HYBRID CINERARIAS. 273 
which at least resembles the cruentus of Drummond, who wrote in 
1827, we shall not, I fear, attain a very near result. How poor our 
cruentus is may be shown by my Ywssilaginis x cruentus, which ought 
to be Cineraria Waterhousiana of Paxton’s “ Magazine of Botany,”’ 
vol. iv. t. 219, which it does not even resembie. But some success 
certainly has been obtained by crosses not mine, and by one of my 
hybrids, which is much more like the Cineraria than either of its 
parents. This is cruentus x Tussilaginis, and it shows a big jump 
from crwentus in the direction of the florists’ Cineraria, as shown in 
fig. 106. The habit of cruentus is there, as required, but the in- 
florescence is not composed of a multitude of tiny flower-heads, but 
has a smaller number of Cineraria-like flower-heads, quite respectable 
in size. I have combined this with Heritieri for next year’s results, and 
if I can only give time and find space there is every hope of a success 
paraliel to the success one would have with a good cruentus. The 
Cineraria I believe to be a hybrid, because it has the reduced fertility of 
a hybrid, because it has a mode of colouration foreign to the kind of 
plant from which no doubt it obtained its habit, because it has flower- 
heads which to me suggest T'wssilaginis, and, I may add now, because of 
the big jump to which I have referred. Much-reliance may be placed 
upon the intuition of a grower like Mr. James, who believes that the 
Cineraria must have a mixed parentage. There is no reason, indeed, 
why not, from what we well know, for instance, of the Tuberous Begonias ; 
and it is very likely from the facility with which these plants hybridise. 
My judgment is based entirely upon the plants themselves, as they stand, 
and I rely nothing upon records or statements of any kind. I am still 
anxious to know more completely what may be wild in the Canaries, 
because I am sure there must be some original crwentus worth the first 
notice of the cultivators. Drummond speaks of his crwentus as having 
great beauty and variety in the flowers: he refers to it as sporting 
greatly from seeds, and, from what he says, it may be inferred that any 
favourite form could be preserved through the winter without any great 
difficulty. No cruentus I have seen answers to this description, though 
cruentus we have raised from Mr. Thompson, of Ipswich, is something of 
an approach to it. This certainly had never crossed with the Cineraria, 
though supposed two or three years ago to have done so. It is possible 
that Drummond’s plant was an improved one; but even if it was it came 
from some wild original that would not be thrown away, by any ordinary 
person, immediately after flowering. 
The hybrids raised by Mr. James, to which I have to refer, are all 
from Senecio cruentus, fertilised by pollen from S. Heritieri, and a full 
account was given of them by Mr. Rolfe in the Gardeners’ Chronicle of 
August 6, 1898, p. 101. This is the reverse or reciprocal of one of my 
own crosses. In this cross Mr. Rolfe believes that the Cineraria hybrida 
of Wildenow (‘‘ Enum. Pl. Hort. Berol.,’”’ p. 893) has been re-obtained. 
Five plants were first raised, and by crossing these a large batch resulted 
almost sufficient to fill one house. This to me is interesting, because 
the hybrids of the reciprocal cross above referred to, in my hands, were 
very sterile. There is much interest in the fact that the progeny of Mr. 
James’s cross could be classified according to habit, those most resembling 
T 
