86 NATURAL SCIENCE. August, 



at the Royal Society by giving an account of his investigations on 

 variation in the shore-crab. To this discussion Mr. Thiselton-Dyer, 

 in the fulness of his heart, brought down from Kew a modern culti- 

 vated cineraria and an example of the feral Cineraria cruenta recently 

 brought from the Canaries by one of his assistants. It v^as an object- 

 lesson of great beauty and interest, and the Director of the Royal 

 Gardens pointed out the identity of the foliage and the striking dis- 

 similarity of the blossoms in the two forms. Undoubtedly, as he 

 stated, the cultivated form has come into existence by human selec- 

 tion, and so far " as is known it has been accomplished by the 

 gradual accumulation of small variations." Thus, the Director at the 

 Royal Society, and subsequently in a letter to Nature, so far as it is 

 possible to judge from the evidence, brought forward the case of 

 change as a simple contrast to the ordinary stability of plants in an 

 unaltered environment. 



But he was reckoning without his Bateson. Mr. Bateson has the 

 belief, and has shown considerable ground for it, that slow variations 

 and slow selection are not the chief factors in the modification of 

 organic forms. We have repeatedly given reasons why we are 

 unable to accept Mr. Bateson's alternative ; but apart from the 

 ultimate value of his theory, at least the expression of it had the 

 result of bringing into prominence some defects of Mr. Thiselton- 

 Dyer's position. Mr, Bateson roundly asserted that there was no 

 ground for the inference that the cultivated cineraria had been pro- 

 duced by slow modification {i.e., selection of small variations) of the 

 feral C. cruenta. He was inclined to dispute even the identity of the 

 foliage of the two, and he produced copious historical evidence tending 

 to show that the cultivated form was a result of numerous artificial 

 rearings of hybrids, and of sudden sportings subsequent to hybridis- 

 ing. Professor Weldon intervened with a pungent criticism of 

 Mr. Bateson's interpretation of his authorities, bringing out the fact 

 that little reliance could be placed on the evidence for the hybridising 

 origin, and that evidence did exist as to the variation of C cruenta, 

 independently of, and before the existence of the so-called hybrids. 

 Mr. Botting Hemsley wrote sorrowful words, which it is not unfair to 

 paraphrase into some such as these : — " You know that, if I could, 

 I would be on the side of anyone disputing Darwinism, but it is a 

 sad truth that I don't believe in this hybrid origin business." 

 Mr. Thiselton-Dyer accentuated the error of attaching importance to 

 the use of the term " hybrid " by horticulturists. He established the 

 fact that the foliage of the cultivated form is identical with that of 

 C. cruenta, unlike that of other species, and that anatomical evidence 

 shows affinities between the cultivated form and C. cruenta, but not 

 between it and other species. Mr. Bateson, Professor Weldon, and 

 Mr. Thiselton-Dyer, all returned again to the charge. Apparently 

 Mr. Bateson remains of his original mind, but most who study the 

 controversy carefully will conclude that there is no good evidence 



