198 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
had been troubled with this question, and in 1794 Sibthorp had classed 
the two as distinct; a view which had found supporters, when in 1818 the 
following remark appeared in print :—‘ Mr. Woodward recently observes 
that if the white and red be distinct the hermaphrodite variety with 
flesh-coloured flowers is probably a hybrid between them ”’ (‘‘ Withering 
Brit. Pl.,’”’ ed. 6, ii. p. 570). This suggestion afterwards proved correct, 
for Giirtner in the summer of 1830 flowered a hybrid which he had 
raised artificially between the two species, to which he gaye the name of 
Lychiis dioica albo-rubra (“ Flora,’ 1831, p. 572). A year later he 
raised the reverse cross, which he called L. d. rubro-alba (l.c., 1882, 
p. 446). The natural hybrid is widely diffused both in England and on 
the Continent, and was described in 1866 as Melandryum intermedium 
(“ Schur. Enum. Pl. Transsilv.,’”’ p. 106), and a year later as M. dubiwm 
(Hampe, ex Garcke, “ Fl. Deutschl.,” ed. 8, p. 66), besides having also been 
considered as a variety of each of its parents. Even now the question 
seems imperfectly understood, and long after the wild and artificially 
raised hybrids had been identified together, we find Bentham writing of 
L. diurna :—* Very near L. vespertina and perhaps a mere variety.”’ In 
1863 Mr. Baker wrote :—‘ A plant is not unfrequent which looks like a 
hybrid ”’ (‘‘ North Yorks.,” p. 209). He also sent examples to Boswell- 
Syme, who was partially convinced, though one he thought was “only a 
pale variety of L. diwrna, though, in the absence of the mature capsule, 
it is difficult to give a decided opinion ” (‘‘ Engl. Bot.,” ii. pp. 69, 70). 
Examples were also sent to Hewett C. Watson, and the latter both 
collected it wild in Surrey and perpetuated it from seed * in his own 
garden, as may be seen by a series of specimens preserved in his 
herbarium, though I cannot find that he ever published his views 
respecting them. The simple fact is that the two plants are thoroughly 
distinct in numerous particulars, and affect such different habitats that in 
some localities one or the other of them is completely wanting. But 
where their stations are adjacent they hybridise together very readily, 
and it is here that these intermediate forms occur which have puzzled 
botanists so much. I may add that in 1863 Godron also raised the 
hybrid from L. vespertina 2 x diurnaé. 
The foregoing case is typical of many others. Natural hybrids have 
been largely ignored or got rid of by the following processes. Some of 
the more distinct have been described as species, the authors simply 
judging them by their characters, without knowing anything of their 
actual origin. Others have been treated as varieties of one of the parents, 
on account of resemblances too patent to be ignored. And, in a few 
cases, the presence of intermediates has led to the two parents being 
regarded as simply forms of a single species. Each of these methods has 
been applied in the case of the Lychnis just mentioned, but from the very 
nature of the case the results are contradictory and unsatisfactory. The 
only alternative is to assign to natural hybrids their true value, treating 
them neither as species nor varieties, and this leads us to ask the ques- 
tion, How may they be recognised? The answer is not easy, but a few 
* A note on the sheet states that among the seedlings were forms with pink, white, 
and red flowers. ; 
