225 



ON CERTAIN SMALL-FRUITED PEAllS. 



By Maxwell T. Masteus, M.D., F.R.S. 



(Tab. 180.) 



In the Report of the Curator of the Botanical Exchange Club 

 dated April 1871, and reprinted in this Journal, 1871, p. 182, Dr. 

 Boswell-Syme describes an interesting variety of Pyrus communis, for 

 which he proposes the name of P. communis, var. Briggsii. In a 

 subsequent number (Journ. of Bot. 1871, p. 214) Mr. Briggs, who 

 originally discovered the variety in a hedge near Plymouth gave 

 some additional particulars relating to it. 



My own attention was drawn to this form from the circumstance 

 that the eminent archreologist, Dr. Phen^, sought my assistance in 

 the determination of a small-fruited Pyrus which he had found in Brit- 

 tany. This I had no difficulty in identifying with the Pyrus cor data of 

 Desvaux (Obs. PI, Anjou (1818), p. 152), a species well figured and 

 described in Decaisne's " Jardin Fruitier du Museum" (Poirier), vol. i., 

 p. 330, tab. 3. M. Durieu de Maisonneuve, overlooking the earlier 

 publication of Desvaux, described the same plant under the name 

 Pyrus communis azarolifera, Bull. Soc. Bot. France v. (1858), p. 726, 

 vi., 621, and vii., p. 31. 



According to Decaisne, I.e., the form just mentioned, which is 

 found in Anjou and in Brittany, is the same with a species fouud in 

 North-East Persia, on Mount Elbruz, by Buhse, and elsewhere in the 

 same region by other collectors. The Persian form was originally 

 called P. Boissierana by Buhse (Aufzaehl. Transkaukas. et Pers. 

 gesamm. Pflanz., 87), but it is described under the name P. cordata, 

 Desv., in Boissier's " Flora Orientalis," vol. ii., 1872, p. 653. The 

 Plymouth plant does not appear to be quite the same as the French or 

 Persian specimens, but it is so similar that no one who knows how 

 greatly the foliage, flowers, and fruits of Pears and Apples sometimes 

 differ even on the same individual tree, and how much variation is 

 observed in seedlings from the same tree or the same fruit, could 

 doubt the possibility that the one form might be a seedling 

 variation from the other. This is not susceptible of direct 

 proof, but I believe that when the reader is put into possession 

 of the facts of the case, as at present known, he will not be likely to 

 accuse me of any great amount of rashness if 1 assume that the 

 Persian, the Western French, and the Devonshire specimens are 

 specifically identical, or at least derived from the same stock. This 

 assumption is borne out by the singular history attaching to the 

 Brittany plant. It is fair to say, however, that I had arrived at my 

 conclusions from the botanical characters befoi'e I was fully aware of 

 VOL. 5. [August, 187S.] Q 



