in domestic poultry. Ihave thus far found no one who can tell me for certain what happens when they are crossed. The various forms of comb in our breeds of poultry—simple comb, pea-comb, rose-comb, &¢.—are important structural features, which differ from each other very much as many natural species do. ‘The answer generally given is that the result of such crossing is uncertain—that sometimes one result occurs, and sometimes another. This, of course, merely means that the problem must be studied on a scale sufficiently large to give a statistical result. There is here an almost untouched ground on which the properties of specific characters can be investigated. Many similar examples might be given.
True and precise experiments in these fields so ready to our hand have never been made, We appeal to those who have the opportunity to use it for the advancement of this fascinating line of research. It is delightful to form great collections of animals or plants, and to ‘ bring out a novelty’’ may be an exhilarating sensation; but if anyone will abandon these well-worn pursuits, and devote himself to experimental cross-breeding, he will soon haye his reward, for no line of research is likely to prove more fruitful.
FERTILISATION OF THE GENUS ANTHURIUM. 67
FERTILISATION OF THE GENUS ANTHURIUM. By Monsieur pE LA DEVANSAYE.
I HAVE published in the Flore des Serres et des Jardins de l’ Europe, 1877, vol. xxii. p. 37, a general article on the fertilisation and hybrid- isation of Aroidee. Some time after, in vol. xxiii. of the same journal, at p. 26, I also published an article in which I explained the evolution of Anthurium Scherzerianum. The two articles confirmed and illustrated the researches and results then obtained, and even the hopes of hybridists of those days.
I have also published in the Revue Horticole of Paris special articles dealing with the same subject. Those to whom these experiences are interesting, and perhaps of service, will find in the Revue the history of the genus Anthurium, as well as useful and necessary knowledge ; but as I followed up and always continued my studies on Anthurium I think it my duty to draw attention, not only to the two rules which formerly were supposed to terminate the question, but also to a third one.
Rule 1. In most of the species of the genus Anthurium the fecunda- tion only operates successfully when the pollen of the same species is taken from a plant raised from a different batch of seedlings.
Rule 2. The fecundation also operates with success by the application “of pollen belonging to species of some allied genus; for instance, that of Spathiphyllum. This assures fecundation, and often gives variation to the colouring of the flowers, and at other times to the form of the flowers or foliage. When the variation shows itself in the flowers the growth of the plant is more vigorous. The contrary happens when it shows itself in the form and markings of the leaves. If the fecunda- tion is only done with a view of reproducing and improving the type, the resultant seedlings coming from carefully selected varieties are generally more vigorous in point of growth.
Rule 8. Now let me form a third rule, resulting from the experiences of many years, and to which I think I ought to attract your most particular attention, as it does not seem to have been noticed or explained before.
I have already said how one can obtain variations, but in spite of good crossing it often happens that the first and second generations of se@llings have no (or very little) new blood in them. Such seedlings similar only to the type have been abandoned, given up, or destroyed. It is an error to do this because the variations may eventually result from a very slight—almost unnoticeable —change of the type. One must have patience, as the seed of the third and fourth future generations obtained from these plants may unexpectedly give the desired change.
It very seldom occurs that a variation is produced immediately among
first seedlings of species or of hybrids; the process must be continued. F2
68 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
A second batch of seedlings will perhaps give 50 per cent., and a third trial 75 to 80 per cent. ; thus half results may be obtained with the third generation, and from 75 to 80 per cent. with the fourth. These succes- sive seedlings of the same variety are necessary to definitely insure the improvements obtained since the first generation. A careful selection must always be the principal aim of the raiser, because without that, far from succeeding in getting progress or improvement and fixing the definite success, the success itself degenerates and returns to the type.
Discussion.
Mr. F. W. Bursipas, M.A., V.M.H.: I should like to ask; Monsieur de la Devansaye whether he has ever obtained a hybrid between A. Andrianum and A. Scherzerianum.
Monsieur DE LA DEVANSAYE: Never; nor have I ever heard'of one.
HYBRIDISING OF MONSTROSITIES. 69
HYBRIDISING OF MONSTROSITIES.
By Professor Hugo DE VRIEs, University of Amsterdam.
THE well-known hypothesis of Darwin with regard to the material trans- mitters of hereditary qualities, called Pangenesis, assumes that each particular quality is determined by a special transmitting body. This theory forms, in point of fact, though this is often overlooked, the scientific foundation of the speculations regarding heredity now so much in vogue. And in order to obtain starting points for experimental investigation in this branch of study, it is always best to return to the actual basis of the theory, since, as Mr. Galton says in his “ Hereditary Genius,” “ it gives a key that unlocks every one of the hitherto unopened barriers to our com- prehension of the nature of heredity.” *
In connection with the teaching of Quetelet and Galton regarding the laws of continuous variability,t Pangenesis leads to the conviction that new distinctive features arise, not through this, but discontinuously. It is a question, it is true, of very small steps, but nevertheless they are steps, and not a gradual improvement of existing characters, as with the origination of races.
One very important result from Pangenesis appears to me to be that one and the same quality in various organisms depends upon the presence of the same material bearer.$
Such material unities may therefore be transferred from one species to another by means of hybridising. Thence must arise hybrids which would be just as stable as ordinary species, and which therefore, in certain cases, could imitate normal species.
If the literature of Hybridity be examined with regard to this question two facts present themselves. One is that a number of cases are men- tioned which should be classed under this head ; and the other, that very little is known of the way in which such a transferring of characters takes place.
