CAN HYBRIDS BE OBTAINED BY GRAFTING ? 239 
dormant bud of Crategus ox. fl. puniceo upon the stem of a Sorbus 
aucuparia. The bud had been inserted about 1 metre above the 
eround. This wasin July. The following spring, the bud started and 
attained a length of 0:05 m. to 0°06 m. Then the leaves dried up, but 
at the same time, on the opposite side and at about 0:18-m. below the 
point of insertion of the graft-bud, there was developed a true bud 
of Crategus, the leaves of which soon acquired half their normal size ; 
they were healthy and well characterised. In its turn, however, this bud 
died off. The stem was then at this point 0°09 m. in circumference. It 
was perfectly smooth and no trace of insertion of another graft-bud was 
perceptible, even with the aid of a fairly strong lens, whilst the cicatrice 
of the shield remained clearly defined, as is always the case in similar 
circumstances. The bud besides had sprouted precisely as an adventitious 
bud would do. Such is the fact, of which I guarantee the authenticity. 
I leave it to investigators of physiological mysteries to explain this 
strange phenomenon. Is it possible that a cell containing within it the 
vital germ of the Crategus has been able to be carried from the point of 
insertion to the point whence the bud has emerged to daylight at 0°18 m. 
below and on the opposite side? Has the affinity which exists between 
two neighbouring genera, Sorbus and Crategus, been sufficient to assist 
the production of this? I would not venture to say so. But I should be 
glad to obtain some explanation of this curious fact. 
If now we compare the curious and interesting Cytisus Adami with 
the Bronvaux Medlar, we are struck with the great analogy between the 
different transformations remarked upon these two trees, and I ask myself 
whether Cytisus Adami has not also been produced by the influence of 
the graft. 
According to M. Adam, who raised it, this Cytisus was the result of the 
graft, but his opinion was vigorously combated, and generally considered 
to be erroneous. 
It seems to me, however, that the declaration of the raiser should have 
prevailed over the different suppositions and hypotheses which were 
formed resting on no substantial basis. The following is what is recorded 
regarding this Cytisus. 
It was raised in 1825 by M. Adam, nurseryman at Vitry, near Paris, 
who put it into commerce under the name of the Grand Cytise d’ Autriche 
because it presented some resemblance, especially as regards the colour, 
to Cytisus purpureus, which was known under the name of Cytise 
@ Autriche.* 
In 1830 M. Prevost, a nurseryman at Rouen, reports, for the first 
time, that this new Cytisus had spontaneously developed upon a purple 
Cytisus (“ Ann. de la Soc. d’Hort. de Paris,” vii. p. 93). 
M. Poiteau follows up this communication with the following note: 
“This,” says M. Poiteau, “is what M.J.L.Adam told me. ‘In 1825 
I shield-grafted, according to my custom, a certain number of purple 
Cytisus (Cytisws purpwreus) on as many stocks of Alpine Cytisus (?) 
(Cytisus Laburnum). One of these buds has lain dormant a year, as is 
often the case, and during this time it has multiplied considerably, as is 
also often the case. The second year all the eyes of this shield-bud 
* Probably because C. purpureus is a native of Austria. 
