dcsimg
The future of BHL is uncertain, but hopeful. Learn more.
 BHL is experiencing intermittent technical issues that are affecting PDF generation functionality. Thank you for your patience.
Report an error
Download Contents
Close Dialog

Text Sources

Page text in BHL originates from one of the following sources:
Uncorrected OCR Machine-generated text. May include inconsistencies with the content of the original page.
Error-corrected OCR Machine-generated, machine-corrected text. Better quality than Uncorrected OCR, but may still include inconsistencies with the content of the original page.
Manual Transcription Human-created and reviewed text. For issues concerning manual transcription text, please contact the original holding institution.
  • Pages
  • Table of Contents
Show More
Page Link
Scientific Names on this Page

Indexed by Global Names
Book Title
Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Bastarderzeugung im Pflanzenreich
By
Gärtner, Carl Friedrich von, 1772-1850
Publication Details
Stuttgart, [s.n.], 1849
Year
1849
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.50413
Holding Institution
Cambridge University Library
Sponsor
JISC & NEH
Copyright & Usage
Rights:
Darwin Estate and Cambridge University Library

Copyright Status:
In copyright


Search Inside This Book:
Results For:
Click/Shift+Click pages to select for download
Cancel Generate Review No Pages Added
Close Dialog Finish Review My PDF

Generate My PDF

If you are generating a PDF of a journal article or book chapter, please feel free to enter the title and author information. The information you enter here will be stored in the downloaded file to assist you in managing your downloaded PDFs locally.

Thank you for your request. Please wait for an email containing a link to download the PDF.

For your reference, the confirmation number for this request is .

Join Our Mailing List

Sign up to receive the latest BHL news, content highlights, and promotions.

Subscribe

Help Support BHL

BHL relies on donations to provide free PDF downloads and other services. Help keep BHL free and open!

Donate

There was an issue with the request. Please try again and if the problem persists, please send us feedback.

For your reference, the confirmation number for this request is .