In horticultural practice, especially, there have frequently been trans- ferred with good results certain peculiarities in newly discovered or newly imported species into existing hybrid races. The genera Gladiolus, Caladium, and many others afford examples. In scientific trials also new and constant forms of mixed character have frequently been obtained by hybridising; as, for instance,'by Lecoq with Mirabilis, and by Godron with Datura and Linaria. Focke, however, emphasises the unsatisfactory nature of our knowledge in this direction in his splendid work on nf PManzenmischlinge ” (, 484). As is well known, stable hybrids are the result of the experiment ; but of how it is done, how the transfer of the peculiarities is effected, we know as yet very little.
Professor Le Monnier, of Nancy, has recently observed a very re- markable case, and I am indebted to his kindness for the possibility of
* F. Galton, Hereditary Genius, p. 364.
+ Bateson, Materials for the Study of Variability.
t “Unity and Variability,” The University Chronicle, Berkeley, California, 1898. § Intracellulare Pangenesis, Jena, 1889
70 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
showing you the result. This is seen in two twisted stems of Dipsacus fullonum, which owe their twisting to a cross of the common Teazel with my hereditary race of Dipsacus sylvestris torsus.* As you will see, the twisting is just as perfectly developed as in the paternal form.tT
In 1896, in the botanical garden at Nancy, there flowered both the plants in question, which had been cultivated for several years at a distance of about 100 metres from each other. Pollen could easily be transferred by insects. From the seed of Dipsacus fullonwm plants were raised in 1897, among which three in the next summer had perfectly twisted stems. One of these bore an inflorescence with an involucre formed of bracts bent upwards; in the other two the bracts were bent outwards. It is well known that the first is peculiar to D. sylvestris, and the second form to D. fullonum.
It is to be remarked that in the same year the number of swisha individuals of D. sylvestris torsus was considerably reduced in Professor Le Monnier’s garden. Professor Le Monnier was also kind enough to send me some of the seed of this hybrid: they were sown in April, and yielded vigorous plants, mostly of the D. fullonwm type.
In this newest example of transferring a monstrosity by hybridising there is also, as regards the modus operandi of the transfer of the torsion character, very little known.
For some years, in connection with this position of matters, it has appeared to me that it would be interesting to investigate a single case of hybridising carefully and in full detail, and to describe the same. To this end I chose a very simple case, and one which could be followed thoroughly—viz. the transference of the lack of pubescence in Lychnis vespertina glabra into Lychnis diurna. ‘The object was to produce artificially a hairless form of the latter.
This task is all the more important since the form in question has already arisen elsewhere in the ordinary way of variation. About 1842 Sekera had found tie hairless form of Lychnis diwrna on a mountain slope not far from Munchengriitz. It grew there in quantity, and has remained constant until now, that is, for more than fifty years. He called it at first L. diwrna glaberrvma, but later L. Preslii. Under the latter name it is still found in botanical gardens, especially in Prague, in Tiflis, and in M. Correvon’s garden at Geneva. From Prague Professor Celakowski sent me, in May of this year, a female plant, and later he sent me some examples collected for me by his assistant, Dr. Nemec, at the original station near Minchengratz, for which aid my best thanks are due to both gentlemen.
I possess, therefore, now the material enabling me to compare my hybrids with these plants, obviously originated directly from L. diwrna, and find that, as far as regards the leaves, stems, and flowers, there is no appreciable difference between the two.
Moreover I have addressed myself to Dr. mil Sekera, Professor of Zoology at the K.K. Staatsrealschule in Jicin, in Bohemia, a nephew of
ag’. Monographie der Zwangsdrehungen,” in Pringsheim’s Jahrbiicher fiir Wiss. Bot. vol. xxiii. Part 1, 1891.
t Two twisted stems of the new hybrid and several twisted stems of the paternal form were shown at the Conference.
{ Lotos, iii. p. 133; Oesterr. Bot. Wochenblatt, 1854, p- 197.
HYBRIDISING OF MONSTROSITIES. 71
the author of the species in question. He had the kindness to give me all necessary information. He also sent me an authentic specimen of the Lychnis Preslii collected by his uncle more than forty years ago. And now I have the pleasure of showing it to you for comparison.
Lychnis vespertina glabra, which formed the starting point of my trials, does not appear to have been so far described; at any rate, I have not found it named in the literature at my disposal.*
On the other hand, I found the plant itself at a station not far from Amsterdam, a station which has since disappeared. This was in August, 1888, in the vicinity of Hilversum, where I collected seed from fully dried and nearly unrecognisable plants. When the following year I sowed these in my experimental garden, there appeared a few hairless among many hairy examples. I collected the seed of the former and sowed them, and as the culture did not turn out to be a pure one, [| isolated the hairless form later, during the flowering period. In 1892, in a bed containing many hundred examples, they were almost entirely true, since only a single more or less hairy plant was found.
As already stated, I then projected to transfer this hairless condition to Lychnis diurna, and in that way to produce artificially a L. diwrna glabra or giaberrima.
The purpose of my experiments can also be thus described—viz. to obtain, in quite another way, the form known as Lychnis Preslii, which is recognised by many authors as a good species, and which apparently has arisen in the Bohemian Alps from ZL. diurna.
