54 



NA rURE 



[May lb, 1895 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 

 [ The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions ex- 

 pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he nndertaie 

 to return, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected 

 manuscripts intended for this or any other part of Nature. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communications.^ 



The Origin of the Cultivated Cineraria. 



.\KTER reading the recent letters on the origin of the culti\ated 

 Cineraria, I have consulted the principal authorities cited by Mr. 

 Baleson in N'ati're of .\pril 25 : I now wish to point out that 

 Mr. Bateson has oniittc<l from his account of these records some 

 pa_ssages which materially weaken his case. 



Mr. Bateson, as I understand him, considers his letter to 

 pro\ e ( I ) that modern Cinerarias arose as hybrids from several 

 distinct species ; and {2) that the main features of existing 

 varieties were established between about 1830 and about 1S46, 

 as a result of the appearance of considerable "sports" among 

 these hybrids or their offspring. I will first discuss the latter 

 half of the letter, in which authorities are quoted to prove two 

 sjiecial acts of hybritlisation, i>erformed at known dates by known 

 persons, and to show that certain named varieties arose as 

 " sports." 



Urst, as to hybridism. Drummond, of Cork, writing in 1S27, 

 is (juoted as recommending the cultiv.ation of C. cnienla for the 

 production of " fine double and single varieties of different 

 colours." .\t this date, therefore, C. cruenta was apixirently 

 variable, and yielded forms worth cultivation without hybrid- 

 isation. 



.\n article by Mrs. Loudon, written in 1842. is next quoted a-s 

 cvi(|ence that ** in or alx)Ut 1827 " Drummond obtained " some 

 handsome hybrids" between C. cruenta ami C. laiia/a. In this 

 article a list of other hybrids, .said to have been produced by 

 unnamed persons between 1827 and 1842, is also given. It is 

 not stated that these hybrids were grown by florists for exhibition, 

 or that ihcy had received definite names. The list is followed by 

 a paragraph, omitted by .Mr. Bateson, which is so im]X)rlant that 

 I copy it at length : 



'■ Some of the most lieautiful Cinerarias now in our green- 

 houses have Ijeen raised by Messrs. Henderson, I'ine-Apple 

 I'lace ; particularly C. Hendcrsoiiii and the King, both raised from 

 seeds of C. cruenta. C. waterhousiana was raised by Mr. Tale, 

 gardener to John VVaterhouse, lis<)., of Well Head, near Halifax, 

 from seed of C. Tussilaji^'nis, fertilised by the pollen of 

 C. cnunta. Two new ones have lately been raised, of re- 

 markably clear and brilliant colours, ap[>arently from C cruenta, 

 named Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, by Mr. Pierce, 

 nurseryman, of N'eovil, Somersetshire." {Ladies' Magazine of 

 Gardening. 1842, p. 112.) 



This pa-ssage cli.'arly shows that in the writer's belief the 

 hybrids pro<luced by Drummond and others had not given rise 

 lo two, at least, of the named varieties of her lime: certainly 

 two, and probably two more, were descended from C. cruenta 

 alone. 



Mr. Bateson refers to this account o. C. waterhousiana, and 

 alwi to an earlier one. said to he communicated by Tate himself, the 

 originator of the plant, lo a writer in Paxton's Afagazine of 

 Botany, for 1838. In this accouni the |)arents are called 

 C. cruenta and C. tussilagofolia ; and in this, the earllesl 

 accouni, there is no slalcmcnt as to which species furnished seed 

 anri which |xillcn. I do not know whether Tussilagofolia was 

 ever recognised as a synonym of C. Tussitaginis or not ; since 

 the name docs not occur in Ihe Index A'rwrusis, where I find, as 

 the only entry Ijcaring on I he subject, " H'ater/tousiana = Senecio 

 lUiAlaginis !" .Mr. Balevin has a.ssumed thai 7'ussilagifolia i'^ 

 idenliral «ilh Tussilagiuis : frir while rc|naling only the slale- 

 inenl gi\eti by .Mrs. L<iudon, he cites Ixilh her article and that in 

 J'axloii's Magazine a.s aulhorilics. Is he sure that there did not 

 exi-l in 1838 a florist's variety named Tussilagofolia? 



.Again, Ihe writer in Paxlon's Magazine goes on lo express an 

 opinion, not referred to by Mr. Baleson. thai several of the 

 ■ Hori<it's varieties known lo him are ilescen<led from C. cruenta 

 alone, lie recommends the cultivation of various *' species and 

 varieties" {'lot hyWidsj of Cineraria, and .says "one species 

 i-|»-.ially merits cultivation, namely C. iruenla. This nmy be 

 regardetl as ihc |«renl tif many rif those Ix-auliful varieties which 

 are v> sucrcwfiilly cultivalcrl by Meuni. Ilenderstin." {Paxton's 

 Mag. Hot. iv. p. 2ZO, not p. 43. ) 



Against Ihesc specific slalemenls. the only cimleni|)orar)' 

 a^wrtion thai all named var dies are hydrids, which is quoted by 



NO. 1333. VOL. 52] 



Mr. Bateson, occurs in the lournal d Horticulture, &c. (Ghent, 

 1S46). This journal contains a general statement that Horists' 

 Cinerarias have been produced by crossing ami recro.ssing several 

 species, which are named : but although a list of florists' varieties 

 is given, the exact historj- and parentage of each variety is not 

 attempted. 



