E. R. Saunders 71 



111 a footnote Hopkirk adds the remark — " The semi-double variety of 

 Hibiscus mutabilis, frequently produces seeds, and these almost always, 

 in their turn, produce semi-double and double flowers, which the seed 

 from single flowers seldom do, and the same thing may be observed in 

 Stocks, Wallflowers, etc." A pronouncement in such general terms as 

 that contained in the concluding sentence of the footnote we may, I 

 think, without hesitation, disregard. It carries with it a suggestion of 

 being merely the usual repetition of untested tradition, not a confirmation 

 from first-hand observation. I doubt whether Hopkirk's earlier state- 

 ment is likely to be based on any better authority. Even if well-founded 

 it imports no more, probably, than that other observers have met with 

 the same type of abnormality as that which has occurred in my cultures 

 (see later), the appearance of which has made it possible to clear up the 

 position. 



(3) The statement in De Candolle's description of Matthiola annua 

 (Si/st. II. p. 165, 1821) that the flowers are in colour similar to those of 

 M. incana and always single o?* rarely semi-double. (The italics are 

 mine.) 



(4) The statement by Phillips {Flora Historica, Vol. ii. p. 29, 1824) 

 that there is frequently a straggling anther to be found in the double 

 blossoms [of the Stock]. 



(5) The illustration of Matthiola incana in Flowering Plants and 

 Ferns of Great Britain, by Anne Pratt, which is very similar to Sowerby's 

 drawing. At the time of writing this work Anne Pratt was living at 

 Dover, at no great distance, therefore, from the spot where Sowerby's 

 specimen had been obtained. But, as stated above, M. incana was believed 

 to have disappeared from this locality long before this date'. We gather 

 from Bromfield- that in the Isle of Wight, another well-known station, 

 the plant, as at Hastings, was by no means easy of access. It was 

 known to occur also on the cliffs of Ramsgate and Broadstairs^ and all 

 three localities are cited by Anne Pratt. From a passing remark^ one 

 infers that recourse was not had by the authoress to a garden form as 

 a model, and it is therefore a question of some interest whether she 

 procured a new wild specimen for her plate or whether we may take 

 it that her illustration is a free rendering either of Borrer's original 

 plant or of Sowerby's drawing of it. A comparison of the two plates 



1 1854 probably, but the first edition is undated. 



^ Flora Vectensis, 1856. 



3 Cowell, Floral Guide to East Kent, 1839. 



^ Loc. cit. Vol. I. p. 135. 



