W. Batkson and Ida Sutton 205 



the varii'ty vhIUhI (imf Zoppoliii, wo wrrr Htruck by tin* fact that, the 

 double rtowers, though UTiiiinal, an* in rrahty moiWiinl /ctiKiles. Th»Te 

 is no inferior ovary, but at the bases of the jxitalH are inJUHses of exjK)He<i 

 ovules'. This arningeinent is normal for the variety and gives it a 

 iiuwt chanietvristic apjH'arance. Further search among double Ht-gonijis 

 8howo<i that many aiv in essentially the same condition, though the 

 amount of ovules develojK'd varies greatly. Probably most of i\w fine 

 exhibition blooms are nunlified fi'male flowers, though in them the; 

 ovular tisstie may be riMlucetl to a mere trace at the bjise of occasional 

 peUils. 



Whether any of these plants are altogether inculpable of prfnlucing 

 anthers, however much they may be starved, we do not know. Our 

 experience inclines us to think that some plants cannot produce anthers, 

 though we have cert^iinly seen thoroughly double Howers of the ovule- 

 containing kind on plants which had borne double males containing 

 anthei*s. But apart from this cjuestion we CJin easily recognize a chuss 

 of doubles, of which Lloydii is a good instance, in which the double 

 flower is essentially male; and though they may be fairly perfect doubles 

 when well grown, this kind of double can readily be starved into pro- 

 ducing pollen. The view that plants, e.g. Graf Zeppelin, in which the 

 terminal flowers are female, instead of male as normally, may be homo- 

 zygous females is rather attractive, but we see no means of testing it ; 

 nor if such an idea could be entertained, would it at all account for the 

 fact that in a full double which must certainly be accepted as a reces- 

 sive, homozygous in doubleness, the normal female flowers standing in 

 the latei-al positions are single. Beyond this point we see as yet no 

 means of pursuing the analysis. 



Since B. Davisii is a genuine wild species and bears exclusively 

 single flowers, the conclusion to which our observations have led us, 

 namely that its male side is genetically all double, seems not a little 

 remarkable. 



' Flowers having this structure were referred to by Wynne, I.e., p. 13, and parts of 

 them are figured by Bond, Jour. Gen. iv. PI. XVI. Their morphology is obscure, but 

 it seems natural to regard the carpellary walls as represented by a mass of petals. We 

 have never seen a normal female standing in the male position. 



14—2 



