May 30, 1895] 



NATURE 



103 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



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

 pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 

 to return^ or to correspond with the writers of rejected 

 manusiripts intended for this or any other part of NATURE. 

 JVo noliiC is taken of anonymous lonnuitnications.'] 



The Origin of the Cultivated Cineraria. 



Rri'EKKing to records of the history of cultivated Cineraria, I 

 fmind (i) that considerable sports, or seedlings presenting 

 notable and striking variations, arose in the early days of the 

 "improvement" of the Cineraria; (2) that there is evidence 

 Ihatthe improved varieties were of hybrid origin. I concluded, 

 therefore, that Mr. Dyer's statement that our Cinerarias have 

 been derived from C. crncnta *' by the gradual accumulation of 

 small variations" was misleading in two respects. As we have 

 now had the benefit of a fuller statement of .Mr. Dyer's case, I 

 £sk leave to explain why it is that I still hold to my original 

 conclusion. 



Meanwhile, however. Prof. Weldon, intervening, has offered 

 an apparently .sustained criticism of my evidence, which to those 

 no better prejiared may have a formidable look. 



We will fir.st examine .some of Prof. Weldon's minor points. 

 In preface let me say that I do not contend that no sports or 

 named varieties have ever been believed to have arisen directly 

 from iriunla, or from plants so-called (for, as Willdenow hinted,' 

 the name may have been misapplied to hybrids in the past as 

 now) ; and, indeed, I gave Drummond's words that his cruenta 

 *' sported freely from seed." 



.Something was made also of the wise caution which Burbidge 

 gives in his general " Introduction " (p. 118), putting the reader 

 on his guard against .specific assertions as to the origin of hybrids. 

 I mention, therefore, that I have received from Mr. Burbidge a 

 letter warmly supporting the opinion given in the body of his 

 book (p. 240) that the Cinerarias are of hybrid origin. 



Hut now for what Pri)f. Weldon takes to be the real strength 

 of his attack. He s,ays that I omitted passages proving that 

 according to contemporary opinion many of the named varieties 

 cultivated between 1838 and 1842 "were not hybrids," but 

 were "believed to be pure-bred crnenfa." Upon what grounds 

 this statement has been made, the reader .shall now learn, not 

 perhaps without astonishment. 



The passage on which he chiefly relies is taken from Mrs. 

 Loudon s article (Zaa'/«' jl/i7f. of Gard., 1842, p. iii),towhich 

 I referred for the statement that in the writer's opinion the first 

 important departure in the improvement of the Cineraria was 

 made when Drummond hybridised cruenta with lanala. She 

 goes on to s.iy that, "since that time, numerous experiments 

 have been made and hyl)rids raised " from several species. Next, 

 that "some of the most be.tutiful Cinerarias now in our green- 

 houses, have been raised by Messrs. Henderson, Pineapple 

 I'lace, particularly C. Hcndcrsoni and the King, both raised 

 from seeds of C. cruenta.'" This is the passage I omitted. Prof. 

 Weldon says that this " passage clearly shows that in the writer's 

 [Mrs. Loudon's] belief, the hybrids ])roduced by Drummond and 

 others, had nm given rise to two at least of the named varieties 

 of her time," and that she believed the King and Hendersonii to 

 be descended from cruenta alone. This Prof. Weldon tells us 

 is certain 



Now, were we even boimded by the limit Prof. Weldon has 

 set to his own researches on this question, we might hesitate to 

 a-s-sume that whenever it is not expressly declared that a plant is 

 a hybrid, we may be sure that the author thought it was pure- 

 bred. As it happens, however, I can meet the charge with a 

 weapon sturdier than the fine point of " dialectic." The answer 

 is (juite simple and curiously complete. 



I shall now prove that both the King and Hendersonii were 

 well known as hybrids both to Mrs. Loudon and to others. 

 Let me point out : 



( 1 ) That the words say that the King and C. Hendersonii were 

 raised from seeds of cruenta: as to the male parent, nothing is 

 there .said. 



(2) That even if the evidence ended here, a discriminating 

 reader might_ have suspected (what I shall presently |irove) that 

 Mrs. Loudon's /(z;-/;i«/ar statement about the King, Hendersonii, 



I He s.-iy* (•• Enum. PI. Berol.," 1809, p. 803) ih.-it Cinerari.is .ire grown in 

 K;trtlcns under the name cruenta, though re.lfly very different from il, h.-\ving 

 flowers almost like those a( lailata. To these he gave the name C. Ilybrida. 

 Moreover, from Itouche's experiment, we know that the seedlings of this 

 t'. hybticta were very variable. 



NO. 1335, VOL. 52] 



&c., is merely meant as an exjiansion of her jirevious i;eneral 

 statement that since Drummond made his beginning numerous 

 hybrids had been raised. 



(3) That, were the matter doubtful, other passages in'Mrs. 

