114 
flowers similar to those which abounded in 
that locality ; and he, therefore, argued that 
if Nature did the same thing he must not 
be blamed for doing what Nature did. The 
prejudice against hybridization was carried 
so far that nurserymen were afraid to ex- 
hibit hybrid plants in the Royal Horticul- 
tural Society’s gardens, because they might 
injure the feelings of some over-sensitive 
religious persons; and they, therefore, ex- 
hibited them as wild species from abroad. 
Dean Herbert did much to break down 
that prejudice. They now had to meet a 
prejudice of another kind, of which he felt 
ashamed. He meant the prejudice which 
existed in the minds of some botanists 
against hybridization. He could under- 
stand how vexed botanists were to find 
their pretty little systems upset by the pro- 
ceedings of hybridists. But he thought it 
was far preferable to uphold the interests of 
science and truth than of their petty sys- 
tems. After referring to Darwin’s views on 
_ Species, he said that the question of species, 
as they understood it, was merely an indi- 
vidual opinion, and that there was no di- 
viding-line between species, varieties and 
genera. And as to crossing between species 
not being hybridizing, as some persons as- 
serted, he said that they desired to deal 
with hybridization in its widest sense, in 
the full confidence by so doing they would 
be not only advancing science, but also 
adding enormously to the welfare of hu- 
manity. 
Papers were then read on ‘ Hybridization 
and Cross-breeding as a Method of Scientific 
Investigation,’ by Mr.W. Bateson, F. RB. S., 
Cambridge ; ‘ Hybridization as a Means of 
Pangenetic Infection,’ by Professor Hugo 
de Vries, Amsterdam; ‘ Hybridization and 
its Failures,’ by the Rev. Professor George 
Henslow, London ; ‘ Progress of Hybridiza- 
tion in the United States of America,’ by 
Professor L. H. Bailey, Cornell University, 
U.S. A.; and ‘ Experiments in Hybridiza- 
SCIENCE. 
[N. 8. Vox. X. No. 239. 
tion and Cross-breeding,’ by Mr. C. C. 
Hurst, Burbage, Hinckley. 
The chair was taken by Professor G. 
Henslow on July 12th, who, in his opening 
remarks, said that these meetings were of 
great value, because they connected to- 
gether scientific and practical work. The 
questions dealt with applied not only to 
hybridization, but also to all parts of botany; 
and botanists would be only too thankful 
to get hold of facts with which the horti- 
eulturist was familiar. 
Mr. Herbert J. Webber, from the United 
States Department of Agriculture, gave an 
interesting lecture, with lantern demonstra- 
tion, on the work of his department in plant 
hybridization. He said that the work of 
hybridizing was started not more than three 
years ago, and the results attained were far 
from complete. All the plants on which 
they had worked were, in the main, horti- 
cultural products of America, and one of 
the principal was the orange plant. A few 
years ago almost the entire orange industry 
for a season in Florida was destroyed by 
frost in a single night, and about a hun- 
dred million dollars was lost by the dam- 
age done. In consequence of this they 
arrived at the conclusion that either they 
must abandon the orange industry in 
Florida or secure a variety of orange 
which was very much hardier and which 
would resist the frost. Accordingly, they 
set to work to hybridize the Japanese 
orange, Citris trifoliata, with the sweet 
orange. The trifoliata was found as far 
north as New York, and was used as a 
hedge plant. The fruit was bitter and res- 
inous, and was used as a preserve fruit ; but 
the plant was hardy in character, and by 
hybridizing it with the common sweet 
orange it was hoped that the frosts would 
be resisted and that they might obtain hy- 
brids of the two species and a deciduous as 
well as an evergreen orange. After illus- 
trating the new plants by means of the 
