maintain that, even in the most variable forms, the characters which
they consider of specific value are unchangeable. To give an example
from a conscientious writer,[139] who, relying on the labours of M.
Naudin, and referring to the species of Cucurbita, says, “au milieu de
toutes les variations du fruit, les tiges, les feuilles, les calices,
les corolles, les étamines restent invariables dans chacune d’elles.”
Yet M. Naudin, in describing _ Cucurbita pepo_ (p. 30), says, “Ici,
d’ailleurs, ce ne sont pas seulement les fruits qui varient, c’est
aussi le feuillage et tout le port de la plante. Néanmoins, je crois
qu’on la distinguera toujours facilement des deux autres espèces, si
l’on veut ne pas perdre de vue les caractères différentiels que je
m’efforce de faire ressortir. Ces caractères sont quelquefois peu
marqués: il arrive meme que plusieurs d’entre eux s’effacent presque
entièrement, mais ii en reste toujours quelques-uns qui remettent
l’observateur sur la voie.” Now let it be noted what a difference, with
regard to the immutability of the so-called specific characters this
paragraph produces on the mind, from that above quoted from M. Godron.
I will add another remark: naturalists continually assert that no
important organ varies; but in saying this they unconsciously argue in
a vicious circle; for if an organ, let it be what it may, is highly
variable, it is regarded as unimportant, and under a systematic point
of view this is quite correct. But as long as constancy is thus taken
as the criterion of importance, it will indeed be long before an
important organ can be shown to be inconstant. The enlarged form of the
stigmas, and their sessile position on the summit of the ovary, must be
considered as important characters, and were used by Gasparini to
separate certain pumpkins as a _distinct genus_; but Naudin says (p.
20), these parts have no constancy, and in the flowers of the Turban
varieties of _C. maxima_ they sometimes resume their ordinary
structure. Again, in _C. maxima,_ the carpels (p. 19) which form the
turban project even as much as two-thirds of their length out of the
receptacle, and this latter part is thus reduced to a sort of platform;
but this remarkable structure occurs only in certain varieties, and
graduates into the common form in which the carpels are almost entirely
enveloped within the receptacle. In _ C. moschata_ the ovarium (p. 50)
varies greatly in shape, being oval, nearly spherical, or cylindrical,
more or less swollen in the upper part, or constricted round the
middle, and either straight or curved. When the ovarium is short and
oval the interior structure does not differ from that of _C. maxima_
and _pepo,_ but when it is elongated the carpels occupy only the
terminal and swollen portion. I may add that in one variety of the
cucumber (_Cucumis sativus_) the fruit regularly contains five carpels
instead of three.[140] I presume that it will not be disputed that we
here have instances of great variability in organs of the highest
physiological importance, and with most plants of the highest
classificatory importance.
Sageret[141] and Naudin found that the cucumber (_C. sativus_) could
not be crossed with any other species of the genus; therefore no doubt
it is specifically distinct from the melon. This will appear to most
persons a superfluous statement; yet we hear from Naudin[142] that
there is a race of melons, in which the fruit is so like that of the
cucumber, “both externally and internally, that it is hardly possible
to distinguish the one from the other except by the leaves.” The
varieties of the melon seem to be endless, for Naudin after six years’
study had not come to the end of them: he divides them into ten
sections, including numerous sub-varieties which all intercross with
perfect ease.[143] Of the forms considered by Naudin to be varieties,
botanists have made thirty distinct species! “and they had not the
slightest acquaintance with the multitude of new forms which have
appeared since their time.” Nor is the creation of so many species at
all surprising when we consider how strictly their characters are
transmitted by seed, and how wonderfully they differ in appearance:
“Mira est quidem foliorum et habitus diversitas, sed multo magis
fructuum,” says Naudin. The fruit is the valuable part, and this, in
accordance with the common rule, is the most modified part. Some melons
are only as large as small plums, others weigh as much as sixty-six
pounds. One variety has a scarlet fruit! Another is not more than an
inch in diameter, but sometimes more than a yard in length, “twisting
about in all directions like a serpent.” It is a singular fact that in
this latter variety many parts of the plant, namely, the stems, the
footstalks of the female flowers, the middle lobe of the leaves, and
especially the ovarium, as well as the mature fruit, all show a strong
tendency to become elongated. Several varieties of the melon are
interesting from assuming the characteristic features of distinct
species and even of distinct though allied genera: thus the
serpent-melon has some resemblance to the fruit of _Trichosanthes
anguina_; we have seen that other varieties closely resemble cucumbers;
some Egyptian varieties have their seeds attached to a portion of the
pulp, and this is characteristic of certain wild forms. Lastly, a
variety of melon from Algiers is remarkable from announcing its
maturity by “a spontaneous and almost sudden dislocation,” when deep
cracks suddenly appear, and the fruit falls to pieces; and this occurs
with the wild _C. momordica._ Finally, M. Naudin well remarks that this
“extraordinary production of races and varieties by a single species
and their permanence when not interfered with by crossing, are
phenomena well calculated to cause reflection.”
USEFUL AND ORNAMENTAL TREES.
Trees deserve a passing notice on account of the numerous varieties
which they present, differing in their precocity, in their manner of
growth, their foliage, and bark. Thus of the common ash (_Fraxinus
excelsior_) the catalogue of Messrs. Lawson of Edinburgh includes
twenty-one varieties, some of which differ much in their bark; there is
a yellow, a streaked reddish-white, a purple, a wart-barked and a
fungous-barked variety.[144] Of hollies no less than eighty-four
varieties are grown alongside each other in Mr. Paul’s nursery.[145] In
the case of trees, all the recorded varieties, as far as I can find
out, have been suddenly produced by one single act of variation. The
length of time required to raise many generations, and the little value
set on the fanciful varieties, explains how it is that successive
modifications have not been accumulated by selection; hence, also, it
follows that we do not here meet with sub-varieties subordinate to
varieties, and these again subordinate to higher groups. On the
Continent, however, where the forests are more carefully attended to
than in England, Alph. De Candolle[146] says that there is not a
forester who does not search for seeds from that variety which he
esteems the most valuable.
Our useful trees have seldom been exposed to any great change of
conditions; they have not been richly manured, and the English kinds
grow under their proper climate. Yet in examining extensive beds of
seedlings in nursery-gardens considerable differences may be generally
observed in them; and whilst touring in England I have been surprised
at the amount of difference in the appearance of the same species in
our hedgerows and woods. But as plants vary so much in a truly wild
state, it would be difficult for even a skilful botanist to pronounce
whether, as I believe to be the case, hedgerow trees vary more than
those growing in a primeval forest. Trees when planted by man in woods
or hedges do not grow where they would naturally be able to hold their
place against a host of competitors, and are therefore exposed to
conditions not strictly natural: even this slight change would probably
suffice to cause seedlings raised from such trees to be variable.
Whether or not our half-wild English trees, as a general rule, are more
variable than trees growing in their native forests, there can hardly
be a doubt that they have yielded a greater number of strongly-marked
and singular variations of structure.