Optional
Example: Charles Darwin, Carl Linnaeus
Example: Birds, Classification, Mammals
Contributed by Cambridge University Library
View Metadata
Select pages to download
Download Part
Download Book
View at Internet Archive
Annotation Not Available
Page 
`original soft front cover'
top-margin annotation I think began Sept 15 /54/
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 3—2 annotation in dark brown ink 1849
Page vi
lines 17—21 double score cancelled
Page viii
⇑lines 14—10 score
⇑line 11 underline "Uebereinkunft"
⇑lines 13—1 annotation great agreemt in animals & Plants in Bastardsng
show subjects concepts
Page xi
lines 6—7 score in pale pencil
Page xiv
line 21 score "XVII" in pale pencil
Page xv
line 15 annotation Compounded
Page 5
lines 11—12 annotation confirms Koelreuter
Page 7
in pale pencil
line 15 underline "Vereinigung"
line 15 annotation joining
Page 8
lines 12—15 score in pale pencil
lines 16—19 score
lines 7—19 annotation under apparently similar circumstances prduce diff. quantity of seeds. / Hybrids few seeds
⇑lines 11—10 underline "welche ... sind."
⇑lines 14—9 score
⇑lines 14—9 annotation these have succeeded only once or twice .
Page 9
lines 12—14 score in pale pencil
lines 12—17 annotation cause of failure chiefly in female. organs.
Page 10
lines 1—2 score
line 5 underline "Zutritts"
line 5 annotation access
line 7 underline "Versehen"
line 7 annotation oversight
line 8 underline "anderswoher"
line 8 annotation elsewhere
line 8 underline "irgend"
line 8 annotation some
⇑lines 17—15 annotation cancelled Herbert. p 371 )
line 22 underline "schliesst"
line 22 annotation prevents/
⇑lines 11—8 annotation all injurious influences more injurious to hybridising.
Page 11
lines 11—12 score
line 13 underline "häufig ... Blume"
line 14 underline "bloss"
line 12 annotation naked
top-margin—line 2 annotation N.B. As damp & rain so injurious to fructification , it makes it odder that flowers are not ‹comm› regularly impregnated in closed state, for thy can be impregnated haufig in this condition. In cases of Campanula which are impregnated in bud, are these foreigners? & wd. thy open in own country.
show subjects subjects
⇑line 15 underline "gewissermassen"
⇑line 15 annotation so much or more
⇑line 15 underline "bastardartig"
⇑line 15 annotation of the nature of bastards
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 12—8 score
⇑line 6 underline "entartete:
⇑line 6 annotation degenerated
⇑line 4 underline "flexibel"
bottom-margin annotation flexible or plastic
⇑lines 3—2 score
Page 12
lines 11—12 score
lines 9—12 annotation some effect of variability on hybrids /
lines 14—17 score
lines 14—19 annotation no great difference in hybridisation of wild & cultivated . /
lines 14—16 annotation in brown ink (Q)
line 19 underline "Erzeugung"
line 19 annotation production
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 9—5 score
⇑lines 9—5 annotation Disputes Herberts' case of fertile Hybrids
⇑line 2 underline "vorhandene"
⇑line 2 annotation existing
⇑lines 3—1 score
⇑line 3—bottom-margin annotation thinks has mistaken th fertility of some hybrids, with th results of a first impregnation.
Page 13
[continuation] 1 underline "Es ... aber"
line 1 annotation on the other hand
line 3 underline "unmittelbaren"
line 3 annotation immediate
lines 2—6 annotation some hybrid fruits are richer in seed, than the fruit produced by first union. /
line 6 underline "entschiedene"
line 6 annotation decided
line 9 underline "begreifen"
line 9 annotation comprehend
show subjects concepts
⇑line 14 underline "die ... Typen"
⇑line 14 annotation (?)
show subjects concepts
⇑line 10 underline "Uebereinstimmung"
⇑line 10 annotation accordance
⇑line 6 underline "Gährung"
⇑line 6 annotation fermenting
Page 14
⇑line 7 underline in pale pencil "umständlicher"
⇑line 7 annotation circumstantial
Page 15
line 5 underline "Wesen" @5 annotation existence
line 10 underline "vollkommenen"
line 10 annotation perfect
⇑line 5 underline "zeugen"
⇑line 5 annotation witness.
⇑line 3 underline "Verkümmerung"
⇑line 3 annotation arresting
⇑line 3 underline "Staubgefässe"
⇑line 3 annotation anthers
Page 16
in pale pencil
line 3 underline "Verletzungen"
line 3 annotation wounds
Page 19
⇑line 16 underline "verschwinden"
⇑line 16 annotation disappear
⇑lines 13—6 annotation condition of pollen on stigma changes sooner or later according to relationship
Page 21
⇑line 1 underline "Täuschung"
bottom-margin annotation illusion
Page 22
line 9 underline "kehren"
line 9 annotation return
Page 23
line 5 underline "Zeitraum"
line 5 annotation period
Page 28
lines 17—21 annotation fruit falls off, from an imperfect impregnation
Page 29
line 6 underline in pale pencil "Vertheilung"
line 6 annotation distribution
Page 30
top-margin—line 15 annotation It is not Hybrids — but Hybrid-fructification .    Most important distinction which I have ovrlooked.
lines 18—21 double score
lines 17—21 annotation Hybrids never produce full amont of seeds
line 21 underline "ungeachtet"
line 21 annotation ‹howeve› «notwithstan»
Page 32
lines 7—10 annotation Hybridisation requires all outward circumstances favourable.
show subjects subjects
Page 34
in pale pencil
line 7 underline "fremden"
line 7 annotation Never the least effect .
Page 35
⇑line 13 at "Pollenarten" annotation no mixed effect.—
⇑line 5 underline "rustica"
⇑line 5 annotation female
⇑line 5 annotation prefers paniculata
⇑line 4 at "N. paniculata" annotation female
⇑line 3 at "rustica" annotation prefers Langsdorf
⇑line 3 underline "Langsdorfii"
Page 43
⇑lines 13—10 score
⇑lines 15—8 annotation pure & hybrids out of same capsule, but no tincture.
Page 45
in pale pencil
line 11 underline "erfordert"
line 11 annotation requires
⇑line 10 underline "Beziehung"
⇑line 10 annotation reference
Page 46
lines 5—6 multiple score
Page 50
lines 1—7 score
line 3 underline Ansätze ... Zähne"
top-margin—line 7 annotation case of variety with characters like other species    (Q)
Page 52
line 10 underline "dreifach ... gemischten"
lines 8—10 annotation 3 — sorts in same capsules
Page 55
lines 18—22 annotation cancelled Herbert believes in tincture
Page 56
lines 7—13 score
top-margin—line 16 annotation This is what might have been expected
     mere physical difficulty ??
⇑lines 12—11 score
⇑line 14 underline "Befruchtung ... Pollen"
⇑lines 20—10 annotation This slowness is important as it is character in parents & not in hybrid.
⇑lines 8—6 score
⇑lines 7—5 annotation injures the other ovules:
Page 58
⇑line 7 underline "fülich"
⇑line 7 annotation convenient
Page 64
line 10 underline "einem ... Pollen"
line 12 underline "rustico-paniculata"
line 12 underline "Langsdorfii"
lines 7—13 annotation In Hybrids father or mother's pollen makes own powerless. so does quite foreign pollen sometimes
line 15 underline "zumal"
line 15 annotation specially
line 16 underline "exotischen"
line 20 underline "Lobelia"
line 20 annotation Example
lines 15—22 annotation In some pure, specially exotics, own pollen will not ‹fe› impregnate, whilst that of other individual, or even other species, yet own pollen good.—
show subjects subjects
⇑line 9 underline "B ... Herbert"
⇑line 9 underline "Zephyranthes"
⇑lines 10—6 annotation p. 355t01 so Herbert with Zephyranthes but not good example; see XX next Page .
t01 - `p. 355' in dark pencil
⇑line 5 at "Hippeastrum" annotation ⧟ Amaryllidaet01 p. 371— in this case it is Hybrid with hybrid. —
t01 - `Amaryllidae' in dark pencil
⇑line 5 underline "Bosse"
⇑lines 4—3— underline "Passiflora"
Page 65
line 3 underline "veträgt"
line 3 annotation accord
lines 5—9 score
line 6 annotation XX
top-margin annotation XX This like Herberts Zephyranthes case; Pas. racemosa can be fructified by pollen of coerulea, but stigm of coerulea cannot be fructified by pollen of racemosa or by its own. — we may say female organ of coerulea injured .
lines 10—12 score
lines 10—12 annotation takes the view given above XX
show subjects subjects
line 13 underline "Einrichtung"
line 13 annotation disposition
lines 14—15 underline "Parietaria judaica"
lines 14—16 annotation vertically crossed Has not heard of Conrad Sp
line 14 at "Parietaria" annotation ⧟ (not in Sprengel)
line 19 underline "zipfeln"
line 19 annotation tips
lines 21—23 score
lines 21—23 annotation compares with Snails
⇑line 13 underline "Bedingung" annotation condition
Page 66
⇑lines 9—6 annotation Seldom any pollen has no action on stigma .
Page 67
lines 6—9 score
lines 5—9 annotation sometimes stigma decays & flowers fall without slightest fructification.
⇑lines 9—8 score in pale pencil
⇑line 8 underline in pale pencil "Lychnis ... Saponaria"
Page 68
⇑lines 20—6 annotation gradation of affinity shown by time of decay of stigma & flower
Page 69
⇑line 10 underline "Ergebnisse"
⇑line 10 annotation result
Page 72
lines 9—23 annotation / Thinks th fruit of Hybrids is not due to pollen-influence, but to that power of forming fruit, which th most sterile hybrids without any pollen do produce
     Repeated p. 106
show subjects subjects
Page 73
lines 1—3 score
lines 1—3 annotation mother not more powerful than pollen
lines 13—15 annotation Hybridising generally no effect on seeds.
⇑lines 14—12 annotation apple half sour half sweet.—
⇑line 8 underline "Birnbäumchen" /@⇑line 8 annotation pear
⇑line 7 at "verschiedener" annotation various
⇑line 7 underline "Obstarten"
⇑line 7 annotation fruit
⇑line 7 underline "liess"
⇑line 4 underline " Räthselhaftes"
⇑line 4 annotation enigmatical
⇑lines 8—3 annotation castrated pear-blossoms in orchard bore much fruit, showing crossing
⇑line 1 score
bottom-margin annotation thinks experiment not careful enough.
Page 75
line 10 underline "geneigt"
line 10 annotation inclined
bottom-margin annotation Disbelieves (perhaps vry truly) all these cases of direct effect of pollen on th mothers' fruit.—
Page 76
line 11 underline "Pfropfen"
line 11 annotation graft
⇑lines 19—18 annotation in brown ink Q
⇑line 18 underline "Pelargonium zonale"
⇑line 18 annotation sport in
⇑lines 14—13 underline "Levcojen ... Cheiri"
⇑line 14 annotation sports in
⇑line 9 underline "Achillaea Millefolium"
⇑line 9 annotation sports in wild
⇑line 9 underline "weissen"
⇑lines 9—8 underline "stark ... Blumendolden"
⇑line 8 annotation umbels
Page 77
line 2 underline "fleissigen"
line 2 annotation diligent
line 5 underline "zuverlässig"
line 5 annotation authentic
line 9 underline "Andeutung"
line 9 annotation notice
Page 78
lines 1—5 annotation Discussion on Koelreuters 3 cases of seeds directly affected by Hybridisation .
lines 14—15 double score
lines 14—15 annotation (seeds vary much.)
bottom-margin annotation Disbelieves seed ever really affected; the only difference he hs ever obsrved , bing solely in size.—
Page 80
in pale pencil
bottom-margin annotation see p. 499 . & p 135
Page 81
⇑lines 9—6 double score
top-margin—⇑6 annotation cancelled This most important, ‹either› «if» crossing varieties ‹does nothing to seeds, or› «has had anything to do with diverse coloured» seeds , then they are crossed naturally by Bees . —
show subjects subjects
line 11 annotation X
show subjects subjects
⇑lines 14—13 annotation all a mistake
⇑lines 12—9 score
⇑lines 7—6 score
⇑line 6 underline "reinen"
⇑line 9—bottom-margin annotation cancelled The self-impregnated flowers gave same result as the castrated & cross impregnated & these showed colours altered
bottom-margin annotation cancelled Has tried Wiegman experiments with quite different results, ie seeds never affected see next several Pages
Page 82
line 1 underline "verwendet"
line 1 annotation employed
lines 1—2 underline "lauter ... Gattung"
lines 1—2 annotation most constant vars.
lines 19—25 score
lines 19—25 annotation here seeds were coloured
⇑line 8 score
⇑line 8 annotation cancelled were these mongrels
Page 83
[continues overleaf] 2—3 underline "grünlich-gelben"
line 5 underline "gelben"
line 10 underline "mehr grünlich"
line 16 underline "grünen"
⇑line 3 underline "gelben"
Page 84
[continuation] 1 underline "schmützig-grüne"/ @line 1 annotation color
lines 20—24 score
line 22 underline "entschieden"
line 22 annotation decided
from End Note annotation Ask Author
     p. 84    Were any of «th» mongrel Peas reared ?
Page 85
lines 10—11 double score
line 10 underline "kommen"
line 10 annotation agree
line 11 underline "Wesentlichen"
line 11 annotation essentiality
lines 10—11 annotation (& Berkeleys)
line 13 underline "Piso-Vicia"
line 13 annotation see account    p. 14
line 15 underline "geringer Fruchtbarkeit"
⇑lines 19—14 annotation plants from Wiegmanns Pisum-Vicia he ‹rather› thinks it a
⇑line 13 underline "Varietäts-Bastard"
⇑line 13—bottom-margin annotation «rather» than hybrid, because, ⧟
⇑line 8 at "Mit dieser Pflanze" annotation ie offsrping of Wiegmans Piso-Vicia
⇑line 5—bottom-margin annotation flower impregnated with common pea , produced same result as self.impregn, & pollen of Vicia had no effect .
Page 86
⇑line 12 underline "sondern ... war"
⇑lines 13—10 annotation Conclusion mere variety, & says nothing about mongrel .
⇑lines 7—4 score
⇑line 7 underline "multiflorus"
⇑line 6 underline "nanus"
⇑line 6 underline "americanus"
⇑lines 7—4 annotation cd not make any of them cross.
from End Note annotation (86 dirct actn of pollen)
⇑line 6 at "nanus" annotation ⧟ Loudon makes these distinct species, besides vulgaris—
show subjects concepts
Page 87
line 1 underline "Misslingen"
line 1 annotation failure
lines 6—8 score
lines 6—8 annotation Leguminosae opposed to Hybridisation
show subjects subjects
line 9 score
lines 13—15 double score
lines 8—16 annotation If then mongrelising takes place easily, yet cannot at all believe in Wiegman hybrids.
line 18 at "annua" annotation Cruciferae
line 20 underline "getrauen"
line 20 annotation dare
lines 18—21 annotation doubts about seeds in Matthiola what to say
line 22 underline "gegenseitigen"
line 22 annotation mutual
line 25 at "anders" annotation otherwise
line 26 underline "herrührt"
line 26 annotation comes from
⇑lines 9—8 score
⇑lines 5—1 score
⇑line 3 underline "einer ... die"
bottom-margin annotation Mays not affected
Page 88
top-margin annotation also Berkeley did not artificially cross.—}—
Page 89
line 9 annotation XX
line 12 underline "bestritten"
line 12 annotation contest?
line 15 at "sonst" annotation besides
line 21 at "berechtigt" annotation authorise
top-margin annotation XX It seems he does «fully» admit that cross fructification does in Pisum affect seeds, & as Wiegmann did not artificially impregnate, shows that Peas, when ‹found› «not castrated» are crossed «naturally.» — Be sure read Book «mentiond in» note 62. p.734.
     (How strange considering sweet Peas .)
Page 90
lines 17—19 score in pale pencil
line 17 underline "geläugnet"
line 17 annotation denied
line 17 at "trug" annotation über    transfer
line 18 at "aufsteigenden" annotation ascending
lines 13—19 annotation ‹Q› → female sterility transmitted in cross.
⇑lines 7—1 score
bottom-margin annotation The tinctures or half-bastards of Koëlreuter, Wiegmann & Herbert are upset.—
Page 91
lines 10—16 score in pale pencil
line 16 underline "gedenken"
line 16 annotation mention
line 17 underline "ausgezeichnete"
line 17 annotation marked out
lines 9—15 annotation Father & mother element more powerful in some
     ? do not understandt01
t01 - `? do ... understand' cancelled
⇑lines 15—10 annotation Hybrid pollen more effect on on stigma than 2 other pollens; but the converse no effect
⇑lines 5—3 score
⇑lines 5—1 annotation another reverse case of different effects.
Page 92
mentioned on [only volume] End Note
line 8 underline "Lychnicucubalus"
line 8 annotation Hybrid, I suppose
line 10 underline "Lychnis diurna"
⇑lines 14—11 annotation colour & size of pollen no relation to fructification
⇑lines 8—6 score
⇑lines 8—4 annotation most important see his other work .
⇑line 7 crossing-out "Varietäten"
bottom-margin annotation ⧟ (p. 181 of species «so holds good with species also») — From table at end, really speciest01
t01 - `— From ... species' in dark pencil
show subjects subjects
⇑lines 7—5 double score
⇑lines 9—5 annotation cancelled like Hollyocks, as if varieties
⇑line 5 underline "fruchtbarer"
[illegible word]—bottom-margin annotation ⧟ more fruitful , ∴ crossing cross colours less fruitful ∴ perhaps Hollyocks thus accounted for.t01 (So he says most distinctly in his Beitrage p. 137 in regard to Verbascum.)
t01 - `, ∴ ... for.' in dark pencil
Page 93
⇑lines 11—10 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation (a) Koëlreuter ‹mingled› «confused» ‹the› imperfect impregnation in th first cross, with th imperfect fructification of Hybrids, but this shows how similar th case is .—
Page 94
line 7 underline in pale pencil "Grösse"
lines 9—11 score
line 10 underline "ohne ... worden"
lines 5—12 annotation imperfect fructification differs from no fruct., in seeds being more perfect
lines 17—20 underline "niemals ...angetroffen"
lines 17—22 annotation ‹hybrids› «first cross» never quite fertile as of cross of pure species.
Page 95
⇑line 8 score [`bookmark']
Page 96
lines 10—12 annotation no relation in state of capsule & state of seed.
lines 17—27 annotation fertility of original act of hybridisation so different, that even in flowers of same plant, that it is difficult to make scale of fertility & consequent relationship.
bottom-margin annotation ‹[illegible word]› Grades of Fructification, imperfect, so' normal & perfect «(a)» pollen no more effect than foreign dust; occurs even «not seldom» in species of same genus, “from want of sexual affinity”— (mere words)
Page 97
lines 3—4 underline "Nicotiana ... deltoides"
⇑line 8 score [`bookmark']
Page 101
lines 16—17 underline "er ... aus"
lines 15—16 annotation in brown ink Q
line 20 underline "schwaches ... Leben"
line 23 underline "1000"
line 25 underline "nicht ... gekeimt"
lines 21—25 annotation out of many imperfect seeds & ‹out of› 1000 seds apparently perfect, ‹of› «not» one germinated.
Page 102
mentioned on [only volume] End Note
lines 1—2 annotation x
top-margin annotation ⧟ x every gradation of imperfection in capsule with one or more seeds, capalbe of germination.
lines 4—7 multiple score
line 4 underline "Abtheilung"
line 4 annotation division of subject
line 4 underline "selten"
line 5 underline "reinen"/ line 5 underline "Varietäten"
line 6 underline "Wahlverwandtschaft"
line 6 annotation affinity
line 7 at "Ergebniss" annotation result
lines 4—5 annotation Important
lines 12—15 score
line 12 at "littoralis" annotation ia
line 13 at "barbatus" annotation ia
line 13 at "diurna" annotation (ia & k)
line 14 at "mauritiana" annotation ia
line 14 at "glabra" annotation (k)
line 15 at "thapsiforme" annotation ia
line 15 ✔
lines 12—13 annotation in dark pencil most fertile hybrids
[continues overleaf] ⇑5 underline "der freien Natur"
Page 103
[continuation] 2 underline "Sageret"
lines 1—2 annotation See to this Annales des Sciences Nat
Page 105
lines 2—6 score
lines 2—6 →
top-margin annotation in dark pencil Can the effect of pollen of plant in producing capsule be analogous to Ld Moreton's case?
Page 107
⇑line 10 score [`bookmark']
Page 108
line 11 underline "Morton"
lines 12—17 score
lines 12—17 annotation Morton attributes power of hybridisation to capacity of domestication. —
Page 109
line 9 underline "grosser"
line 11 underline "700"
lines 7—9 annotation greater number will not hybridise
line 11 underline "700"
line 12 underline "250"
line 12 at "Bastarde" annotation different sorts?
⇑line 14 underline "versagt"
⇑lines 13—11 score
⇑lines 13—11 annotation unions which failed with Kölreuter
Page 110
⇑lines 15—14 underline "eine ... Elemente"
⇑lines 17—9 annotation a certain sexual harmony necessary for union.— (I presume in contrast to general affinity)
⇑line 4 at "haftet" annotation cleaves
⇑lines 5—3 annotation pollen does not adhere to stigma
Page 111
lines 8—15 annotation Even when pollen does cling to stigma frutification vry often fails
     In hybrids th stigma fails
⇑lines 15—11 score in pale pencil
⇑lines 10—9 underline "wie ... scheint"
⇑lines 10—9 annotation (a)
⇑lines 10—9 annotation in dark pencil only certain individuals can be hybridised
bottom-margin annotation (a) I cannot but think hybridisation commoner with animals than plants .—
Page 112
line 3 underline "angemessen"
line 3 annotation suitable
Page 113
line 11 underline "Prof."
show subjects concepts
table annotation shows natural crossing
     (14 genera)
⇑lines 9—5 score
⇑line 9 underline "Alle ... Samen"
Page 114
line 10 underline "entbehren"
line 10 annotation without
table crossing-out "Gramineae, Grossularieae, Convolvuleae; Papavereae; Labiatae; Leguminosae; Hypericeae; Polemonieae, Urticeae; Cucurbitaceae"
table annotation ⧟ no success/
table at "Labiatae" annotation ?
table at "Cucurbitaceae" annotation ?
table annotation List of Families which have admitted of hybridisation
Page 115
table score
table annotation failed with these, but experiments not numerous enough to show cause. —
Page 116
table underline "Primuleae"
table annotation easy
table annotation Fams. of easy manipulation
⇑lines 26—24 score
⇑line 21 underline "vermuthen "
line 10 annotation suspect ‹imagine›
⇑lines 26—21 annotation Capacity for hybridisation not lies in Family Character.—
⇑line 13 underline "Behuf"
⇑line 13 annotation behalf
⇑lines 18—11 annotation cancelled In families with regular specis , & divided into not real genera, most hybridisation
⇑lines 9—8 underline "Gramineae ... zählen"
⇑lines 11—5 score /⇑lines 12—6 annotation The spec of most natural Families, viz .... resist hybridisation
⇑line 2 underline "Compositen"
⇑line 2—bottom-margin annotation No hybrids in Compositae
Page 117
⇑line 15 underline "Apocineen"
⇑lines 16—14 annotation ‹why› is not this Vinca
show subjects subjects
show subjects concepts
⇑line 12 underline "unübersteiglichen"
⇑line 12 annotation unsurmountable
⇑lines 11—6 annotation thinks Orchideae & Asclepiadae wd be hard to cross., frm structure of flower
Page 119
line 7 underline "Gymnogramma"
lines 16—19 annotation Disputes fern-hybrids, thinks only variations observed only in Gymnogramma
Page 120
lines 16—20 annotation Dioecious less easy hybridised than hermaphrodite
show subjects subjects
Page 121
lines 2—4 score
lines 3—5 score
top-margin annotation ⧟ The capability of hybrid‹isation› fructification ‹occur› lies in more special character, than those characterising any whole family
line 13 score [`bookmark']
Page 122
lines 3—11 annotation No distinct relation between polyspermous & oligospermous plants & capacity for hybrid. fruct:.—
⇑line 7 at "Vermeidung" annotation avoidance
Page 123
lines 1—2 score
line 1 underline "eine ... Blüthe"
line 2 underline "Conceptionskraft"
top-margin annotation Dioecious plants a longer capacity for impregnation .    I see uses Dichogamous = Dioecious
line 5 underline "Lecoq"
lines 3—5 annotation a book on Hybrids }—
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 11—9 score
