367 



GARDEN IVIES. 



ON THE CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE OE THE SPECIES 

 AND VARIETIES OE HEDERA. 



(Communicated to the Linnaean Society by Shirley Hibbeed.) 



i^ljURING the past fifteen years I have assiduously collected and cultivated 

 the species and varieties of Hedera, and my collection comprises upwards 

 of one hundred varieties (so-called), representing the three well-known 

 types ; namely, H. helix, of Linnseus ; H. Canariensis, of Willdenow ; 

 and H. colchica, of Koch. Observing that many varieties were known 

 in gardens under a diversity of names, and that those names were in many cases 

 unnecessarily complex, and in some cases obnoxious buth to sense and syntax, I 

 determined on a complete revision of my own garden catalogue of ivies, and I now 

 respectfully submit to the Linna?an Society a general summary of results : — 



First, as to the general principles of the classification now adopted. It is based 

 on the three species named above, the characters of which are unmistakable. The 

 subdivisions comprise groups of — 1, Scandent, or climbing ivies with green leaves ; 

 2, Scandent, or climbing ivies with variegated leaves ; 3, Arborescent, or fruiting 

 ivies with green leaves ; 4, Arborescent, or fruiting varieties with variegated 

 leaves. Under one or more of these four subdivisions may be placed every garden 

 ivy known — a few which combine the property of climbing and the more free 

 growth of the scandent forms, with the property of fruiting also, may claim a place in 

 more than one group. I have, however, in every "such case, considered a variety 

 known to bear fruit as arborescent, though as to habit of growth it may very closely 

 approximate to the truly scandent forms. A very brief experience with ivies will 

 convince the observer that every scandent form tends inevitably to the fruiting form, 

 requiring only age and immunity from the pruning-knife to produce in due time 

 abundance of berries. It is not, however, so generally well known that every 

 fruiting form, however arborescent, is capable of reverting back to its corresponding 

 scandent form — the mere opportunity for climbing, as for example proximity to an 

 old brick wall and its roots having free range in a rich soil, tending to what may be 

 properly termed its rejuvenescence. More than one variety in this collection 

 appears to be in a permanently intermediate condition between the extreme cha- 

 racters of the climbing and fruiting forms, producing shoots that are in some cases 

 decidedly scandent, with large and distinctly lobed leaves, and other shoots of a 

 more twiggy nature, with small entire leaves ; these twiggy shoots lending always 

 to produce fruit, but never so much as perfecting a flower-bud. 



Secondly, as to the nomenclature. In adopting or inventing names for the 

 most distinctive kinds in the collection, an endeavour has been made to harmonize 

 the requiiements of the cultivator with the usages of the botanist. For garden 

 purposes, one descriptive name, which can be easily remembered, or, at all events, 

 easily associated with the plant it represents, is the great desideratum. Com- 

 memorative names are simply useless as aids to identification, and geographical 

 names are nearly useless when good ; and as they are generally bad, they are 

 also generally objectionable. Hedera Canariensis may be cited as an example. It is 

 the Canary-islands ivy of the botanist, the "Irish ivy " of the horticulturist, the 

 African ivy of the traveller. The necessity of a revision of the nomenclature 

 of the ivies mny be established by a glance at any garden list of them. Thus, 

 for example, we find, even in the best catalogues, such names as Hedera helix 

 arborescens baccifera lutea. Now, to say nothing about scientific proprieties, 

 such names spread oVer a collection of a hundred or so varieties constitute a 

 painful burlesque of botanical nomenclature. The plan I have adopted makes an 

 end of all such difficulties ; it provides for every distinctive kind a descriptive 

 name, which can be taken up into its proper connections by the botanist — if 

 the botanist will adopt it — while for the use of the gardener it is valuable both 

 as a key to the character of the plant, as well as a suggestion of its existence. 

 To carry out this plan in its entirety, I have been compelled to assign to two 

 out of the three species new specific designations, which I trust the botanist 

 will allow, if only in aid of an experiment which has for its principal objects 



