PART II. 



Systetnatical. 



CHAPTER IV. 



The genus Camellia (L.) Sweet. 



In the preceding chapters we hâve seen when, where and by means 

 of what plant-material tea-cultivation lias been fouiuled in the centres of 

 modem manufacture: British and Netherlands hidia, and where the wild or 

 scarcely cultivated plant is to be found. Our next task consists in scrutinizing 

 the forms wherein our plant présents itself at différent localities to the 

 eye of the botanist. But before we proceed to this investigation, let us 

 consider the morphological relations of Camellia tlieifera (Griff.) Dyer, 

 the tea plant, to the other members of ils genus. 



Although such an investigation might seem to be rather superfluous 

 for anyone seeking to study one single species, in fact it richly repays the 

 effort required. Not only for the breeder himself who has to look through 

 a great deal of herbarium spécimens, which always contain some inaccu- 

 rately determined samples, and therefore are apt to cause confusion and 

 uncertainty. There were more reasons why 1 devoted myself to this study. 

 Firstly, the history of the genus Camellia and of the controversies about the 

 différence between ,,Camcllia" and „Thea", is a history of the more précise 

 study of the tea plant at the saine time; because it is only by the accurate 

 study of closely corresponding things, that one learns to discern the char- 

 acteristics of each. 



Now, in studying the living tea-plant in its multiple forms, the foUowing 

 difficulty, probabiy well-known to anybody beginning with breeding ex- 

 periments, presented itself to me: what characteristics shall be mentioned 

 in the descriptions? are the flowers important? is the inflorescence or the 

 fruit subject to variability? is the hairiness of the ovary a characteristic 

 unimportant or may it serve as a means of identification? Hère the differen- 

 tial characteristics of the allied species can give us a valuable insight into 

 the variability within the genus, they can show us which characteristics 

 are constant and hence of no systematical value, and which are variable 

 and therefore of importance. From the subséquent account of my researches 

 it will appear that the variation of characteristics in tea exactly corresponds 

 to the spécifie différences in the genus Camellia. And we are reminded of 

 that ingenious remark of Charles Darwin'): that the same différences 



') Ch. Darwin 1859, ch. V; 1808, ch. XXVI. 