⇑line 10 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation a    Dioecious plants less capalbe of Hybrid-fruct: at least than some hermaphrodites
Page 125
line 7 score [`bookmark']
table at "Anagallis; Potentilla; Salvia; Cucumis; Lycium" annotation ∗
table annotation ⧟ other observers have succeeded, though he failed.
Page 126
line 8 at "fügen" annotation join
line 9 at "zuverlässigen" annotation certain
⇑line 10—bottom-margin annotation closely allied genera differ greatly in tendency to hybrid-frutification several examples & I believe quotes Kolreuter but observes only few species in each experimented on . —
⇑lines 6—5 underline "Aquilegia"
⇑lines 6—3 annotation cancelled Hooker thinks all same species
show subjects concepts
Page 127
lines 6—13 score
Page 128
line 2nd table score
line 16 at "ununterscheidbare" annotation undistinguishable
line 18 underline in dark pencil "Afterbefruchtungen"
lines 21—22 underline "Afterbefruchtungen irregeführt"
line 22 annotation lead astray
line 23 at "wähnten" annotation believe
line 3rd table score
line 20—bottom-margin annotation All this shows that when anther removed, how much crossing can take place from adjoining plants — i.e. intermarriage
Page 129
line 12 at "Einreden" annotation objections
line 12 at "veranlasst" annotation caused —
Page 130
⇑lines 10—9 score
⇑lines 11—6 annotation I do not know whether Kolreuter or self. he suceeded anyhow.
⇑lines 10—7 ⧟
⇑lines 7—3 score
⇑lines 5—1 ⧟
⇑line 5 underline "vespertina ... Cucubalus"
⇑line 4 at "noctiflora" annotation (yes) ,
⇑line 1 underline "wiederholten Versuchen"
⇑lines 7—5 annotation Bigeneric crosses
Page 131
lines 1—2 score
lines 1—3 score
line 1 at "Kreuzung" annotation reverse
line 2 underline "♀"
line 2 underline "♂"
line 3 underline "vergeblich ... hatte"
line 2 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation (a) Revrse case which always failed with Kolreuter succeeded once with him,— but was vry difficult Hybrid Plants no ways different —t01
t01 - `but was ... —' in dark pencil
line 3 crossing-out "8"
line 3 annotation 107 /
line 14 crossing-out "9"
line 14 annotation 108 /
show subjects concepts
Page 132
lines 4—15 annotation none of these «bigeneric» seeds germinated. though some had embryo
⇑line 16 annotation in dark pencil 109
⇑line 12 crossing-out "111"
⇑line 12 annotation in dark pencil 110
⇑line 8 annotation in dark pencil 111
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 12—5 annotation only ones known
     Bigeneric crosses
Page 134
in pale pencil
⇑line 8 score [`bookmark']
Page 135
in dark pencil
lines 11—14 score
lines 11—17 annotation universal law that pollen of parents, fructifies hybrids more then own.
line 20 annotation / 123
show subjects concepts
Page 136
⇑lines 4—1 score
⇑lines 4—2 score
⇑lines 3—2 underline "Canis ... Mouflon"
⇑line 1 underline "zahme ... Mouflon"
⇑line 1 at "Böcke" annotation ⧟ ram or he goat
Page 137
⇑line 3 crossing-out "8"
⇑line 3 annotation 137
show subjects concepts
Page 138
lines 8—22 score
lines 12—15 annotation (a) → sense given abovet01
top-margin—line 7 annotation in dark pencil (a) Against ‹law› «limit» of genus being determined by «power of» crossing , even Herbert does not pretend all species can cross, though when any true species do cross, he says thy must belong to same genus — so th “reverse crosses.” & cases of Crosses which after years succeed only once, go against law of genus & crossing being connected.
t01 - `sense given above' in dark pencil
[continues overleaf] ⇑3a "in" annotation power of uniting depends on
⇑lines 3—2 underline "inneren ... Arten"
Page 139
[continuation] 1—2 underline "systematische"
line 2 underline "sexuelle Verwandtschaft"
top-margin—line 1 annotation Hence a sexual & systematic relationship
line 15 annotation in dark pencil 138 /
show subjects concepts
lines 17—20 annotation genera formed of diverse ‹ty› characters
Page 140
lines 6—16 score in pale pencil
lines 6—11 → in pale pencil
lines 1—3 score
top-margin annotation When two genera have united, th species do not always in these genera readily unite. Tormentilla & Potentilla , though so close ,will not unite
from Slip Attached 1, Side 2 annotation in dark pencil Did Kolreuter cross many Silene «vide» p. 140 of Gaertner . ? /
line 1 crossing-out "141"
line 1 annotation 0
show subjects concepts
lines 17—30 annotation / it is quite wrong to infer becaus some species within a genus, will cross that all will; generally only a few. Herberts cases, however, rather contradict this . Hippeastr, Azalea, Calceolaria
Page 141
⇑lines 18—10 score in pale pencil
lines 16—14 annotation Sections of genera
⇑lines 6—5 score
⇑lines 6—5 underline "blauen ... gelben"
⇑line 1 underline "Zephyranthes"
lines 1—6 score
line 3 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation (a) Sections of genera will sometimes unite & sometimes not.—
⇑line 8 crossing-out "2"
⇑line 8 annotation 1
⇑line 6 crossing-out "3"
⇑line 6 annotation cancelled 2
show subjects concepts
Page 142
lines 8—11 annotation in dark pencil in his Treatise speaks of species see to this
lines 11—13 score
line 12 underline in dark pencil "Varietäten"
line 12 annotation deleted in dark pencil species?t01 genera of
lines 10—12 annotation ??
line 13 at "Pepo" annotation pumpkin
line 14 at "Citrullus" annotation water melon
line 15 at "wiewohl" annotation though
lines 15—16 annotation in dark pencil Girou succeeded in these.
from End Note annotation p. 142    See to this important
t01 - `species?' in dark pencil
line 13 crossing-out "6"
line 13 annotation 5
line 15 crossing-out "7"
line 15 annotation 6
show subjects concepts
line 19 at "Verzeichnissen"
line 19 annotation in dark pencil statements
lines 20—28 annotation The list of sections of genera, which will not cross, shows no necessary relation of genera & crossing.—
Page 143
line 6 underline "sexuelle Affinität"
lines 6—11 annotation sexual affinity belongs only to species, & often to only individuals, & cannot be externally recognised.
show subjects concepts
lines 12—16 annotation Different Times of flowering do not prevent hybrids.
⇑lines 3—2 underline deleted "Lavatera ... trimestris"
bottom-margin annotation ‹Bush with plant ?›
Page 144
line 1 at "strauchartige" annotation bush    with
line 1 at "krautartigen" annotation herb
lines 3—6 annotation annual, biennial & perennial cross.
show subjects concepts
lines 16—19 annotation evergreen with deciduous cross
show subjects concepts
⇑line 17 at "erweckt" annotation awaked
⇑lines 16—7 annotation many hybris wh suceed in summer, & fail in Autumn — some succeed so seldom may be called accidental.
⇑lines 2—1 double score
bottom-margin annotation the most different varieties can cross.—
Page 145
line 3 underline "Phaseolus, Pisum"
line 3 annotation Can cross
line 14 underline "auch ... bestätigt"
line 14 annotation see to this
Page 146
line 17 underline "obgewalten" annotation exist
Page 147
line 10 underline "Umfang" annotation extent
⇑lines 12—10 underline "Nicotiana ... glauca"
⇑line 10 underline "die rustica"
lines 15—7 score
lines 15—7 annotation Pollen of some plants can impregnate others, but not be impregnated. by them.
⇑lines 7—1 score in pale pencil
⇑line 6—bottom-margin annotation case of Nicotiana which will neither impregnate or be impregnated by other close species.
bottom-margin annotation in brown ink 8 specs
Page 148
[continues overleaf] ⇑1 at "jene" annotation species
Page 149
[continuation] 1 at "diese" annotation varieties
top-margin annotation Van Mons thinks stability in first generation & variability in first distinctive character of species .
lines 8—13 double score
lines 7—11 annotation analogous to some organisms not varying in domestication
lines 8—9 underline "Dianthus ... Crinum"
line 10 underline "sechste ... Generation"
lines 9—15 annotation some hybrids as these keep constant in 7th & 8th genertns, but this rare.—
line 14 underline "willkürliche" annotation
line 14 annotation arbitrary
⇑line 12 underline "E. Blyth (157)"
⇑line 12 annotation see to this
⇑line 10 at "anderer" annotation of anoth kind
⇑line 9 at "jene" annotation species
⇑line 3 at "Eichelheher" annotation Jay
bottom-margin annotation I had better give cases of closely allied «& identical» species in different climates to show species , & vry different species in similar climates to show not direct effect of climate
show subjects subjects
Page 150
line 1 underline "unbedeutenden" annotation insignificant
top-margin—line 15 annotation I quite agree vry near or identical species may have been created , but this has to be decided.
line 14 score
line 14 underline "vergesse"
line 14 annotation forgets
lines 17—22 score
line 20 at "Thurmschwalbe" annotation swift ?
line 19 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation (a) A great power of place-alteration has no relation to wide geographical range. — in direct opposition to my view, but agres with Hooker on Compositae.
lines 20—30 annotation Seems to agree with Blyth,, I must study him —
Page 152
line 9 at "Abkunft" annotation [illegible word]
line 9 at "vereinigt" annotation [?]fixed
line 12 at "eingewendet" annotation opposed
Page 153
line 5 underline "aufgehört" annotation ceased
line 6 underline "Stillstand" annotation situation
⇑line 10 at "abgeschlossene" annotation settled
⇑line 1 underline "Rosa ... Nicotiana"
⇑line 1 annotation genera with mny doubtful species
Page 154
line 2 at "anerkannt" annotation acknowledged
line 6 at "stete" annotation fixed
⇑line 7 at "eingeprägte" annotation inculcated
⇑line 6 underline "vertilgbar" annotation exterminate
Page 155
line 18 at "Lücke" annotation gap
⇑line 5 at "Huldigen" annotation do homage
Page 156
⇑line 12 at "Beurtheilung" annotation judgmnt
⇑line 11 at "Vertheidiger" annotation defender
Page 157
⇑line 14 score [`bookmark']
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 5—1 score
⇑lines 5—1 annotation seeds long retaining vegetativ Power
from End Note annotation (p. 157 Seeds lng retaining vitality)
Page 158
[continuation] 1—13 score
lines 8—13 annotation Wheat-seed identical.
⇑lines 14—8 score in pale pencil
⇑lines 16—8 annotation These plants identical before Loess, with recent.
Page 159
⇑lines 16—12 score
⇑lines 17—14 annotation says varieties go back
Page 160
⇑line 15 at "naturgemässen Verhältinssen" annotation conformable to nature    relations
Page 161
line 1 at "Gegenstand" annotation resistance
⇑line 8 at "Anspruch" annotation lay claim to
Page 162
⇑line 17 at "vorgeblichen" annotation pretended
⇑line 9 at "Ermittelung" annotation enquiry
Page 163
lines 9—11 score in pale pencil
line 10 at "Bedenklichkeit" annotation doubtfulness
lines 6—11 annotation I think it means only that result of A.B.C with ξ differ greatly from each other
     (a)
bottom-margin annotation (a) Is there any case of two «close» vars , when united to a 3d «var.» producing vry different mongrels.
line 15 underline in dark pencil "nahe verwandter"
lines 15—22 score in dark pencil
lines 18—19 underline "z. ... fulgens"
lines 21—22 underline in dark pencil "geben ... Bastarde"
lines 12—19 annotation in dark pencil, cancelled in pencil hybrids from close species when united with one another, show their differences even plainer than whilst pure. —
⇑lines 15—8 score
⇑lines 16—10 annotation Remarks This very odd if these close species descended from common ancestor.
⇑lines 8—3 score
⇑lines 16—1 annotation in dark pencil The existence of species consists of fixed sexual relation to other species
Page 164
line 11 underline "streitig"
line 11 annotation disputable
line 16 at "Gültigkeit" annotation valid
lines 17—18 underline "die ... fruchtbar"
lines 16—20 annotation in dark pencil Koelreuter's law of sterility can hardly be accepted.
⇑line 13 underline "Pentstemon ... coccineus"
⇑lines 14—12 annotation do thy seed?
⇑line 4 annotation X
⇑lines 14—6 annotation in dark pencil These 2 Penstemons though so like, as to be considered varieties, cannot be crossed.
⇑lines 3—2 score
bottom-margin annotation ☞ ||    rarely certain individuals will not be impregnated see G. Beitrage.
Page 165
line 5 at "krankhafter" annotation sickness
⇑lines 17—13 score in pale pencil
bottom-margin annotation not in Darwin's hand X There are two P. gentianoides in cultivation the one commonly so called is the Hartwegi so misnamed — the true gentianoides is rare in cultivation differently shaped and not red
Page 166
in pale pencil
line 9 underline "der ... seie"
lines 8—12 score
Page 167
⇑lines 15—10 score
⇑lines 16—13 annotation nearly related but will not cross
⇑line 4 underline "H. Lecoq"
Page 168
line 3 at "Veranlassung" annotation cause
top-margin—line 5 annotation I fancy that this is only that parents have originally crossed.
line 12 "Varietätenbastarde"
line 13 at "verhalten" annotation are circumstanced
lines 8—17 annotation I do not understand.t01 { are «circumstanced» ‹like› «as» th second generations of species-bastard    Will explain more afterwards
t01 - `I do ... understand.' cancelled
lines 17—22 score
lines 14—24 annotation Holds good with some wild ‹variety› ‹variations› «species» which fructify each other but do not sport like true vars, whereby these plants are characterised like true species.
lines 19—26 score
line 21 underline in brown ink "beinahe vollständig"
lines 19—24 annotation Get information on these — wild ‹vars.› «species» Fertility tested by himself.
⇑lines 7—6 score
⇑line 6 annotation a
bottom-margin annotation (a) Genera with species agreeing in Habit, as above, hybridise most, —yet some species of these will not cross.
Page 169
lines 4—6 score in pale pencil
lines 4—7 score
lines 3—7 annotation These species cross easily, yet other others of the genus ,will not cross.
lines 14—15 underline "Gramineae ... Leguminosae"
line 16 underline "Geranium ... Myrtus"
lines 9—17 annotation Though power of crossing sometimes goes with external resemblance yet the most natural Families & genera as here, do not hybridise. well.—
⇑line 13 at "zuverlässige" annotation positive
⇑line 12 score
⇑lines 14—13 annotation Hybridisation difficult
show subjects subjects
Page 171
line 2 underline "Umbellaten"
lines 1—3 annotation No Hybrids tried on Umbelliferae
⇑lines 16—12 annotation Thinks wd hybridise from being so variable.
⇑line 9 underline "Cruciaten"
⇑lines 9—5 score
⇑lines 9—8 annotation all failed
Page 172
⇑line 17 underline "Labiatae"
⇑line 15 underline in pale pencil "Salvia"
⇑lines 17—9 annotation Labiatae little tried, but I know that Mimulus has succeeded
Page 173
lines 1—4 score
lines 1—4 annotation Most Natural Family
show subjects subjects
lines 9—14 score
lines 9—10 annotation all failed
⇑lines 11—9 score
⇑line 10 underline "Sageret"
⇑line 10 underline "Lecoq"
⇑lines 12—10 annotation quotes from Sageret
⇑line 9 underline "ohne Unterschied"
line 9 annotation promiscuously
⇑lines 11—1 annotation Sageret & Lecoq has found vars of Cucurb. will not cross promiscuously (References hardly bear out conclusion)
Page 174
lines 1—7 score
top-margin annotation cases of only few species in very close genera uniting, even species «which are» hard to specifically characterise.—
table annotation in dark pencil cases of very close species ‹which› or more exactly, species having th same habitus which will not unite.—
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 5—1 score
⇑line 5 underline "Lychnis ... cuculi"
bottom-margin annotation cases of species having very different habitus which do unite, chiefly from Herbert, except Derby
Page 175
[continuation] 1—8 score
line 9 at "transsylvanica" annotation Köelreuter
⇑lines 14—10 score
⇑lines 14—8 annotation So Koelreuter shows, that propinquity does not go with power of hybridising
⇑lines 7—1 score
⇑lines 7—1 annotation other examples of the same law
Page 176
lines 11—14 score in dark pencil
lines 11—14 annotation in dark pencil so says Morton of Beasts
lines 15—20 score
lines 14—22 annotation The non-success of reciprocal impregnation clearest proofs that hybridisation not ‹p› result of affinity.
⇑line 13 at "♀" annotation ♂
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 10—9 score
⇑lines 11—3 annotation cases of non-reciprocal fructification.
Page 177
in pale pencil
line 2 at "Langsdorfii"
top-margin annotation cannot be fructified by the 4 named sorts, though it can fructify them & some easily.
lines 10—20 score
lines 10—20 annotation even when mutual crossing does take place in closely allied species, yet facility not alike (this is new)
line 21 underline "Tropaeolum ... minus"
lines 21—22 score
lines 21—27 annotation closely allied, yet unite with difficulty & will not be reciprocal.
Page 178
top-margin annotation horizontally crossed || officinalis & acaulis not in Loudon.— p 721 officinalis = veris = Cowslip — I see it is barely possible without consultng Babington to know which is which
from Slip Attached 2, Side 1 annotation      (For p. 178)t01
     1. P. acaulis P. vulgaris.    Primrose. a speciest02
     2 P. elatior (calycantha)
     3 P. elatior (communis)    — — P. elatior.    Oxlip, true plant. a speciest03
     4 P. veris (officinalis)    — — P. veris.    Cowslip. — — a speciest04
     5 P. veris (officinalis) calycantha
     6 P. calycantha (elatior)
     N.B. in Nr 3. “communis” sometime in Bracket, sometimes not.—
        No ￭5. I presume must be some blunder of Printers
        No 6. ￭ Can these names have been reversed by Printer
t01 - `(For p. 178)' in pencil
t02 - `P. vulgaris ... species' not in Darwin's hand
t03 - `— — P. elatior ... species' not in Darwin's hand
t04 - `— — P. veris ... species' not in Darwin's hand
show subjects concepts
line 3 underline "officinalis"
line 3 annotation cowslip
line 3 at "elatior" annotation oxlip
line 4 underline "acaulis"
line 4 annotation primrose
top-margin—line 3 annotation x----(Q)
top-margin—line 8 annotation /Most important
     on Babington's authority see Table
top-margin annotation Here are vars ,which will not unite
from Slip Attached 2, Side 1 annotation      (For p. 178)t01
     1. P. acaulis P. vulgaris.    Primrose. a speciest02
     2 P. elatior (calycantha)
     3 P. elatior (communis)    — — P. elatior.    Oxlip, true plant. a speciest03
     4 P. veris (officinalis)    — — P. veris.    Cowslip. — — a speciest04
     5 P. veris (officinalis) calycantha
     6 P. calycantha (elatior)
     N.B. in Nr 3. “communis” sometime in Bracket, sometimes not.—
        No ￭5. I presume must be some blunder of Printers
        No 6. ￭ Can these names have been reversed by Printer
t01 - `(For p. 178)' in pencil
t02 - `P. vulgaris ... species' not in Darwin's hand
t03 - `— — P. elatior ... species' not in Darwin's hand
t04 - `— — P. veris ... species' not in Darwin's hand
lines 4—9 score
lines 4—8 annotation cancelled Converse of these very difficult
lines 10—14 score in dark pencil
lines 10—12 score
lines 13—14 score
lines 11—16 annotation in dark pencil very different in Habit, yet unite easily.—
Page 179
lines 7—12 score
line 10 underline "Cereus"
line 11 underline "schon längst"
line 11 underline "Cereus"
line 8 annotation Herbert
lines 13—19 annotation Cactus or Cereus Melocactus Echinocac, Echinos, Phylocactus
line 20 underline "H. Neubert"
lines 21—22 underline "Cereus ... Ottonis"
line 24 underline "flagelliformis"
lines 24—25 underline "speciosissimus ... phyllanthus"
line 25 underline "grandifloris"
lines 27—28 underline "Echinocactus ... Phlylocactus"
lines 24—28 annotation Neubert has succeeded in these crosses
Page 180
lines 3—6 score
lines 2—7 annotation Mongrels sport, & he has seen same thing Cucurb:
show subjects subjects
⇑lines 18—15 score
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 12—8 annotation in dark pencil Flowers vry unlike yet cross
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 3—1 score in dark pencil
⇑lines 5—1 annotation in dark pencil Colours of Verbscm
Page 181
[continuation] 1—5 score in dark pencil
⇑lines 10—9 score
⇑line 9 underline "Anagallis ... mehrfältigen"
Page 182
lines 9—13 score
lines 9—13 annotation These succeeded with G. having failed with Koel:
⇑lines 10—2 score
⇑lines 10—5 annotation shape of pistil no effect in hybridising
Page 183
⇑lines 7—3 score
⇑lines 7—3 annotation size of pollen no effect
Page 184
⇑lines 6—5 score [`bookmark']
Page 185
⇑line 7 at "grellen " annotation distinct
⇑line 6 at "enthalten" annotation contain
⇑line 2 at "beiträgt" annotation contribute
Page 186
lines 6—8 score
top-margin—line 10 annotation cause of Hybridising a vital action & allows that the sexual relations is mere word
line 15 at "Leitfaden" annotation leading-line
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 16—15 double score
⇑lines 17—16 underline "sondern ... beide"
⇑lines 12—1 score in pale pencil
⇑lines 22—3 annotation Summary but nothing new
Page 187
[continuation] 1—14 score in pale pencil
top-margin—line 13 annotation Summary but nothing new
⇑lines 16—8 score
⇑lines 16—8 annotation cases where fructification has taken place, once after repeated failures.—
Page 188
line 10 at "giftige" annotation poison
lines 6—14 score
lines 6—14 annotation cases of plants differing chemically , compares this with difference in their sexual affinity .
line 15 at "Wahlverwandtschaft" annotation in dark pencil "elective affinity"
Page 189
lines 13—20 score
lines 13—20 annotation The closer or less close affinity. is shown by action of pollen on stigma & corolla.—
⇑lines 10—7 score
⇑lines 10—7 annotation a chain of graduated affinities
Page 191
lines 10—12 score
lines 10—14 annotation cancelled Yet in table does not put K. but i a /
lines 15—17 score
lines 15—17 annotation reverses with fewer seeds
Page 194
lines 3—13 score
line 4 at "Begriff" annotation idea
line 7 underline "Wahlverwandtschaft"
line 7 annotation “elective affinity”
top-margin annotation Fertility of Hybrid , ‹depe› is in even less reation [ie `relation'] to affinity of parents than facility of first ‹concours› «union or hybrid-fructification.» . It seems no relation between ease of getting 1st hybrid & this hybrids fertility . This is case with the common Mule.—
show subjects subjects
lines 11—16 score
line 11 underline "manche"
line 12 underline "leicht"
line 16 underline "sexuell ... verwandt"
line 16 underline "49"
line 18 underline " waren ... fruchtbar"
lines 9—16 annotation in dark pencil many plants easily cross, whose hybrids are quite sterile
line 18 at "Kölreuter" annotation (a)
⇑lines 14—13 score
⇑lines 15—10 annotation and fertility of similar Hybrids very variable
⇑line 12 at "Wahlverwandtschaft" annotation ‹sexual› elective affin
table annotation Hyb. fruct. of great difficulty
bottom-margin annotation I think Verbascum is case in point.
Page 195
⇑line 15 underline "80 ... 120"
⇑lines 17—14 annotation seeds in pure ‹[illegible word]› parent cross
show subjects subjects
⇑line 12 underline "paar ... Samen" /⇑lines 13—9 annotation numbers of seed ‹in [illegible words]› «Hyb. fruct:» when crossed.
show subjects subjects
⇑line 10 underline "151"
