June 6, 1895] 



NA rURE 



129 



p. 692) affords a striking instance, llybrici Cypripediums are of 

 consideraljle pecuniary value. One recently exhibited at the 

 Royal Horticultural Society was at once denounced as no hybrid 

 at all, but a merely seminal variation. The iiossessor has fears 

 that it will " aikl one more to the long list of doubtful crosses 

 by which auctioneer and purchaser are alike misled." 



Notwithstanding the Himalayan rabbit, I am afraid botanists 

 H illcontinue to refuse to accept hybrid origin on historical evidence 

 unless there is palpable objective proof of the fact. 



There are two additional bits of evidence, to which, however, 

 I do not attach greiU weight, l>ut which may be recorded to 

 complete the story. It is, at any rate, agreed that the Cineraria 

 originated from the Canaries. I have already pointed out th >t 

 De Candolle divided the wild Canarian species into shrubby and 

 herbaceous. I do not believe that they are mixed in the modern 

 Cineraria, which remains entirely herbaceous. Now, Schultz- 

 Bipontinus, who described the Canarian species for \Vel)t) and 

 Berthelot, relegates the shrubby species to Scneiio, and the her- 

 baceous to Doroiiiciim. Though this is not now sustained, it 

 shows that the two groups are not very closely related, and 

 diminishes the probability of their freely intercrossing. 



On the other hand. Cineraria iriieiila and the modern 

 Cineraria cross with the greatest facility. In fact, if you grow 

 the two together it is almost impossible to keep the wild s]?ecies 

 true. I have no doubt that in a short time we shall be able to 

 combine the pleasing habit of the wild plant with the fine colour 

 of the modern strains. .Vll this does not surprise one, as to me 

 they are all essentially the same thing. 



I must add one word more. I cannot but think that there is 

 a growing danger nowadays of a pseudo-biology growing up 

 for the especial use of evolutionists. This is not the first time 

 by many that I ha\e been so unlucky as to come into collision 

 with it. Long ago I pointed out in these pages that Viiology is 

 not a tleductive science, and for the ]>resent, at any rate, theory 

 must be adjusted to facts, not facts to theorv. 



W. T. Thiskiton-Dyer. 



Royal Gardens, Kew, June i. 



Mr. Bateson now admits that some named varieties of 

 Cineraria may have arisen from pure-bred C. enienia, or from 

 plants believe<l to be pure-bred. He holds that these have 

 Ix'Come extinct, while Mr. Uyer believes the hybrids to have dis- 

 appeared. I have never attempteil to discuss this question, and 

 shall not do so now. I wish only to justify my interpretation of 

 the passages I (pioted against Mr. Bateson : — 



(I) Mr.s. Loudon begins the article quoted by both of us with 

 these »<ir<ls : " .Most of the purple Cinerarias are va/ieties, or 

 hybrids, of C. iriienta."' She then goes on to say that in or 

 about 1827 (the year in which he recommended the growth of 

 pure-bred C. eriunta "for the production of fine double and 

 single varieties"), Drumniond, of Cork, produced certain 

 hybrids ; while since his time other hybrids had been made. 

 She then, in a new paragra|)h, says : " Some of the most beau- 

 tiful Cinerarias now in <jur greenhouses have been raised by 

 Messrs. Henderson . . . particularly C. Heneiersonii and the 

 King, iMJth raised from seeds of C. enienla" : and a line or two 

 further: "Two new ones have lately been raised, of remarkably 

 clear an<l brilliant colours, apparently from C. ernenta, named 

 K^hicen Victoria and Prince Albert," i!i:c. 



It will be seen that the general statement, with which the 

 article begins, declares " most purple Cinerarias " to be " either 

 ■■iirielies or /lyhritis" of C. enienta. Of others, and of those 

 Cinerari.as (suchas "the King") which are not purple, nothing is 

 said. This general statement is illustrated by examples, first of 

 hybrids, next of pure-lired varieties. 



In discussing the examples of pure-bred forms, Mr. Bateson 

 omits to notice "Queen Victoria" and " Prince Albert," and 

 discusses only Hendersonii m\A " the King." He believes Mrs. 

 Loudon, in saying that these were " raised from seeds of C. 

 truenta." to mean simply that C. enienta was the female parent, 

 the male being unknown, or unnained. I do not know what 

 degree of inaccuracy Mr. Bateson is willing to attribute to Mrs. 

 Loudon: but in the writings of serious botanists a "seed" 

 means the fertilised jjroduct of two elements, the ovule and the 

 jvillen grain : and therefore the "seed" of C. enienta means the 

 product of two parents, both of which belonged to this species. 