My attempt has fully succeeded. I effected the cross in the said year (1892), f and already in 1894 I had a not inconsiderable number of hairless examples of Lychnis diurna. The following year this form proved to be nearly constant, and since then I have cultivated it annually, and sometimes in large quantities. Among many hundreds of speci- mens there appeared only exceptionally solitary hairy individuals, so rarely, indeed, that this may perhaps be imputed to the introduction of weed seeds into the beds.t
Hybrids between Lychnis vespertina and L. diurna have been obtained by Gaertner, Focke, and many other investigators.§ The crossing is easily effected ; the hybrids are fertile, and even apparently no less fertile than the parent species (Focke). Godron has also crossed Lychnis Preslii with L. vespertina, and obtaifted hairy hybrids which did not essentially differ from those obtained by crossing L. diwrna and L. vespertina. The investigation of the progeny of these hybrids does not appear to have excited much interest with the said authors. In the second generation these hybrids, as is the ordinary rule, break into various forms, among
* The pubescence in Lychis vespertina and L. diwrna is essentially the same. Long many-celled unbranched hairs form a soft covering, among which smaller glandular hairs are distributed.
{ In order to protect my flowers from insect visits I cover them with parchment paper bags, which have for years proved excellent for the purpose. These bags can be got from the manufactory of P. J. Schmitz, in Diisseldorf. Vide a separate paper on the subject.
{ “Erfelyke Monstrositeiten’’ in Kruidkundig Jaarboek, Dodonea, 1897, pp. 71 and 87.
§ Gartner, Die Bastardbefruchtung im Pflanzenreich, and Focke, Die Pflanzen mischlinge.
72 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
which, besides the hybrid type, the paternal and maternal characters appear more or less sharply defined. For my purpose, however, it was specially desirable to observe the behaviour of the subsequent generations.
When in 1892 I wished to effect the first cross, I sowed to that end seed of Lychnis diwrna obtained by exchange in the usual way from botanical gardens. The seed-bed, about one metre square, yielded a brightly coloured mixture of various forms. Certainly all the plants were normally pubescent, but between L. diwrna and individuals similar to L. vespertina there were almost all grades and combinations, both as regards habit of growth, form of leaf, and colour of flower, as well as the formation of flower stalks in the first year, or only leafy rosettes.
During the flowering I selected three female plants, which appeared to me to present the pure characteristics of Z. diwrna. They had the normal pubescence and dark-red flowers. All the rest were weeded out, and from these three examples the flowers, which were already open or had faded, were removed.
I then fertilised these three plants with pollen from my Lychnis vespertina glabra, and they yielded plenty of seed.
The following year I sowed from this seed a bed of about two square metres, and had at the flowering period something over 200 examples. I sowed some more also in the greenhouse, for control and pot culture.
This first generation of hybrids, up to the time of flowering, appeared very uniform. All the plants were hairy and had the characters of Lychnis diurna. Closer examination, however, during the flowering period, afforded opportunity for some not unimportant observations.
In his excellent work upon ‘‘ The Minute Structure of Plant Hybrids,” Mr. Macfarlane has carefully examined how hybrids are constituted with regard to anatomical characters which are absent in one of the parents but present in the other.* He treats of these cases together under the name of Unisexual Heredity, and deduces the rule that they “ are handed down, though reduced by half.’ Lychnis vespertina and L. diwrna have both, upon all parts of the plant, long, soft, many-celled, sharply pointed hairs, among which there are scattered glandular hairs, rare upon the stems and more numerous upon the flowers. The hybrid between L. diurna and the hairless form of LZ. vespertina has shorter and blunt- ended hairs and a lesser number of glandular hairs, especially on the stalks.
Of my hybrids, in the first year about two-thirds produced flower stalks, whilst the remainder only formed rosettes of basal leaves. It is well known that ZL. diwrna is a perennial species, whilst L. vespertina is an annual or biennial. But then ZL. diurna also frequently flowers the first year, as did the mother plants, which germinated and flowered in 1892, when they served for my crossing experiment.
I have especially directed my attention to malformations. It is said, and pretty generally acknowledged, that hybrids show a greater tendency towards malformations than do the parental forms. In my seed-beds they were not rare. In the first place, as regards the number of the pistils, Gaertner (/.c. pp. 842 and 531) foundin L. diurna x vespertina occasion-
* J. Muirhead Macfarlane, ‘The Minute Structure of Plant Hybrids,’ Trans. Ioy. Soc. Edin. vol. xxxvii. Part 1, No. 14, 1892, p. 273.
HYBRIDISING OF MONSTROSITIES. 73
ally six, and regards this as an example of increase of the female organs by hybridisation. I found upon my hybrids a fair number of flowers with six, and a few with seven pistils. I thereupon examined my stock plants of Lychnis vespertina glabra and found the same deviation among them. I had therefore simply overlooked it the previous year, and it is not to be doubted that, in this case at least, the malformation has not resulted from the crossing, but is simply inherited from one of the two parents.
It results, however, from this that the same explanation may be true in other cases: the hybrids are, as a rule, examined more closely than their parents, and hence more malformations are remarked in them.*
I found furthermore, in my bed of hybrids, tricotyledonous and hemitri- cotyledonous plants, divided leaves, triple leaves, fasciate stalks and forked ones, four-petalled flowers (K,,C,Mg), and other malformations. Most of these divergences, however, I found on careful examination to exist on one or both of the parental species. They were, therefore, simply inherited.
The inheritance of malformations by hybrids I have often found con- firmed by experiments with species of other genera: it appears to me to form a rule which so far has been too much overlooked as an explanation of hybrid characters.
The colour of the flowers in my culture bed varied greatly. The great majority were purple, some were quite white, others dark red, but, as it appeared to me, not so deeply red as the mother plants in 1892. Between these three principal colours there were numerous grades of intermediate tints.
Gaertner also (J.c. p. 241) found the colour of the flowers of his hybrids to vary: by far the greater number were purple ; a few, however, were white- flowered.
