THE ROSE GARDEN. d 



" We find commonly in the individual all the characters which distinguish the 

 species to which it belongs from all other species in the vegetable kingdom." 



M. Boitard accepts the first sentence, but repudiates the other, and places in its 

 stead, " Each individual of which is capable of reproducing, by seed, fertile indi- 

 viduals, possessing one or more characters in common with the parent, and 

 invariable in all." 



In the Introduction to Lindley's " Rosarum Monographia" we find the follow- 

 ing definition given : — " By species, I wish to be understood here to mean, an 

 assemblage of individuals, differing in particular respects from the rest of the 

 genus, but having more points of affinity among themselves than with others ; 

 their union being therefore natural." — Mos. Mon. Intro, p. 18. 



" We assemble under the name of species," says Decandolle, " all the individuals 

 which bear sufficient resemblance to each other to lead us to believe that they have 

 originally descended from a single being, or a couple of beings. — Physiologic 

 Vegetale, tome ii. p. 688. 



Although not agreeing altogether in the views of M. Boitard, I would state my 

 conviction, that most Botanists have been too ready in admitting, as species, plants 

 of a genus so remarkable for its disposition to vary : and if we adopt Decandolle's 

 definition, I think that many of the so-called species are nothing more than 

 hybrids, which, to use his words, " have originally descended from a single being, 

 or a couple of beings." I have been led to this conclusion more particularly from 

 observations in raising seedlings, among which it is not uncommon to find plants 

 differing exceedingly from their parents. I think we may accept the second defi- 

 nition, because with an eye to that the genus was divided in the " Rosarum 

 Monographia ;" and that the division there made has met the views of many 

 subsequent writers, may be gathered from the extent of their extracts from that 

 work. 



But it is necessary to consider other questions, which the discussion of this 

 invariably gives rise to. The tyro having satisfied himself as to what constitutes 

 a species, we may suppose the next questions to be, What was the origin of the 

 Floricultural Groups ? what the real difference between these groups ? and 

 how may one be enabled to refer any variety brought before him to its proper 

 position ? 



We need scarcely say that the Botanist's sphere of labour is widely different 

 from the Florist's. The former collects and examines the productions of nature, 

 arranging them in classes and orders ; which he again divides into genera and 

 species, pointing out their properties and uses. The Florist here takes up the 

 work. Once in possession of species, he applies the art of culture, with the view 

 of fashioning them to his own taste. Let us confine our remarks to the department 

 of the Florist; and as varieties usually originate with him, we may presume that 

 he is competent to answer the above questions. 



Having the species, or varieties produced from species, at his command, he saves 

 sect! from them, which he sows ; and from the proneness of Nature's offspring to 



