262 



Gates. 



Table VII. 



Parents 



Result 



Cross. 



ß X M = 

 M X S = 

 M X (M X B)^ 

 ,(B X M) XM = 

 (M X B) X B = 

 B X (B X M) = 

 ,(B X M) X B = 



fM X B) X M = 



(B XM) X (M X B) = 



(MX B)X(Bx M) = 



(B) M. 

 (M) B, 

 fM) B. i. 

 (B) M 

 (M) B 

 (B) M 



a uniform, patroclinous Fi . 

 a race like the hybrid parent 



e., 

 I. e.. 



B. 



M, 



i. e., biennis, identical with the 

 grandparents 



■outside" 



i. e., mun'cata, identical with the 

 grandparents 



•outside" 



B, i. 



M. i 



e., biennis, identical with the 

 grandparents 



"outside" 



e., muricata, identical with the 

 grandparents 



Fl 

 F, 

 iterative 



sesqui- 

 reciprocal 



sesqui- 

 reciprocal 



double- 

 reciprocal 



"outside" 



double- 

 reciprocal 



Hence the F^ was always patroclinous; while the four iterative 

 hybrids obtained by crossing back Fj with one of the original parents 

 in the manner shown above gave in each case a result like the hybrid 

 parent in the cross; the two sesquireciprocal hybrids gave offspring 

 like the "outside" grandparents of the formula; as did also the two 

 double reciprocal hybrids. 



We may now compare the data of de Vries with the results of 

 corresponding crosses between grandiflora and rubricalyx. Representing 

 the species by their initial letters G and R, and considering all other 

 characters except the two unit-characters R and T, we have 



Table VIII. 



G X R{})^ 



R XG = 



Uniform F|, patroclinous as regards physiological characters, 

 more nearly intermediate as regards morphological (*) 

 characters. (Vide supra, p. 228). Cults. 48, 49, 50, 53, 54 

 in 1912. 



Uniform Fj, patroclinous as regards physiological characters, 

 more nearly intermediate as regards morphological (2) 

 characters. (Vide supra, p. 228). Cults. 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 

 63, 64, 65. 66 in 1912. 



(1) The use of if in this table for the sake of brevity to denote rubricalyx as 

 a whole, and therefore all its characters, must not be confused with its use in the 

 remainder of the paper to denote only the unit- character difference between rubricalyx 

 and rubrinervis. 



(2) The quality of intermediateness in foliage and habit is peculiarly difficult to 

 estimate in crosses where the parent species differ so widely from each other. In con- 

 sidering the foliage of the F., families as a whole, both reciprocal crosses were distinctly 

 intermediate, but I should say that each was also distinctly nearer the male parent. 



