HYBRID CINERARIAS. 269 
HYBRID CINERARIAS. 
By R. Irwin Lyncu, F.R.H.S., Botanic Gardens, Cambridge. - 
In this paper I give, as requested, an account of my own hybrids, adding, 
however, some remarks upon hybrids by Mr. W. J. James, as desired by 
him. All the crossing I have done was suggested by an interesting 
and stirring discussion in Nature some four years ago, between Sir 
William Dyer and Mr. William Bateson, upon the origin of the florists’ 
Cineraria ; butit should be observed that many of the crosses were made 
without any expected bearing upon that question. As might be expected, 
the time at my disposal for the particular work has been altogether 
insufficient for the record of any considerable detail, and I regret there- 
fore that all the scientific results that were possible cannot be forth- 
coming. I use the word ‘“ hybrid” in speaking of plants and “cross” 
with reference to cross-pollination. 
The wild plants I have worked with are : 
Senecio cruentus, Hort. Kew., non D.C. 
Heritieri, D.C. (Cineraria lanata, L’Hérit.) 
multiflorus, D.C. 
Tussilaginis, Less. 
and with these in several instances, the florists’ Cineraria has been com- 
bined. 
It is important to note that the above cruentus, familiarly known 
as “ Kew cruentus,”’ can only be called cruentus by taking the too broad 
view to which botanists are sometimes liable. There are several im- 
portant differences, inasmuch that I find it a very invariable plant, only 
kept through the winter with great difficulty, comparatively colourless in 
its nature, and so poor in attractive qualities that my judgment revolts 
against the idea that any florist ever took it in hand to improve it. No 
florists’ flower ever originated from a plant which had not already much 
to recommend it. With this plant, however, work has been done, and 
also much written, perhaps, upon the assumption, to which I entirely 
demur, that it is at all a crwentus in this connection. It is quite an 
unfair assumption, I believe, to both sides of the question, as to the origin 
of the florists’ Cineraria, and I may perhaps be allowed to make a friendly 
protest against the disregard of the botanist for differences which are 
great to the horticulturist. Very valuable is the work of the botanist 
with books and dried plants, but I deplore the practice of merging under 
one name and without distinction plants which are absolutely different 
and distinct, and actually known not to be identical. If attention is 
drawn to these differences they are admitted to be quite evident, but 
they are said not to be important. Now here lies, I {am sure, a most 
gigantic error. No botanist who does not work in the garden with 
living plants can appraise the degree of importance which attaches to a 
difference he can recognise, and while I quite appreciate and‘fully under-. 
stand the arguments and difficulties of the other side, I do venture to 
