2}i2 The Pedigree Families. 



It is rather curious that all the new forms which have 

 arisen in my experiments should have been species in this 

 sense and not varieties. I have always hoped to get a 

 white flowered form or some other such distinct variety 

 but so far in vain. O. nanella is perhaps the only form 

 which can be called a variety in the horticultural sense 

 of the term. 



It is a charcteristic of varieties that they crop up in 

 a great number of unrelated species, genera and families. 

 For example the varieties rosea, alba, laevis, inermis, la- 

 ciniata, prolifera, bracfeata, and penditla. It is the same 

 with monstrosities: e. g., var : plena, fasciafa, torsa, ad- 

 nata, fissa and so forth. The same is true of dwarfs or 

 the var. nana. 



But with the exception of O. nanella I cannot find in 

 other families and genera any series of forms analogous 

 to mine. It is for these reasons that I do not consider 

 them varieties. 



A very popular definition of varieties is that they are 

 forms which are known to have arisen from other forms. 

 This position is obvious!}^ untenable. The proof of their 

 origin may exist in the case of some few horticultural 

 varieties but with the vast majority of them and with 

 all wild varieties this proof does not exist at all. Their 

 origin is a thing of the past and when, as is usually the 

 case, it was not witnessed by human eyes the so-called 

 "proof" of it is based on deduction or analogy. 



And in all cases, where we are not dealing with direct 

 observation, the origin of varieties is in no sense what- 

 ever more certain that that of collective species or genera. 



I have dwxlt on this point because I feel quite certain 

 that many of my readers will regard my new forms as 



