182 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
missed offhand, as though it could be safely ignored. . . . I can affirm 
that anyone with a fairly quick eye will soon be able to settle the ques- 
tion for himself, as regards this particular genus, beyond all reasonable 
doubt. . . . I cannot see why it should be inconceivable for insects to do 
unconsciously what all are agreed that florists do consciously and more 
clumsily ’’ (/.c., 1891, p. 298). Mr. Clarke retorted: “I have not... 
dismissed hybrids offhand; where I have had time to come to close 
quarters with them, however, they have invariably broken down.” He 
then described how they ‘ arise’’ (which is too long to repeat), con- 
cluding: “ The makers of hybrids often go no further than the diagnostic 
characters of systematists ; their hybrids are not hybrids between any two 
plants that ever lived, either species, crosses, or individuals, but hybrids 
between two of the hybrid-monger’s own diagnoses ”’ (1.c., 1892, p. 80). 
This Mr. Marshall not unnaturally described as “ caricature pure and 
simple ’’ (/.c., 1892, p. 107). 
Mr. N. E. Brown, in the Supplement to Syme’s “ English Botany,”’ 
published in 1892, also remarked of these twenty-seven supposed natural 
hybrids: ‘“‘Supposed to be natural hybrids, and are considered as being 
intermediate in character between their supposed parents. Possibly 
some of them may be hybrids, but those ... that I have seen, named 
by Prof. Haussknecht, Rey. E. 8. Marshall, and others, appear to me at 
the utmost but trifling variations of one or other of their supposed 
parents, the differences between the supposed hybrid and the species it 
most resembles being no greater and sometimes not as great as may 
often be found between individuals in a bed of seedlings from one plant, 
and I see no use in inserting in our floras descriptions of such plants”’ 
(ls6.5:DsL00). 
One of these very plants had long previously been raised artificially, 
though none of the authors mentioned seems to have been aware of the 
fact. Sir James EK. Smith, in 1800, had remarked concerning H'pilobiwm 
roseum: ‘Is it possible it may have originated from seeds of the latter 
[E. tetragonum] impregnated by the pollen of EH. montanum?”’ 
(“ Engl, Bot.,” x., t. 693.) In order to test this suggestion Dr. Bell- 
Salter, about the year 1842, fertilised H. tetragonwm with pollen of 
EH. montanum ; seeds were readily produced, and hybrids obtained, which 
were described as intermediate between the parents, but different from 
E. rosewm. He then reversed the cross, but the progeny proved indis- 
tinguishable. ‘These hybrids were raised true from seed for four succes- 
sive years, and up to the date of his writing (1852) plants continued to: 
make their appearance (‘‘ Phytologist,” iv. p. 739). 
The result of this experiment was doubly interesting, for not only is 
EH. rosewm now recognised as a common and widely diffused species, but 
the hybrid has also long been known in a wild state. According to 
Haussknecht it was described as long ago as 1831 by Lasch under the 
name of H. swbtetragono-montanum (‘ Linnea,” vi. p. 495), and by 
Celakovsky, in 1881,as #. Freynii (“ Prodr. Fl. Bohem.,” p. 881). It is 
found in several different localities where its parents grow intermixed. 
These facts are given to show the diverse views which still prevail, and 
it may seem strange to hybridists that such an amount of scepticism, and 
even prejudice, should still exist. The reason, however, is not difficult to- 
