240 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
started, and among the shoots which have resulted from them I have 
noticed one which was distinguished from the.others by its greater 
development, by a vertical growth and by much larger leaves, somewhat 
like those of the Alpine Cytisus. Then I grafted and multiplied this 
branch, hoping that it would be an interesting variety, but having 
always sold the trees as fast as I multiplied them by grafting, I have 
never seen the flower.’ I had hoped,” says M. Poiteau, “that M. Adam 
would have shown me the tree upon which this phenomenon had been 
developed, but he had sold it with the others. He believes that this tree 
passed into the possession of M. Fremont, nurseryman at Rouen, who, 
probably, in his turn, will have delivered it to one of his customers. I 
was the more curious to see this tree, as I suspect that the new Cytisus 
in question is not the result of the grafting, but really an accidental 
development of the stock Cytisws Laburnwm, which had already under- 
gone the change attributed to the graft of the Cytisus purpureus, and 
that this stock had pushed out a branch amongst those of the graft. M. 
Adam might have taken this branch for one of those produced by the graft. 
I base my suspicion on the great resemblance which exists between the 
new Cytisus and the old Alpine Cytisus, and also on its very slight re- 
semblance to the purple Cytisus. 
‘“T am, however, far from confident that M. Adam is mistaken; sports 
are often seen to develop on a tree and to be fixed by grafting by the 
cultivator—it is thus that I have myself seen the Morws cucullata 
developed in its entirety on Morus papyrifera. 
“ Tt is known that several Roses have no other origin ; but these plants 
resemble their mother more than anything else, whilst the new Cytisus 
does not at all resemble the purple Cytisus,* of which M. Adam states it 
was the issue, and, furthermore, there is no longer evidence that a shield- 
graft was necessarily concerned in its first development.”’ 
I will not discuss the above statements regarding Cytisus Adam. 
I leave them to the appreciation of the reader. For myself I believe 
that this Cytisus is, like the issue of the Bronvaux Medlar, to be con- 
sidered as a hybrid obtained by grafting. I conclude with the following 
reflection : 
If there had been known, as there are to-day, facts proving irrefutably 
the influence of the graft, the information of M. Adam would never have 
been disputed, and Cytisws Adami would certainly have been considered, 
at least by many persons, as a hybrid produced by grafting. But this 
theory not being admitted, it has been sought, especially when this tree 
has commenced to sport, to explain the phenomenon in another manner. 
* At this epoch Cytisuws Adanvi had not yet sported (therefore had not yet pro- 
duced branches of C. purpureus), and it is probable that if M. Poiteau had known 
the phenomena which were subsequently produced, his opinion would have been 
different. It was in 1833 that this tree produced the first branches which had been 
noticed of C. purpureus. The fact was made known to the Société d’Horticulture of 
Paris by M. Camuzet, then head gardener to the Natural History Museum. 