In manner of growth, we have weeping or pendulous varieties of the
willow, ash, elm, oak, and yew, and other trees; and this weeping habit
is sometimes inherited, though in a singularly capricious manner. In
the Lombardy poplar, and in certain fastigiate or pyramidal varieties
of thorns, junipers, oaks, etc., we have an opposite kind of growth.
The Hessian oak,[147] which is famous from its fastigiate habit and
size, bears hardly any resemblance in general appearance to a common
oak; “its acorns are not sure to produce plants of the same habit;
some, however, turn out the same as the parent-tree.” Another
fastigiate oak is said to have been found wild in the Pyrenees, and
this is a surprising circumstance; it generally comes so true by seed,
that De Candolle considered it as specifically distinct.[148] The
fastigiate Juniper (_J. suecica_) likewise transmits its character by
seed.[149] Dr. Falconer informs me that in the Botanic Gardens at
Calcutta the great heat caused apple-trees to become fastigiate; and we
thus see the same result following from the effects of climate and from
some unknown cause.[150]
In foliage we have variegated leaves which are often inherited; dark
purple or red leaves, as in the hazel, barberry, and beech, the colour
in these two latter trees being sometimes strongly and sometimes weakly
inherited;[151] deeply-cut leaves; and leaves covered with prickles, as
in the variety of the holly well called _ ferox,_ which is said to
reproduce itself by seed.[152] In fact, nearly all the peculiar
varieties evince a tendency, more or less strongly marked, to reproduce
themselves by seed.[153] This is to a certain extent the case,
according to Bosc,[154] with three varieties of the elm, namely, the
broad-leafed, lime-leafed, and twisted elm, in which latter the fibres
of the wood are twisted. Even with the heterophyllous hornbeam
(_Carpinus betulus_), which bears on each twig leaves of two shapes,
several plants raised from seed all retained “the same
peculiarity.”[155] I will add only one other remarkable case of
variation in foliage, namely, the occurrence of two sub-varieties of
the ash with simple instead of pinnated leaves, and which generally
transmit their character by seed.[156] The occurrence, in trees
belonging to widely different orders, of weeping and fastigiate
varieties, and of trees bearing deeply cut, variegated, and purple
leaves, shows that these deviations of structure must result from some
very general physiological laws.
Differences in general appearance and foliage, not more strongly marked
than those above indicated, have led good observers to rank as distinct
species certain forms which are now known to be mere varieties. Thus, a
plane-tree long cultivated in England was considered by almost every
one as a North American species: but is now ascertained by old records,
as I am informed by Dr. Hooker, to be a variety. So, again, the _Thuja
pendula_ or _filiformis_ was ranked by such good observers as Lambert,
Wallich, and others, as a true species; but it is now known that the
original plants, five in number, suddenly appeared in a bed of
seedlings, raised at Mr. Loddige’s nursery, from _T. orientalis_; and
Dr. Hooker has adduced excellent evidence that at Turin seeds of _T.
pendula_ have reproduced the parent form, _T. orientalis._[157]
Every one must have noticed how certain individual trees regularly put
forth and shed their leaves earlier or later than others of the same
species. There is a famous horse-chestnut in the Tuileries which is
named from leafing so much earlier than the others. There is also an
oak near Edinburgh which retains its leaves to a very late period.
These differences have been attributed by some authors to the nature of
the soil in which the trees grow; but Archbishop Whately grafted an
early thorn on a late one, and _vice versa,_ and both grafts kept to
their proper periods, which differed by about a fortnight, as if they
still grew on their own stocks.[158] There is a Cornish variety of the
elm which is almost an evergreen, and is so tender that the shoots are
often killed by the frost; and the varieties of the Turkish oak (_Q.
cerris_) may be arranged as deciduous, sub-evergreen, and
evergreen.[159]
_Scotch Fir (Pinus sylvestris)._—I allude to this tree as it bears on
the question of the greater variability of our hedgerow trees compared
with those under strictly natural conditions. A well-informed
writer[160] states that the Scotch fir presents few varieties in its
native Scotch forests; but that it “varies much in figure and foliage,
and in the size, shape, and colour of its cones, when several
generations have been produced away from its native locality.” There is
little doubt that the highland and lowland varieties differ in the
value of their timber, and that they can be propagated truly by seed;
thus justifying Loudon’s remark, that “a variety is often of as much
importance as a species, and sometimes far more so.”[161] I may mention
one rather important point in which this tree occasionally varies; in
the classification of the Coniferæ, sections are founded on whether
two, three, or five leaves are included in the same sheath; the Scotch
fir has properly only two leaves thus enclosed, but specimens have been
observed with groups of three leaves in a sheath.[162] Besides these
differences in the semi-cultivated Scotch fir, there are in several
parts of Europe natural or geographical races, which have been ranked
by some authors as distinct species.[163] Loudon[164] considers _P.
pumilio,_ with its several sub-varieties, as _mughus, nana,_ etc.,
which differ much when planted in different soils, and only come
“tolerably true from seed,” as alpine varieties of the Scotch fir; if
this were proved to be the case, it would be an interesting fact as
showing that dwarfing from long exposure to a severe climate is to a
certain extent inherited.
The _Hawthorn (Cratægus oxyacantha)._ has varied much. Besides endless
slighter variations in the form of the leaves, and in the size,
hardness, fleshiness, and shape of the berries, Loudon[165] enumerates
twenty-nine well-marked varieties. Besides those cultivated for their
pretty flowers, there are others with golden-yellow, black, and whitish
berries; others with woolly berries, and others with re-curved thorns.
Loudon truly remarks that the chief reason why the hawthorn has yielded
more varieties than most other trees, is that nurserymen select any
remarkable variety out of the immense beds of seedlings which are
annually raised for making hedges. The flowers of the hawthorn usually
include from one to three pistils; but in two varieties, named monogyna
and sibirica, there is only a single pistil; and d’Asso states that the
common thorn in Spain is constantly in this state.[166] There is also a
variety which is apetalous, or has its petals reduced to mere
rudiments. The famous Glastonbury thorn flowers and leafs towards the
end of December, at which time it bears berries produced from an
earlier crop of flowers.[167] It is worth notice that several varieties
of the hawthorn, as well as of the lime and juniper, are very distinct
in their foliage and habit whilst young, but in the course of thirty or
forty years become extremely like each other;[168] thus reminding us of
the well-known fact that the deodar, the cedar of Lebanon, and that of
the Atlas, are distinguished with the greatest ease whilst young, but
with difficulty when old.
FLOWERS.
I shall not for several reasons treat the variability of plants which
are cultivated for their flowers alone at any great length. Many of our
favourite kinds in their present state are the descendants of two or
more species crossed and commingled together, and this circumstance
alone would render it difficult to detect the difference due to
variation. For instance, our Roses, Petunias, Calceolarias, Fuchsias,
Verbenas, Gladioli, Pelargoniums, etc., certainly have had a multiple
origin. A botanist well acquainted with the parent-forms would probably
detect some curious structural differences in their crossed and
cultivated descendant; and he would certainly observe many new and
remarkable constitutional peculiarities. I will give a few instances,
all relating to the Pelargonium, and taken chiefly from Mr. Beck,[169]
a famous cultivator of this plant: some varieties require more water
than others; some are “very impatient of the knife if too greedily used
in making cuttings;” some, when potted, scarcely “show a root at the
outside of the ball of the earth;” one variety requires a certain
amount of confinement in the pot to make it throw up a flower-stem;
some varieties bloom well at the commencement of the season, others at
the close; one variety is known,[170] which will stand “even pine-apple
top and bottom heat, without looking any more drawn than if it had
stood in a common greenhouse; and Blanche Fleur seems as if made on
purpose for growing in winter, like many bulbs, and to rest all
summer.” These odd constitutional peculiarities would enable a plant in
a state of nature to become adapted to widely different circumstances
and climates.
