12 History of Priinvla 



which their improvements should be reckoned. Even as late as 1897 

 "R. D." (R. Dean) writes in the Gardeners' Chronicle (1897, p. 65) that 

 "so far comparatively little variation has appeared among seedlings. 

 The blossoms of some are larger, rounder and stouter than others and 

 there is a tendency to deepen the tints of some individuals to something 

 approaching mauve." 



As with all new introductions gardeners very soon attempted to 

 " improve " P. obconica by crossing with other species of the genus, and 

 P. sinensis appears to have been tried in most cases as the pollen 

 parent. As early as 1887 it was suggested' that the variations noticed 

 might be due to attempts to cross P. obconica with Alpine auriculas and 

 Primroses though it was considered as unlikely. That P. sinensis pollen 

 was answerable for the improvement in the flowers is put forward in 

 the ease of the first occurrence of fimbriation recorded in 1893-, and 

 several references to the action of P. sinensis are to be found from that 

 date onwards. In 1896^ Dr Masters e.xhibited a "hybrid" at the 

 scientific committee of the Royal Horticultural Society supposed to be 

 the result of crossing P. obconica with the wild form of P. sinensis, but 

 there was apparently very little to distinguish it from the female parent, 

 and in the spring of 1898'' Mr Shea exhibited the result of a similar 

 cross with (?) cultivated P. sinensis before that committee in which 

 the influence of the Chinese Primula appears to have been accepted, 

 though the predominance of the female is recorded. The possibility of 

 hybridising P. obconica with P. sinensis was accepted definitely in 

 Germany and Herr Arends informs me that a fine batch of hybrids 

 was raised at Fiirsten Walde near Berlin in 1893 "with the growth 

 and leaves of obconica and size and colour of sinensis flowers." He 

 adds in a further letter that the plants had the " large brilliant flowers 

 of sinensis. They represented in perfection that which we had tried 

 to get for so many years." These plants all died without having been 

 described or figured and it is not now possible to say whether they 

 may or may not have been hybrids, but in the light of our present 

 knowledge it would appear to be a matter of considerable doubt. 

 Herr Arends states that he has made this cross again and again but 

 without result and Messrs Sutton, Veitch and Vilmorin'' all express the 



' Journ. Hon. 1887, p. 417. "- The Garden, 1893, p. 327. 



s Ganl. Chron. 1896, pp. 600, 790. 

 ■• Gard. Chron. 1898, p. 119. 



= See Le Jardin, 1901, also The Garden, 1897, pp. 193, 197, 213, 216, 227, 394 ; 1899, 

 pp. 144, 3G6 ; 1910, Lxxiv. p. 179: Rev. Hon. 1899, p. 548 ; 1906, p. 487. 



