220 The Rose Garden. 



descended one from the other in a direct line, whether by seed or a simple separation 

 of parts. 



" We find commonly in the individual all the characters which distinguish the 

 species to which it belongs from all other species in the Vegetable kingdom." 



M. Boitard accepts the first sentence, but repudiates the other, and places in its 

 stead, " Each individual of which is capable of reproducing by seed fertile individuals 

 possessing one or more characters in common with the parent, and invariable in all." 



In the Introduction to Lindley's " Rosarum Monographia" we find the following 

 definition given : " By species I wish to be understood here to mean an assemblage 

 of individuals, differing in particular respects from the rest of the genus, but having 

 more points of affinity among themselves than with others ; their union being there- 

 fore natural." Ros. Mon. Intro., p. 18. 



" We assemble under the name of species," says Decandolle, " all the individuals 

 which bear sufficient resemblance to each other to lead us to believe that they have 

 originally descended from a single being or a couple of beings." Physiologie Vtgetale, 

 tome ii., p. 688. 



Although not agreeing altogether in the views of M. Boitard, I would state 

 my conviction that most Botanists have been too ready in admitting as species 

 individuals of a genus so remarkable for its disposition to vary ; and if we adopt 

 Decandolle's definition, I think that many of the so-called species are nothing 

 more than hybrids or varieties, which, to use his words, " have originally descended 

 from a single being or a couple of beings." I have been led to this conclusion 

 more particularly from observations in raising seedlings, among which it is not 

 uncommon to find plants differing as widely from their parents as some of the 

 Botanists' species differ from each other. I think we may accept the definition 

 given in the " Rosarum Monographia," and that the division there made has met 

 the views of many subsequent writers may be gathered from the extent of their 

 extracts from that work. 



But it is necessary to consider other questions which the discussion of this 

 invariably gives rise to. The tyro having made up his mind as to what he will 

 accept as a definition of the word "species," we may suppose the next questions 

 to be What was the origin of the Floricultural Groups ? what is the real difference 

 between these groups? and how may one be enabled to refer any variety brought 

 before him to its proper position ? 



We need scarcely say that the Botanist's sphere of labour is widely different 

 trom the Florist's. The former collects and examines the productions of Nature, 

 arranging them in classes and orders ; which he again divides into genera and 

 species, pointing out their properties and uses. The Florist here takes up the work. 

 Once in possession of species, he applies the art of culture with the view of 

 fashioning them to his own taste. Let us confine our remarks to the department 