Flowers possess little interest under our present point of view,
because they have been almost exclusively attended to and selected for
their beautiful colour, size, perfect outline, and manner of growth. In
these particulars hardly one long-cultivated flower can be named which
has not varied greatly. What does a florist care for the shape and
structure of the organs of fructification, unless, indeed, they add to
the beauty of the flower? When this is the case, flowers become
modified in important points; stamens and pistils may be converted into
petals, and additional petals may be developed, as in all double
flowers. The process of gradual selection by which flowers have been
rendered more and more double, each step in the process of conversion
being inherited, has been recorded in several instances. In the
so-called double flowers of the Compositæ, the corollas of the central
florets are greatly modified, and the modifications are likewise
inherited. In the columbine (_Aquilegia vulgaris_) some of the stamens
are converted into petals having the shape of nectaries, one neatly
fitting into the other; but in one variety they are converted into
simple petals.[171] In the “hose in hose” primulæ, the calyx becomes
brightly coloured and enlarged so as to resemble a corolla; and Mr. W.
Wooler informs me that this peculiarity is transmitted; for he crossed
a common polyanthus with one having a coloured calyx,[172] and some of
the seedlings inherited the coloured calyx during at least six
generations. In the “hen-and-chicken” daisy the main flower is
surrounded by a brood of small flowers developed from buds in the axils
of the scales of the involucre. A wonderful poppy has been described,
in which the stamens are converted into pistils; and so strictly was
this peculiarity inherited that, out of 154 seedlings, one alone
reverted to the ordinary and common type.[173] Of the cock’s-comb
(_Celosia cristata_), which is an annual, there are several races in
which the flower-stem is wonderfully “fasciated” or compressed; and one
has been exhibited[174] actually eighteen inches in breadth. Peloric
races of _Gloxinia speciosa_ and _Antirrhinum majus_ can be propagated
by seed, and they differ in a wonderful manner from the typical form
both in structure and appearance.
A much more remarkable modification has been recorded by Sir William
and Dr. Hooker[175] in _Begonia frigida._ This plant properly produces
male and female flowers on the same fascicles; and in the female
flowers the perianth is superior; but a plant at Kew produced, besides
the ordinary flowers, others which graduated towards a perfect
hermaphrodite structure; and in these flowers the perianth was
inferior. To show the importance of this modification under a
classificatory point of view, I may quote what Prof. Harvey says,
namely, that had it “occurred in a state of nature, and had a botanist
collected a plant with such flowers, he would not only have placed it
in a distinct genus from Begonia, but would probably have considered it
as the type of a new natural order.” This modification cannot in one
sense be considered as a monstrosity, for analogous structures
naturally occur in other orders, as with Saxifragæ and Aristolochiaceæ.
The interest of the case is largely added to by Mr. C. W. Crocker’s
observation that seedlings from the _normal_ flowers produced plants
which bore, in about the same proportion as the parent-plant,
hermaphrodite flowers having inferior perianths. The hermaphrodite
flowers fertilised with their own pollen were sterile.
If florists had attended to, selected, and propagated by seed other
modifications of structure besides those which are beautiful, a host of
curious varieties would certainly have been raised; and they would
probably have transmitted their characters so truly that the cultivator
would have felt aggrieved, as in the case of culinary vegetables, if
his whole bed had not presented a uniform appearance. Florists have
attended in some instances to the leaves of their plant, and have thus
produced the most elegant and symmetrical patterns of white, red, and
green, which, as in the case of the pelargonium, are sometimes strictly
inherited.[176] Any one who will habitually examine highly-cultivated
flowers in gardens and greenhouses will observe numerous deviations in
structure; but most of these must be ranked as mere monstrosities, and
are only so far interesting as showing how plastic the organisation
becomes under high cultivation. From this point of view such works as
Professor Moquin-Tandon’s ‘Tératologie’ are highly instructive.
_Roses._—These flowers offer an instance of a number of forms generally
ranked as species, namely, _R. centifolia, gallica, alba, damascena,
spinosissima, bracteata, indica, semperflorens, moschata,_ etc., which
have largely varied and been intercrossed. The genus Rosa is a
notoriously difficult one, and, though some of the above forms are
admitted by all botanists to be distinct species, others are doubtful;
thus, with respect to the British forms, Babington makes seventeen, and
Bentham only five species. The hybrids from some of the most distinct
forms—for instance, from _R. indica,_ fertilised by the pollen of _R.
centifolia_—produce an abundance of seed; I state this on the authority
of Mr. Rivers,[177] from whose work I have drawn most of the following
statements. As almost all the aboriginal forms brought from different
countries have been crossed and re-crossed, it is no wonder that
Targioni-Tozzetti, in speaking of the common roses of the Italian
gardens, remarks that “the native country and precise form of the wild
type of most of them are involved in much uncertainty.”[178]
Nevertheless, Mr. Rivers in referring to _R. indica_ (p. 68) says that
the descendants of each group may generally be recognised by a close
observer. The same author often speaks of roses as having been a little
hybridised; but it is evident that in very many cases the differences
due to variation and to hybridisation can now only be conjecturally
distinguished.
The species have varied both by seed and by bud; such modified buds
being often called by gardeners sports. In the following chapter I
shall fully discuss this latter subject, and shall show that
bud-variations can be propagated not only by grafting and budding, but
often by seed. Whenever a new rose appears with any peculiar character,
however produced, if it yields seed, Mr. Rivers (p. 4) fully expects it
to become the parent-type of a new family. The tendency to vary is so
strong in some kinds, as in the Village Maid (Rivers, p. 16), that when
grown in different soils it varies so much in colour that it has been
thought to form several distinct kinds. Altogether the number of kinds
is very great: thus M. Desportes, in his Catalogue for 1829, enumerates
2562 as cultivated in France; but no doubt a large proportion of these
are merely nominal.
It would be useless to specify the many points of difference between
the various kinds, but some constitutional peculiarities may be
mentioned. Several French roses (Rivers, p. 12) will not succeed in
England; and an excellent horticulturist[179] remarks, that “Even in
the same garden you will find that a rose that will do nothing under a
south wall will do well under a north one. That is the case with Paul
Joseph here. It grows strongly and blooms beautifully close to a north
wall. For three years seven plants have done nothing under a south
wall.” Many roses can be forced, “many are totally unfit for forcing,
among which is General Jacqueminot.”[180] From the effects of crossing
and variation Mr. Rivers enthusiastically anticipates (p. 87) that the
day will come when all our roses, even moss-roses, will have evergreen
foliage, brilliant and fragrant flowers, and the habit of blooming from
June till November. “A distant view this seems, but perseverance in
gardening will yet achieve wonders,” as assuredly it has already
achieved wonders.