⇑line 9 underline "29"
bottom-margin annotation ⧟ numbers of seeds in reciprocalt01 Hyb. frucctification.
t01 - underlined in brown ink
bottom-margin annotation (hybrd-fruct. best expression)
     (pure. fructification)
Page 196
top-margin annotation ☞ (Bad simile) We might as well as deny that th different «substances»t01 were really different, because thy had no “elective affinity” «(I use word of Gärtner)» t02 whereas other two had strng elective affinity & wd. unite & make a third. —
t01 - `substances' in dark pencil
t02 - `« (I use ... Gärtner)» ' in dark pencil
line 4 annotation («sexual» non-reciprocity) of th “elective-affinity”.—
Page 197
lines 1—4 score
lines 6—8 score
top-margin annotation The reciprocity of sexual alliance is not only different in strength, but is often entirely deficient
lines 12—24 score
lines 12—24 annotation cases of slight unequal reciprocity in very closely allied speces, some even thought to be varieties.
⇑lines 4—1 score
⇑lines 4—1 annotation cases of more unequal reciprcity
Page 198
⇑lines 10—1 annotation cases of sexual non-reciprocity
Page 199
line 4 at "versagte" annotation refused
lines 14—15 underline "Nicotiana langsdorfii"
lines 13—14 annotation most striking example
⇑line 13 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation (a) Special potency of pollen to impregnate other species of genus occur in Verbascum nigrum & Geum ‹cocciner› coccineum
Page 200
lines 2—5 score
top-margin annotation In cases of entire sterility of one side of th reciprocal union, th other side generally only slightly fertile.—
Page 201
lines 8—12 score in pale pencil
lines 7—9 annotation (z)→
top-margin annotation (z) || The absence of perfect reciprocity even in nearly related species, shows that male & female power of union do not go together : but this difference of male & female has no effect on th Hybrid offspring
Page 202
⇑line 16—bottom-margin annotation Hybrid A + b, crossed with pollen of C, hybrid is always like C. Repeated on p. 273, & speculates, but does not explain says vital force of Hybrid is subordinated to the pure species.—
Page 203
lines 8—12 score
lines 10—11 annotation (a)
⇑lines 7—5 annotation do →t01
top-margin annotation (a) N. rustica will not unite with N. glutinosa, but hybrid N. paniculata—rustica, will with glutinosa, & the character of rustica is seen in offspring:—
t01 - `→' in pale pencil
Page 205
lines 1—13 annotation as in Primula & Verbascum (?) But then question of what species are is begged —
show subjects subjects
line 15 underline "Kölreuter"
line 16 underline "hybride Befruchtung"
lines 14—17 annotation ‹Hybrid-fruct› «First cross» never bring so many seeds as nat. fruct.
⇑line 4 underline "jedem"
⇑line 4 annotation frm each
⇑lines 2—1 score
bottom-margin annotation Remarks that Herbert's Crinum was not growing in own climate — But he says evry ovule was impregnated.
Page 206
lines 2—4 score
line 4 underline "Calceolaria bemerkt"
top-margin o
⇑lines 12—5 annotation The number of seeds in Hybrid, though dependent on conditions does not pass certain maximum.
Page 207
lines 11—18 score
lines 14—15 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation (a)    Can judge of scale of elective affinity by number of seeds in hybrid-fruct—, as compared to normal fruct.
⇑line 16 underline "Schätzung" annotation valuing
⇑lines 13—1 score
⇑line 10 underline "nicht constant"
⇑lines 9—8 underline "doch ... gross"
⇑lines 2—1 underline "Mittel ... entwerfen"
bottom-margin annotation an average of seeds taken from a number good plant growing in open nature
Page 208
⇑lines 15—12 [
⇑lines 20—12 annotation seeds variable in colour & size
⇑lines 9—1 score
bottom-margin annotation as far I understand this ,properly to count good seed, all ought to be tried by germination & grwth , but then more elements of growth & death of seeds come into play .
Page 209
line 7 at "Vorschlag" annotation calculation
line 9 at "beabsichtigen" annotation have in view
lines 10—12 score
⇑lines 11—6 score
bottom-margin annotation on account of unfavourable conditions , we take maximum of seed of hybrid cross .
Page 210
lines 1—6 score
lines 1—6 annotation always requires repeated experiments.—
⇑lines 13—8 score
⇑lines 13—8 annotation only single instances of these unions.
Page 211
line 2 X [`bookmark']
lines 13—22 score
lines 13—22 annotation in wild Plants nmber of seeds do not differ so greatly as to cause much difficulty in estimatng numbers.
⇑lines 4—2 ]
⇑line 6—bottom-margin annotation There are ‹are› differncs in flowers of same plant in being impregnated by foreign pollen.—
Page 212
lines 8—10 score
lines 8—9 underline "dass öfters ... also"
lines 2—8 annotation as individuals differ in som respect, as last page, several must be experimented on—
lines 16—19 score
lines 16—19 annotation cases of individual plants wh. were femally sterile
⇑line 14—bottom-margin annotation As th difference between nature & artificial self-impregnation is never so great as in Hybrid fructification; he has taken wild plants as base of calculation, which seems to me to be an error.
⇑lines 4—3 underline "selbst ... käme"
bottom-margin annotation Effects of crossing every plant by self injurious.— see Beitrage p.366
Page 213
⇑line 14 double score [`bookmark']
⇑line 8 at "vermeiden" annotation avoid
Page 214
lines 2—⇑9 annotation Sexual affinity calculated by maximum of good seeds, till further experiment ever increase this maximum.
⇑lines 7—1 score
bottom-margin annotation experiments shd. be tried at different times on different plants.
Page 215
lines 5—7 score
line 5 underline "vollkommensten"
line 5 annotation (a)
line 14 underline "keimungsfähigen"
top-margin annotation (a) Take average of number of seeds «capable of germination» under normal circmstances as the standard for comparison of best fruits
⇑lines 14—12 apparently unintentional mark in brown ink
⇑lines 6—1 score
⇑line 4 underline "20 Versuchen"
bottom-margin annotation in dark pencil Very important, if this smaller number be not due to ‹Art› «art» used in the fructification.
Page 216
table at "polline" annotation naturally ‹f› impregnated
table annotation in dark pencil Scale of sexual elective affinity, inferred frm maximum seeds from hybrid-fruct, not from Hybrids themselves.
show subjects subjects
table underline "0,6224"
show subjects concepts
Page 217
table underline "0,6666"
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 9—3 score
⇑lines 8—7 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation (a) «Gärtner» thinks that these tables of affinity show that pure species are aboriginally formed stabile.— It is contradicted absolutely by his vars.t01
t01 - `It is ... vars.' in pale pencil
Page 218
⇑line 1 at "Cucubalus" annotation ⧟ Here a genus more fertile than other species    777/1000
⇑line 1 at "Cucubalus" annotation Silene of Steudel /
Page 219
top-margin annotation cancelled 0011/10000
show subjects concepts
table 18—21 score
table 18—21 annotation 3 genera before other species
Page 220
line 4 underline "Kreuzung"
line 4 annotation with G. & Kolreuter implies reciprocal fertilisation
⇑lines 3—1 score
bottom-margin annotation cases of non-reciprocal frutification .
Page 221
line 18 annotation Reciprocity holds good generally when hybrid is intermediate in character.
lines 21—24 score
lines 21—22 annotation Reciprocal case
⇑lines 3—1 score
⇑lines 3—2 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation But when hybrid takes after mother or father type , then reciprocity will not take place. — (This seems vry curious)
Page 222
line 4 annotation Mother type
lines 6—9 annotation (Father-type most numerous.)
⇑lines 14—11 score
⇑lines 13—12 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation I fancy , that th predominating power of one of 2 species , as shown in th hybrid — prevents reciprocity.— But there are exceptions .
show subjects subjects
⇑line 7 score [`bookmark']
Page 223
top-margin—line 24 annotation in dark pencil self & Köelr. find these reciprocal crosses exactly alike.
line 19 underline "allgemeine"
lines 19—24 annotation This is general rule, specially in wild plants, which are not varieties.
lines 22—23 underline "Abweichungen ... Farbe"
line 26 underline "Ausnahmstypen"
⇑line 10—bottom-margin annotation Difference frm Animals as Mule & Hinny . also hybrid animals differ in sam litter; but in animals all half domesticated.
show subjects subjects
Page 224
lines 4—7 unmarked
⇑lines 16—14 score
⇑line 14 underline "Differenz im Habitus"
top-margin—line 5 annotation in dark pencil Diff in animals & Plants owing to sexes separate in animals.
⇑line 10 score [`bookmark']
⇑lines 8—3 double score
⇑lines 7—6 annotation Hybrds varid
⇑lines 25—2 annotation In comparison of sexes we must suppose habitus the same, & form of parts direct result of sexual peculiarities. Whiskers in Man !!t01
t01 - `parts direct ... !!' in dark pencil
bottom-margin annotation in pale pencil Whiskers & Mane cannot be thus accounted for.
bottom-margin annotation No difference in Habitus of Plants, when sexes separate, (because I say do not struggle for female: so lower radiata.
show subjects subjects
Page 225
lines 8—12 score
lines 10—13 annotation exceptions to uniformity of reciprocal crosses
⇑lines 18—8 annotation Curious Exceptions in Genus Digitalis, not reciprocally alike
Page 227
lines 17—20 annotation slight variations in hybrids
Page 228
line 14 score [`bookmark']
Page 230
⇑lines 16—12 score
⇑lines 17—10 annotation Double flower raised from male or female
Page 231
lines 4—9 score
line 4 annotation a
top-margin annotation Differs from animals for sex no effect on Hybrids
lines 11—14 score
lines 12—13 annotation see to this
Page 232
in dark pencil
lines 14—18 score
lines 20—24 score
lines 12—24 annotation Form of hybrids stable in 1st generation → does not hold good with animals.
Page 233
lines 8—10 score
lines 8—10 annotation experimentised with wild plants
Page 234
line 18 underline "in der ersten"
line 10—bottom-margin annotation It is proved by long course of his & Köl's exprimnts that bastard even «in» 1st. generation frm same parents are always alike; & return in constant course to either parent, when repeatedly crossed with such. → (a) Thinks this evidence of permanence of species; but I do not see more than ordinary generation keeping true; perhaps tests the trueness in another way: but a plant does not vary in first generation, when put out of normal conditions.
⇑lines 13—5 score
⇑lines 24—10 annotation (a) Notice this argumnt
Page 235
lines 5—7 score
line 6 at "Entstehung" annotation origin
line 6 annotation a
top-margin annotation (a) Hybrids unions therefore follow same law in first generation as the union of pure species.—
line 8 score [`bookmark']
lines 19—21 score
lines 19—21 underline "So ... erhalten"
lines 9—21 annotation Thinks the few exceptions to the normal structure of hybrids is due to variation (a)
bottom-margin annotation (a) Rather hard, it seems to me to draw distinction; but Gaertner (z) urges the resemblance of Hybrids made at same time & after long intervals from same pure parents.
⇑lines 12—5 score
⇑lines 10—9 annotation (z)
Page 236
in dark pencil
lines 10—11 score
lines 8—14 annotation The normal Hybrid type keeps constant in succeeding generations only in the most fertile hybrids, generally.
Page 237
line 1 at "Ausnahmstypen" annotation Exceptional
line 9 underline "einzelne ... Bildung"
line 11 underline " sehr ... einem"
line 12 underline "doch ... mehreren"
lines 6—14 annotation very rarely sometimes single sports in a set of normal hybrids out of same fruit; &
Page 238
line 2 score
line 2 underline "Digitalis, Lobelia"
top-margin annotation only genera in which these exceptional types have been observed: (z) These exceptional types from same species always resemble each-other.!!
lines 12—15 score
lines 11—14 annotation (z) →
⇑lines 12—7 score
⇑line 13—bottom-margin annotation on two years a peculiar yellow var, so unlike as might be thought a different kind.— The mother type prevailing
Page 239
lines 12—17 annotation From this cross obtained common normal & abnormal type.
Page 240
lines 5—8 annotation in dark pencil one specimn of abnormal type.
bottom-margin annotation I observe that these abnormal types often take after one parent.
Page 242
lines 2—5 score
top-margin—line 1 annotation 2 plants of Passiflora differed from each other .
Page 243
lines 6—8 score
lines 15—17 →
lines 6—12 annotation neither father nor mother exclusive influence on abnormal types but depends on likeness to one or other.
lines 19—22 score
lines 19—22 annotation These abnormal are not vague, but fixed productions.
⇑lines 7—1 score
⇑lines 7—1 annotation similar unlikenesses occur in these several cases
Page 244
line 11 score [`bookmark']
lines 16—23 annotation ☞ abnormal types generally quite sterile; (this very curious)
⇑line 7 at "Impfung" annotation inoculation
⇑lines 9—4 annotation compares these abnormal types to atavism
⇑line 4 at "Gleichgewicht" annotation equilibrium
Page 245
lines 11—15 annotation In abnormal types like both parents but most like one.
Page 246
line 2 at "wankend" annotation staggering
Page 247
⇑lines 10—7 score
⇑lines 9—7 double score
⇑lines 9—7 underline "Mathiola ... officinalis"
⇑lines 16—6 annotation (a)    These varieties seldom repeat each other.
     They occur chiefly in such species as are so closely allied, as to be held mere varieties
bottom-margin annotation The irregularity of reappearance, & slightness of differences, seem only distinct differences with his abnormal Hybrids of the previous chapters.—
Page 249
lines 12—16 double score
line 13 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation (a) The abnormalities in Hybrids has observed only in plants, long cultivated in gardens, & not in wild plants; but I remember that only one side wild in Kölreuter is sufficient
Page 250
⇑line 11 at "fügt" annotation adds
⇑line 6 underline "Räthselhaftes" annotation emigma
Page 251
lines 20—25 annotation ‹generally› «not seldom» in Hybrids one side «or species—» prevails over other; & this prevailing is not accidental but is constant.
⇑line 3 score [`bookmark']
Page 252
⇑lines 4—1 score in pale pencil
⇑lines 3—1 →
bottom-margin annotation most difficult which of two parent-forms a hybrid comes nearest to
Page 255
lines 3—7 score in dark pencil
top-margin annotation in dark pencil Does not believe that Hybrids are ever unlike both parents
line 20 score [`bookmark']
Page 256
⇑lines 20—15 score
⇑lines 14—12 score
⇑lines 15—14 underline "paniculato-vincaeflora"
⇑lines 20—12 annotation cases where one side in Hybrid preponderates.
     strongest instanc
⇑lines 7—6 score
⇑lines 7—6 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation (a) N. paniculata is «almost» lost in N. paniculato-vincaeflora, whereas in N. quadrivalvi-vincaeflora , vincaeflora is almost lost.—
Page 257
lines 5—7 score
lines 5—7 annotation Father type in this mixture prevail
lines 13—16 annotation seldom in Hybrid, two parents of equal force.
Page 258
line 1 at "indem" annotation whilst
lines 5—7 score
line 6 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation (a) When two hybrids «‹but not when two pure plants›» unite, & ‹one› «offsprng» takes almost exclusively after ones side, hybrid is sterile.
line 11 underline "Lychnis flos cuculi"
lines 11—12 underline "Cucubalus behen"
lines 14—18 score
lines 14—18 annotation cancelled one specn took most closely after father ; was fertile.
Page 259
lines 13—16 score
lines 13—16 annotation Hybrids generally higher than pure; ‹no› seldomer dwarfed.
Page 261
lines 4—5 score
lines 4—5 annotation Hybrid Verbascum generally woolly in Pots.
Page 262
⇑lines 14—1 annotation odd that this hybrid no rudiment of stamen, considrng structure of both parents.
⇑line 9 score [`bookmark']
⇑lines 5—3 score
⇑line 4 annotation B
bottom-margin annotation (B—) Female organ «generally» shows no signs of imperfection even when perfectly sterile.
Page 264
⇑lines 10—8 score
⇑lines 10—9 underline in pale pencil "Externa ... similia"
Page 265
line 9 underline "Thiervarietäten"
lines 19—21 score
bottom-margin annotation The entire differences, of different authors in ascribing more or less to Father or Mother shows that no real rule.
Page 266
⇑lines 14—11 score
⇑lines 14—13 annotation “    ”
⇑line 12 underline "pater major"
⇑lines 14—11 annotation seems pretty true
Page 268
⇑lines 17—11 annotation in Plants neither father or mother has exclusive influence
Page 269
⇑line 12 score [`bookmark']
Page 273
line 3 score [`bookmark']
line 5 underline "oben ... 202"
lines 1—24 annotation See in Kolreuter whether vars. with a species give vry similar Hybrids —
line 19 at "Specifische" annotation (a)
lines 19—20 underline "Specifische ... reinen"
line 20 underline "deutlicher"
bottom-margin annotation (a) [On Datura see my Abstract of Kolreuter p. 8]Bis]
     I see no reason why varieties shd not equally show this distinctness [corrected from `distinction'] in same way . Does not Ancon Sheep impress offsprng vry remarkably ??
line 23 underline "Stramonium ... Tatula"
line 26 underline "ganz ... Bastarde"
lines 22—26 score
lines 22—26 annotation different species because Hybrids different
⇑lines 11—9 underline "magnifolia ... pumila"
⇑line 11 at "macrophylla" annotation Loudon mak distinct
⇑line 9 at "asiatica" annotation and these vars. of rustica
⇑line 9 at "humilis" annotation not in Loudon
⇑lines 12—8 score
⇑lines 12—8 annotation These with N. glutinosa give ‹vry› «quite» similar product & therefore considers them vars.
     / accordingly th several vars of dogs ought to produce similar Hybrids with wolf
⇑lines 3—2 double score
⇑lines 3—2 annotation I do not understand
Page 274
lines 11—15 annotation External conditions no special influence on character of Hybrids.
⇑line 12 score [`bookmark']
Page 275
lines 4—8 annotation Hybrid Dianthus more stabile than other genera —
line 12 underline in pale pencil "Caryophyllus ... simpl"
lines 10—12 annotation ‹Varieties› Mongrels follow different laws to Hybrids /
lines 13—16 annotation Digitalis .peculiar. in its sporting, & exceptional.
⇑lines 17—15 score
⇑lines 17—15 annotation G
bottom-margin annotation G Thinks the by far greater number of normal to abnormal Hybrid types opposed to their resulting from external circumstances.
⇑lines 7—6 score
⇑lines 8—6 annotation In embryo-plant no alteration in Hybrid from mother
     embryo of mother
Page 276
lines 1—3 unmarked
top-margin annotation In Hybrids, form of the cotyledons affected
Page 277
line 11 at "auszuweichen" annotation evade
lines 12—19 score
line 15 annotation differ
⇑line 15 annotation gemischte
whole-margin annotation I think children of pure parents, thus go after either one or other or intermediate but as he says for Hybrids ‹are› «how» difficult to judge & compare
Page 279
⇑lines 17—10 annotation Exactly intermediate in number of segmnts of Pistil; & in sterility of stamens
⇑line 7 at "ruber" annotation of same parents
show subjects concepts
Page 280
lines 2—4 score
line 7 score
top-margin annotation In the cross Lychnis quite prevails over Silene, so that Hybrid is like var. of the Lychnis
Page 281
table annotation Really intermediate Hybrids
     Kölreuter thought very too many intermediate
⇑lines 9—4 score
⇑line 9—bottom-margin annotation most difficult to settle whether plant mosly like Father or Mother
Page 282
lines 2—5 score
top-margin annotation commonest in close species
line 19 at "Gemengte" annotation Where one part more resembles, (but is never identical with) Father, another the Mother; this part this, that part that &c —
Page 283
lines 9—15 annotation This gemengte character constant in those species, where it occurs.
⇑lines 16—1 score
Page 284
line 3 annotation sterile
show subjects concepts
line 14 O
show subjects concepts
lines 20—21 underline "grandiflora ... wird"
line 18 annotation sterile
⇑line 15 O
⇑line 13 O
⇑lines 10—9 O
⇑lines 7—6 O
Page 285
line 14 at "Decidirte" annotation When a hybrid most strongly resembles either parent
line 14 annotation Puts strongly how these 3 classes blend into each other..
⇑line 1 underline "decidirt ... mütterlich"
bottom-margin annotation ‹See in› These terms used when th two have been crossed not reciprocally — Relativ-vaterlich &c used, when thy do cross reciprocally & take after th father in cross specified.—
Page 286
lines 10—15 score in pale pencil
lines 9—17 annotation No relation ‹of› «in» closer resemblance to Father or mother to fertility of Hybrid.
lines 15—17 score
lines 15—23 annotation reciprocal crosses take place ‹when› «thogh» the offsprng take decidedly after one parent.
line 20 at "syphilitica" annotation } Decided types generally sterile,— but not always as in Lobelia
⇑line 4 annotation strongest example
⇑lines 3—1 score
bottom-margin annotation ‹What are› These Hybrids , ‹I presume› «are a» cross of Hybrid ‹& pure, &› «& a» third species — How is it «called» when two Hybrids cross ?t01
t01 - `How is ... ?' cancelled
Page 287
line 6 score
line 6 annotation / X—strongest case
Page 288
lines 5—9 annotation some ‹are› «exceptional types» come into this class.
Page 289
line 4 score
line 4 annotation a
top-margin annotation Perhaps gemengte (or 2d class) the commonest p. 282.—
⇑line 9 score
⇑lines 8—7 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation (a) So there are species of genus which a prepotent ‹fructifyng› «fertilsng» power on other species ; so others have predominatng influence on structure of Hybrids; but these two are not connected
Page 290
lines 4—10 score
line 5 underline "Gattungstypen"
lines 4—25 annotation These kinds specially influence structure of Hybrids of other species, as →
     These are generally vry distinct species.— Even these are sometimes overborne by other species; or rather there is a series of these gattungs-typen.
Page 291
lines 1—2 score
top-margin annotation Even in th mixed types , one part now resembles one parent , now another part the other parent. —
Page 292
lines 10—17 score in pale pencil
line 10 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation No relation between facility with which A will impregnate B or be [corrected from `being'] impregnated by it, in different cases, & th resemblance of hybrid to th parent.—
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 3—1 score
bottom-margin annotation This seems a Lamarkian
from End Note annotation Treviranus «p 292» ought to be read .    He seems a Lamarckian.
Page 293
[continuation] 1 at "Kreislauf" annotation circulation
⇑line 10 score [`bookmark']
Page 295
lines 1—3 score
line 2 annotation a
lines 7—9 score
line 8 annotation a
top-margin annotation ‹The› Always something new in appearance of Hybrids; but not absolutely new, but appear so from odd unions & opposition of parent forms .
line 17 underline "Mirabilis"
line 17 annotation } cases of in
lines 17—20 annotation N.B Both sporting genera
Page 296
⇑lines 18—11 score
⇑lines 18—11 annotation Day sleep of Lychnis blended ‹with› & modified
