298 FUHTUER NOTES ON SM Arj.-FHUITH J> PEARS. 



One bush is very old and rather stunted, having been rendered the 

 more scrubby from liavin<^ hud the branches cut off on the lane side ot' 

 the hedfi;c at difterent times. The other example of the Pear, com- 

 paratively a young one, grows about one-eighth of a mile from the one 

 just mentioned on the other side of the lane, and not in the hedgerow, 

 but on the side of the hedgebank, only a little above the level of the 

 lane, hence in a spot where we nmy reasonably conclmle that it 

 sprang from seed, especially as I could find none ck it in the hedge- 

 row above." In these terms Mr. Briggs writes to me, and on com- 

 paring the specimens with which he has now favoured me with those" 

 formerly distributed by him, and with the Brittany specimens referred 

 to in my previous communication, I can but come to the conclusion 

 that, so far as the evidence before us justifi<?3 an opinion, they all 

 belong to one and the same form. 



The second communication to which T referred consisted in the 

 transmission of the type-specimen of Pyrus Boissieriana, Buhse, 

 n. 104()a. For this I am indebted to the great kindness of M. Bois- 

 pier. On comparing this with the French and with the Devonshire 

 and Cornwall specimens, I can but conclude that an species and 

 varieties go nowadays the Persian plant is quite distinct from the 

 others. It is not necessary to give descriptive details, as those given by 

 Buhse and by Boissier and already cited by me are strictly accurate. 

 Speaking in general terms, the leaves and fruits are larger in the 

 Persian than in the French or in the English specimens. The expres- 

 sions made use of with reference to the size of the fruit, " ceraso vix 

 niajora" (Buhse) and " mugnitudine cerasi" (Boissier), are justified 

 by the examination of the specimens, and are much more applicable 

 to the Persian fruits than they are to tlie others. 



It now remains to see how Dr. Phene's fascinating speculations 

 are affected by these facts. First, as the identity of the Western 

 French specimens and those of South-western England is rather con- 

 firmed than otherwise, so the Arthurian origin of the small-fruited 

 Pear in Cornwall is strengthened proportionately. But as to the 

 Persian origin of these forms the evidence is decidedly weakened, 

 though it is still quite within the bounds of possibility that the p'ant 

 has migrated from Persia, and that the existing dilferences are refer- 

 able to climatal variations extending over centuries. 



M. Boissier also sent specimens of a second Persian small- flowered 

 form (in flower) from Al. Hunge's herl)ariuni without name, but 

 gathered near Schahrud in May, 18.58. The leaves of this are almost 

 exactly similar to those of the French P. cordata and to some of those 

 of the Devonshire specimens. The form of the petals, however, is 

 very difTerent from that of Mr. Briggs"s plants, and the sepals and 

 flower-tube are almost glabrous instead of being covered with rus-ty 

 tomentum, as in the Plymouth specimen. 