It may be worth while briefly to give the well-known history of one
class of roses. In 1793 some wild Scotch roses (_R. spinosissima_) were
transplanted into a garden;[181] and one of these bore flowers slightly
tinged with red, from which a plant was raised with semi-monstrous
flowers, also tinged with red; seedlings from this flower were
semi-double, and by continued selection, in about nine or ten years,
eight sub-varieties were raised. In the course of less than twenty
years these double Scotch roses had so much increased in number and
kind, that twenty-six well-marked varieties, classed in eight sections,
were described by Mr. Sabine. In 1841[182] it is said that three
hundred varieties could be procured in the nursery-gardens near
Glasgow; and these are described as blush, crimson, purple, red,
marbled, two-coloured, white, and yellow, and as differing much in the
size and shape of the flower.
_Pansy or Heartsease (Viola tricolor, etc.)._—The history of this
flower seems to be pretty well known; it was grown in Evelyn’s garden
in 1687; but the varieties were not attended to till 1810-1812, when
Lady Monke, together with Mr. Lee, the well-known nursery-man,
energetically commenced their culture; and in the course of a few years
twenty varieties could be purchased.[183] At about the same period,
namely in 1813 or 1814, Lord Gambier collected some wild plants, and
his gardener, Mr. Thomson, cultivated them, together with some common
garden varieties, and soon effected a great improvement. The first
great change was the conversion of the dark lines in the centre of the
flower into a dark eye or centre, which at that period had never been
seen, but is now considered one of the chief requisites of a first-rate
flower. In 1835 a book entirely devoted to this flower was published,
and four hundred named varieties were on sale. From these circumstances
this plant seemed to me worth studying, more especially from the great
contrast between the small, dull, elongated, irregular flowers of the
wild pansy, and the beautiful, flat, symmetrical, circular, velvet-like
flowers, more than two inches in diameter, magnificently and variously
coloured, which are exhibited at our shows. But when I came to enquire
more closely, I found that, though the varieties were so modern, yet
that much confusion and doubt prevailed about their parentage. Florists
believe that the varieties[184] are descended from several wild stocks,
namely, _V. tricolor, lutea, grandiflora, amœna,_ and _altaica,_ more
or less intercrossed. And when I looked to botanical works to ascertain
whether these forms ought to be ranked as species, I found equal doubt
and confusion. _Viola altaica_ seems to be a distinct form, but what
part it has played in the origin of our varieties I know not; it is
said to have been crossed with _V. lutea. Viola amœna_[185] is now
looked at by all botanists as a natural variety of _V. grandiflora_;
and this and _V. sudetica_ have been proved to be identical with _V.
lutea._ The latter and _V. tricolor_ (including its admitted variety
_V. arvensis_) are ranked as distinct species by Babington, and
likewise by M. Gay,[186] who has paid particular attention to the
genus; but the specific distinction between _V. lutea_ and _tricolor_
is chiefly grounded on the one being strictly and the other not
strictly perennial, as well as on some other slight and unimportant
differences in the form of the stem and stipules. Bentham unites these
two forms; and a high authority on such matters, Mr. H. C. Watson,[187]
says that, “while _V. tricolor_ passes into _V. arvensis_ on the one
side, it approximates so much towards _V. lutea_ and _V. Curtisii_ on
the other side, that a distinction becomes scarcely more easy between
them.”
Hence, after having carefully compared numerous varieties, I gave up
the attempt as too difficult for any one except a professed botanist.
Most of the varieties present such inconstant characters, that when
grown in poor soil, or when flowering out of their proper season, they
produced differently coloured and much smaller flowers. Cultivators
speak of this or that kind as being remarkably constant or true; but by
this they do not mean, as in other cases, that the kind transmits its
character by seed, but that the individual plant does not change much
under culture. The principle of inheritance, however, does hold good to
a certain extent even with the fleeting varieties of the Heartsease,
for to gain good sorts it is indispensable to sow the seed of good
sorts. Nevertheless, in almost every large seed-bed a few, almost wild
seedlings reappear through reversion. On comparing the choicest
varieties with the nearest allied wild forms, besides the difference in
the size, outline, and colour of the flowers, the leaves sometimes
differ in shape, as does the calyx occasionally in the length and
breadth of the sepals. The differences in the form of the nectary more
especially deserve notice; because characters derived from this organ
have been much used in the discrimination of most of the species of
Viola. In a large number of flowers compared in 1842 I found that in
the greater number the nectary was straight; in others the extremity
was a little turned upwards, or downwards, or inwards, so as to be
completely hooked; in others, instead of being hooked, it was first
turned rectangularly downwards, and then backwards and upwards; in
others, the extremity was considerably enlarged; and lastly, in some
the basal part was depressed, becoming, as usual, laterally compressed
towards the extremity. In a large number of flowers, on the other hand,
examined by me in 1856 from a nursery-garden in a different part of
England, the nectary hardly varied at all. Now M. Gay says that in
certain districts, especially in Auvergne, the nectary of the wild _V.
grandiflora_ varies in the manner just described. Must we conclude from
this that the cultivated varieties first mentioned were all descended
from _V. grandiflora,_ and that the second lot, though having the same
general appearance, were descended from _V. tricolor,_ of which the
nectary, according to M. Gay, is subject to little variation? Or is it
not more probable that both these wild forms would be found under other
conditions to vary in the same manner and degree, thus showing that
they ought not to be ranked as specifically distinct?
The _Dahlia_ has been referred to by almost every author who has
written on the variation of plants, because it is believed that all the
varieties are descended from a single species, and because all have
arisen since 1802 in France, and since 1804 in England.[188] Mr. Sabine
remarks that “it seems as if some period of cultivation had been
required before the fixed qualities of the native plant gave way and
began to sport into those changes which now so delight us.”[189] The
flowers have been greatly modified in shape from a flat to a globular
form. Anemone and ranunculus-like races[190] which differ in the form
and arrangement of the florets, have arisen; also dwarfed races, one of
which is only eighteen inches in height. The seeds vary much in size.
The petals are uniformly coloured or tipped or striped, and present an
almost infinite diversity of tints. Seedlings of fourteen different
colours[191] have been raised from the same plant; yet, as Mr. Sabine
has remarked, “many of the seedlings follow their parents in colour.”
The period of flowering has been considerably hastened, and this has
probably been effected by continued selection. Salisbury, writing 1808,
says that they then flowered from September to November; in 1828 some
new dwarf varieties began flowering in June;[192] and Mr. Grieve
informs me that the dwarf purple Zelinda in his garden is in full bloom
by the middle of June and sometimes even earlier. Slight constitutional
differences have been observed between certain varieties: thus, some
kinds succeed much better in one part of England than in another;[193]
and it has been noticed that some varieties require much more moisture
than others.[194]
Such flowers as the carnation, common tulip, and hyacinth, which are
believed to be descended, each from a single wild form, present
innumerable varieties, differing almost exclusively in the size, form,
and colour of the flowers. These and some other anciently cultivated
plants which have been long propagated by offsets, pipings, bulbs,
etc., become so excessively variable, that almost each new plant raised
from seed forms a new variety, “all of which to describe particularly,”
as old Gerarde wrote in 1597, “were to roll Sisyphus’s stone, or to
number the sands.”
