58 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
confirmed his conjecture by producing by artificial fertilisation the very 
same forms which the botanist described. ’ | 
It remains only to speak of another respectable but mistaken pre- 
judice that has existed against the extension of hybridisation. I am 
sorry to say this has been on the part of the botanists. It is not 
indeed altogether surprising that the botanists should have objected to 
the inconvenience and confusion introduced into their systems of classi- 
fication by the introduction of hybrids and mongrels, and that they 
should object to hybrid species, and much more to hybrid genera; but 
it would be very unscientific to prefer the interests of our systems to the 
extension of the truth. 
I may mention two cases where scepticism still exists as to the real 
nature of certain plants: Clematis Jackmani of our gardens, raised, as is 
alleged, by Mr. Jackman, of Woking (‘‘ Gardeners’ Chronicle,’ 1864, p. 825), 
was considered by M. Decaisne and M. Lavallée* to be a real Japanese 
species, and not a hybrid. This may be so, but there is no absolute 
impossibility in the conjecture that the Japanese plant and the cultivated 
plant originated in the same way. Again, Mr. Culverwell’s hybrid 
between the Strawberry and the Kaspberry has been pronounced to be 
no hybrid, but to be Rubus Leesii. But what, I may ask, is Rubus 
Leesii? It appears to be a sterile form more closely allied to the Rasp- 
berry than to the Strawberry. Is it not possible that Mr. Culverwell 
has produced it artificially ? ; 
The days when “ species’’ were deemed sacrosanct, and “ systems ”’ 
were considered ‘“natural,’’ have passed, and Darwin, just as Herbert 
did in another way, has taught us to welcome hybridisation as one means 
of ascertaining the true relationships of plants and the limitations of 
species and genera. 
Darwin’s researches and experiments on cross-fertilisation came as a 
revelation to many practical experimenters, and we recall with something 
akin to humiliation the fact that we had been for years exercising 
ourselves about the relative merits of ‘“‘ pin eyes”’ and ‘‘ thrum eyes”’ in 
Primroses, without ever perceiving the vast significance of these apparently 
trifling details of structure. 
It would occupy too much time were I to dilate upon the labours of 
Gaertner, of Godron, of Naudin, of Naegeli, of Millardet, of Lord 
Penzance, of Engleheart, and many others. Nor need I do more than 
make a passing reference to the wonderful morphological results 
obtained within our own times by the successive crossings and inter- 
crossings of the tuberous Begonias, changes so remarkable that a French 
botanist has even been constrained to found a new genus, Lemoinea, so 
widely have they deviated from the typical Begonias. 
For scientific reasons, then, no less than for practical purposes, the 
study of cross-breeding is most important, and we welcome the opportunity 
that this Conference affords of extending our knowledge of the life 
history of plants, in full confidence that it will not only increase our 
stock of knowledge, but also enable us still further to apply it to the 
benefit of mankind. 
* Lavallée, Les Clématites ad Grandes Flewrs, p. vi-and p. 9, tab. iv.: Clematis 
Hakonensis. 