It appears to me to be very unlikely that the cause of this variability - is to be found in the crossing. I would rather assume as an explana- tion that the examples fertilised by me in 1892 in this connection were not of pure origin. They were selected from a varied mixture of colours as the finest examples. Regarding their integrity, I had at the time when I fertilised them no cause for doubting it. 1f they, however, were hybrids between the warious forms of the mixed lot in question, one would naturally expect white-flowered offspring as well as red to be yielded by the seed.
On this view the circumstance, that my hybrids of the first generation were variable as regards the colour of the flowers, justifies the supposition that they have simply inherited this variability from their mothers. And this assumption may possibly embrace the essence of an explanation of the variability of so many hybrids in their first generations, since only in the rarest cases have the parental forms, in hybridising experiments, been carefully tested as to their constancy. It does not suffice that they appear to be of a constant type. Many hybrids are exteriorly hardly to be distinguished from one or other of the parents, and therefore many hybrids may easily be mistaken for true species. In many other
* It has been so in other cases. When I began to give special attention thereto I found twistings and ascidia to be much more frequent than one would expect from existing literature. Compare for the first Ber. d. d. bot. Ges. vol. xii. 1894, p. 25; and for the latter, Dodonea, 1895, vol. vii. p. 129, Over de erfelijkheid van Synfisen.
74 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
experiments I have subsequently been able to test my hybridising material in this respect, and found the assumption, above given to be confirmed ; unfortunately, in this case it was no longer possible.
In the horticultural practice of hybridising it is a rule to choose forms of which one at least is very variable, and hence arises the known multi- formity of the hybrids.
With regard to the flowers and other important characters, my hybrids resembled the true Lychnis diurna.
IT come now to the third generation, which I cultivated in 1894. For this I used seed of the dark-red examples of 1893, which I had fertilised with pollen from equally dark-coloured flowers, taking care to exclude insect visits.
But whilst in 1898 all the hybrids had been hairy, this was no longer the case in 1894. Only about three-fourths were hairy, the rest hairless. T had 99 hairy and 54 hairless, in all 155 plants, and counted them in July at the commencement of flowering. The character of the grand- father, the transfer of which I had had in view, was therefore once again visible.
Both among the hairy and among the hairless plants there were red- flowered and white-flowered and _ broad-leaved and _ narrow-leaved examples; the broad-leaved had the habit of L. diwrna, the narrow- leaved that of LZ. vespertina. Also, as regards the corolla and the calyx, there was a similar diversity of form. The parental characters were, in all imaginable combinations and grades, to be found in the bed of seedlings.
As confirmation of the above, as regards the inheritance of malforma-_ tions, I found, for instance, a flower with two corollas in one calyx.
Among the vari-coloured mixture, I now sought out my Lychnis diurna glabra, selecting some male and female examples, which latter I fertilised with the former, excluding insect visits. They were entirely hairless broad-leaved plants with the flowers of L. diwrna and with dark- red petals—characteristics of the grandfather, with the exception of the entire hairlessness, I failed to find.
The seed reproduced the desired form in the following year (1895) quite truly—at least as regards the absence of hairs and the other constant characteristics of my starting plants. Only the colour of the flowers remained variable. Out of 206 plants there were 13 white- flowered, or about 6 per cent. The rest were partly purple, partly dark red.
As regards the pubescence, I have made the following experiments. As the bed was in the vicinity of that in which the cuiture of the previous year had been made, its integrity, owing to possible subsequent germination of older seed, was not certain. I sowed, therefore, a portion of seed in pans with sterilised soil and raised 390 young plants, all of which were hairless. The transmitted character could therefore be regarded as constant.
In the two following years (1896 and 1897) I have carried the new form through two further generations, choosing always the dark-red individuals as pollen and seed parents. In 1897 I had a bed of four square metres, containing about 1,350 plants. Pubescent plants occurred
HYBRIDISING OF MONSTROSITIES. ' 75
in both years as solitary specimens, perhaps through chance introduction of seed. On the other hand, I did not succeed in reducing the number of white-flowering plants to any marked extent : it remained about 6 per cent.
If the white-flowering plants be isolated, it is found that they are fully constant. I fertilised them in 1898 in the first hybrid generation, when they were all hairy. The hairiness was inherited, as in the red- flowered plants, in three-fourths of the individuals, but the white colour in nearly every individual. I fertilised the hairless white-flowered plants with pollen from same type, and could now, according to the experience given above, rely upon having the seed of an almost completely true and suffi- ciently constant new form, Lychnis diurna glabra alba.
It is to be remarked that Sekera mentioned that his Lychnis Presliz produced no white-flowered examples.
As regards monstrosities, it appeared that split leaves and twisting were inherited in this race.
To summarise the progress of our experiments, it may be stated that the fertilisation of Lychnis diurna by L. vespertina glabra succeeded easily. The hybrids of the first generation were, with the exception of the colour of the flowers, alike; they were all hairy, only in a less degree than the mother plants, but otherwise very like it. In the second generation they broke into the most varied combinations and mixtures, among which hairless plants of the Lycinis diurna type were easily found, both red-flowered and white-flowered. ‘These proved themselves both fully constant from the very moment of their first appearance, especially in regard to their smoothness, and remained so during all the succeeding generations. Only the red-flowered seed always yielded about 6 per cent. of white-flowered plants.
The artificial production of Lychnis diurna glabra, which, with the exception of constancy of the flower colour, seems to be identical with L. Preslii of Sekera, may therefore be regarded as entirely performed in the course of nearly four years.
76 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
HYBRIDISATION AND ITS FAILURES. By the Rev. Professor G. Henstow, M.A., F.L.S., V.M.H., &e.