_Hyacinth (Hyacinthus orientalis)._—It may, however, be worth while to
give a short account of this plant, which was introduced into England
in 1596 from the Levant.[195] The petals of the original flower, says
Mr. Paul, were narrow, wrinkled, pointed, and of a flimsy texture; now
they are broad, smooth, solid, and rounded. The erectness, breadth, and
length of the whole spike, and the size of the flowers, have all
increased. The colours have been intensified and diversified. Gerarde,
in 1597, enumerates four, and Parkinson, in 1629, eight varieties. Now
the varieties are very numerous, and they were still more numerous a
century ago. Mr. Paul remarks that “it is interesting to compare the
Hyacinths of 1629 with those of 1864, and to mark the improvement. Two
hundred and thirty-five years have elapsed since then, and this simple
flower serves well to illustrate the great fact that the original forms
of nature do not remain fixed and stationary, at least when brought
under cultivation. While looking at the extremes, we must not, however,
forget that there are intermediate stages which are for the most part
lost to us. Nature will sometimes indulge herself with a leap, but as a
rule her march is slow and gradual.” He adds that the cultivator should
have “in his mind an ideal of beauty, for the realisation of which he
works with head and hand.” We thus see how clearly Mr. Paul, an
eminently successful cultivator of this flower, appreciates the action
of methodical selection.
In a curious and apparently trustworthy treatise, published at
Amsterdam[196] in 1768, it is stated that nearly 2,000 sorts were then
known; but in 1864 Mr. Paul found only 700 in the largest garden at
Haarlem. In this treatise it is said that not an instance is known of
any one variety reproducing itself truly by seed: the white kinds,
however, now[197] almost always yield white hyacinths, and the yellow
kinds come nearly true. The hyacinth is remarkable from having given
rise to varieties with bright blue, pink, and distinctly yellow
flowers. These three primary colours do not occur in the varieties of
any other species; nor do they often all occur even in the distinct
species of the same genus. Although the several kinds of hyacinths
differ but slightly from each other except in colour, yet each kind has
its own individual character, which can be recognised by a highly
educated eye; thus the writer of the Amsterdam treatise asserts (p. 43)
that some experienced florists, such as the famous G. Voorhelm, seldom
failed in a collection of above twelve hundred sorts to recognise each
variety by the bulb alone! This same writer mentions some few singular
variations: for instance, the hyacinth commonly produces six leaves,
but there is one kind (p. 35) which scarcely ever has more than three
leaves; another never more than five; whilst others regularly produce
either seven or eight leaves. A variety, called la Coryphee, invariably
produces (p. 116) two flower-stems, united together and covered by one
skin. The flower-stem in another kind (p. 128) comes out of the ground
in a coloured sheath, before the appearance of the leaves, and is
consequently liable to suffer from frost. Another variety always pushes
a second flower-stem after the first has begun to develop itself.
Lastly, white hyacinths with red, purple, or violet centres (p. 129)
are the most liable to rot. Thus, the hyacinth, like so many previous
plants, when long cultivated and closely watched, is found to offer
many singular variations.
In the two last chapters I have given in some detail the range of
variation, and the history, as far as known, of a considerable number
of plants, which have been cultivated for various purposes. But some of
the most variable plants, such as Kidney-beans, Capsicum, Millets,
Sorghum, etc., have been passed over; for botanists are not at all
agreed which kinds ought to rank as species and which as varieties; and
the wild parent-species are unknown.[198] Many plants long cultivated
in tropical countries, such as the Banana, have produced numerous
varieties; but as these have never been described with even moderate
care, they are here also passed over. Nevertheless, a sufficient, and
perhaps more than sufficient, number of cases have been given, so that
the reader may be enabled to judge for himself on the nature and great
amount of variation which cultivated plants have undergone.
REFERENCES
[1] Heer, ‘Pflanzen der Pfahlbauten,’ 1866, s. 28.
[2] Alph. De Candolle ‘Géograph. Bot.,’ p. 872; Dr. A.
Targioni-Tozzetti in ‘Jour. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. ix. p. 133. For the
fossil vine found by Dr. G. Planchon _See_ ‘Nat. Hist. Review,’ 1865,
April, p. 224. _See also_ the valuable works of M. de Saporta on the
‘Tertiary Plants of France.’
[3] Godron, ‘De l’Espèce,’ tom. ii. p. 100.
[4] _See_ an account of M. Vibert’s experiments, by Alex. Jordan, in
‘Mém. de l’Acad. de Lyon,’ tom. ii. 185,2 p. 108.
[5] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1864, p. 488.
[6] ‘Arbres Fruitiers,’ 1836, tom. ii. p. 290.
[7] Odart, ‘Ampelographie Universelle,’ 1849.
[8] M. Bouchardat, in ‘Comptes Rendus,’ Dec. 1st, 1851, quoted in
‘Gardener’s Chron.,’ 1852, p. 435. _See_ also C. V. Riley on the
manner in which some few of the varieties of the American Labruscan
Vine escape the attacks of the Phylloxera: ‘Fourth Annual Report on
the Insects of Missouri,’ 1872, p. 63, and ‘Fifth Report,’ 1873, p.
66.
[9] ‘Etudes sur les Maladies actuelles du Ver à Soie,’ 1859, p. 321.
[10] ‘Productive Resources of India,’ p. 130.
[11] ‘Traité du Citrus,’ 1811. ‘Teoria della Riproduzione Vegetale,’
1816. I quote chiefly from this second work. In 1839 Gallesio
published in folio ‘Gli Agrumi dei Giard. Bot. di Firenze,’ in which
he gives a curious diagram of the supposed relationship of all the
forms.
[12] Mr. Bentham, ‘Review of Dr. A. Targioni-Tozzetti, Journal of
Hort. Soc.,’ vol. ix. p. 133.
[13] ‘Géograph. Bot.,’ p. 863.
[14] ‘Teoria della Riproduzione,’ pp. 52-57.
[15] Hooker’s ‘Bot. Misc.,’ vol. i. p. 302; vol. ii. p. 111.
[16] ‘Teoria della Riproduzione,’ p. 53.
[17] Gallesio, ‘Teoria della Riproduzione,’ p. 69.
[18] Ibid. p. 67.
[19] Gallesio, ‘Teoria della Riproduzione,’ pp. 75, 76.
[20] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1841, p. 613.
[21] ‘Annales du Muséum,’ tom. xx. p. 188.
[22] ‘Géograph. Bot.,’ p. 882.
[23] ‘Transactions of Hort. Soc.,’ vol. iii. p. 1, and vol. iv. p.
396, and note to p. 370. A coloured drawing is given of this hybrid.
[24] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1856, p. 532. A writer, it may be
presumed Dr. Lindley, remarks on the perfect series which may be
formed between the almond and the peach. Another high authority, Mr.
Rivers, who has had such wide experience, strongly suspects
(‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1863, p. 27) that peaches, if left to a state
of nature, would in the course of time retrograde into thick-fleshed
almonds.