Page 297
line 22 score
lines 15—21 annotation power of reproduction by shoots &c Much exceeds that of pure parent
Page 298
⇑line 8 underline "Morton"
⇑lines 8—3 annotation Dogs vary from lines 10—6 nipples; thinks owing to crosses
Page 301
⇑line 19 score
⇑lines 17—12 annotation Colour variable often, in crosses & unexpected
Page 302
lines 13—20 annotation Variations in colour in Hybrids
Page 303
lines 13—18 score
lines 13—20 annotation flowers do not take after Mother or Father in colour.—
[continues overleaf] ⇑2 underline "Dianthus"
⇑line 5—bottom-margin annotation Some simple Hybrids retain in successive generations their colour, as in Dianthus &c.
     But generally (next Page) case very different; colour most variable
Page 304
[continuation] 2—5 score
lines 2—5 →
line 3 crossing-out "Aleca"
line 3 annotation Hollyoc
lines 3—4 underline "Vinca ... coerulea"
top-margin annotation variation said to keep true.— Vinca rosea a stove Plant. Syring Lilac. p 743. The Book quoted probably cd not be consulted
lines 8—14 score
lines 8—14 annotation very variable colours in successive generations of Hybrids
lines 19—24 annotation complex Hybrids even more variable in colour.
⇑line 10 underline "der zusammengesetzten"
⇑lines 10—4 annotation ⧟ These hybrids take almost always colour of father .
Page 305
lines 1—2 underline "Lychnis diurna einen"
lines 4—5 underline "Mirabilis ... centifolia"
line 8 underline "drei verschiedenen"
top-margin annotation Sports
⇑line 14 underline "Achillea Millefolium"
⇑line 14 annotation Sport
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 12—7 apparently unintentional mark
Page 306
⇑line 10 score
⇑lines 9—7 score
⇑line 8 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation White flowers commoner here than more South.—
Page 307
lines 1—4 score
line 2 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation Important on account of ‹Verbascum› Kolreuter . Verbascum Lychnitis with white flowers ,rarely with yellow on sandy Places —
     ☞ (So Kolreuters case goes for nothing)
lines 8—12 score
lines 8—10 annotation seed from yellow gave chiefly white
lines 14—20 score
lines 12—19 annotation when crossed colours did not mix, but came pure yellow or white
show subjects subjects
lines 6—20 annotation See 3d Fortset .p. 35
show subjects concepts
Page 308
⇑lines 13—12 underline "gelbe ... Blume"
⇑lines 13—12 annotation vars.
Page 309
⇑lines 10—6 score
⇑lines 19—6 annotation In Henslows List
     considered as varieties: I am nearly sure has been experimented on.
top-margin—line 18 annotation Watson in Cybele «seems to» consider them distinct : says perhaps «or probably» 2 species both varying. Refer for experiments t Magazine of Nat Hist V. p.493. & VIII.634 & Phytologist 2.164
⇑line 6 score
⇑lines 10—6 annotation Ask Babington.—
Page 310
⇑lines 12—8 score
⇑lines 13—7 annotation colours changing during summer
Page 312
⇑line 15 crossing-out "phoeniceum"
⇑line 13 annotation purpurea
show subjects concepts
Page 313
lines 10—12 annotation Blue & Yellow seldom unite
lines 19—22 annotation curious ways colours unite.
Page 318
line 3 score [`bookmark']
Page 323
lines 5—8 score
line 6 underline "selbst"
line 6 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation (a) In Mongrel Maize «self-impregnated» seeds of two colours
from End Note annotation (322    Maize   )
show subjects subjects
Page 324
lines 4—17 annotation in 2d. generation of Hybrid Maize seeds variously coloured.
show subjects subjects
Page 325
⇑lines 8—5 score
bottom-margin annotation It is decided that seeds of Zea not affected immediately as in Pisum. Yet Next Page
Page 326
lines 15—17 score
line 16 underline "wie ... Pisum"
⇑lines 7—2 score
⇑lines 11—1 annotation The Peas in second or hybrid generation varied in colour independently of immediate action of Pollen.—
show subjects subjects
Page 329
⇑lines 9—7 score
⇑line 8 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation (a) Hybrids are affected especially in male organs, with exceptions .
Page 332
lines 5—11 annotation anthers & pollen in appearance sometimes good yet hybrid quite sterile
Page 333
⇑lines 9—1 score
⇑lines 9—4 score
⇑line 9 underline "Liliaceen"
⇑line 9 annotation often mentioned
⇑line 8 underline "und ... Gewächsen"
⇑line 14—bottom-margin annotation In these plants, pollen, thogh in appearance good ,yet no impregnation follows ‹[ may be fault of female organs ? C.D]› pollen though swells, does not burst, in water, yet admits it may be owing to female organs , or structure of roots
Page 334
lines 10—18 score
line 12 at "(10)" annotation ⧟ p 745 Duvrny
line 18 score
top-margin—line 18 annotation But in cases, where plant can be impregnated by other individuals or species, we can infer pollen is bad.
⇑lines 12—10 score
⇑lines 13—9 annotation In most fruitful hybrids, pollen is unequally developed.—
Page 336
lines 6—9 annotation The contents of pollen grains commonly fails.
⇑lines 6—2 annotation seldom give out contents when placed in water
Page 339
lines 2—7 score
lines 2—7 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation (a) In this hybrid M. jalapo-longiflora, own pollen more powerful than own concepcion power.—
Page 340
lines 17—20 score
lines 16—20 annotation in Hybrid Birds no spermatozoa
⇑line 7—bottom-margin annotation thinks in animals as in plants, male organs more deficient than female.
⇑line 5 at "(29)" annotation 28 ?
show subjects concepts
Page 344
lines 14—16 score
lines 22—24 score
lines 13—28 annotation even in most fruitful hybrids normal number of seeds never produced & always mingled with bad ones.
     compares this fact to result of Hybrid fructifications.
Page 346
lines 7—10 annotation Kolreuter failed in this Reversed experiment
Page 347
⇑line 14 score
Page 348
line 19 score [`bookmark']
Page 350
⇑lines 6—4 score
⇑lines 7—5 underline "dass ... vermögen"
Page 353
lines 8—13 score
lines 8—13 annotation Power of fructification in Hybrids always weakened
lines 17—22 score in pale pencil
bottom-margin annotation Speaks of bisexuality of quite exceptional in vegetable Kingdom—
Page 355
lines 10—15 score
line 12 annotation a
top-margin annotation (a) insists male organs more & earlier affected in Hybrids than female .
Page 356
line 17 underline "Dianthus japonicus"
lines 15—19 annotation case of pure species with female organs impotent while male perfect
line 22 underline "Passiflora coerulea"
line 22 annotation so Passiflora
⇑lines 9—8 underline "freien ... Langsdorfii"
⇑lines 9—8 annotation so this
⇑lines 2—1 score
bottom-margin annotation On other side pollen fails, yet female organ quite perfect & potent; in some Dianthus, this happened only with individuals plants.—
show subjects subjects
Page 357
⇑lines 22—4 score
lines 2—⇑4 annotation The wonderful cases, where in Lobelia, Verbascum & Zephyranthes, pollen wd «not» impregnate own stigma, but wd. impregnate other species; these ‹pol› stigmas being also impregnated by pollen of other species
⇑line 8 crossing-out "9"
⇑line 8 annotation 8/
⇑line 7 crossing-out "10"
⇑line 7 annotation 9/
show subjects concepts
Page 358
lines 1—4 score
line 3 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation The foregoing cases seem chiefly in plants brought from a warmer climate.—
lines 5—9 score
lines 5—9 annotation Such anomalies much plainer in Hybrids
line 14 underline "I ... Sterilität"
lines 14—20 annotation Hybrids 3 forms of sterility
     cases of I.
Page 359
line 1 underline "rustico"
lines 1—5 annotation case in single individual of the Hybrid
⇑lines 20—1 annotation Gaertner has gret advantage that th sexual organs certainly are weakend, as prvding so few seeds
⇑lines 7—3 score
⇑lines 6—5 annotation (B)
bottom-margin annotation (B). Puts this under category, that male less potent than female in each case ; but surely Herberts is more true , viz advantage of crossing. — See to Herbert:—
⇑line 2 underline "Weiblicher ... mit"
⇑line 1 underline "viel häufiger"
⇑lines 2—1 annotation (much more frequent)
Page 360
line 4 underline "III"
line 4 annotation (B)
top-margin annotation (B) In this III. pollen of Hybrid wd not act on self, but on both parents; & pollen of latter impregnated Hybrid. accounts for this (not as I shd. by advantage of crossing ,& which I still think must hold in Herbert's case), but by believng (& it is probable) that both male & female organs weakened , & cd not act on each other , but only pure parents, or even th Nicotiana on a 3d. species.
lines 4—8 annotation (Is there any parallel III case in pure species? ?)
lines 10—25 annotation These [I, II. & III] cases in Hybrids wonderful parallels to what happens in joining pure species.!!!
Page 361
lines 1—5 score
line 3 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation (a)    Reurges male organs fail first & most in Hybrids
lines 17—20 score
line 21 score
lines 16—20 annotation says «above» ‹again› analogous with animals
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 13—9 score in pale pencil
⇑lines 13—11 annotation in pale pencil (B)
⇑lines 8—2 score in pale pencil
bottom-margin annotation (B) In dioecious plants not hybrids , in females, male organs sometims imperfectly developed , yet can fertilise ; but in male rudiment of pistil never acquires power of conception.
Page 362
top-margin—line 25 annotation In L. Vespertina, ‹th› in female flower, the rudiments of stamens much smaller than in L. diurna, & consequently only in latter are ‹tr› anthers sometimes found. }
     Does not this well show that a rudiment has something essential & real in it —
     Very Good We can prove Mammae in Male to be a reality.— Wings in insects & Here we can prove in anothr way. Gaertner somewher suggest in Carrot to cut off th fertile flower early & see whether other flowers wd. become fertile . At p 345 «& p. 330» long description of crosses of Dioecious plants
     study it all.— /
⇑lines 14—5 annotation (z)
     Similar changes take place easier in Monooecious than in Dioecious
Page 363
line 15 annotation XX
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 12—8 annotation In doubling male organs always change first
bottom-margin annotation Reasons why male organs more affected than female; reasons quite worthless.— May it not have some relation to Falconers Law of external parts first affected
show subjects subjects
Page 364
lines 1—6 score
lines 3—4 →
top-margin annotation accounts for Hybrid breeding «easier» with parents , than with ‹sef› self by own pollen having less strength; so in cases as below (zz)
⇑lines 8—6 score
⇑line 8 underline "rusticolanceolato-rustica"
⇑line 7 underline "der paniculata"
⇑lines 8—6 annotation (zz)
⇑lines 5—1 score in pale pencil
⇑line 5 at "333" annotation 357
⇑line 5 underline "Lobelia fulgens"
bottom-margin annotation I cannot see how his explanation holds good, for the pollen of L. fulgens (s. 64) did impregnate two othr pure species .
Page 365
lines 8—13 score
line 13 underline "wie ... hat"
line 13 annotation !
line 10 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation (a) says much experience has shown him that Hybrids, after ‹many› «lines 8—10» generations, have their procreative powers weaker & weaker; & hence cannot be prolonged.— (But then ‹almo› all crossing avoided.—)
line 4 score [`bookmark']
Page 366
line 2 annotation quite sterile
show subjects concepts
lines 11—15 annotation Some individuals of these Hybrids quite sterile.
⇑line 16—bottom-margin annotation Degree of fertility in most Hybrids, except the quite sterile, generally vry variable, even in Hybrids from same capsule & reared alike (This shows how innate, & is opposed [corrected from `composed'] to its being a character of species, as species.)—C.D
show subjects subjects
⇑lines 5—1 score ⇑lines 4—3 annotation P
bottom-margin annotation (P.) Hence different accounts by different authors, as follows,—
Page 367
lines 5—6 score in pale pencil
line 6 annotation A
top-margin annotation A) This unfixedness of fertility of Hybrids, their special character ,& not observed in pure species.—
lines 13—23 score in pale pencil
line 13 annotation (B)
bottom-margin annotation (B) «Some» Hybrids, produce only seed at end , or middle, or (generally) beginning of their flowering, & are at other times sterile.— This a peculiarity, confined (when so pronounced) to Hybrids.—
Page 368
⇑lines 10—7 (    )
⇑lines 8—7 annotation Does not believe
Page 369
lines 1—3 score
lines 1—2 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation Cases in pure Dioecious plants of changes in sexual relations
lines 7—12 score
lines 5—9 annotation Female sterility of D. Japonicus transmitted to offspring in Hybrids.
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 7—3 score
bottom-margin annotation Hybrid Plants which produce an extraordinary number of flowers & are quite sterile ; caused by sterility p. 372
Page 370
[continuation] 1—5 score
line 5 score
top-margin annotation Same thing sometimes occurs in pure species
Page 373
line 2 underline "eigenen"
lines 5—10 score in pale pencil
line 7 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation ⸮ In Hybrids crossed with either parent , & thus assuming fertility & th ancestral form , yet fertility variable in «such» individuals; in th successive generations.—
Page 377
line 13 underline "der ... Liliaceen"
line 13 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation (a) seems to attribute sterility of Liliaceous Plants to state of roots.—
show subjects subjects
⇑lines 5—2 score
⇑lines 5—1 score in dark pencil
⇑lines 5—1 annotation all sterile Cape of Good Hope Oxalis
Page 378
top-margin annotation My point that plants often sterile & yet not unhealthy not touched on. —
     G. gives only obvious cases of infertility.
lines 12—14 score
lines 12—17 annotation Hybrids in pots more fertile than in open ground.
lines 19—21 score
line 23 score
lines 18—23 annotation In fruitful years more birth from domestic animals
⇑line 9 at "Erschöpfung" annotation exhaustion
⇑lines 4—3 score
bottom-margin annotation More often cause of infertility on male than female side; as in Caryophyllea & Verbascum
Page 379
lines 13—15 score
lines 16—18 score
line 17 underline "manchen ... unseren"
lines 12—15 annotation cases where pollen good but female organ
lines 20—30 annotation often in Exotics, pollen & female organs are ready at different times, & so can be impregnated artificially ∗
bottom-margin annotation ∗ Would he say that C. Sprengel's facts were due to climatic influences?
⇑lines 10—7 score
⇑lines 10—7 annotation insects less important than wind !!
show subjects subjects
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 4—1 score
⇑lines 4—1 annotation Infertility through long cultivation by layers &c
Page 380
[continuation] 1 at "Trauben" annotation grape
lines 2—5 annotation disputed by Reichenbach
lines 10—30 annotation Case of wild Verbascums & in pots , with certain flowers sterile & certain fertile; cannot explain. like Kolreuters cases
Page 381
⇑lines 13—10 annotation Female mules in warm country breed.
⇑lines 7—5 score
⇑line 7 underline "erwähnt ... Crax"
⇑lines 4—2 annotation Black swan with white
Page 382
line 6 underline "männlichen"
lines 6—8 annotation Male Hybrid pheasant sterile
lines 15—19 score
lines 13—20 annotation Morton thinks relation between capacity of Hybridising & domestication
⇑line 5 underline "Fruchtbarkeit"
⇑line 5 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation (a) Fertility a fixed attribute of pure species «(in natural conditions C.D)» t01
     Mem. cases of moss not breeding, «(these are probably ‹diociu› Dioecious)»t02 in Hybrids a varying attribute.
t01 - `« (in natural ... C.D)» ' in pale pencil
t02 - `(these are ... Dioecious)' in pale pencil
Page 383
line 3 at "beschuldigt" annotation charged
line 3 at "Vorurtheil" annotation providence
line 7 underline "chinensi-barbatus"
lines 7—9 annotation fertile according to Kolreuter
Page 384
lines 12—14 underline "Bei ... Arten"
lines 15—18 score
line 16 underline "immer"
lines 16—18 score
lines 15—20 annotation In pure species artificial impregnation does not alway yield full nmber of seed
⇑lines 11—6 annotation in pale pencil I do not think G. had Green House he always speaks of Ximmer [ie `Zimmer']
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 7—5 score
bottom-margin annotation Hybrids always less seeds than pure parents , as in following examples.—
Page 385
top-margin annotation See in Beitrage p 598 Lychnis vespertino-diurna gave with own pollen 234 seed .
[continuation] 1 at "40" annotation (24)
line 3 underline "lines 220—280"
line 4 underline "lines 600—800"
lines 1—5 score
lines 1—5 annotation see to Kolreuter about Datura
lines 7—8 score
line 7 underline "192"
line 8 underline "210 ... Samen"
lines 7—11 annotation
⇑lines 7—2 score in pale pencil
⇑lines 6—5 annotation B
bottom-margin annotation (B) Great differences in «different individuals of » same Hybrids & in different years, in fertility striking. —
Page 386
line 2 score [`bookmark']
⇑lines 14—12 score
⇑line 12 underline "Oenothera ... weinigsten"
⇑lines 14—11 annotation Genera with most fruitful Hybrids
Page 387
line 1 underline "purpureo-lutea"
top-margin annotation Henschel says this fertile, but reverse quite sterile. See Henslow.
from End Note annotation (p. 387    Digitalis for comparison with Herbert)
lines 13—20 annotation No relation between fertility of pure parent & the facility of uniting, or with these Hybrids having fertility
⇑line 12 at "mithin" annotation consequntly
⇑line 9 at "Beurtheilung" annotation examination
Page 388
line 1 at "Mass" annotation proportion
lines 5—7 score
lines 5—7 [→
lines 5—10 annotation Hybrids nearly as fertile, but never quite , as pure parents. —
first table annotation The Reverses of these not equally fertile.
⇑line 18 annotation — (K) in Table
⇑line 15 annotation —(ξ G)
show subjects concepts
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 14—9 score
⇑lines 12—10 annotation Some great mistake
⇑lines 14—1 annotation — This not in list
     ←⧟ [to next page]
     not in list !!!
     as repeated at p. 402
     ⧟ (The table is probably wrong)
\7 underline "geringem"
⇑lines 7—1 annotation in little degree fertile, which is commonest case
Page 389
[continuation] 8—9 ⧟→ [from previous page]
⇑line 17 underline "Absolut unfruchtbare"
Page 390
lines 14—17 score in pale pencil
top-margin—line 17 annotation The «abve» numbers show ‹gre› that in Hybrids greater inclination for sterility than for fertility.
⇑lines 9—7 score
⇑lines 14—3 annotation Fertility so variable at different times ,& in different individual, that simple classes of fertile & infertile Hybrids will not do.
Page 391
lines 5—11 score in pale pencil
lines 5—13 annotation various striking cases of difference fertility , as found by different authors.
⇑line 14 underline "immer total"
⇑line 14 annotation (4) (B)
top-margin annotation (B) Here are 4 cases, in which other authors found fertility whereas Gaertner finds great sterility: was he bad Gardener?
line 8 at "fruchtbar" annotation (1)
line 8 underline "unseren"
line 9 underline "total steril" 11 underline "bei uns"
line 11 annotation (2)
line 11 underline "unfruchtbar"
line 13 underline "bei ... total"
lines 14—19 score
lines 15—19 annotation one year so fertile as to self sow, in next year very sterile.
⇑lines 6—3 score
⇑lines 5—4 annotation P
bottom-margin annotation (P). «Cases of» Hybrids out of same capsule , of different degrees of fertility & some quite sterile. —
Page 392
line 6 score
lines 6—15 annotation In the greater number of Hybrids sterility belongs more to the individual than to the kind; (ie some are or may be fertile)
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 14—3 annotation in same category stands fact (ξ) that Spring or first flower of Hybrids only bring seed generally.
Page 393
[continuation] 5 underline "ersten Früchte"
line 7 underline "40 Samen"
line 8 underline "lines 2—3"
lines 7—9 annotation Examples of above laws ξ
⇑lines 11—9 score
⇑line 9 underline "mesit"
⇑line 9 annotation mostly
⇑lines 11—6 annotation In pure species the difference in nor. of seeds in early & late flowers inconsiderable
Page 394
line 7 score
lines 8—14 annotation Variability of Fertility cannot be accounted for by luxuriance
lines 17—20 annotation In pure species, when periodically infertile not very luxuriant.
⇑lines 4—3 score
bottom-margin annotation ⧟ (Fertility does not stand in inverse relation to their Luxuriance)
Page 395
lines 9—14 annotation Herberts' case of fertility after 16 years might be due to pollen of pure parent.
⇑line 6—bottom-margin annotation No art or ‹or› culture will alter or improve th organs of generation in Hybrids.
Page 396
line 10 at "Ableger" annotation in dark pencil layer
line 16 annotation in dark pencil ‹f›
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 4—1 score
⇑line 5 underline "Geum urbano"
⇑line 4 underline "fruchtbar ... unfruchtbar"
⇑lines 9—7 annotation in dark pencil Fertility does not go by genera .
Page 397
⇑line 9—top-margin annotation in dark pencil The inequality of fertility in hybrids from same junction, shows that fertility cannot depend on outwards circumstances
Page 398
lines 2—4 score
lines 2—10 annotation Hybrids in pots easier bear seed than in open land, because too much luxuriance thus checked. /
lines 11—17 annotation tried experiment to see effect of different culture &c & cd perceive none.—
Page 399
top-margin annotation ☞|| Certainly a priori, one wd. have expected a gradation in fertility of hybrids & old mongrels as Dogs
     In Gaertner Tables there is approach to this.
line 4 score [`bookmark']
⇑line 11 at "nach Maassgabe" annotation in proportion
Page 400
lines 3—13 annotation Contradicts Wiegman that maternal or paternal types fertile intermdiate sterile.
⇑line 13—top-margin annotation Chief conclusions
     (1) Unfixity of fertility in same hybrid. The varying form of th ‹[illegible word]› Hybrid in th abstract which can be divided into following classes.
Page 402
⇑line 2 score
⇑line 1 score
Page 403
lines 4—6 score
Page 404
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 2—1 underline "zusammengesetzten ... unfruchtbar"
Page 405
[continuation] 1 underline "Dianthus chinensi-caryophyllus X barbatus"
line 1 at "barbatus" annotation male
lines 5—7 score in pale pencil
line 6 annotation in pale pencil (a)
top-margin annotation a| Hence resemblance of Hybrids to either parent no marked influence on fertility.—
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 20—12 score
⇑line 20 annotation (B)
⇑lines 10—3 score
⇑lines 10—9 annotation Examples
⇑line 7 underline "256"
⇑line 5 underline "diesen ... Bastarde"
⇑line 4 underline "absolut unfruchtbar"
⇑line 3 annotation in pale pencil Examples
⇑lines 2—1 score
⇑line 1 underline "49"
bottom-margin annotation in pale pencil (B) These authors think law of relation between fertility of Hybrids & the affinity of parents ; but if we judge of latter by seeds yielded, there is no relation to fertility of Hybrids when reared from them
