1896} THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPECIES MAKING 461 
dence is the stronger the more numerous the variant individuals 
are. 
3. Monstrous, sportive, and scattering variations are often 
evidences of hybridity. These evidences are especially signifi- 
cant when they pertain to the inflorescence, or to the essential 
organs of the flower. 
| 
: 
| 
| 
5 
4. Seedlessness, or greatly reduced seed-bearing, is very 
good evidence of hybridity in cases where related species 
are fructiferous. 
B. Evidences of distribution. 
5. Intimate association of the suspected forms with species 
which appear to be their parents is one of the strongest proofs 
of hybrid origin. It is not essential, as evidence, that the sus- 
pected forms grow actually amongst or with the supposed 
parents, for hybrids often occur at a distance of several rods, 
and sometimes even a mile or more, from their parents. It 
often happens, too, that one of the parents will disappear from 
the neighborhood before the hybrids do. In some instances the 
‘Wo parents are not known in the association because one of them 
has been overlooked. Some time since I suggested that a cer- 
fain Carex which a collector sent me was a hybrid, but the col- 
lector denied it because one of the supposed parents had never 
been detected anywhere near his locality. I predicted that it 
Would be found. The next year it turned up close at hand, 
6. Rarity of the suspected individuals should be considered 
to indicate generally hybrid origin if the related species are 
Common, 
7- Localness and absence of “range” are most excellent 
‘W88estions of hybridity, particularly when the related species 
ave well marked ranges. In other words, hybrids are generally 
‘ccidental and spasmodic, Examples of my conception may be 
€n from the native apples and plums. My Pyrus Soulardi has 
og disjointed distribution, whilst Pyrus Joenszs and P. Malus 
“aig Continuous ranges in the same geographical region. My 
"Us hortulana is similarly dismembered in distribution, whilst 
