99 
species of Primula for the Index Flore Sinensis. Much better 
material was received from Henry in September 1886 and com- 
pared by Professor D. Oliver with Delavay’s collection. In 
1897, when a drawing of the plant appeared in the Botanical 
Magazine, this determination was evidently never questioned 
by Sir Joseph Hooker who supplied the description. According 
to Hooker the plant figured there was one of a batch of seedlings 
grown by Lady Hutt, of Appleby Towers, Ryde, and raised from 
seed sent by Mr. Pratt from Ichang. Dr. Masters obtained 
some of these plants and passed them on to his friend Mr. Edmund 
Hyde, of Ealing, who was the first to flower this wild form in 
1892. 
During the last few years it has become manifest to several 
people that there must have been some error in the assumption 
that the Ichang plant was the wild form of P. sinensis. According 
to Dr. Bateson (see Gard. Chron. Ser. III. 55. 131 (1914) ) all 
efforts to cross the Ichang plant with cultivated P. sinensis 
have failed, and he considers it impossible that it had any- 
thing to do with that species. 
Collectors in China have subconsciously contributed remarks 
which greatly strengthen the view that the Ichang plant is some- 
thing different from the cultivated P. sinensis. Thus Mr. E. H. 
Wilson writes (Gard. Chron. Ser. III. 40: 206 (1905) ) :—‘‘ I may 
mauve-pink, and I never saw any variation in colour, not even 
an albino. This is, to say the least, remarkable, when we con- 
sider the wide range of colour we find in this plant under 
cultivation. In late January and February the cliffs around 
Ichang, where this plant has its home, are a delightful picture. 
After flowering the flower-stalk becomes negatively heliotropic, 
an interesting biological character which the plant appears to 
have lost under long cultivation.’’ Other limestone-loving species 
in China mentioned by Wilson are P. yunnanensis, P. pulchella, 
and P. bracteata. In the Gard. Chron. Ser. III. 37 : 332 (1905) he 
also remarks on the great divergence of the florist’s flower from 
the type as found growing near Ichang, and says that “ the only 
thing that has remained constant is the perfume ” ! 
The present writer is not entitled to credit for raising any 
of these doubts as to the authenticity of the wild form. His 
part has been merely to consider the evidence now available 
and to re-examine the specimens from the taxonomic standpoint. 
This he has done at the instigation of the Director of the Royal 
Botanic Gardens, Kew, who had himself prepared notes on the 
subject which have been kindly placed at his disposal. Thanks 
are also due to Dr. Bateson for similar facilities. 
The differences between the two species in question and the 
closely allied P. rupestris are set out below, together with a 
A2 