[25] ‘Journal of Hort. Soc.,’ vol. ix. p. 168.
[26] Whether this is the same variety as one lately mentioned (‘Gard.
Chron.’ 1865, p. 1154) by M. Carrière under the name of _persica
intermedia,_ I know not; this variety is said to be intermediate in
nearly all its characters between the almond and peach; it produces
during successive years very different kinds of fruit.
[27] Quoted in ‘Gard. Chron.’ 1866, p. 800.
[28] Quoted in ‘Journal de La Soc. Imp. d’Horticulture,’ 1855, p. 238.
[29] ‘Teoria della Riproduzione Vegetale,’ 1816, p. 86.
[30] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1862, p. 1195.
[31] Mr. Rivers, ‘Gardener’s Chron.,’ 1859, p. 774.
[32] Downing, ‘The Fruits of America,’ 1845, pp. 475, 489, 492, 494,
496. _See also_ F. Michaux, ‘Travels in N. America’ (Eng. translat.),
p. 228. For similar cases in France _See_ Godron, ‘De l’Espèce,’ tom.
ii. p. 97.
[33] Brickell’s ‘Nat. Hist. of N. Carolina,’ p. 102, and Downing’s
‘Fruit Trees,’ p. 505.
[34] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1862, p. 1196.
[35] The peach and nectarine do not succeed equally well in the some
soil: _See_ Lindley’s ‘Horticulture,’ p. 351.
[36] Godron, ‘De l’Espèce,’ tom. ii., 1859, p. 97.
[37] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. vi. p. 394.
[38] Downing’s ‘Fruit Trees,’ p. 502.
[39] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1862, p. 1195.
[40] ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ Feb. 5th, 1866, p. 102.
[41] Mr. Rivers, in ‘Gardener’s ‘Chron.,’ 1859, p. 774, 1862, p. 1195;
1865, p. 1059; and ‘Journal of Hort.,’ 1866, p. 102.
[42] ‘Correspondence of Linnæus,’ 1821, pp. 7, 8, 70.
[43] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. i. p. 103.
[44] Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Mag.,’ 1826, vol. i. p. 471.
[45] Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Mag.,’ 1828, p. 53.
[46] Ibid., 1830, p. 597.
[47] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1841, p. 617.
[48] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1844, p. 589.
[49] ‘Phytologist,’ vol. iv. p. 299.
[50] ‘Gardener’s Chron.,’ 1856, p. 531.
[51] Godron, ‘De l’Espèce,’ tom. ii. p. 97.
[52] ‘Gardener’s Chron.,’ 1856, p. 531.
[53] Alph. De Candolle, ‘Géograph. Bot.’ p. 886.
[54] Thompson, in Loudon’s ‘Encyclop. of Gardening,’ p. 911.
[55] ‘Catalogue of Fruit in Garden of Hort. Soc.,’ 1842, p. 105.
[56] Dr. A. Targioni-Tozzetti, ‘Journal Hort. Soc.,’ vol. ix. p. 167.
Alph. de Candolle, ‘Géograph. Bot.,’ p. 885.
[57] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. v. p. 554. _See also_ Carrière,
‘Description et Class. des Variétés de Pêchers.’
[58] Loudon’s ‘Encyclop. of Gardening,’ p. 907.
[59] M. Carrière, in ‘Gard. Chron.,’ 1865, p. 1154.
[60] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. iii. p. 332. _See also_ ‘Gardener’s
Chronicle,’ 1865, p. 271 to same effect. Also ‘Journal of
Horticulture,’ Sept. 26th, 1865, p. 254.
[61] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. iv. p. 512.
[62] ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ Sept. 8th, 1853 p. 188.
[63] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. vi. p. 412.
[64] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1857, p. 216.
[65] ‘Journal of Hort. Soc.,’ vol. ii. 283.
[66] Alph. de Candolle ‘Géograph. Bot.,’ p. 879.
[67] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.’ (2nd series), vol. i. 1835, p. 56. _ See
also_ ‘Cat. of Fruit in Garden of Hort. Soc.,’ 3rd edit. 1842.
[68] Downing, ‘The Fruits of America,’ 1845, p. 157: with respect to
the Alberge apricot in France _See_ p. 153.
[69] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1863, p. 364.
[70] ‘Travels in the Himalayan Provinces,’ vol. i. 1841, p. 295.
[71] _See_ an excellent discussion on this subject in Hewett C.
Watson’s ‘Cybele Britannica,’ vol. iv. p. 80.
[72] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1865, p. 27.
[73] ‘De l’Espèce,’ tom. ii. p. 94. On the parentage of our plums _see
also_ Alph. De Candolle ‘Géograph. Bot.,’ p. 878. Also
Targioni-Tozzetti, ‘Journal Hort. Soc.,’ vol. ix. p. 164. Also
Babington ‘Manual of Brit. Botany,’ 1851, p. 87.
[74] ‘Fruits of America,’ pp. 276, 278, 284, 310, 314. Mr. Rivers
raised (‘Gard. Chron.,’ 1863, p. 27) from the Prune-pêche, which bears
large, round, red plums on stout, robust shoots, a seedling which
bears oval, smaller fruit on shoots that are so slender as to be
almost pendulous.
[75] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1855, p. 726.
[76] Downing’s ‘Fruit Trees,’ p. 278.
[77] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1863, p. 27. Sageret, in his ‘Pomologie
Phys.,’ p. 346, enumerates five kinds which can be propagated in
France by seed: _see also_ Downing’s ‘Fruit Trees of America,’ pp.
305, 312, etc.
[78] Compare Alph. De Candolle ‘Géograph. Bot.,’ p. 877; Bentham and
Targioni-Tozzetti, in ‘Hort. Journal,’ vol. ix. p. 163; Godron, ‘De
l’Espèce,’ tom. ii. p. 92.
[79] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. v. 1824, p. 295.
[80] Ibid., second series, vol. i. 1835, p. 248.
[81] Ibid., vol. ii. p. 138.
[82] These several statements are taken from the four following works,
which may, I believe, be trusted: Thompson, in ‘Hort. Transact.,’
_see_ above; Sageret’s ‘Pomologie Phys.,’ 1830, pp. 358, 364, 367,
379; ‘Catalogue of the Fruit in the Garden of Hort. Soc.,’ 1842, pp.
57, 60; Downing, ‘The Fruits of America,’ 1845, pp. 189, 195, 200.
[83] Mr. Lowe states in his ‘Flora of Madeira’ (quoted in ‘Gard.
Chron.,’ 1862, p. 215) that the _P. malus,_ with its nearly sessile
fruit, ranges farther south than the long-stalked _P. acerba,_ which
is entirely absent in Madeira, the Canaries, and apparently in
Portugal. This fact supports the belief that these two forms deserve
to be called species. But the characters separating them are of slight
importance, and of a kind known to vary in other cultivated
fruit-trees.
[84] _See_ ‘Journ. of Hort. Tour, by Deputation of the Caledonian
Hort. Soc.,’ 1823, p. 459.
[85] H. C. Watson, ‘Cybele Britannica,’ vol. i. p. 334.