INTRODUCTION ; DEFINITION OF A SpEcrES.—In endeavouring to find some clue to the interpretation of hybrids, as to why some species when crossed fail, while others succeed and bear fertile offspring, it is desirable to consider what is the present idea of a species. Two con- siderations were formerly maintained, viz. morphological structures and a presumable physiological affinity. Thus Bentham defined a species as follows: “A species comprises all the individual plants which resemble each other sufficiently to make us conclude that they are all, or may have been all, descended from a common parent.’’ *
This definition may be sufficient as long as no physiological question is raised as to the capabilities of different species of the same genus intercrossing. Dean Herbert, however, soon found that another element must be considered, and that was interbreeding. Since the practice of hybridising plants has been extensively pursued ever since he wrote, the idea has been maintained that if two species would cross and produce fertile offspring, then they must be regarded as of common parentage, and as being only varieties of one and the same species. Thus Dean Herbert writes, referring to experiments of Knight: “The President adopted in his writings a principle or dogma, which seemed to be then much relied upon by botanists, that the production of a fertile cross was proof direct that the two parents were of the same species, and he assumed as a consequence that a sterile offspring was nearly conclusive evidence that they were of different species.’’ Hethen further adds: “I held also... that the production of any intermixture amongst vegetables, whether fertile or not, gave reason to suspect that the parents were descended from one common stock and showed that they were referable to one genus; but that there was no substantial and natural difference between what botanists had called species and what they had termed varieties. . . . If two species are to be united in a scientific arrange- ment on account of a fertile issue, the botanist must give up his specific distinctions generally and entrench himself within the genera.’’t Testing the question as to the more or less agreement in external features between so-called closely allied species being correlated with fertility in their hybrids, we now know that the general rule may be formulated that such is the case; yet there are so many exceptions that the suggestion of Herbert for systematists to follow must be disregarded, and that they must continue to describe new species and genera solely by the morphological characters they present.
This is practically what is always done; so that for purely systematic purposes it would seem that physiological affinity must be neglected altogether, as, ¢.g., when masses of dried plants are sent to Kew from some newly explored country.
* Introduction to the Handbook of the British Flora, 1865, p. xxxvii. + Amaryllidacee, p. 336.
HYBRIDISATION AND ITS FAILURES. 77
What then is a definition of a species? The following may perhaps answer the question. A species is known by a collection of, presumably, relatively constant characters; which may be taken from any or all parts of the plant. But how many features are required to distinguish a species from a sub-species or variety is a matter of opinion, and will always remain debatable. Indeed, the difference between an “ artificial ”’ and ‘‘natural’’ system of classification depends greatly on this point: for any group in the former is based on one, two, or very few points of agreement ; in the latter it is generally on as many as possible. Though, in many cases, a single character may coincide with the strictest affinity, such as the tetradynamous stamens of the Crucifere, the papilionaceous corolla of a great section of Leguminose, &c.; and when we come to other large groups with irregular corollas, we find that systematists professing to classify plants on a natural system do not hesitate to drop into an artificial one when it suits their purpose. For example, Liliacce are separated from Amaryllidacee solely by having a superior ovary. Yet elsewhere we can find both inferior and superior ovaries in genera of the same order, as in Samolus and Primula of Primulacee ; or, again, in species of the same genus, as Saxifraga tridactylites, S. wmbrosa, and half-superior in S. granulata.
But although the two orders mentioned above are separated on account of this single character alone; yet, testing it by crossing, no known attempt to unite two members of these orders has ever yet succeeded, as far as I can hear from experimenters. It would seem, therefore, that they have been differentiated at so remote a period that they have lost all physiological connection.
So too with genera; the corolla of Snapdragon only differs from Toadflax in having a small pouch at the base, which elongates into a spur in the latter. I can hear of no cross raised between them. Now Ehododendron, Rhodora, and Azalea are as much entitled to be called genera respectively, if systematists may separate genera by such slight differences as the above; and there is no reason why they should be merged into one, solely because they will interbreed : for if interbreeding is to be a test, then those polymorphic forms of one and the same species that cannot be intercrossed with complete fertility ought to be separated, as of Lythrum; to say nothing of Linwm perenne and some Orchids which cannot bear seed with their own pollen.
Ehododendron jasmviniflorwm has a corolla as unlike that of a typical Rhododendron as can well be imagined—indeed, Mr. Burbidge likens it to Erica Aitonii—and might be regarded, therefore, with justice as a different genus; since systematists separate the genera of plants with irregular corollas entirely by that organ in many cases—as in the Scrophularinee. Now it will cross readily with R. Javanicwm, which has the typically formed corolla; but not with the American, or species of other countries. On the other hand, Mr. Burbidge crossed R. jasmini- florum with an Indian Azalea as the male parent.
Let us take as another instance, the “genera” Lelia and Cattleya. Species of these two have yielded many so-called “ bi-geners”’ ; but are they worthy of the name? Now the variations in the forms of the flowers of different species of each of these two genera do not differ more
78 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
among themselves than between different species of these genera. In other words, they would form one genus if the perianth alone were the basis of classification. But this is not the feature relied upon, but the nwmber of pollen masses—i.c. a single feature, and therefore, so far, an artificial character—just as Linneeus would unite the Ash tree, Veronica, a Grass, and the Duckweed because they have two stamens. Turning to the Genera Plantarum” we find that Cattleya has four pollinia. Then follow three genera with eight in two series; those of the upper series very often much smaller than the lower. Then comes Lelia, also with eight pollinia in slightly unequal series.*
Here, then, is obviously a closely graduated series based on a single character, and a purely artificial one. The classification is therefore not strictly natural, though the series of so-called ‘“‘genera’’ may be. Consequently, though we may call the cross-products ‘“‘ bi-geners,”’ it is only so from Bentham and Hooker’s classificatory point of view.