Page 406
[continuation] 2 underline "geringem ... fruchtbar"
lines 9—10 score
lines 9—11 score
line 11 double score
lines 8—15 annotation We conclude that fertility of hybrids stands in no near relation to ‹sexual› elective affinity of parents.—
line 25 annotation X
lines 16—19 annotation ⧟ (Yet strong exceptions on next page)
⇑lines 16—2 annotation When plants cross easily both ways, hybrids most commonly fertile. This fertility seems to depend on resemblance in Habitus of parents, but with exceptions
Page 407
lines 2—12 score in pale pencil
line 6 annotation in pale pencil (a)
line 10 underline "vespertino ... vespertina"
line 10 at "fruchtbarer" annotation yes for see p. 385.
top-margin annotation (a) In Hybrids frm reversed crosses , even when quite like each other , yet fertility not same , & in one case even on one side quite X sterile.
     ☞ Important as shows not in essence of Hybrids.—t01
t01 - `☞ Important ... Hybrids.—' in dark pencil
lines 13—16 score
lines 13—16 annotation Case where reverse cross easy, yet Hybrid sterile
⇑lines 6—2 score in pale pencil
⇑lines 5—4 annotation (B)
bottom-margin annotation (B)    From ‹power› «facility» of union cannot infer fertility of product
Page 408
lines 9—10 underline "systematische ... begünstige"
lines 8—13 annotation It seems that systematic affinity of Parents favours th fertility of Hybrids . see p. 410.
⇑lines 13—11 score
⇑lines 14—10 annotation Above law it seems has been discussed
⇑lines 7—1 score in pale pencil
⇑line 7—bottom-margin annotation see p. 414.    Hybrids from these have remarkalbe fertility & were considered by Kolreuter as varieties. ----
     When we consider these facts we might conclude that fertility of Hybrids indirect relation to affinity of parents
Page 409
[continues overleaf] 19 underline "er ... Jahre"
lines 24—26 score
top-margin—line 21 annotation But on other side «→ this other side seems most strong» many close species will not unite, & (2d). that some species will unite & produce more fertile hybrids than more closely allied species; examples.
Page 410
[continuation] 1 underline "Herbert"
lines 5—7 annotation Examples as before
line 12 ]    [ [`bookmark']
table annotation Examples of nearly related species, having hybrids quite sterile
⇑lines 8—4 annotation Most unlike dogs breed & produce fertile offspring.
show subjects subjects
⇑line 1 score
bottom-margin annotation Concludes that likeness «in Habitus» cannot be ground cause of fertility or sterility of Hybrids.
Page 411
line 12 underline "constitutionellen"
lines 12—15 annotation considers this an unknown element
⇑lines 8—5 score
bottom-margin annotation Repeats that as fertility varies «in Hybrids» from same parents, it belongs to th individual & not to th Kind
Page 412
lines 2—7 score
lines 8—11 score
top-margin annotation Even in quite sterile plants in both sexes, yet flowers remain longer when stigma dusted with pollen of either pure parent so in truth not utterly ste.rile
⇑lines 8—1 score
⇑line 9—bottom-margin annotation argues against the several explanations of Herbert of special cases of sterility
Page 413
lines 14—18 annotation not on account of evergreen & deciduous leaves.
Page 414
line 13 underline "Fruchtbarkeit ... Bastarde"
table annotation considered varieties by Kolreuter from fertility
⇑lines 18—13 annotation (O means not tried by Gaertner)
lines 15—16 at "Datura" annotation ia
lines 17—20 at "Hibiscus; Cheiranthus; Sida; Digitalis" annotation O
line 21 at "Malva" annotation ia
lines 22—23 at "Alcea; Linum" annotation O
⇑lines 7—6 at "Linum; Mirabilis" annotation O
line 15 annotation ?
line 17 annotation —?
line 18 annotation —vars
line 19 annotation — var.?
show subjects concepts
⇑line 13 annotation XX
bottom-margin annotation XX. V. My M.S. p. 19 on Kolreuter , showng that all Botanists agree in thinkng these only vars.
⇑lines 7—6 score
⇑lines 7—6 annotation horizontally crossed not tried
     not tried
⇑lines 9—4 annotation { These 2 are added, though Kolreuter cannot dare to call only vars.
⇑line 4 underline in dark pencil "parum vel"
Page 415
top-margin—line 10 annotation But as several of these are probably vars , it is vry important that G. says not so fertile as pure parents, for we get then a series
lines 3—8 at "Aquilegia; Datura; Lychnis; Lobelia" annotation ia
line 9 at "Matthiola" annotation (k)
line 10 at "Dianthus" annotation ib
line 11 at "Dianthus" annotation ig
line 9 annotation Bentham says var.
show subjects concepts
lines 12—14 multiple score
line 13 underline "ausgezeichneten"
lines 14—15 underline "niemals ... hervorbringen"
lines 3—12 annotation also highly fertile Hybrids
     but yet not so fertile, in any of above cases, as pure parents.
line 12 underline "allen diesen"
lines 13—22 annotation Yet he has not tried all Koelreuters must mean these last alone
⇑line 5 double score in pale pencil [`bookmark']
Page 417
lines 3—6 score
lines 4—5 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation (a) Agrees with Herberts constitutional doctrine (which I think means only some internal difference.
Page 418
⇑lines 12—9 score
⇑line 10 annotation a
⇑lines 5—2 score
bottom-margin annotation (a) The most fertile hybrids always lose fertility in successive generations.— Some sterilish plants if artificially fertilised increase in fertility
from End Note annotation p. 418    Ask Author
     There are facts on variation.—
Page 420
lines 13—19 score in pale pencil
lines 12—30 annotation In 2d & other generations of Hybrids, fertility becomes unstable & often less, so that even parent-pollen will then have little or no effect. This sterility , however, varies much in different individuals & depends especially on the individual
⇑lines 9—7 score
⇑line 8 annotation A
bottom-margin annotation (A) In Mongrels, fertility even greater in second generation, than in first. see further on; for this perhaps implies less fertility in crossing varieties.—
⇑lines 5—2 score
⇑line 1 at "büssen" annotation loose
⇑lines 6—2 annotation Fertility never greater in 2 generation, than in first.
Page 421
lines 2—4 score
line 3 annotation B
top-margin annotation (B) This decrease of fertility in second generation has been observed in less fertile Hybrids of Nicotiana, & fertile Dianthus hybrids, as in examples given. As this is only second generation cannot be due to want of crossing.—
lines 8—9 score
lines 8—10 annotation So in animals according to Morton
line 20 at "vervollkommnet" annotation perfected
lines 15—26 annotation sometimes fertility increased after repeated artificial impregnation in succeeding generation, but this plant has commonly gone back to either father or mother type
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 12—10 score
⇑line 11 annotation D
bottom-margin annotation (D) Many vry fertile hybrids propagate themselv, with unaltered type like pure species, as in list, but always with decreasing fertility .
⇑line 1 at "barbatus" annotation in pale pencil Kolreuter
Page 422
[continuation] 3—4 score
lines 6—13 score
lines 5—11 annotation In 2d & succeeding generations hybrids sport much ‹chiefly inflorescnc›
⇑lines 6—1 score in pale pencil
bottom-margin annotation some remain like hybrid others go back to either grandmother or grandfather
Page 423
lines 2—8 score
line 5 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation (a) The ‹manner› «manner» in which type divides, & goes back, varies much.—
line 13 underline "barbato-chinensis"
line 15 underline "chinensi-barbatus"
lines 13—16 annotation offspring of this varied    greatly &    more than from reverse
⇑lines 15—9 score
⇑lines 15—9 annotation Kolreuter compares these with hybrids crossed with pure parents.
Page 424
lines 15—21 score
lines 14—20 annotation The exceptional or abnormal hybrids, when fertile, generally produce normal hybrids.
⇑line 8 double score [`bookmark']
Page 425
line 12 underline "superbo-barbatus"
lines 12—16 score
lines 12—16 annotation with own pollen 4 seeds with pollen of D. barbatus 10. seeds.—
line 16 underline "29 gute"
line 17 underline "67 hervor"
lines 16—17 score
lines 16—23 annotation so again, & thus often.— & likewise so with very fertile hybrids.—
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 8—3 annotation & so with quite sterile hybrids, corolla remains longer when dusted with either parent pollen.—
Page 426
[continuation] 11—14 annotation examples as last page
⇑line 12—bottom-margin annotation When parent & hybrid pollen mixed, latter rendered quite ineffectual, so that no need to castrate; just like when foreign & own pollen applied to a plant, own eliminates quite effect of th foreign.— This Curious.
Page 427
lines 1—2 annotation (A)
top-margin annotation (A) Pollen of a third kind will sometimes produce more effect, than own hybrid pollen.
line 3 underline "Nicotiana ... gute"
line 5 underline "Langsdorfii"
lines 3—6 annotation 13 seeds with own pollen; langsdorfii 16 seeds.
line 18 at "Umwandelung" annotation transformation
Page 428
lines 15—19 score
lines 13—30 annotation The pollen of the two parents has no regard to their sexes in th effect thy produce, but that pollen, which has most power of metamorphosis or umwandelung, which will be discussed afterwards, I suppose that pollen which soonest converts hybrid into pure species, produces also most seeds in Hybrid.
⇑lines 18—7 score
⇑line 13 annotation A
bottom-margin annotation (A) Urges again variability of offsprng of self-impregnated hybrids.— So mongrels are.—
Page 429
line 1 at "Aufhebung" annotation abortion
lines 1—2 at "ordnungsmässigen Erzeugung" annotation regular generation
line 4 at "begünstigen" annotation favour
line 12 underline "aufsteigenden"
line 16 at "Anlass" annotation occasion
lines 17—18 underline "väterliche Bastarde"
lines 17—27 annotation Paternal Hybrids
     ----
     are offsprng of pollen of ‹twice used› same species twice
from Front Note 2 annotation in pale pencil p 429    Explanation of Koelreuter “auf-steigenden Grad” absteigended grad p. 451
⇑line 6 underline "2"
⇑line 6 at "atropurpureo" annotation ⧟
bottom-margin annotation If this ‹had› hybrid had been crossed with pollen of atro-purpura, it wd have been a “Muterliche Bastard” or “absteigenden” grade p. 451
Page 430
lines 1—8 annotation by Father pollen more seed generally raised than by Hybrids own pollen, but generally not so many as in first cross of pure parents
lines 15—17 score
line 14 underline "einfache"
line 17 double score
lines 15—17 annotation much unfixedness in this class of Hybrids
show subjects concepts
lines 18—30 annotation Like second generation of simple hybrids, these `Paternal Hybrids” vary much & differ much in fertility, out of same capsule. So vry different results from repeated experiments with same species.
Page 431
lines 1—3 score
line 9 at "Ergebnisse" annotation results
lines 1—13 annotation The more fruitful hybrids vary less, & go back more to paternal type, but have often reduced fertility, as,
     ----
     examples
⇑line 10 underline "schwächeren"
⇑line 10 annotation (?)
⇑lines 17—7 annotation When thy take less after paternal type & are mch less fruitful, so vary much., — generally under 3 types, in accordance with resemblanc to ancestors & parent.—
Page 432
lines 9—11 score
lines 10—11 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation Different species have different tendency to communicate their variability; old cultivated plants.
⇑lines 14—1 score in pale pencil
bottom-margin annotation In these cases th ‹Hybrids› type which normally approches to father or double pollen side is less fertile
Page 433
top-margin annotation I am not quite sure that these two pages are fully understood
show subjects concepts
lines 8—13 score
lines 8—13 annotation Here the type which came nearest father was most fertile.
line 17 at "unverkennbar" annotation unmistakable
lines 18—25 annotation all sorts of variability in type & fertility
⇑line 2 underline "Stammvater"
Page 434
line 2 score [`bookmark']
lines 16—20 score
lines 16—25 annotation It is clear that fertility does not always at all increase ‹with› «in» resemblance in succeeding generations, with ‹pa› ancestor
⇑line 12 underline "fünf"
⇑lines 16—12 annotation 5 different types out of this “paternal” hybrid
⇑lines 10—8 score
⇑lines 11—4 annotation Here case of coming near the paternal type with considerable fertility
Page 435
lines 12—16 score
lines 14—15 annotation A
top-margin annotation A Commonest rule «or appearance» in this stage of conversion ,is that th more th hybrids differ frm mother & approach th paternal type , th more thy suffer in fertility.— Thinks th revrse more probably really th law.
line 18 at "Macht" annotation power
⇑lines 12—6 annotation Female organs recover first their powers.—
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 4—1 score
bottom-margin annotation Fertility in this in «such as»
⇑line 1 underline "Nicotiana rustico-paniculata2"
bottom-margin annotation always vry variable
Page 436
[continuation] 4—8 annotation Examples of above variability in fertility
lines 10—30 annotation These “paternal” hybrids are when self impregnated, generally more fertile, than in former generation, & of themselves tend to approach the paternal type; ie even when self impregnated & are varialbe in structure.
⇑lines 10—3 score
⇑lines 10—9 underline "in ... Generation"
⇑line 8 annotation B
bottom-margin annotation B    This particular hybrid came by itself more fertile, which he seems to consider usual result of repeated impregnations of own pollen
Page 437
lines 1—4 score
top-margin annotation Thinks th above like avatismus in Animals
lines 8—9 underline "zweiten Generation"
line 9 underline "zweiten Grades"
lines 9—14 annotation when go back to Mother, not quite & unequally .
line 16 at "entsprechen" annotation agree with
⇑line 10 at "Klage" annotation complaint
⇑line 9 underline "Puvis"
⇑line 9u "Van Mons"
⇑lines 9—4 annotation So these authors wrongly dispute tendency to avatism
Page 438
lines 8—12 annotation Thinks all variation frm cultivation when free tend to go back.
line 19 at "eintretende" annotation appearing
line 20 at "hinausragende" annotation prominent
lines 19—22 annotation tends more to mother than Father
⇑lines 10—4 score
⇑line 9 annotation A
bottom-margin annotation Happens oftener with some genera than with others ; never in th vry fruitful Hybrids—
⇑line 3 at "Vorschreiten" annotation step forward
Page 439
line 6 underline "Lavatera ... Generation"
lines 7—11 annotation This first time more to mother in another case more to Father.
lines 14—20 annotation In these going back «‹progeny of› Hybrids» types, Hybrids fertility less, sometim gone, never incresed.
⇑line 13 at "weit gediehen" annotation largely prospered
⇑line 8 at "angebliche" annotation pretended
Page 440
line 10 at "gesteigerte" annotation enhanced
⇑lines 16—4 score
⇑line 9 at "entschiedene" annotation decided
bottom-margin annotation I believe he here argues that going back of Hybrid offspring, & «of» t01 varieties «not crssd» t02 , is evidence of aboriginal foundation form of species.
     ☞ So it is some evidence —[continues on page 441]— V. p. 455 my Note .Good.
t01 - `« of» ' in dark pencil
t02 - `« not crssd» ' in dark pencil
Page 441
lines 1—2 score
top-margin annotation Thinks th famous Laburnum case a proof of stability of species & tendncy to go back.
line 9 at "vorherigen" annotation preceding
line 10 at "verwendet" annotation employed
⇑lines 13—3 annotation The occasional approch to father in simple Hybrids or in second generation of Paternal Hybrids, is rarer than th approch to th mother.
Page 442
lines 8—13 annotation amongst simple Hybrids Those that approach Father are more sterile.
lines 19—20 score
line 19 underline "Lycium"
lines 18—21 annotation These are apt to tend to Father
⇑line 12—bottom-margin annotation The Paternal Hybrids in 2d degree which go back to Father have increased fertility. These cases liable to error.
Page 443
line 6 at "geläugnet" annotation denied
lines 6—9 annotation all the above facts like Avatismus in animals.
Page 444
line 1 at "Aufschluss" annotation explanation
⇑lines 13—12 apparently unintentional mark
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 3—1 score
⇑line 2 underline "weiteren Generationen"
bottom-margin annotation in pale pencil in very fertile hybrids these goings back to mother or father have not been perceived, so prevented apparently by strength of sexual organs.
Page 445
[continuation] 1—3 double score in dark pencil
lines 1—3 annotation in dark pencil Law of variation
lines 6—7 annotation A)
top-margin annotation (A) These goig back agree with the Abnormal types, except thes latter are the result of th crossing of pure parents: thy also are very sterile.
lines 17—20 annotation In successive generations more variability
⇑line 13 underline "Dianthus ... carthusianorum"
⇑lines 13—11 annotation These sorts of Hybrids give most varieties.
from Front Note 2 annotation p. 444t01 Definition of Gemischte & zusammengesetze Bastarde & Ausnahmen typus.t02
     p 502    Better definition & examplest03
t01 - `p. 444' in pale pencil
t02 - `Definition of ... typus.' in dark pencil
t03 - `p 502 ... examples' in pale pencil
⇑line 7 underline "väterliche Bastarde"
line 7 annotation D. barbatocarthusian,— carthusian.
⇑lines 7—3 annotation varieties seldomer than «in» last case (‹over› next Page on do)t01
t01 - `(‹over› next ... do)' in dark pencil
⇑line 2 underline "paniculatorustico-glutinosa"
bottom-margin annotation These hybrids always «(with one exception)» approach father (or 2d species) & commonly totally sterile
     Yet I thought thy were sometimes more fertile than with own pollen. —
Page 446
line 4 double score
lines 6—10 annotation Male more power in causing variation than female.
show subjects subjects
⇑lines 14—6 annotation Cause of variability lies in act of generation perhaps aided by circumstance
Page 447
⇑line 16 underline "paniculato-rustica3"
⇑lines 16—12 annotation not to be distinguished from pure N. rustica, but less sterile
⇑line 8 underline "paniculato-rustica4"
⇑lines 8—6 annotation & even in this generation less fertile
bottom-margin annotation Mother ‹Father› pure ‹rustica› paniculata
     Grand ‹Father› Mother
     Gt Gr. Mother (3)
     Grt. Grt. gran Father (4) was paniculata    [drawing]t01
t01 - `[drawing]' in dark pencil
show subjects concepts
Page 448
lines 1—8 annotation Different species are changed at vry different rates into th paternal type, but this varies in same species
Page 449
line 3 at "Bewandtniss" annotation condition
lines 8—10 score
lines 3—10 annotation colour of flower does not vary more in later generation than in first, which is different frm other variability
⇑line 15 annotation A
bottom-margin annotation A In som case, especially such as are slow to be converted, th fertility is lessened, especially on male side, even when hybrid has gone back nearly to paternal type.
⇑line 7 underline "rusico-paniculata4"
⇑lines 7—1 annotation Even some of these quite sterile in both sexes .
Page 450
line 14 underline "Nicotiana rustico-paniculata3"
line 14 annotation A
top-margin annotation A Such Hybrids with own pollen improve in fertility & of themselves go nearer to paternal type.
line 1 double score
lines 1—12 annotation Even some fruitful paternal hybrids in 3d degree were quite sterile on male side.
     Generally with higher degree of Paternal hybridism, so much more fertile.
⇑line 13 at "Bewandtniss" annotation condition
⇑line 12 underline "barbato-japonicus"
bottom-margin annotation In each paternal degree this became more sterile on female side, because it approached D. Japonicus which is naturally sterile on female side.
Page 451
⇑line 10 at "entspricht" annotation agrees with
from Front Note 2 annotation in pale pencil p 429    Explanation of Koelreuter “auf-steigenden Grad” absteigended grad p. 451
Page 452
lines 6—10 annotation More fertile than correspndng paternal Hybrids
lines 9—16 annotation varies «more» ‹in some manner› than paternal hybrid x⧟→ chinesi-barbatus ♀ barbatus ♂t01
t01 - `hybrid x⧟→ ... ♂' in dark pencil
⇑lines 15—1 annotation These bore lines 6—15 varieties
     Most of the vars have approached very close to pure maternal type
Page 453
line 8 double score
lines 10—14 annotation More fertile than corresponding Paternal Hybrids xxx
top-margin annotation xxx. I shd. think caused by female side of Hybrid bing most fertile & this side bing crossed with same type , through a male, caused their greater fertility . & is pretty proof of more fertility on female side.
lines 17—28 annotation But even here amongst those most closely resembling Maternal type, quite sterile individuals are found. Here also male side fails in fertility more than female.
⇑lines 12—9 score
⇑line 11 annotation A
bottom-margin annotation A    In further generations , when self impregnated , become of themselves mor like mother & more fertile.— & less variable—
Page 454
lines 10—20 annotation The more fruitful stick to the hybrid type longer than the less fruitful. Rate of going back varies according to Kind
Page 455
line 8 underline "zur Stammmutter"
lines 7—18 annotation The law that these (I fancy both paternal & maternal, anyhow the latter) of themselves, self-impregnated go back to type of Mother, most important. (t01 A )t02
top-margin—line 5 annotation (A) This makes me believe th reported fact that Mongrels go back: Bell insisted on this to me one day , in regard to Pigeons, & I think Dixon did.
     ☞ So Gaertners remark that this proof of Real Species fails, for applicable to Varieties
lines 1—16 annotation → (But it might be said that one var. was an ursprungliche forme.—)
top-margin annotation in dark pencil Neither var. shd be an aboriginal form.
t01 - `(' in dark pencil
t02 - `)' in dark pencil
⇑lines 8—7 annotation The metamorphosis of one Species into another like a variety into another seems opposed to species being something distinct as Entity.— XX
bottom-margin annotation XX It is argued that th sterility of hybrids , shows that species are a distinct entity, then surely the points in which they agree, may be fairly adduced to show that thy are not essentially different
⇑lines 6—5 annotation Mr Tollets case of Malay Fowls so long affecting breed is case of a var. with strnger tendeny than othrs to go back, like species
Page 457
line 10 at "Tadel" annotation blame
Page 458
⇑lines 7—4 multiple score cancelled
⇑lines 6—5 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation |||t01 (a) The «rate of» metamorphosis depends chiefly on th species employed; but also in less degree on the variety [This rate has narrow limit.] of the individuals employed; on account of different degree which thy go back in type
t01 - `|||' cancelled
Page 459
line 16 double score
lines 13—16 annotation The shorter th period of Metamorphosis th less variable