[86] Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Mag.,’ vol. vi., 1830, p. 83.
[87] _See_ ‘Catalogue of Fruit in Garden of Hort. Soc.,’ 1842, and
Downing’s ‘American Fruit Trees.’
[88] Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Magazine,’ vol. iv., 1828, p. 112.
[89] ‘The Culture of the Apple,’ p. 43. Van Mons makes the same remark
on the pear, ‘Arbres Fruitiers,’ tom. ii., 1836, p. 414.
[90] Lindley’s ‘Horticulture,’ p. 116. _See also_ Knight on the
Apple-Tree, in ‘Transact. of Hort. Soc.,’ vol. vi., p. 229.
[91] Transact. Hort. Soc.’ vol. i. 1812, p. 120.
[92] ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ March 13th, 1866, p. 194.
[93] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. iv. p. 68. For Knight’s case _ see_
vol. vi. p. 547. When the _coccus_ first appeared in this country it
is said (vol. ii. p. 163) that it was more injurious to crab-stocks
than to the apples grafted on them. The Majetin apple has been found
equally free of the coccus at Melbourne in Australia (‘Gard. Chron.,’
1871, p. 1065). The wood of this tree has been there analysed, and it
is said (but the fact seems a strange one) that its ash contained over
50 per cent of lime, while that of the crab exhibited not quite 23 per
cent. In Tasmania Mr. Wade (‘Transact. New Zealand Institute,’ vol.
iv. 1871, p. 431) raised seedlings of the Siberian Bitter Sweet for
stocks, and he found barely one per cent of them attacked by the
coccus. Riley shows (‘Fifth Report on Insects of Missouri,’ 1873, p.
87) that in the United States some varieties of apples are highly
attractive to the coccus and others very little so. Turning to a very
different pest, namely, the caterpillar of a moth (_Carpocapsa
pomonella_), Walsh affirms (‘The American Entomologist,’ April, 1869,
p. 160) that the maiden-blush “is entirely exempt from apple-worms.”
So, it is said, are some few other varieties; whereas others are
“peculiarly subject to the attacks of this little pest.”
[94] ‘Mém. de La Soc. Linn. de Paris,’ tom. iii. 1825, p. 164; and
Seringe ‘Bulletin Bot.’ 1830, p. 117.
[95] Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1849, p. 24.
[96] R. Thompson, in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1850, p. 788.
[97] Sageret ‘Pomologie Physiologique,’ 1830, p. 263. Downing’s ‘Fruit
Trees,’ pp. 130, 134, 139, etc. Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Mag.’ vol. viii.
p. 317. Alexis Jordan, ‘De l’Origine des diverses Variétés,’ in ‘Mém.
de l’Acad. Imp. de Lyon,’ tom. ii. 1852, pp. 95, 114. ‘Gardener’s
Chronicle,’ 1850, pp. 774, 788.
[98] ‘Comptes Rendus,’ July 6th, 1863.
[99] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1856, p. 804; 1857, p. 820; 1862, p.
1195.
[100] Most of the largest cultivated strawberries are the descendants
of _F. grandiflora_ or _chiloensis,_ and I have seen no account of
these forms in their wild state. Methuen’s Scarlet (Downing, ‘Fruits,’
p. 527) has “immense fruit of the largest size,” and belongs to the
section descended from _F. virginiana;_ and the fruit of this species,
as I hear from Prof. A. Gray, is only a little larger than that of _F.
vesca,_ or our common wood-strawberry.
[101] ‘Le Fraisier,’ par le Comte L. de Lambertye, 1864, p. 50.
[102] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. iii. 1820, p. 207.
[103] _See_ an account by Prof. Decaisne, and by others in ‘Gardener’s
Chronicle,’ 1862, p. 335, and 1858, p. 172; and Mr. Barnet’s paper in
‘Hort. Soc. Transact.,’ vol. vi. 1826, p. 170.
[104] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. v. 1824, p. 294.
[105] ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ Dec. 30th, 1862, p. 779. _See also_
Mr. Prince to the same effect, ibid., 1863, p. 418.
[106] For additional evidence _see_ ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ Dec.
9th, 1862, p. 721.
[107] ‘Le Fraisier,’ par le Comte L. de Lambertye, pp. 221, 230.
[108] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. vi. p. 200.
[109] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1858, p. 173.
[110] Godron ‘De l’Espèce,’ tom. i. p. 161.
[111] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1851, p. 440.
[112] F. Gloede in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1862, p. 1053.
[113] Downing’s ‘Fruits,’ p. 532.
[114] Barnet, in ‘Hort. Transact.,’ vol. vi. p. 210.
[115] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1847, p. 539.
[116] For the several statements with respect to the American
strawberries _see_ Downing, ‘Fruits,’ p. 524; ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’
1843, p. 188; 1847, p. 539; 1861, p. 717.
[117] Mr. D. Beaton, in ‘Cottage Gardener,’ 1860, p. 86. _See also_
‘Cottage Gardener,’ 1855, p. 88, and many other authorities. For the
Continent, _see_ F. Gloede, in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1862, p. 1053.
[118] Rev. W. F. Radclyffe, in ‘Journal of Hort.,’ March 14th, 1865,
p. 207.
[119] Mr. H. Doubleday in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1862, p. 1101.
[120] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1854, p. 254.
[121] Loudon’s ‘Encyclop. of Gardening,’ p. 930; and Alph. De Candolle
‘Géograph. Bot.,’ p. 910.
[122] Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Magazine,’ vol. iv. 1828, p. 112.
[123] The fullest account of the gooseberry is given by Mr. Thompson
in ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. i., 2nd series, 1835, p. 218, from
which most of the foregoing facts are taken.
[124] ‘Catalogue of Fruits of Hort. Soc. Garden,’ 3rd edit., 1842.
[125] Mr. Clarkson of Manchester, on the Culture of the Gooseberry, in
Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Magazine,’ vol. iv. 1828, p. 482.
[126] Downing’s ‘Fruits of America,’ p. 213.
[127] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1844, p. 811, where a table is given;
and 1845, p. 819. For the extreme weights gained, _see_ ‘Journal of
Horticulture,’ July 26th, 1864, p. 61.
[128] Mr. Saul, of Lancaster, in Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Mag.,’ vol. iii.
1828, p. 421; and vol. x. 1834, p. 42.
[129] ‘Himalayan Journals,’ 1854, vol. ii. p. 334. Moorcroft
(‘Travels,’ vol. ii. p. 146) describes four varieties cultivated in
Kashmir.
[130] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1850, p. 723.
[131] Paper translated in Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Mag.,’ 1829, vol. v. p.
202.
[132] Quoted in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1849, p. 101.
[133] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1847, pp. 541 and 558.
[134] The following details are taken from the ‘Catalogue of Fruits,
1842, in Garden of Hort. Soc.,’ p. 103; and from Loudon’s ‘Encyclop.
of Gardening,’ p. 943.
[135] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1860, p. 956.
[136] ‘Annales des Sc. Nat. Bot.,’ 4th series, vol. vi. 1856, p. 5.
[137] ‘American Journ. of Science,’ 2nd series, vol. xxiv. 1857, p.
442.
