HYBRIDISATION VIEWED FROM SYSTEMATIC BOTANY. 183 
explain. Botanists necessarily have to base their system of classification 
upon the similarities and differences which exist in the plants they investi- 
gate, and can hardly be expected to view the obliteration of their most 
reliable marks of distinction, which the work of the hybridist entails, with 
equanimity. And it is notorious that in certain groups the marks of 
distinction between species, and even genera, have been broken down by 
this means, with the result that hybrids, for the most part, have been 
regarded unsympathetically by botanists or ignored. Some, it is true, 
have contended that hybridisation is also carried on in nature, but their 
views have met with a good deal of opposition, as we have just seen. 
On the other hand, hybridists have done very little to remove this. 
prejudice. They have, for the most part, devoted themselves to raising 
new and improved races of garden plants, without much regard for the 
botanical side of the question, which perhaps helps to explain the 
undoubted want of sympathy between the two classes of workers, and 
which I hope this Conference will at least do something towards. 
removing. 
It is a fact beyond dispute that certain plants which occur in a wild 
state, and have been described as species, have also been produced arti- 
ficially by crossing together two other distinct kinds ; and that such plants 
are natural hybrids can scarcely be denied by the greatest sceptic. The 
number, I am convinced, might be rapidly increased if hybridists would 
make the necessary experiments. It is perhaps too much to expect them 
to demonstrate the origin of our much-disputed Willow-herbs, but there 
are groups which they have already in hand in which certain crosses 
might be made. Among Roses, for example, Crépin has described 
numerous wild hybrids (‘‘ Bull. Soc. Roy. Belg.,” xxxiii. pp. 1-149), while 
in gardens numerous artificial crosses have been made ; yet Mr. Baker tells 
me that so far as he knows not one of these artificial crosses has demon- 
strated the origin of any wild hybrid, the reason of course being that the 
right species have not yet been crossed together. Botanists themselves 
might do more to demonstrate the truth of some of their speculations on 
the subject. 
A good many experiments have already been made, and with most 
promising results. Among the earliest undertaken with this express 
object were those by Herbert in the genus Narcissus. About the 
year 1835 a collection of the known Narcissi was made at Spofforth for 
the completion of an arrangement of the Amaryllidacere ; and with a 
desire of seeing the fruit of some of Haworth’s genera, application was 
made for seed to various cultivators, when it was found that no one had 
ever known a seed to be produced. The suspicion then arose that they 
might be hybrids, and accordingly certain experiments were made. WN. 
imcomparibilis was known to be wild in France, and it had been a ques- 
tion among collectors whether it was generated accidentally between the 
common Daffodil and N: poeticus, which Herbert remarked might be 
expected to produce such a hybrid. He accordingly crossed a Daffodil 
with pollen of N. poetiews, and when the seedlings flowered they proved 
identical with N. incomparibilis, as may be seen by consulting the coloured 
figure (‘“‘ Bot. Reg.,” xxix., t. 38, fig. 5). In a similar way Herbert 
thought that ifthe Daffodil would cross with the Jonquil, N. odorus might 
