84 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
foliage [of the cross] resembled almost entirely that of the mother ; 
which is the reverse of my experience of the results produced between 
varieties.’ * 
Mr. C. C. Hurst experienced the same thing in Orchids. Thus he 
writes: “In May, 1891, Mr. R. Young, of: Sefton Park, Liverpool, 
crossed Cypripedium barbatum with pollen of C. nivewm. Fourteen 
hybrids were raised. . .. Every one of nine which flowered was C. bar- 
batum, without a trace of the father parent, C. nivewm.”’ T 
Mr. James Douglas has also shown how the same phenomenon occurs 
in the case of Carnations. 
Mr. Moore, of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, informs me 
that he has never succeeded in crossing Lachenalia pendula with any 
other species or variety. On one occasion he thought he had succeeded 
in doing so with Z. awrea, but the seedlings were only aurea. He also 
failed to raise a hybrid between Helleborus niger and any other species. 
When crossed with H. orientalis the progeny proved to be H. mger. 
’  Non-rEcrprocity iv Hyprips.—As a general rule, it may be stated 
that hybrids are not only intermediate in character between their parents, 
but that they are alike when either parent is the male or female. But 
it is not always so; and the peculiar difference may occur of a species 
being readily crossed with others, yet refusing to cross them in return, or 
vice versd. Thus Mr. J. Scott says: ‘‘I inserted pollinia of Oncidiwm 
microchilwm into the stigmatic chamber of eight flowers of O. ornitho- 
rhyncum; of these, three produced capsules containing about 21 per cent. 
of good seed. I also tried the converse experiment, and applied pollinia 
from O. ornithorhyncum to the stigmatic chambers of twelve flowers of 
O. microchilum, but in this case I failed in causing a single capsule to 
swell.” § 
Mr. Burbidge || records a similar fact of Rhododendron EHdqworthii 
as narrated by Mr. J. Anderson-Henry, who writes: ‘‘ While it has been 
repeatedly made the male, it has never submitted to become the female 
parent... . &. Nuttalli behaved in the same manner.’’ He further 
adds: ‘This remarkable circumstance of non-reciprocity has perplexed 
and defied me in innumerable instances throughout my long experience 
in these pursuits.”’ 
Mr. E. Scaplehorn, of Mayford, Woking, writes me with regard to 
Clematis coccinea: ‘1 understand, from experiments made here respect- 
ing the new C. coccinea hybrids, that C. coccinea when used as the female 
parent did not produce any material results ; but only when the various 
varieties of C. Jackmanni were crossed with the pollen from C. coccinea, 
was the production of these hybrids possible.” 
Again, Mirabilis longiflora x M. Jalapa proved a failure, though the 
reciprocal hybrid was a success. 
Professor I’, Parkman records his experience of a like kind with Lilies. 
* «On the Relative Influence of Parentage,” Journ. R.H.S. New Series, vol. iv. 
pp. 18, 19, and 23. 
+ “ Notes on Some Curiosities of Orchid Breeding,”’ Journ. R.H.S. 1898, p. 442. 
t “ Cross-fertilisation of Florists’ Flowers,’ Journ. R.H.S. 1897, p. 205. 
§ Journ. Lin. Soc. xv. p. 164, where other instances are mentioned. 
|| Op. cit. p. 299. 
{ Gard. Chron. Jan. 5, 1878, p. 19. 