These observations apply to Hpidendrum and Sophronitis as well.
Similarly with the so-called bi-gener between Lapageria and Philesia. Those genera stand together in the “ Gen. Pl.,”” being No. 10 and No. 11 in Liliacee: both are mono-specific, and both live in Chili. The distinguishing features are recorded as being, in Lapageria, ‘‘ Leaves 3-5- nerved,” and ‘“‘ the segments of the perianth sub-equal.’’ In Philesia, “ Leaves 1-nerved,” and “ the exterior segments of the perianth are much shorter than the interior.” But much ereater differences in nervature occur in species of Plantago ; and also between the outer and inner whorls of the perianth of species of Iris.
Consequently, to be true to principles of natural classification, it would seem that the above two genera should be regarded simply as two species of the same genus.
Once more, in the “Gen. Pl.” Gloxinia (gen. 6) and Achimenes (gen. 7) belong to the sub-tribe Gloxinee ; while the genera Gesnera (gen. 18) and Sinningia (gen. 19) are in the sub-tribe Hugesneree. There is, however, no special feature to separate them—a fact which Dean Herbert perceived and discussed at length some seventy years ago.
He mentions also that Simningia and Gloxinia produced fertile hybrids.
Gloxinera—i.e. Gloxima x Gesnera—was raised in 1894.+
Selenipedium and Cypripedium are genera which Bentham and Hooker admit to be scarcely distinguishable except by the ovary being one-celled in the former, from a want of cohesion of the placentas, and its habitat, viz. South America, the nearest home of the latter being Mexico.
Though it has been found difficult to cross these, yet Mr. Swinburne, of Winchcombe, near Cheltenham,$ raised small plants from S. Schlin x C. Spicerianum, male parent; also between S. Donvinianum x C. Cham- berlaint. The plants were raised in 1896, but have not yet flowered.
* See observations by Mr. C. C. Hurst relative to this matter, Jowrn. R.H.S. 1898, p. 475.
+ On Hybridisation amongst Vegetables.
{ For successful Bi-geners and Hybrids in Gesneriacee, see Burbidge’s Prop. and Improv. of Cult. Plants, p. 331 seqq.
§ Gard. Chron. Oct. 10, 1896, p. 435.
HYBRIDISATION AND ITS FAILURES. 719
Bi-GENERIC FarnurEs.—lIf species of the same genus, but natives of widely distinct countries, often refuse to cross; d fortiori, would it be anticipated that genera of the same order would fail? The genus Hippeastrum has been used for attempted crosses with other genera from warm countries, of the order Amaryllidacee. Thus, it has failed with Sprekelia, the former being of tropical and South America; the latter— a monotypic form—of Mexico.
Hippeastrum has’ failed to produce healthy progeny with Clivias of South Africa. Mr. Wright observes: ‘This attempted cross was success- ful so far as the actual cross went; but the progeny were so weak that the seedlings only lived: about a year. This proved to be the case with three distinct lots of seeds.”’
M. Rodigas, of Ghent, makes a suggestive observation: “The decay . in the persistent leaves of many plants of Clivia may be attributable to the employment of pollen from Amaryllis and Hippeastrum, the leaves of which are deciduous.” *
Hippeastrum has also failed with Vallota and Hemanthus, both of South Africa. Attempts have been made to unite Hippeastrum with Urceolina (Andes) and Pancratiwm (Mediterranean regions) without success; but as these genera belong to a different sub-tribe, as well as widely different countries, the probability of their having any physio- logical or constitutional affinity was proportionally diminished. Similarly, attempts to cross Griffinia, allied to Hippeastrum, with Hucharis and Urceolaria failed.
Of other genera of the Amaryllidacee of widely different countries that have failed are Amaryllis Belladonna (South Africa) with Lycoris (Japan, China, &c.).
Of two genera of the same _ sub-tribe—Cyathifere—Pancratium canariense failed with Hucharis grandiflora (Andes).
But genera from the same country may fail, as Cyrtanthus with Vallota, genera closely allied and both of South Africa. Similarly, Zephyranthes brachyandrum has failed to cross with Hippeastrum stylosum, H. sub-barbatum, H. equestre, and H. vittatwm, though these two genera are very closely allied; but while Zephyranthes are natives of tropical and sub-tropical America, Hippeastrwm belongs to South America.
Crinum and Amaryllis (gen. Nos. 26 and 27 in “‘ Gen. PIl.”’) have failed to cross as far as the following species are concerned: C. Moorei, C. fimbriatulum, and C. zeylanicum. F
A large number of bi-geners have been attempted at the Utrecht Botanic Gardens, but without results. The following is a selection : Helleborus x Caltha, Caltha x Eranthis, Caltha x Nymphea, Caltha x Peonia, Fuchsia x @nothera, Bellis x Cineraria, Hemerocallis x Lilium, Pancraticum x Crinum, Phalienopsis x Vanda, &e.
Of other genera in which the morphological characteristics would warrant an d priort probability of success in crossing, but failed on practice, is Streptocarpus x Didyncarpus ; but while the former genus
* Gard. Chron. Jan. 5, 1895, p. 16.
t Other failures among genera of Amaryi~LIpace® are Elisena longipetala x
Hymenocallis calathina; of Irtpex, Cypella plumteax Herbertia pulchella, Iris Robinsoniana x Marica cerulea; of AroipE®, Alocasia x Caladium.
80 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY,
is found in South Africa and Madagascar, species of the latter are natives of the Malay Archipelago, and E. Asia ; so that in this case constitutional affinity does not correspond with morphological resemblances.
