Horticultural and Systcuiafic J'aricfics. 59 



conception of them is now common property, and in 

 my opinion our best course is to interfere with that con- 

 ce])tion as httle as possible. 



There can be httle question that the difference between 

 variants and variations is becoming more and more widely 

 recognized. Variants are what we call individual devia- 

 tions ; they are instances of fluctuating varia1)ility. The 

 characters which distinguish them disappear under suit- 

 able cultivation and are therefore to be regarded as in- 

 constant. In systematic works they are not as a rule 

 gixen a place, or merely briefly mentioned, or, lastly, 

 treated as a Forma, which is the lowest subdivision of 

 tlie system; e. g., Forma alpcstris, Forma aquatica. But 

 this can only be done when the relationship of the form 

 is sufficiently known; lack of material in the case of 

 exotic plants, or incomplete investigation of indigenous 

 species of course would make this impossible, and such 

 forms have therefore often first been described as vari- 

 eties or even as species.^ In many cases of course the 

 true relationship is still unknown and the systematic 

 grouping, therefore, to be considered as provisional ; as 

 for instance in the case of Anthyllis Viilneraria alpestris, 

 LimoscUa aquatica caulcsccus, Carlina acaulis caulcsccns, 

 and so forth. 



Bonnier's researches on Alpine plants, discussed in 

 detail above (V^ol. I, p. 146), have demonstrated that 

 some of these differences are not even instances of indi- 

 vidual but of partial variability. From the two halves 

 of a single individual can be grown the form character- 

 istics of the plains and the Forma montana. 



^ For example Ranunculus aconififolius L. in alpibus minor, caule 

 3-5 floro ; R. aconififolius altior Koch, caule multifloro, fol. laciniis 

 longius acuminatis. in montibus humilioribus = 7?. plafanifolius L. 

 mant. 79 (Koch, Synopsis, p. 12). 