[138] Gärtner ‘Bastarderzeugung,’ 1849, s. 87, and s. 169 with respect
to Maize; on Verbascum, ibid., s. 92 and 181; also his ‘Kenntniss der
Befruchtung,’ s. 137. With respect to Nicotiana _see_ Kölreuter
‘Zweite Forts.,’ 1764, s. 53; though this is a somewhat different
case.
[139] ‘De l’Espèce,’ par M. Godron, tom. ii. p. 64.
[140] Naudin, in ‘Annal. des Sc. Nat.,’ 4th series, Bot. tom. xi.
1859, p. 28.
[141] ‘Mèmoire sur les Cucurbitacées,’ 1826, pp. 6, 24.
[142] ‘Flore des Serres,’ Oct. 1861, quoted in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’
1861, p. 1135. I have often consulted and taken some facts from M.
Naudin’s Memoir on Cucumis in ‘Annal. des Sc. Nat.,’ 4th series, Bot.
tom. xi. 1859, p. 5.
[143] _See also_ Sageret’s ‘Mémoire’ p. 7.
[144] Loudon’s ‘Arboretum et Fruticetum,’ vol. ii. p. 1217.
[145] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1866, p. 1096.
[146] ‘Géograph. Bot.,’ p. 1096.
[147] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1842, p. 36.
[148] Loudon’s ‘Arboretum et Fruticetum,’ vol. iii. p. 1731.
[149] Ibid., vol. iv. p. 2489.
[150] Godron (‘De l’Espèce’ tom. ii. p. 91) describes four varieties
of Robinia remarkable from their manner of growth.
[151] ‘Journal of a Horticultural Tour, by Caledonian Hort. Soc.,’
1823, p. 107. Alph. De Candolle, ‘Géograph. Bot.,’ p. 1083. Verlot,
‘Sur La Production des Variétés,’ 1865; p. 55 for the Barberry.
[152] Loudon’s ‘Arboretum et Fruticetum,’ vol. ii. p. 508.
[153] Verlot ‘Des Variétés,’ 1865, p. 92.
[154] Loudon’s ‘Arboretum et Fruticetum,’ vol. iii. p. 1376.
[155] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1841, p. 687.
[156] Godron, ‘De l’Espèce,’ tom. ii. p. 89. In Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s
Mag.,’ vol. xii. 1836, p. 371, a variegated bushy ash is described and
figured, as having simple leaves; it originated in Ireland.
[157] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1863, p. 575.
[158] Quoted from Royal Irish Academy in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1841,
p. 767.
[159] Loudon’s ‘Arboretum et Fruticetum:’ for Elm, _see_ vol. iii. p.
1376; for Oak, p. 1846.
[160] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1849, p. 822.
[161] ‘Arboretum et Fruticetum,’ vol. iv. p. 2150.
[162] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1852, p. 693.
[163] _See_ ‘Beiträge zur Kenntniss Europäischer Pinus-arten von Dr.
Christ: Flora, 1864.’ He shows that in the Ober-Engadin _P.
sylvestris_ and _montana_ are connected by intermediate links.
[164] ‘Arboretum et Fruticetum,’ vol. iv. pp. 2159 and 2189.
[165] Ibid., vol. ii. p. 830; Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Mag.,’ vol. vi.
1830, p. 714.
[166] Loudon’s ‘Arboretum et Fruticetum,’ vol. ii. p. 834.
[167] Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Mag.,’ vol. ix. 1833, p. 123.
[168] Ibid., vol. xi. 1835, p. 503.
[169] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1845, p. 623.
[170] D. Beaton, in ‘Cottage Gardener,’ 1860, p. 377. _See also_ Mr.
Beck, on the habits of Queen Mab, in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1845, p.
226.
[171] Moquin-Tandon, ‘Eléments de Tératologie,’ 1841, p. 213.
[172] _See also_ ‘Cottage Gardener,’ 1860, p. 133.
[173] Quoted by Alph. de Candolle, ‘Bibl. Univ.,’ November 1862, p.
58.
[174] Knight, ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. iv. p. 322.
[175] ‘Botanical Magazine,’ tab. 5160, fig. 4; Dr. Hooker, in
‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1860, p. 190; Prof. Harvey, in ‘Gardener’s
Chronicle,’ 1860, p. 145; Mr. Crocker, in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’
1861, p. 1092.
[176] Alph. de Candolle, ‘Géograph. Bot.,’ p. 1083; ‘Gardener’s
Chronicle,’ 1861, p. 433. The inheritance of the white and golden
zones in Pelargonium largely depends on the nature of the soil. _See_
D. Beaton, in ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ 1861, p. 64.
[177] ‘Rose Amateur’s Guide,’ T. Rivers, 1837, p. 21.
[178] ‘Journal Hort. Soc.,’ vol. ix. 1855, p. 182.
[179] The Rev. W. F. Radclyffe, in ‘Journal of Horticulture,’ March
14th, 1865, p. 207.
[180] ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1831, p. 46.
[181] Mr. Sabine, in ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. iv. p. 285.
[182] ‘An Encyclop. of Plants,’ by J. C. Loudon, 1841, p. 443.
[183] Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Magazine,’ vol. xi. 1835, p. 427; also
‘Journal of Horticulture,’ April 14th, 1863, p. 275.
[184] Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Magazine,’ vol. viii. p. 575: vol. ix. p.
689.
[185] Sir J. E. Smith, ‘English Flora,’ vol. i. p. 306. H. C. Watson,
‘Cybele Britannica,’ vol. i. 1847, p. 181.
[186] Quoted from ‘Annales des Sciences,’ in the Companion to the
‘Bot. Mag.,’ vol. i. 1835, p. 159.
[187] ‘Cybele Britannica,’ vol. i. p. 173. _See also_ Dr. Herbert on
the changes of colour in transplanted specimens, and on the natural
variations of _V. grandiflora,_ in ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. iv. p.
19.
[188] Salisbury, in ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. i. 1812, pp. 84, 92.
A semi-double variety was produced in Madrid in 1790.
[189] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. iii. 1820, p. 225.
[190] Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s Mag.,’ vol. vi. 1830, p. 77.
[191] Loudon’s ‘Encyclop. of Gardening,’ p. 1035.
[192] ‘Transact. Hort. Soc.,’ vol. i. p. 91; and Loudon’s ‘Gardener’s
Mag.,’ vol. iii. 1828, p. 179.
[193] Mr. Wildman, in ‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1843, p. 87. ‘Cottage
Gardener,’ April 8th, 1856, p. 33.
[194] M. Faivre has given an interesting account of the successive
variations of the Chinese primrose, since its introduction into Europe
about the year 1820: ‘Revue des Cours Scientifiques,’ June, 1869, p.
428.
[195] The best and fullest account of this plant which I have met with
is by a famous horticulturist, Mr. Paul, of Waltham, in the
‘Gardener’s Chronicle,’ 1864, p. 342.
[196] ‘Des Jacinthes, de leur Anatomie, Reproduction, et Culture,’
Amsterdam, 1768.
[197] Alph. de Candolle, ‘Géograph. Bot.,’ p. 1082.
[198] Alph. De Candolle, ‘Géograph. Bot.,’ p. 983.