That Streptocarpus should fail to be crossed by Gesnera was more likely, as, besides being natives of different hemispheres, they are distantly located in the ‘Genera Plantarum.’
Of sub-genera that failed to cross, Mimulus x Diplacus may be mentioned.
Though Hpidendrum radicans has been successfully crossed as male with Sophronitis grandiflora female, yet S. violacea has been crossed with E. radicans and E. Obrienianum without result.
CoNSTITUTIONAL AFFINITY AND SteRILITy.—Admitting the fact that the closer agreement there may be between the forms of two species, the more likely is it that they will cross, yet it is not universally true; so that, leaving ‘morphological affinity’ out of the question, we have to depend on, for want of a better expression, what one may call “ constitu tional affinity,’’ cautioning the reader that this is a phrase which covers our profound ignorance of the true nature of physiological aftinity !
Dean Herbert observes: ‘Some crosses are sterile and some quite fertile, without any apparent reason, except the greater or less approxima- tion of constitution in the parents; and that the cross-bred plant which has seemed for a long course of years to be absolutely sterile becomes under some circumstances productive.” *
The last sentence is important, for it introduces another fact, that sterility and fertility are not absolute features, but vary in the same plant according to circumstances; and it applies to self-fertilisation as well as crosses and hybrids. Thus, Darwin found that the dimorphic forms of Linwm perenne were self-sterile ; but Mr. T. Meehan, of German- town, Philadelphia, had one form only in his garden, which never set seed for fourteen years; yet, then, one branch bore flowers which became homomorphic and immediately fruited. Under cultivation Primulas of various kinds, as P. sinensis, can become self-fertile iv a similar way.T Eschscholtzia californica was self-sterile in Brazil, bus acquired great self-fertility in England in three years—nearly 87 per cent. +
Dean Herbert says elsewhere: ‘ Experiments have confirmed the view to such a degree as to make it almost certain that the fertilisation of the hybrid or mixed offspring depends more upon the ¢oustitution than the closer botanical affinity of the parents.” $
He illustrates this by the genus Crinwm, showing that while certain nearly—i.e. morphologically—allied forms are difficult to produce fertile hybrids, others so distinct as to have been placed in different genera do so, the interpretation being that the latter were aquatic plants, and therefore presumably of the same constitution ; whereas in the former case the ineffectual cross was made between an aquatic and a terrestrial form frequenting dry localities.
This hybrid between C. capense (aquatic) and C. scabrum continued for sixteen years to be sterile, but ‘‘ produced one good seed in 1884, and
* Amaryllidacee, p. 340. t Origin of Floral Structures, p. 209. g
Ibid. p. 320. Amaryllidacee, p. 342.
HYBRIDISATION AND ITS FAILURES. 81
again in 1835.” He mentions another instance of a sterile hybrid, called C. submersum, growing near Rio Janeiro in company with a small variety of C. erubescens. It was exactly intermediate between this species, which is aquatic, and C. scabrum of high ground.
Of dissimilar species readily crossing, Dean Herbert * alludes to “ the prickly, angular Cereus speciosissimus, the flexible C. flagelliformis or Whip-plant, and the unarmed C. phyllanthocides, are nearly the most dissimilar ; yet they have produced mixed offspring, which readily bears edible fruit of intermediate appearance and flavour.”’
As illustrations of failures through constitutional differences, Mr. Buffham could obtain no success between perennial and annual species of Sunflower. With Rhododendrons, Mr. Veitch could get no hybrids between the East Indian hybrids and the Himalayan section, nor with the Ff. arborewm section.
With Primroses, all British species fail to cross with Primula sinensis either way; and a significant fact is that all kinds of cultivated P. sinensis fail now to cross satisfactorily with the original wild form, according to Mr. Sutton’s experience; for though he was successful in obtaining ten plants from two crosses between P. sinensis ‘* Chiswick Red,”’ the female, and the original P. sinensis as male parent, all ten plants were very weak, and all died while in the first stage of flowering. Messrs. Sutton, however, have never been able to obtain any seed from the original P. sinensis when pollinated by any other variety. It is self- fertile. P. sim.“ Stellata,” apparently the same as ‘‘ The Lady,” and representing an early stage of cultivation, can cross (either way) with the normal cultivated forms.
P. obconica failed to be crossed with P. sinensis by Messrs. Sutton ; but with Mr. Wright, of Chiswick, it so far succeeded that while the progeny resembled the mother; that of the second generation indicated the effect by bearing flowers with four, five, six, or seven petals, and once eight ; no such disorganisation occurred in the first generation.
It would therefore seem to be a common, if not a general, rule that - species of different countries present greater difficulties in crossing than those of the same country, which probably grow under similar conditions. Thus, Fuchsia procumbens of New Zealand refuses to unite with the South American species, which readily intercross. Mr. W. G. Smith tells me that the outline of the pollen-grains of the former species is spindle-shaped, while of the latter it is a spherical triangle.
Indian Azaleas are difficult to unite with the deciduous species of Japan.
Begonia “ sempertiorens”’ section will not be successfully crossed with the tuberous section.
Begonia ricinifolia x B. tuberosa (hyb.) produced seeds but no plants at the Utrecht Botanic Gardens.
As instances of failures between species with marked morphological differences, yet residing in the same country, may be mentioned the “ Fancy” Pelargonium with the scarlets. Krelage failed also in attempt- ing Pelargoniwm gibbosum with P. zonale. Other failures between species crossed by this experimenter were Aristolochia elegans x A. bra-
* Anuryllidacee, pp. 343 and 345. G
82 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
ziliensis; Stanhopea eburna x S. tigrina, which bore fruit, but it decayed before ripening. .