line 19 at "Herstellung" annotation restoration
⇑lines 14—12 score
⇑lines 16—5 annotation In reverse cases, the metamorphosis at different rates, even though the hybrids frm th reverse ‹strng› be alike. Thinks this proof of aboriginal creation.
⇑lines 2—1 score
⇑lines 2—1 annotation A
bottom-margin annotation A    Always approach to type of ancestral form before organs of generation quite perfected; ie these are last restored.
Page 460
top-margin annotation It is not likely we shd understand th slow restoration of the generative organs, as long as we remain so ignorant regarding th essential action of these organs; & why two sexes necessary.—
lines 8—10 score
lines 11—12 underline "allen ... Ausnahme"
lines 6—16 annotation Not seldom quite like pure parents & yet even quite sterile, specially male organs; sexual organs ‹generally› «universally» in some degree affected
⇑lines 16—12 score
⇑lines 18—12 annotation Law, that male organs not only more easily affected but slower restored.
⇑lines 7—1 score
⇑lines 7—1 annotation do not understand.
Page 461
lines 17—18 underline "einem ... derselben"
lines 18—19 underline "Nicotiana ... beobachtet"
line 25 underline "Diantus chinensi-barbatus2"
lines 6—37 annotation extreme variability of fertility during th umwandelung, not connected with any law.— Never suddenly appears by a jump. Yet one «almost» exception by Kolreuter, with unusual approch to pure type, and Gaertner one othr case with relatively little approach to pure parent.
     These case show that the gain of fertility ‹show that› is due to peculiarities of the individual.
Page 463
lines 6—12 score
line 8 annotation A
top-margin annotation (A) As in first generation, decided types (given in last page & p 285) arise close to one parent, so it is evident th number of generations required for metamorphosis must vary much.
table annotation On average
Page 464
⇑line 10 at "übersteigen" annotation exceed
⇑line 7 at "Ziel" annotation limit
⇑lines 13—7 annotation As far as yet known never requires more than 6 or 7 generations
line 6 double score in pale pencil [`bookmark']
Page 465
lines 11—19 score
line 11 at "Wahl" annotation choice
lines 12—13 annotation (A)
top-margin annotation (A) Attributes th variability not entirely to th difference of th going back of individuals , but also to variability due to long cultivation, for has not perceived it in th wild-growing , nor in th more fruitful hybrids. —
⇑line 13 underline "ochroleuca ... ochroleuco"
⇑lines 2—1 underline "Der ... umgewandelt"
⇑lines 13—1 annotation In reversed crosses, even when hybrids are alike yet thy are not metamorphosed with equal readiness, which shows some difference in their inner nature ----→ example
bottom-margin annotation ‹Thus Dianthus›
show subjects subjects
show subjects concepts
Page 466
top-margin annotation Hybrids may be considered as a united brother & sister
line 17 at "nochmalige" annotation repeated
Page 467
top-margin—line 10 annotation Would not “Reduction” good be term for Umwandelung = inversion in Dict. ←
     Absorption into th Father form
     Reduction by the Father or of mother or by paternal pollen or maternal pollen
lines 7—10 score
line 13 underline "Dianthus chinensi-caryophyllus2"
line 16 underline "dritten Grade"
lines 7—17 annotation (B) Fertility of hybrids stands in not01 special relation ‹of› to capacity for metamorphosis:
     Examples,— vry sterile & yet in 3 power almost reduced to D. car.
t01 - underlined in dark pencil
lines 20—24 score
lines 20—24 annotation fertile but require 5 powers.    &c &c
⇑line 2 double score
⇑line 1 annotation other reasons for (B).
show subjects concepts
Page 468
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 8—5 score
⇑lines 8—5 annotation A
bottom-margin annotation (A) Generally with ‹nearer› «less» “sexual affinity” of first pure parents the Reduction ‹quicker› «slower» , & th reverse with ‹less› more fertility
Page 469
[continuation; continues overleaf] 8—10 annotation Exceptions to ‹above› «last» rule
⇑lines 15—12 annotation Examples of above rule
Page 470
[continuation] 1—2 score
lines 1—2 annotation A
top-margin annotation Foregong examples show no fixed relation between periods of mtamorphos & sexual affinity of Plants.—
line 8 underline "der ... Typus"
lines 6—15 annotation A species with this power of producng a decided type will reduce a species quicker than in th reverse manner
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 13—10 score
⇑lines 14—9 annotation There is also relation to systematic affinity of species,
bottom-margin annotation Systematic affinity must mean “likeness of characters externally visible.
Page 471
[continuation] ⇑lines 14—6 score
⇑lines 12—9 annotation Examples of last Rule
⇑lines 3—1 annotation Exceptions to
Page 472
lines 9—13 score
lines 10—12 annotation (Q)
top-margin annotation (Q) The different powers of reduction in hybrids frm reversed crosses, show no fixed relation to “systematic affinity of Parents
Page 473
lines 11—15 score
lines 12—13 annotation (B)
top-margin annotation (B)    Returns to parent-forms throgh self impregnation are very slow, & require mny generations .
line 23 double score [`bookmark']
Page 474
lines 6—10 score
lines 6—10 annotation The goings back seldom observed in wild plants when experimented on
line 12 at "428" annotation 3?
lines 13—20 annotation Conclusions
     (1) Facility of Reduction not absolutely depends on sexual or systematic affinity.—
     (2) Returns more often to Mother than Father.
⇑lines 8—6 annotation Not all embryos affected alike.
Page 475
whole-margin annotation I suppose he wd say there was a hatred in th Vegetable Kingdom to these crosses: perhaps his argument directed against those; like Herbert who believe in hybrid origin of species.
show subjects subjects
line 2 at "hergestellt" annotation restored
lines 16—17 underline "Dianthus superbo-barbatus5"
lines 13—18 annotation In reduced hybrids traces of parental character may be yet discovered.
line 19 at "unläugbaren" annotation undeniable
⇑line 1 at "Beharrlichkeit" annotation perseverance
⇑lines 13—8 score
⇑lines 11—10 underline "unzweideutigen"
⇑lines 12—11 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation Thinks th Reduction of species affords “unequivocal” proof that th limits of species confined & fixed. How curious. I can see force in this argument in reductions by self-impregnation.—
Page 476
lines 1—6 score
line 1 at "Genauigkeit" annotation accuracy
top-margin—line 7 annotation Excessive care in prevntng parent pollen, Kept in chamber.—
⇑lines 9—8 annotation The old stories of Grasses changing into each other.—
show subjects subjects
⇑line 4 at "Erwähnung" annotation mention
Page 477
line 8 at "vorgeblichen" annotation pretended
Page 478
line 5 at "Vertheidiger" annotation defender
lines 4—6 annotation Hornsuch defender of transmutation.
line 13 at "Haber" annotation Oats
13 at "Roggen" annotation Rye
line 17 [?]u "Berg"
Page 496
⇑line 18m+score [`bookmark']
⇑line 7 at "käuflichen Linsen, Erbsen" annotation bought lentil Pisum
⇑line 4 at "Kichern" annotation chick-pea
bottom-margin annotation p. 80 Wicken = Vicia sativa Linsen = Ervum lens
bottom-margin annotation Amongst seed of Vetch, some chickpea, which produced 2 vars. like Vetch
Page 497
⇑lines 7—5 annotation Amongst the seeds he found 4 vars.
Page 498
lines 18—23 annotation 4 vars of Peas, very slightly different, raised out of bought seed.—
show subjects subjects
Page 499
lines 8—16 annotation no variously coloured seeds produced & it is clear he wd take pains to prevent crossing
show subjects subjects
⇑line 11 crossing-out "1)"
⇑line 11 annotation 3 / (correct)
show subjects concepts
⇑line 3 at "zusagenden" annotation correspndng
⇑line 2 at "Gedeihen" annotation propsperity
Page 500
lines 7—11 score
line 8 annotation a
top-margin annotation (a) Remarks that many plants when put out of proper conditions do not vary ,& those that do; their inner nature & power of union suffer much less:
lines 12—16 score
lines 11—16 annotation Cases of change of Form. chiefly in Lecoq
show subjects concepts
line 13, 15—16, 22 crossing-out "[footnote numbers corrected]"
show subjects concepts
lines 16—18 score
lines 16—17 underline "Cruciaten, Liliaceen"
line 17 underline "Salvia"
line 18 underline "in ... behaupten"
lines 16—18 annotation these very fixed
⇑lines 10—8 annotation long cultivated plants as
⇑line 6 underline "Cerealien, Leguminosen"
⇑lines 3—1 score
⇑lines 4—2 underline "Dianthus ... u."
⇑lines 6—4 annotation vary
Page 501
lines 1—2 score
top-margin annotation same cause makes them ‹vary› easily depart from normal Bastard-type
lines 7—9 annotation varieties tend to go back; no facts given
line 8 at "Einwendungen" annotation objection
⇑line 14 double score [`bookmark']
⇑line 10, ⇑5 crossing-out "[footnote numbers corrected]"
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 12—6 score
bottom-margin annotation Quotes Herbert, that domestic variations do not affect organs of generation
Page 503
⇑line 13 at "verknüpft" annotation tied together
⇑line 11 annotation There are 6 of these classes.
Page 504
lines 5—8 annotation Simple Hybrids of one type
⇑lines 10—1 annotation (I cannot think why Reduced Hybrids per patrem are here omitted)
from Front Note 2 annotation p. 444t01 Definition of Gemischte & zusammengesetze Bastarde & Ausnahmen typus.t02
     p 502    Better definition & examplest03
t01 - `p. 444' in pale pencil
t02 - `Definition of ... typus.' in dark pencil
t03 - `p 502 ... examples' in pale pencil
[continues overleaf] ⇑5 score in dark pencil
⇑line 5 →
bottom-margin annotation (a) & (b) Hybrids alike & so also (c) or Reduced Hybrid per matrem.
Page 505
[continuation] 9 score
line 11 ✔
line 23 ✔
line 23 annotation (c)
Page 506
top-margin annotation (a) It is only th quantity of blood from either side which makes a difference.
lines 4—17 annotation Thus these are alike
     (a)
     But when one factor is more powerful in its influence, then there is a difference, as
lines 12—17 score
lines 12—17 annotation very varialbe & generally vry sterile with exception
Page 507
line 1 at "Vermischte" annotation mixed
lines 2—3 score
line 2 underline "aus ... Faktoren"
lines 7—8 score
line 19 underline "sind ... steril"
lines 15—19 annotation Excessively variable & generally absolutely sterile
⇑line 11 at "Zusammengesetzte" annotation in dark pencil compounded
⇑line 11 annotation 3 species
     Same as last only mother a hybrid
⇑lines 2—1 score
bottom-margin annotation (So Kolreuter also says)— In type always «(yet a prepotent type in any species has some influence)» go to pure Father: ‹but variable with generally vry little› ,«but» in different degrees.—
     fertility various    generally little. —
Page 508
lines 4—5 underline "vermittelnde"
lines 3—5 annotation are very distinct frm class 5
show subjects concepts
lines 7—12 score
lines 11—17 annotation In this «sub» class th 3 pure parents are somewhat allied
lines 18—25 annotation very little fertility    in «one» folling case vry considerable fertility
⇑lines 2—1 →
show subjects concepts
Page 509
⇑line 7 double score
⇑lines 6—5 annotation (A)
bottom-margin annotation (A) In this second subclass, species are used which will not cross without the intermediate & 3d species, & therefore are very little allied in sexual affinity.— These always most closely resemble pure father. Excessively sterile
Page 511
in dark pencil
lines 14—19 score
Page 512
lines 13—15 score
lines 12—16 annotation a tendeny to vary even in individual plant
lines 17—24 score
line 20 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation This extrem closeness to father vry singular & against ordinay Laws of Hybridism, explained by greater potency of pure pollen of Father , as likewise is shown in th 3d class, in which Mother is pure & yet it seem no leang to either side.
Page 513
⇑lines 19—11 annotation cancelled It seems that where pollen pure & ovules hybrid, then appr [ie `approaches'?] to pure & less variability
⇑lines 9—4 score
⇑lines 8—6 score in dark pencil
bottom-margin annotation not so variable, apparently owig t th potency of effect of pure parent.—
Page 514
lines 1—6 score
lines 2—4 annotation (A)
line 5 at "überwiegenden" annotation prepondertng
line 6 double score
top-margin annotation A.    Conclusions (1) that hybrid ovules or pollen cause of variability.
     (2) that th pollen, even of hybrid origin has preponderatng influenc over femal !!! I do not see how this second conclusn
Page 515
line 4 at "bewährt" annotation deserve
lines 8—16 annotation Here whichever species has the most typical strength, the offspring resembles it — : quite sterile
lines 11—12 ✔
lines 10—15 annotation Not one in Table
Page 516
lines 5—8 annotation 4 species united
lines 5—10 annotation In this the several offspring resembled all four parents
line 12 underline "selten ein Individuum"
lines 8—16 annotation Excessively variable, no two individuals alike. Fertility lost.
Page 517
lines 1—3 score in pale pencil
top-margin annotation It is clear that the more complicated the unions the more variability ensues.
⇑lines 14—11 annotation Hybrids can be told frm pure only by variability
⇑lines 7—2 score
⇑line 6 underline "schon ... ersten"
⇑lines 5—3 underline "niemals ... Arten"
⇑lines 6—4 annotation repeated over & over again
[continues overleaf] ⇑1 score in reddish-brown crayon
Page 518
[continuation] 2 score in reddish-brown crayon
line 3 score in reddish-brown crayon
line 8 score in reddish-brown crayon
lines 10—13 underline "Die ... aufgehoben"
line 14 score in reddish-brown crayon
line 15 score in reddish-brown crayon
line 16 score in reddish-brown crayon
lines 17—18 score
lines 17—18 annotation not more subject to malconformation than pure species
lines 18—19 underline "Die ... Hybridität"
Page 519
lines 1—7 score
line 3 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation Some hybrids can be much more easily imprgnated when growng in pots than in open land, because too much luxuriance checked.— Good instance of ease of effect of too much luxuriance
⇑lines 4—2 annotation some seeds look poorer
Page 520
lines 1—10 annotation of these mny seed fail quite or seedlings live vy short time or rather longer or only just flower
lines 16—17 annotation examples of above
⇑lines 13—4 annotation The above are exceptions to rule, & may be due to greater susceptibility of outer causes.
Page 521
⇑lines 14—13 underline "sagt ... seien"
⇑lines 14—13 annotation X
⇑lines 11—9 score
⇑lines 11—10 underline "Sageret ... aus"
from Front Slip annotation p. 521 to p. 524 on germination of Hybrid seed. & all seeds.
Page 522
line 1 underline cancelled "keimten ... früher"
lines 18—20 score
line 18 underline "11 ... Bastardarten"
lines 18—19 annotation X
lines 1—18 annotation cancelled Period of germination in Hybrid seeds vry various
from Front Slip annotation p. 521 to p. 524 on germination of Hybrid seed. & all seeds.
Page 523
lines 13—14 double score
lines 13—14 annotation X
⇑line 18 underline "Bastardsamen ... Art"
⇑lines 18—16 double score
⇑line 17 annotation X
⇑lines 13—12 underline "weil ... werden"
⇑lines 11—10 score
⇑lines 11—10 annotation (a)
⇑lines 6—4 →
bottom-margin annotation The typical strength of a species over th other is shown in affecting period of germination of Hybrid seeds
from Front Slip annotation p. 521 to p. 524 on germination of Hybrid seed. & all seeds.
Page 524
lines 13—17 double score
from Front Slip annotation p. 521 to p. 524 on germination of Hybrid seed. & all seeds.
⇑lines 16—12 score
⇑lines 16—15 underline "daher ... grosse"
⇑lines 12—10 score
from Front Slip annotation p. 521 to p. 524 on germination of Hybrid seed. & all seeds.
Page 525
⇑lines 4—1 score in pale pencil
bottom-margin annotation Hybrid seeds do not appear to keep so long as pure seeds
Page 526
⇑lines 4—1 score
⇑lines 6—1 annotation all observers agree about luxuriance of hybrids
Page 527
line 5 annotation long stems
⇑lines 7—6 double score in dark pencil
⇑lines 12—8 annotation Easily propagated by cuttings &&c
⇑line 4 underline "Seitenästen"
⇑line 9 underline "stocken sich"
bottom-margin annotation ⧟ run in stocks
     “make offsets”
Page 528
lines 8—9 annotation in dark pencil Proliferus
line 21 at "erschöpfen" annotation drain
lines 17—23 annotation Thought to be related by Kolreuter to sterility of Hybrids
⇑lines 5—1 unmarked
⇑line 9—bottom-margin annotation Opposed to this is the fact that luxuriance begins before development of sexual organs.— I do not think this objection
Page 529
lines 3—8 annotation (3) all vry sterile hybrids are not luxuriant
lines 12—17 annotation (4) These hybrids which are most fruitful are th most luxuriant
⇑lines 14—10 annotation concludes luxuriance a peculiar quality of Hybrids.
⇑line 9 underline "Beschleunigung"
⇑line 9 annotation Hastening
Page 530
lines 4—10 annotation Hybrids flower earlier ,with exceptions
Page 531
lines 13—19 annotation innmralbe [ie `innumerable'?] flowers . This is odd. Is it not like double flowers ?
⇑line 11—bottom-margin annotation stamens & stigma increase in number sometimes, but not both
     rare exceptions to above, when vry distinct species united/
Page 532
line 17 underline "diejenigen Bastarde"
lines 13—25 annotation Kolreuter accounts for above by sterility, but doubts as most fruitful ∗ Hybrids, ‹pr› are those which produced most flowers
bottom-margin annotation ∗ Yet these are in some degree sterile
Page 533
⇑lines 16—8 annotation absolutely sterile hybrids have ‹not›t01 their flower long preserved, when dusted with pollen of either parent.—
t01 - deleted in dark pencil
Page 534
⇑lines 15—13 annotation Flowers larger
⇑lines 2—1 annotation some exceptions
Page 537
⇑lines 18—5 annotation Because Bees freely frequent quite sterile hybrids, for Honey, thinks no close relation between dissemination of pollen & nectar. ‹If winged insect› Might as well as say elytra not connected with prtectn of wings, becaus presnt in apterus insects
show subjects subjects
⇑line 11 underline "Fruchtungsvermögen"
Page 539
⇑lines 6—1 score
⇑lines 6—1 annotation Thinks Kolreuter wrong in concluding these are only vars
Page 540
⇑lines 20—15 score
⇑lines 20—5 annotation Never gives so many seeds as pure parent. /
     As pure species are often sterile sterility cannot be taken as proof of hybridsm
Page 541
lines 1—6 score
top-margin annotation can offer no explanation of Sterility
⇑line 6 apparently unintentional mark
Page 542
lines 3—5 score
line 5 underline "Koch"
top-margin annotation Duration of plants whethr 1 or 2 years alwys vry variable
lines 7—17 annotation Hybrids longer lived. strong character of such plants, as below
⇑lines 4—3 underline "barbato ... gedauert"
Page 544
⇑lines 3—1 score
bottom-margin annotation attributes above partly to sterility, but —
show subjects subjects
Page 545
lines 4—15 annotation objects that some quite sterile are only annuals,
     & objects that castrated parents have not life prolonged.
lines 16—18 score
line 17 at "Störung" annotation disturbnc
line 17 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation In dioecious plants organs imperfect of one sex. in Hybrids perfect, but functionless
⇑lines 17—12 annotation In crossing hermaphrodite to 2 unisexual plants sexual organs repaired .
Page 546
lines 1—4 score
line 2 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation Hybrids become decripid in successive generations.
⇑lines 15—2 score in pale pencil
⇑lines 15—2 annotation Hybrids can bear cold better than parents, which is connected with their tenacity of life
Page 548
lines 5—10 annotation However Some hybrids from little related species are tender.
Page 549
⇑lines 18—17 underline "Varietätsbastarden ... Tulpen"
⇑lines 18—17 annotation These vary during life of individuals but then variable flowers
[continues overleaf] ⇑line 16—bottom-margin annotation ‹This› «In» Hybrid (perhaps only a mongrel iγ) som of the flowers in middle of summer & autumn went back to Mother in flowers
Page 550
[continuation] 3—5 annotation other cases of above
lines 14—17 score
lines 11—18 annotation Suspect the 2 Tropaeolum only vars, yet vry different.
⇑lines 8—5 score
⇑line 7 at "speciosissima" annotation ♀
\7 at "phyllanthus" annotation ♂
⇑lines 7—6 annotation a
bottom-margin annotation (a)    This hybrid for first three years had angular 5 sided stigma , & then became like Phyllanthus . —
Page 553
lines 12—14 underline "unverändert ... nigrum"
line 15 underline "Dianthus armeria"
line 19 annotation in brown ink X
line 21 annotation in brown ink X
lines 10—20 annotation cases of Hybrids in which type has kept vry constant , in this case for 10 generations, but with lessened fertility
⇑lines 8—4 annotation Above only examples of progeny of hybrids not varying
Page 554
lines 2—18 annotation Fertility even more variable than other characters . Rarely become more fertile in 2d generation but generally, even in most fertile Hybrids, mu cht01 more sterile.
t01 - `ch' in dark pencil over pencil
Page 555
line 18 double score in pale pencil [`bookmark']
Page 556
lines 1—5 score
line 2 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation The tendeny to go back, he argues, wd. prevent new species being formed by variation ; but overlooks my notion of selection picking out th new form adapted to new end.—
lines 4—27 annotation --------→
     Local & constant varieties are different as long as new conditions are present, but change them & the species will go back
Page 557
lines 1—6 score
line 3 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation (a) as opposed to those who believe genera are made by crossing of species, brings case of Verbascum with species most difficult to distinguish , yet most sterile . — /
lines 9—15 annotation Thinks monstrosities not occuring more in Hybrids than pure species, though Koelreuter did think so. —
Page 558
lines 1—2 underline "an ... Befruchtungen"
top-margin annotation Has made 1000 artificial impregnations
Page 559
⇑lines 17—13 annotation Cases of Dwarf Hybrids enumerated by Kolreuter
Page 561
line 11 underline "Dianthus"
line 14 underline "Primula"
lines 11—16 annotation The doubling of calyx & colouring of do., even in these genera, not once observed.
Page 564
lines 1—3 score
top-margin annotation Hybrids become double like pure species— Does not seem more apt to be double
line 2 underline "G.F. Jäger"
top-margin annotation Has described double flowers in all classes.
Page 565
lines 8—12 score
lines 8—12 annotation rare case of double hybrid, if parents single
⇑lines 10—7 score
⇑lines 11—6 annotation sparing & retarded dusting with pollen, most apt to brng double flowers
⇑lines 5—3 score
⇑lines 4—3 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation (a)    Hybrids more inclined to double than ‹single› pure species
Page 566
lines 10—15 score
lines 10—15 annotation It wd appear that this stock was impregnated by Plants 100 yards off —
show subjects subjects
Page 567
line 7 underline "26"
line 7 annotation 27/
