DISCUSSION. 205 
came of it. There was not a single feature showing any structural 
difference between any two. Perhaps there was a little difference in the 
fibre of the vascular stock, but nothing like Dr. MacF arlane’s illustration. 
I think the remark of Dr. Wilson’s holds good where species are alike in 
their structures. We note that species differ if they come from widely 
different localities. A species growing in the desert or in Alpine regions 
compared with one growing in marshy land exhibits a wonderful 
difference. Where you get plants from widely different localities you 
expect to find these differences well pronounced in the microscopic 
structure. The Rhododendrons I examined all came from the same 
district, and there was no difference that I could discern in their anatomy. 
Yet some of them contained four or five species, and were very compli- 
cated in their structure. 
Mr. F. W. Bursipce: Before we close this most interesting Con- 
ference it would perhaps be advisable if we entered to some slight extent 
into the question of the nomenclature of hybrids. When we held the 
Narcissus Committee—in 1884, I think it was-——there was a resolution 
passed that the plants should not receive Latin names. We all know 
that the adoption of Latin names for hybrids has been a source of 
extreme trouble from the very first commencement of plants being 
hybridised. In olden days they raised Calceolarias, Pelargoniums, 
Fuchsias, &c., and they all got Latin names. The consequence is that 
to-day you find these names in botanical books, and the parentage is 
kept back, and the consequence is that utter confusion exists. We really 
do not know a tenth part of what we ought to know of the hybridisations 
of the past, owing to the Latin names being used in the same way for 
hybrids as for real species. Dr. Masters some years ago struck a very 
good note when he named a hybrid, raised by Mr. Veitch, Philageria—a 
compound of the names of the two genera that were united in the cross. 
The same plan is now carried out in other places. Sir Michael Foster was 
lucky in hybridising Iris, and very often he adopted the two specific 
names or a portion of the two names. Iris Monspur was a cross between 
I. Monnieriand I. spurius. To a certain extent this principle works fairly 
well; but I really think that we should go further to the root of the 
matter, and do away with the Latin names altogether for hybrid 
and garden plants. I think if we passed the resolution adopted by 
the Narcissus Committee, only making it apply to all plants, we should 
meet the case. 
The Rey. G. H. ENanueHEART: There is one subject of very practical 
importance that has not been touched upon at this Conference, but which 
ought to receive some attention. One feels that the subject of hybridisa- 
tion is so enormous that at a Conference of this sort, even of two days’ 
duration, one cannot possibly traverse the whole ground. I think it may 
be well just to hint at a line that may be taken up on a future occasion, 
and which I think would be of great practical value. Dr. Masters showed 
us very lucidly in opening the Conference that this was an era of hybridi- 
sation. Nowadays plants are made. And we know that life is short, 
and that the art of hybridisation is very long indeed. When the gardener, 
the practical man, establishes a business—the man whose money is in 
his gardening—he feels a certain reluctance to attack plants of which he 