With regard to Cypripediums, Mr. Veitch sends the following obser- vations as the result of his experience. No progeny has yet been raised from crossing the species of Selenipediwm with Cypripediwm (Sect. Coriacea, Benth., Paphiopediwm, Pfitzer), or vice versd, or between species of either of these sections and the hardy cypripedia ( foliose, Benth.).
The species chiefly used in the experiments were, of Selen., well-nigh all in cultivation ; of Cyp. (coriacee), the group of species known among horticulturists as the barbatwm section, distinguished by their one-, rarely two-, flowered scapes, their tessellated foliage, and their semi- lunar staminode ; and the group called the Stonei section, distinguished by their many-flowered scapes, their pendent, narrow petals and shield- shaped staminode ; and in Cypripedium ( foliose), our native species. C. Calceolus, and the American species C. spectabile, C. pubescens, &ce., have formed capsules in abundance, but they were invariably barren.
Interesting eXperiments upon the capability of pollen have been made by Professor EK. Strasburger, which show that very similar effects of imperfect fertilisation can be produced where it cannot be said that there is any affinity at all. Thus, he found that Lathyrus montanus would put out pollen-tubes, which will enter the ovary of Convallaria latifolia ; those of Agapanthus wmbellatus will penetrate deep into the style of Achimenes grandiflora. Those of Fritillaria persica will not only enter the ovary of species of Orchis, but will even excite the development of the ovules and will cause them to begin to swell. The pollen-grains of Achinvenes grandiflora will not, on the other hand, penetrate the stigma of Agapanthus.
The possibility of the pollen-grains of one species or genus developing tubes on the stigma of another species or genus does not depend upon the possibility of hybridisation between them. As a rule, the pollen-tubes penetrate the style or ovary to a depth proportional to the relationship of the species ; though Lathyrus montanus and Convallaria, as mentioned above, are exceptions.
That varieties of the same species exhibit greater capacity for exciting the development of pollen-tubes than species of the same genus, depends simply on a greater resemblance in the composition of the nutrient material, furnished to the pollen grains and tubes by the stigma and style.
Hybridisation is an evidence of sexual affinity, but its non-occurrence is no evidence of the absence of affinity.
ExcesstvE Preporency, or Fause Hysprivs.—The question as to the influence of the male or female parent respectively has often engaged the attention of hybridisers. In some features one parent has seemed to predominate, in others the other parent; while perhaps as a general rule neither does so, but the progeny are strictly intermediate between them.
Experience, however, leads one to the conclusion that, starting from the intermediate condition, either parent may predominate in every degree, up to an apparently exact imitation of itself in the hybrid offspring. In
HYBRIDISATION AND ITS FAILURES. 83
other words, its influence has been so prepotent as to arrest all trace of the other parent in the offspring.
M. Millardet, who studied the hybrids between Alpine and American Strawberries, called these extreme results ‘‘ False Hybrids.” *
This peculiarity was early observed, for Gaertner records the fact that Datura Stramonium x D. ceratocaulis bore two fertile plants which resembled the female except in height. Their seeds produced D. Str. normal.
D. Levis x D. Str. bore: forty plants resembling the male parent. Mr. Burbage records somewhat similar results as obtained by Mr. Anderson-Henry with Veronicas,{ observing ona particular instance: ‘I have seldom seen two hybrids with so much of one parent and so little of the other.’ Mr. T. Meehan, of Germantown, Philadelphia, has experienced the same thing; for example, he says that ‘‘ Disemma aurantia x Passiflora cerulea as the male parent, gave rise to a progeny which was simply Disemma,t with no trace of the Passion-flower.” Again, Fuchsia arborescens x garden hybrids ‘‘ bore seedlings which, both in foliage and flowers, were J’. arb., and nothing more.’’ Lastly, Quercus palustris x . imbricaria resembles the female parent entirely, except that it has numerous entire leaves as well, which are like those of Q. imb., but in venation and all other characters it is wholly Q. palustris.
In speaking of Fuchsia longiflora x F'. fulgens, Mr. Meehan observes that ‘several dozen plants were raised, all being from one berry ; but no two of the many seedlings were alike. Some nearly approached the female, others the male parent. None could fairly be said to be inter- mediate.”
Herr Max. Leichtlin found from his experiments that ‘the female parent gives to the offspring form and shape of the flowers; while the male parent gives more or less the colouring of the flowers ; and if it is richer and freer-flowering than the female, this property is transferred to the offspring.’ To whatever degree it may be true for certain plants, no absolute law appears capable of being formulated. Thus, Dr. Denny remarks on Pelargonia: ‘The result of my experience, derived from experiments as regard the relative influence of the parents, certainly tends in the reverse direction to my previous ideas, which were derived from books, from which I gleaned that the form of the flower and consti- tution and habit of the plant were inherited from its mother; while the colour of the flower only was supposed to be conveyed by the father. The recorded results of my crossings indicate an immense preponderance of influence over the progeny on the part of the father in all respects— in colour and in form, in the quality, in size and substance of the flower, as well as in the production of variegation of the foliage, and in the habit and constitution of the plant also, provided the plants employed were of equal strength.”’
Dr. Denny “ fertilised without much difficulty a variety (Peltatwm elegans) of the Ivy-leaved section by the pollen of the zonal. . . . The
* Hybridation sans croisement, ou Fausse Hybridation (1894). See Gard. Chron. 1894, Nov. 10, p. 568.
+ Op. cit. p. 537.
t A section of Passiflora (Gen. Pl. vol. i. p. 811).