 Loudon's works prove this to be her meaning. For in Ladies' 

 Comp. to Flower-Gard., 1849 (s. v. Cineraria), she states, "the 

 finest hybrids are C. ll'aterhousiana, C. Hendersonii, and the 

 kind called the King." -Again, in Ladies' /-/cwer-Card., 

 Greenho. Pits., 1848, p. 1 78, speaking of the woolly leaves, &c., 

 of lanata, she says, " these peculiarities are found in all the 

 numerous hybrids that have been raised from it. Perhaps the 

 most ornamental of these is the hybrid called the King."' Of 

 this, therefore, I presiMiie .Mrs. Loudon believed lanata to be 

 the father, cruenta the mother. 



(4) Lastly, that in order to have learnt that the King and 

 Hendersonii were " between 1838 and 1842 " considered to te 

 hybrids. Prof. Weldon need not have gone far. He tells us he 

 has read the articles on C. Webberiana (Pa.xt. Mag., 1842, p 

 125) and on C. IVatcrhousiana (ibid., 1838, p. 2:9), to which I 

 gave references. Will it then be believed that in the first of 

 these very articles the L'ing is referred to by name as a notable 

 hybrid; and that in the second article, "C cruenta, var. 

 Hcndcrsonia " is with others named as one of" the hybrids raised 

 and grown by Messrs. Henderson, Pine-apple Place.'"' ■ 



I do not know if it is wished that I should further refute Prof. 

 Weldon's charge of " want of care in consulting and quoting the 

 authorities." I am not unprepared to do so. I shall be glad to 

 explain why Mrs. Loudon was probably right in substituting the 

 name tiissilaginis for tussilagofolia ; to show why Webberiana, 

 price IDS. 6d. (Gard. Chron., 1842, p. 665),. may be called a 

 striking advance on its contemporaries, price 2s. 6d. (Gard.. 

 Chron., 1842, p. 633), together with many other matters not yet 

 treated of in this discussion. 



My first objection to .Mr. Dyer's statement was taken on the 

 ground that there is historical evidence that sports, or seedlings 

 presenting notable variations, occurred in the early days of the 

 improvement of the Cineraria. To this, after reading his letters 

 with great care, I do not find any specific answer. He tells us 

 that the history as he gave it would be " in accord with general 

 horticultural experience." It obeyed then a rule to the proof of 

 which exceptions are indeed not lacking. He says, further, that 

 to improve a pl.ant the only safe way is Vjy "selecting the 

 minutest trace of change in the required direction," and " by 

 jiatiently and continuously repeating the operation." Now 

 this would be all very well if we knew nothing about the origin 

 of the Cineraria ; but against the evidence that seedlings pre- 

 senting striking variations did as a fact arise, and against the 

 historical evidence that Cinerarias, much as we know them, did £S 

 a fact come into existence within some twelve years, such ap> iori 

 expectation is worth nothing at all. 



To my second objection, that there is evidence that the chief 

 start in the improvement of Cinerarias came as the result of 

 hybridisation, Mr. Dyer has given more attention. He proposes 

 to meet it by rejecting the whole of the historical evidence as 

 unsound, and preferring the conjecture to which he .says an in- 

 spection of the modern plants has led him. The historical 

 evidence is to go liecause we are told certain horticulturists are 

 ignorant men. I premise that this is not a principle which 

 Darwin, whom Mr. Dyer would claim as his master, would have 

 endorsed. 



But before judging, let us try to consider what was the objective 

 evidence on which the gardeners made up their minds that 

 the new Cinerarias were hybrids. I m.ay illustrate this by 

 reference to a seedling now growing in the Cambridge Botanic 

 Oarden, to which -Mr. Lynch, the curator, kindly called my 

 attention. The case is of special interest in view of Mr ; 

 Hemsley's objection that it requires skill and care to raise a 

 hybrid in the Composita;. It was with regret I learnt that this 

 careful writer was not with me in this matter. 



This seedling was raised from a seed of our jjlant of lanata, 

 which was received from and is exactly similar to those at Kew." 



t So famous a hybrid was the King, that I regret that I did not mention it 

 in my first letter. 1 did not do so, as 1 found no coloured pl.ate of it. Mr. 

 John Fr.aser, of South Woodford, kindly informs me that he remembers it 

 as the best of the woody sorts formerly grown. Its flowers were about the 

 size of a penny, rays white tipped with purple, leaves downy and of a silvery 

 hue on the underside. Its secdlinijs were unreliable. 



2 There laljelled ///r/r/fr/(of DC— /(i«(j/«. L'Hir.). I note that though 

 otherwise agreeing exactly with the lanata described by L.'Her., deCandolle 

 and Webb, the inflorescence of these plants differs, being a loose corymb of 

 some twenty he.ads, instead of the single flowered peduncle {rami scwficr 

 monpccfltali. Webb) of the old authors. Whether this variation is known in 

 wild plants, 1 cannot tell. 