Finally Burbidge, who wrote in 1877, is quoted as believing 

 that existing varieties are due to hybridism between three species. 

 It is not mentioned that Burbidge, before giving the systematic 

 list of hybrid plants, in which the passage relied upon occurs, is 

 careful to point out the uncertain nature of much of his evidence, 

 and even writes, by way of caution to his readers, that "the 

 parentage of many of the hybrids enumerated in this book is open 

 to question " (p. i iS). 



I have only examined one of Mr. Bateson's cases of alleged 

 " sports," namely C webberiana. This jjlant, as Mr. Batesoi> 

 says, is described and figured .as having flowers of a deep blue, 

 the rays being short and wide as compared with C. waterhousiana, 

 for example. I fail to see why Mr. Bateson calls this a 

 " sport." There is no evidence cited by liim to show that it is 

 descended from C. waterhousiana : and if it is not, then there is 

 nothing remarkable in the shortness of its rays. The colour 

 gives no evidence, without detailed knowledge of its descent ; 

 for I find in Paxton's Magazine, between 1838 and 1841, 

 varieties recorded which are " lilac tippet! with purple,'' " ap- 

 proaching to a blue," " bright blue," " blue or bluish," and in 

 1842 comes this "deep blue" variety webberiana to complete 

 the gradual series. 



Judging only from the documents referred to, it seems clear 

 (l) that C. cruenta was cultivated, in what was believed to be a 

 pure stale, in 1827, and that it yielded valuable varieties, single 

 and double, at that date ; (2) that .according to contemporary 

 opinion, many of the vaj'ielies cultivated between 1S38 and 

 1842 were directly descendeil from C. cruenta, and were not 

 hybrids ; and (3) that in 1842 some florists, at least, were be- 

 lieved to produce new varieties by the continued cultivation of 

 C. cruenta alone. 



So far as Mr. Bateson's histor)* goes, therefore, it establishes 

 the existence in 1842 of sufticient named varieties, believed to be 

 pure-bred C. cruenta, to serve as i>arents for the flowers of 

 to-day. 



As to the actual jiedigree of the modern varieties, I am not 

 qualified to express an opinion. All I wish to show is that the 

 (locuments relied upon by Mr. Bateson do not demonstrate the 

 correctness of his view s ; and that his emphatic statements arc 

 simply evidence of want of care in consulting and tjuoliiig 

 the authorities referred to. \V. I'. K. Wki.don. 



University College, London, May 13. 



I H.WK read with some interest the communications on this 

 .subject whicli have ap|ieare(l in Nai'I'RK, and I may ad<l that I 

 have examined living jjlanls of Ihe sjjecies in question with Mr. 

 Thisellon-Dyer. My memor)' also serves me sufliciently far 

 back to remember a great variety of different "strains" of 

 Cineraria, in which they had nitt got so far away from the parent 

 C. cruenta as llivy now are. I sty llie parent C. cruenta. because 

 I believe that we have to deal with races or strains, obtained by 

 selection according to the taste of the se\'cral selectors, and not 

 with the descendants of hybrids between <lifferent species. I 

 think Mr. B.ateson has relied loo implicity on the literature of 

 the subject. Many of the records of hybrid productions in 

 the vegetable kingdom are based upon groundless as,suinptions ; 

 mere seminal variations having been mistaken for crosses. If 

 requires some skill and care lo raise hyl>rids in the C'oniposiliV ; 

 and when you have raised your hybrid, even assuming a fertile 

 one, you can only prop.agale it vegelatively. .Ml stability is 

 gone. Bui il is not so with selected seminal variations of a given 

 s|K'cies. They will intercro.ss mo>^t freely, and give birth lo new 

 varieties without end : yet each one of those varieties may be 

 reproducetl friun seed, by careful isolation, without a single 

 " oastard " appearing. There are several instances among our 

 cultivateil plants of this great plasticity ronibined w il)i stability, 

 but I will give only one — the China Aster. I select Ibis because 

 there can be no question of hyl)rtdity ; and there is as great, or 

 even a greater, variety than in the herbaceous Cinerarias. Bui 

 with regard to ihe latter, I think our experience and Ihe trusl- 

 worlhy literature go to prove that il is an analogous case. Care- 

 ful .selection, year after year, has resulted in Ihe various fixed 

 races or strains offered bv florists. Iain aware that the letters 



