294 



as very liable to produce " rogues," i.e. plants which shew 

 irregular variation even of a tempting nature, but which 

 is only temporary, the acquired "prize" (?) proving 

 normal when cultivated. Such plants rarely, if ever, are 

 found to be devoid of normal fronds, and if one of these 

 exists, our only advice to the finder is to leave it alone. 

 These, we believe, are due to damage to the crown or axis 

 of growth, and when we consider that the first crop of 

 fronds of one season is really started in the previous one, 

 it is easy to imagine that any injury to the tightly packed 

 group would result in subsequent distorted and irregular 

 growth with normal fronds to follow. On the other hand, 

 we scarcely agree with Mr. Kirby in his '* various stages 

 of development." We do not believe in a " primitive 

 stage just a sport," in which "the change of character is 

 too recent to be securely set." In a "sport" proper 

 worthy of the name, i.e. with definite characters through- 

 out on symmetrical lines, these characters are so far fixed 

 as to be fairly truly inherited, though it may be in varying 

 degrees, a few being even quite normal, though in our 

 experience this is rarely the case, as is also the entire 

 reversion of such finds to the common form. The examples 

 referred to at Clifton of such reversions may quite possibly 

 be explained by sporelings of the normals in the vicinity 

 arising in clamps of fine varieties, and in time establishing 

 themselves so strongly as to lead to a misconception of 

 their origm. In our own experience, now extending over 

 thirty years, we have never known of a marked variety 

 reverting as described. A plant may under very uncon- 

 genial cultural conditions lose much of a redundant 

 character by a sort of starvation, but if rescued in time 

 will certainly recover such character in proportion to its 



recovery of vigour. 



The Editor. 



