Horticultural and Systematic Varieties. 59 
conception of them is now common property, and in 
my opinion our best course is to interfere with that con- 
ception as little as possible. 
There can be little question that the difference between 
variants and variations is becoming more and more widely 
recognized. Variants are what we call individual devia- 
tions ; they are instances of fluctuating variability. The 
characters which distinguish them disappear under suit- 
able cultivation and are therefore to be regarded as in- 
constant. In systematic works they are not as a rule 
gi ven a place, or merely briefly mentioned, or, lastly, 
treated as a Forma, which is the lowest subdivision of 
the system; e. g., Forma alpestris, Forma aquatica. But 
this can only be done when the relationship of the form 
is sufficiently known ; lack of material in the case of 
exotic plants, or incomplete investigation of indigenous 
species of course would make this impossible, and such 
forms have therefore often first been described as vari- 
eties or even as species. 1 In many cases of course the 
true relationship is still unknown and the systematic 
grouping, therefore, to be considered as provisional: as 
for instance in the case of Anthyllis Vnlneraria alpcstris, 
Limosclla aquatica caulesccns, Carlina acaulis caulcsccns, 
and so forth. 
BONNIER'S researches on Alpine plants, discussed in 
detail above (Vol. I, p. 146), have demonstrated that 
some of these differences are not even instances of indi- 
vidual but of partial variability. From the two halves 
of a single individual can be grown the form character- 
istics of the plains and the Forma montana. 
1 For example Ranunculus aconitifolius L. in alpibus minor, caule 
3-5 floro ; R. aconitifolius altior KOCH, caule multifloro, fol. laciniis 
longius acuminatis, in montibus humilioribus = R. platanifolius L. 
mant. 79 (Keen, Synopsis, p. 12). 