Mr. Bateson says that six or seven years after writing the 

 Jiassage in question, Mrs. Loudon speaks of C. Hendcrsonii 

 and the King as "hybrids." This simply shows that she 



NO. 1336, VOL. 52] 



changed her mind ; and although it may affect the value of her 

 opinion as evidence, it does not alter the plain meaning of her 

 words in 1S42. 



(2) The only author whom I quoted as asserting the pure-bred 

 origin of C. Hendcrsonii and the King was Mrs. Loudon. It is 

 true that in two other articles quoted by Mr. Bateson these 

 plants are called hybrids. I did not allude to this matter in my 

 first letter, because I hoped Mr. Bateson would himself see the 

 folly of attributing to these articles any definite meaning what- 

 ever. It will suffice to consider one of them. 



In the earlier article, describing C. H'aterhousiana (Paxlon's 

 Mag. Hot. iv. p. 219), that plant itself is called a " variety," 

 although it is said to be the offspring of specifically distinct 

 parents. On p. 221, C. Hendersonii vs alluded to in these words: 

 " The following are the names of some of the hybrids raised and 

 cultivated by .Messrs. Henderson . . . C. enienta var. Hendersonii, 

 formosa, &c.'" Both these passages are meaningless, if the 

 words " hybrid" and " variety" are construed strictly. If they 

 are not to be so construed, and they evidently cannot be, then I 

 was justified in ignoring the passages, for they prove nothing but 

 the incompetence of their author. 



On the other hand, the passage which I did quote from this 

 article is at least intelligible : and it asserts that C. enienta 

 "may be xegaxAeA 3.^ the parent" — which means, if it means 

 anything, the o«/)' parent — "of many of those beautiful varieties 

 so successfuly cultivated by Messrs. Henderson," &c. This 

 passage Mr. Bateson does not consider in his reply" to me. 



The second article (Paxton's Mag:, 1842, p. 125) in which the 

 King is called a hybrid, uses the word in the same loose fashion, 

 and it would be as easy as unprofitable to quote other passages in 

 which the same plants are called now " varieties " and now 

 " hybrids." 



Enough has been said to show that Mr. Bateson's original 

 evidence does in fact bear the interpretation I put upon it : and 

 further, that the words " variety" and " hybrid" are so loosely 

 employed by early w riters that their records are often of little 

 value. Stories of hybridism and sporting are frequently" brought 

 forward on such evidence : so that I have thought it worth while 

 to examine the case for one such story", as stated by its advocate. 

 Having done this, my interest in the matter ends, and I do not 

 propose to speak further upon it. 



\V. Y. R. Weldon. 



University College, London, May 31. 



Some Bibliological Discoveries in Terrestrial 

 Magnetism. 



In a letter on the above subject, by IJr. L. G. Bauer, pub- 

 lished in Naturk of May 23 last, I read as follows : " I find it 

 asserted that the Frenchman, L.J. Duperrey, was the first (1836) 

 I to construct * magnetic meri<iians ' for the whole eirth, iu\ those 

 lines on the earth's surface marking out the ]iath described by 

 following the direction pointed out by a compass needle." The 

 writer then remarks that the honour of first introducing this 

 method is due to Thomas Veates, an Englishman, in 181 7. 



This is hardly correct, as I |)ossess a coloured map of the 

 Northern Hemisphere with the "magnetic meridians" .as 

 <lescribed shown ujion it of an earlier date. The title of the 

 map is : 



"To George Washington. 

 " President of the United States of America, 

 " This .Magnetic .\tlas' or Variation Chart is humbly inscribed 

 by John Churchman." 



As Washington died in December 1799, it is evident that John 

 Churchman has a prior claim to being the first to construct 

 " magnetic meridians." Ettrk 1; W. Creak. 



London, May 31. 



Effects of Earthquake in Sumatra. 



On May 17, 1S92, an unusually severe earthquake was felt 

 through nearly the whole of North Sumatra ; most severely shaken 

 was the district between the Dolok Lubuk Raja andtheGunung 

 Talamau (Ophir). Serious landslips occurred in many parts of 

 the mountains, especially near the summit and along the slopes of 

 the (lunung Merapi, a volcano 2145 metres high in the residency 

 Tapanuli. On inspection it was found thai the safety of a brick 

 pillar, erected on its most elevated jioint l>y the triangulation 

 service, was endangered by jiart of the crater haWng been 



