120 



HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY OF NEW YORK. 



the pollen of a cucumber produced a fruit to all appearances normal, but it 

 was empty. In some of the hybridizations between the different species, as 

 between Cucurbit a Pepo, C. moschata and C. maxima, the same result was 

 secured (as already noted). He was not positive whether these pericarps 

 were made to grow to their normal size through the influence of the foreign 

 pollen, or whether there may not have been other influences at work, as 

 there is in the case of the hothouse cucumbers, fruits of which will develop 

 to large size without any pollen whatever. However, many tests were made 

 by withholding pollen from the flowers, but in no case did the ovary develop 

 to any size. 



It is a common notion amongst gardeners that nearly all kinds of 

 cucurbitaceous plants mix interminably. It is a common opinion, for 

 example, that muskmelons are rendered insipid and worthless when cucumbers 

 are growing in their vicinity. Close observation in the field will convince 

 any person of the fallacy of this idea, but experiments were undertaken for 

 the purpose of testing the matter. IMuskmelon flowers were pollinated from 

 cucumber flowers, both in the house and in the open. In one case ninety- 

 seven muskmelon flowers of various kinds w'ere pollinated from cucumber 

 flowers of various kinds, but no fruits developed. Twenty-five cucumber 

 flowers at one time were pollinated by muskmelon pollen, but only one fruit 

 developed, and that was seedless. These experiments and others coincide 

 with those made by other investigators, that cucumbers do not spoil melons. 



General Remarks. 



After giving the general results of crossing the cucurbits at some length 

 Professor Bailey spoke of the bearing of this work on the recent discus- 

 sions concerning hybridization, and also of the trend of recent evolution 

 literature. On the surface, all the experiments with pumpkins and squashes 

 seem to run counter to the results secured by Mendel with peas and other 

 plants. As a matter of fact, however, the work with the squashes is not 

 comparable with that of Mendel, since different objects were in view and 

 different methods were employed. Mendel's work was conducted with spe- 

 cific differentiating characters, whereas this work with the pumpkins was 

 concerned with the gross behavior of the plants and the gross characters 

 of the fruits. It is possible that if the work were to be done over again, 

 with Mendel's methods and results in view, the same laws would be found 

 to hold with cucurbitaceous plants. However, it would be a very difficult 

 matter to determine, because of the instability of the cucurbits, the fact 

 that they are monoecious and that constant crossing therefore is necessary, 

 and the fact that so many variants would need to be contrasted. The sub- 

 ject is far too complicated for Mendelian methods until one has thoroughly 

 mastered the simpler forms of hj'bridization experiments. 



The work of Mendel, so recently revived, has two very important gen- 

 eral bearings. In the first place, it is bound to set going a new discussion 

 in respect to hybridity; second, it will be likely to revolutionize our methods 

 of performing hybridization experiments, and of casting up the results of 

 them. Whether or no Mendel's rules will hold good for all plants and for 

 all characters is not yet known. The probability is that it will not. The 