⇑line 14 at "34" annotation 35/
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 13—7 annotation luxuriant growth no doubt necessary for doublng, but some other cause shown to exist
⇑lines 3—1 score
⇑line 3—bottom-margin annotation near Hot Spring several Plants double
Page 568
lines 1—4 annotation cases of wild flower double
⇑line 4 at "angeeignet" annotation appropriated
⇑line 4 underline "eingeprägt" annotation impressed
Page 569
lines 4—7 score
line 7 double score
lines 4—9 annotation female organs more often spared frm changes in double flowers (a)
top-margin annotation (a) This seems to agree with male organs being most easily rendered sterile in Hybrids.
lines 10—14 annotation The [?]crmpling of stamns in Hybrids the opposite of Doubling.
⇑lines 10—7 score
⇑lines 10—5 annotation Pistil more often converted into Petals in pure species than in Hybrids.
Page 571
⇑lines 13—10 score
⇑lines 13—10 annotation Monstrous Sea-hound with 2 heads
Page 572
lines 7—10 annotation It is remarkalbe that vegetative strength owing to sterility does not disturb rest of flower
⇑lines 12—8 score
⇑line 15—bottom-margin annotation The Pollen & ovules themselves must have to be modified: the variation is not due to mere mixture of two kinds of cells
⇑lines 3—1 score
⇑line 3—bottom-margin annotation vry strange that corolla as altered ‹pe› stamen is not modified ‹p› in Hybrids.
bottom-margin annotation In the second generation of Hybrids we have much variation, which is kind of monstrosity .
Page 574
⇑lines 7—4 score
⇑lines 6—4 annotation XXX (a)
bottom-margin annotation (a) Some «(Q)»t01 have thought that single species of genera do not vary (Man !) much, but case of Platanus given .
top-margin annotation XXX    This remark vry curious & bears on what I have shown that large genera var most . I do not know whether remark applied to wild or tame. If ‹latter› «wild as I fancy» all is right. If tame it wd. indicate that my explanation of spreding, & favourable conditions must be superseded by some new law. Could it be tested by Loudon, ascertaing th proportion of genera with single species. by Lindley ???
lines 1—5 annotation «(Shd this rule hold for domestic plants, then we may account for it by variability being necessary to improve plant.)» As I thought of doing with Domstic animals. Wd it be good to take domestic Plants & see proportion of species to genera??? «(or do it all by Loudon. that wd be best)» accordg to Nat. Family & whole Kingdom. /
t01 - `(Q)' in dark pencil
lines 5—10 annotation / Maize has one (or two Molina!?) species) / Rye has only 2 specs / Rice only one ? /
⇑line 12 underline "Tormentilla ... canadensis"
⇑line 12 annotation Hardly vary at all anywhere }—
⇑lines 10—9 underline "Mentha ... pubescens"
⇑lines 10—9 annotation These vary vastly {
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 10—4 score
⇑lines 8—7 annotation (B)
⇑line 1 at "Hippocastanum" annotation Aesculus    Horsechesnut
⇑line 1 at "macrostemma" annotation (Red Horsechesnut)
bottom-margin annotation (B) But the Platanus & Pavia have more than one species as far as I can find out
Page 575
lines 1—9 score
line 9 double score
top-margin annotation Admits th crossng in cultivation must check the Ausartung «of plants» but doubt whether this hold in wild Plants.!!!
show subjects subjects
lines 15—18 score
lines 15—18 annotation variation affects every part of Plant.
⇑lines 13—7 annotation crossing of species & varieties an evident cause of variation
⇑lines 4—1 score
⇑line 3—bottom-margin annotation variability greater ‹in Mongrels than in Hybrids›t01 owig to mongreling thant02 to external agency
t01 - deleted in dark pencil
t02 - `owig to ... than' in dark pencil
Page 576
lines 1—3 score
lines 1—3 annotation Van Mons 2 kinds of varieties
lines 14—21 score
lines 14—21 annotation some varieties are constant but crosses of «these» vars. very variable
lines 18—22 score
lines 18—22 annotation White Dahlias not one white seedling
⇑lines 5—1 score
⇑line 3 underline "zum Theil"
⇑line 5—bottom-margin annotation all agree that vars. cross & produce partly more fertile ‹Varieties› offspring, than th pure parents.— But exceptions as on next Page
Page 577
mentioned on [only volume] End Note
line 3 at "von" annotation ⧟ at p. 87, [corrected from `88'] says these two vars grown in garden always kept pure.
line 3 underline "Cucurbita meldet"
lines 3—4 underline "Zea ... major"
lines 3—8 annotation These unite with great difficulty, but offspring very variable & fruitful
lines 8—10 double score
lines 8—10 annotation in brown ink (Q)
lines 8—10 score
lines 8—13 annotation says some vars. of «(Ask)→» ‹Hor› Dogs, some crosses are more fertile than others /
from End Note annotation (p 577 fertility of dogs.)
show subjects subjects
lines 14—18 underline "Nicotiana ... grandiflora"
lines 14—18 annotation K. calls these stabile vars. & Gaertner the followng ; some Botanist consider as species /
line 21 underline "unserer ... fortpflanzen"
lines 20—24 annotation finds like Herbert the vars of Hollyock constant.
⇑lines 15—13 score
⇑line 15 underline "Lychnis"
⇑line 14 underline "phoenicea"
⇑lines 16—13 annotation ‹These species in› (A)
bottom-margin annotation (A) These true species in relation to variability like mongrels, in fertility like Hybrids.— Yet Lychnis is wild & not cultivated Plant see p. 582 at top
⇑lines 11—5 score
⇑lines 11—5 annotation Mongrels like offsprng of simple Hybrids, only more variable, (which surely might be expected C.D)
⇑lines 6—2 score
⇑lines 6—4 annotation case of variability in varieties
Page 578
mentioned on [only volume] End Note
lines 1—4 score
line 1 underline "Cucurbitaceen"
lines 2—3 annotation (B)
top-margin annotation In Cucurbitae, on sam plant often two kinds of fruit in shape & flavor
show subjects subjects
line 6 at "beurkundet" annotation reported
line 6 at "unausgesetzte" annotation continual
lines 7—8 underline "Gewöhnlich ... vermittelt"
lines 7—8 annotation Important ----- intermediate & this is commonest in close species see p. 283
line 13 underline "früher"
line 16 double score
lines 9—20 annotation The uninjured & often increased fertility of mongrels, accounted for by luxuriance of Hybrids (I do not see this) & says he find garden Plants varied from crossing vars. are earlier than ordinary vegetables. (The earliness is hardly same as greater fertility.) (⸮) (ask)
⇑line 11, ⇑10, ⇑9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 2, 1 ✔
⇑11— annotation on account of greater «but not equal to pure species» fertility Kolreuter considered these as only vars: ‹vars.› — G. thinks «(from actual experiments)» «‹frm exprmnts›» only th Hyosciamus as true varieties; because by cultivation one turned into other
     (Steudel makes agrestis a Synony of H. niger G. says thy turned into each other)
Page 579
mentioned on [only volume] End Note
lines 4—6 score
lines 6—8 score
lines 5—6 underline "Verbascum ... luteum"
line 7 underline "Bastardverbindung"
lines 4—8 annotation same conclusions regarding these /
lines 9—11 score
line 10 underline "Bastarde"
line 11 underline "absolut"
lines 8—14 annotation says fruitfulness of Hybrids not absolutely ‹connected with› proof of parents bing only varieties
lines 9—14 annotation ask author, I fancy means only some fertility.
⇑line 1 score
⇑line 1 annotation X
⇑line 2—bottom-margin annotation Examples of Hybrids vry fertile but not as fertile as pure parents
     These are not hybrids, but merely th union of two pure species .t01
t01 - `These are ... .' vertically crossed
Page 580
line 6 annotation The Hybrid frm this quite sterile
⇑lines 20—10 score in pale pencil
⇑line 20—bottom-margin annotation seems to admit quite the crossing of varieties left to themself, & may be cause of return of vars to parent forms. /
     says mongrels in their variation in successive generations may be classed like the Hybrids, which he has classed.
Page 581
lines 1—4 score
line 2 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation Says «besides infertility» mongrels differ frm Hybrids in ‹di› varying in th first generation whereas Hybrids vary in 2d or in paternal & maternal reductions. He gives no case of wild varieties ,when first crossed varying more than mongrels; at least I cannot remark any.
from Slip Attached 1, Side 1 annotation in pale pencil Does he give any case of two wild varieties when crossed , producing a more variable offsprng than ‹pur› true species ? in first generation , because this difference in variability he makes an important distinction in vars & species (p 581)
line 6 underline "andere ... Bastarde"
line 9 double score
lines 5—9 annotation in dark pencil in other respects like Hybrids only more like to pure species.
lines 10—25 annotation He evidently considers these vry important characteristic differences (just repeating p. 273) between ‹Hybrids & mongrel› crossing species & varieties.
show subjects subjects
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 3—1 score in dark pencil
Page 582
[continuation] 1—4 score
lines 1—4 annotation merely repeats p. 577
lines 9—10 annotation more accessilbe to impregnation of othr vars
lines 12—13 annotation More tendeny to revert to parent form
lines 14—17 score
lines 14—17 annotation more variable
line 18 underline "gewöhnlich"
lines 18—19 annotation commonly more fertile
⇑lines 7—1 score in pale pencil
⇑line 4 annotation a
bottom-margin annotation (a) Lecoq states great variability in Iris, supported by observations of Berg, hence suspectst01 tht there may be variety-bastards — So necessary to show no need of crossng look at Potatoes & Maize & Rice !!! ‹Horse›
t01 - underlined in dark pencil
Page 584
line 15 score [`bookmark']
Page 585
lines 4—7 annotation The smaller proportion of Hybrids are “intermediate”
Page 586
⇑lines 14—12 score
⇑lines 16—9 annotation speaks of law of both organs being ready at same time !
Page 587
line 2 at "Wimmer" annotation ∗ 15/    all follwg numbers wrong
⇑line 10 crossing-out "25" annotation in dark pencil 26 /
bottom-margin annotation see Corrigenda
Page 589
in dark pencil
line 16 crossing-out "53"
line 16 annotation 54 /
show subjects concepts
Page 590
line 2 underline "N. rustica und"
line 2 annotation Natural Hybrids
lines 5—8 score
show subjects concepts
Page 591
lines 7—17 score
lines 7—17 annotation cases of in Verbascum self-formed Hybrids, yet ‹offsprg› these hybrids excessively sterile.
Page 598
⇑lines 15—11 score
⇑line 13 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation says not knwn how lng & in what limits keep true.
     but wheat shows how long can be preserved under same conditions . —
show subjects subjects
Page 601
lines 8—10 score
lines 8—10 annotation The inner nature of Plants cannot be judged frm outside. —
Page 602
line 4 underline "paniculato"
lines 3—5 score
lines 3—6 annotation He puts Mother first & Father after, some have followed an opposite course.
from Front Note 2 annotation p 602 Mothers name first
from Front Note 2 annotation in pale pencil p. 602 Nicotiana «‹Female›» glutinosa ♀ «Mother» — «male ♂» perenne «Father»
⇑line 5 double score [`bookmark']
Page 605
⇑lines 8—3 score
bottom-margin annotation Thinks th facts of Hybridisation shows that original species forever remain true
Page 606
line 7 at "XXXVII" annotation in brown ink all (Q)
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 4—1 score
bottom-margin annotation as varieties can generally be propagated, as known for centuries, any alterations, if they ever occur, require careful observations.—
Page 607
[continues overleaf] ⇑lines 8—1 score
⇑line 5 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation Points in which grafted Plants do differ from same raised by seed
Page 608
[continuation] 6—10 annotation sometimes less fruitful, sometimes more.— /
line 16 underline "vollkommenere"
line 17 underline "zahlreichere"
line 18 underline "Geschmack ... Früchte"
lines 16—22 annotation seedlings generally bear more perfect & more numerous seeds than when grafted.
⇑lines 13—7 annotation sometimes life rendered longer, sometimes shorter ⇑lines 4—1 annotation longer in foreign trees
line 10 at "3" annotation —(?)
⇑line 3c "4" /@line 33 annotation 5
⇑line 1 double score
show subjects concepts
Page 609
lines 10—13 score
lines 10—15 annotation evergreen oak grafted on common cast leaves & Daphne laureola flowered in winter
line 23 at "Mandel" annotation almond
line 23 at "Pflaumen" annotation plum
lines 15—22 annotation effect of one Pear grafted on an earlier kind was to make it actually later!
⇑line 10 at "10" annotation 11 /
⇑line 10 annotation ‹(10 [illegible word] is right)›
⇑line 4 at "12" annotation 13
⇑line 3 at "13" annotation 14
show subjects concepts
⇑line 10 at "Mispel" annotation medlar
⇑line 6 at "Pfirsichblüthen" annotation peaches
Page 611
⇑line 11 underline "Oleander"
⇑lines 14—10 annotation cases of mottled leaves affecting th Stock.
Page 613
lines 5—9 annotation Even th wood keeps distnct at place of grafting.
Page 620
[continues overleaf] 2 underline "allein ... vermischte"
line 5 underline "selbst ... zu"
lines 1—9 score in pale pencil
lines 1—14 annotation a statement that two kinds of grapes — branches split & joined longitudinaly produced striped fruit & crossed foliage . G. does not believe.
⇑lines 8—5 annotation other similar cases
line 11 crossing-out "45"
line 11 annotation 46 /
show subjects concepts
Page 621
[continuation] 9—13 score
⇑lines 12—9 annotation objects that these are cases of sporting
⇑lines 5—2 double score
⇑line 2 double score
⇑line 5 annotation [?]ugh
Page 628
line 5 underline "53"
lines 5—25 annotation Case of sport in common Laburnum with flowers like C. Adami
     Is not this like the orchid case? Were they sterile? The sport & parent in Austrian Bramble are sterile.
     (Herbert has shown are sterile, in Hort. Jounal)t01
t01 - `(Herbert has ... Jounal)' in dark pencil
line 18 at "Trauben" annotation grapes
[continues overleaf] b annotation (B) He is dreadfully puzzled about th Laburnum case & says not analogous to anything known
Page 629
[continuation] 4—16 score in pale pencil
line 12 annotation B
⇑line 7 at "Mandel" annotation almond
⇑line 7 at "Pfirsichbaum" annotation Peach
⇑line 6 at "Pfirsichs" annotation Peach
⇑line 6 at "Pflaumenbaum" annotation Plum
⇑line 6 at "Birnen" annotation Pear
⇑lines 14—4 annotation Power of ‹budding› «grafting» much larger than of hybridising; even vry different genera
     (A) (t01 It makes it the more remarkable that certain vars. shd. not do well together. )t02
bottom-margin annotation (A) I think I have heard it said same Family.    Syringa Fraxinus Olea Chionanthus } all Oleaceae
t01 - `(' in dark pencil
t02 - `)' in dark pencil
⇑line 11 crossing-out "55" @⇑11 annotation 6 /
⇑line 9 crossing-out "58" @⇑9 annotation 9/
show subjects concepts
Page 630
lines 2—8 score
top-margin annotation The relation of th different kinds which can be grafted on same stock is vry different from the relationship on which hybridisation depends
line 8 double score [`bookmark']
Page 631
line 11 crossing-out "60"
line 11 crossing-out "61"
line 11 annotation 1 / 2 /
lines 7—12 annotation A certain affinity necessary beyond doubt.
⇑line 16 at "Dichtheit, Schwere, Biegsamkeit" annotation compactness Weight flexibility
⇑line 15 underline "organischen Structur"
⇑lines 9—8 underline "die ... Individuen"
⇑lines 11—5 annotation The above influences not only possibility of graft, but ‹fertility› fruitfulness & duration of life
⇑lines 5—1 score in dark pencil
⇑line 6 underline "Familien-Affinität"
bottom-margin annotation ⧟ Family affinity, though greater difference between the graft & stock in wood, yet permits th graft.
Page 632
lines 8—10 score
line 8 at "Birnen" annotation Pears
line 9 crossing-out "63"
line 9 annotation 4
line 10 crossing-out "64"
line 10 annotation 5
lines 8—9 underline "schlagen ... Diel"
lines 8—9 annotation in dark pencil (Q)
lines 3—13 annotation great difference in powers of grafting. Pear & Apple though allied will with difficulty graft.— Difference in reverse case
line 18 annotation Will not hybridise.
show subjects subjects
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 15—12 score in pale pencil
⇑lines 15—12 annotation can be grafted but not hybridised
Page 633
line 11 crossing-out "70"
line 11 annotation 71 /
show subjects concepts
bottom-margin apparently unintentional mark
Page 635
lines 5—7 score
line 12 underline in pale pencil "Wiegmann"
lines 5—14 annotation Puvis speaks of grasses modifying but not exactly crossing.
     Has Wiegman shown that grasses cross?
⇑lines 10—4 score
⇑lines 10—4 annotation 2 colours in turnips not capalbe of crossing
Page 639
⇑lines 14—11 score
⇑line 14—bottom-margin annotation Genera which have perfect pollen & ovaries, but produce commonly no good seed, but will produce if impregnate by pollen of same species, specially by pollen of another individual
from End Note annotation in brown ink p. 640 Genera which produce good pollen & ovules & yet require pollen of other species to fertilise them..
Page 641
⇑line 4 double score [`bookmark']
Page 648
line 15 score
line 15 underline "Herbert"
lines 9—15 annotation Merely how thy worked
     (p. 354. 369. 374)
     See —
Page 651
⇑lines 8—7 score
⇑lines 8—7 underline "Unkenntnis ... Gewächsen"
bottom-margin annotation Ignorance of process of fructification in some plants has caused ‹m› failures
Page 653
lines 4—7 score
line 7 underline "oben ... 126"
top-margin annotation cases in wh he failed but others succeeded
⇑line 13 double score [`bookmark']
Page 654
lines 9—13 score
lines 9—13 annotation has never seen ill effects from castration, except when all castrated.
⇑lines 9—5 score
⇑line 7 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation Dichogamous plants less ‹liabl› capable of hybridising ; & very liable to crypto-hermaphrditism .—
Page 655
lines 1—20 annotation in dark pencil (Can the pollen of another individual or var overpower own pollen?)—
lines 8—9 score
lines 8—12 annotation Best generally to castrate at moment of opening of flower.
line 19 underline "Leguminosen"
line 20 underline "Malvaceen"
lines 18—22 annotation Necessary have cut or open or partly or wholly cut away petals
⇑lines 16—14 score
⇑lines 15—14 underline "Leguminosen ... Campanulaceen"
⇑lines 16—12 annotation (a) (Quoted)t01
bottom-margin annotation (a)    Anther ‹ready› ripe before opening of flowers in these Families & the fructification takes place not only some hours, but even days before flowers open.    Then how do Cruciferae «& Peas» cross ??
t01 - `(Quoted)' in dark pencil
⇑line 15 at "Onagrarien" annotation (Oenothera Epilobium Fuchsia Clarkia)
⇑lines 9—7 annotation (Lecoq says pollen of Fuchsia not shed for 3 days after flower opened)
⇑lines 5—1 annotation / even whole corolla can be removed without injury to seeds /
Page 656
line 16 annotation Pincers
Page 657
lines 14—18 annotation cut with scissors or pull off stamens, not touch anthers
Page 658
⇑line 16 annotation (a)
bottom-margin annotation Stigma «of» Lobelia in own climate seldom protrudes till lost capacity of bng impregnated ,& hence species bear no seed, but if anthers drawn over stigma produce plenty.— —I think this is meaning.
⇑line 4 double score [`bookmark']
Page 659
lines 1—2 score
lines 1—4 annotation Pistil grows in Geum after impregnation.
show subjects subjects
⇑lines 15—11 annotation By mny plants pollen & ovarium not ready at same time
⇑lines 7—4 score
⇑lines 7—4 annotation Impregnate early, because Pollen keeps its strength
bottom-margin annotation Stigma generally ready when flowers open, but sometimes not ready for some time afterwards
Page 660
lines 9—12 annotation Repeats impregnation several times .
Page 662
lines 1—5 score
top-margin annotation Cultivated in Pots so thus excluded from cross impregnation
Page 663
⇑lines 9—2 score
⇑line 9—bottom-margin annotation The artificial impreg of mny flowers on same plant injurious to it.—
Page 664
lines 2—10 score
line 6 annotation (a)
top-margin annotation (a) The impregnation with own pollen, ‹fructi› fertility always greater than in any Hybrid, & equal or at least near natural fertility, but sometimes less.— Really this accounts for th (i a) of Hybrids.—
line 10 double score [`bookmark']
Page 665
lines 11—15 annotation Plants to be fertilised in chamber facng S.E.
Page 666
line 1 crossing-out "56"
line 1 annotation 57
Page 667
lines 11—15 annotation Many Hybrids bring seed in Pots, but not in open land.
Page 670
line 1 at "Isoliren" annotation ⧟ Isolation only superfluous in exotic plants where only one presnt.—
show subjects subjects
lines 4—5 underline "Die ... Nothwendigkeit"
lines 2—8 score
lines 2—12 annotation speaks of th absolute necessity of isolation (& so does Lecoq) which all shows how muc crossing goes on.
line 8 double score [`bookmark']
lines 14—16 annotation Cutting off all flowers injurious
Page 674
line 14 crossing-out "65"
line 14 annotation 6
line 18 crossing-out "66"
line 18 annotation 7
line 19 crossing-out "67"
line 19 annotation 8
show subjects concepts
Page 675
line 3 double score [`bookmark']
Page 677
line 18 crossing-out "68"
line 18 annotation 9
show subjects concepts
Page 678
⇑line 5 ☞
show subjects concepts
Page 679
line 4 underline "ganzen Habitus"
line 5 underline "M. longiflora"
line 14 underline "5,2"
line 16 underline "12,5"
line 17 underline "3"
line 15 annotation intrmdiat
⇑lines 11—5 score
⇑lines 10—9 underline in dark pencil "Farbe ... Jalapa"
⇑line 8 underline in dark pencil "Grösse ... kamen"
⇑lines 8—1 annotation seed of this Hybrid returned to two distinct parent forms.
bottom-margin annotation in dark pencilvertically crossed & so in Maize I am nearly sure 2. vars «of seeds» in Mongrels.
Page 683
in dark pencil
⇑lines 18—15 annotation fertility varies much in differnt experimnts.
Page 684
top-margin annotation in dark pencil (Get Hooker to read over this list)
top-margin annotation There are important facts ‹not› in this Table not noticed in my abstract or results.
lines 3—7 annotation in dark pencil instances of series of fertility
lines 12—13 annotation Count how mny pure species have (K) when self impregnated
lines 12—13 annotation in dark pencil See whether any difference in two vars., I have seen to Verbascum
show subjects concepts
lines 21—23 annotation Mothers name first
⇑line 12 annotation succeeded with by Kolreuter
⇑line 11 at "coerulea" annotation = arvensis Loudon Cat
⇑line 10 at "phoenicea" annotation = arvensis Steudel
⇑lines 15—3 annotation Herbert succeeded, see p. 653 «I do not think same species» /
     are these th English specis?
     / (yes.) }
⇑line 8 cols 3 & 4 underline "9 | 9"
⇑line 1 col 3 annotation (no of flowers)
⇑line 1 col 4 annotation (no of fruit)
⇑line 2—bottom-margin annotation (See how many genera not result; & genera, I believe with close species : this bears on vars.)
show subjects subjects
⇑line 26—bottom-margin annotation I shd. trust this more if (see case p. 706) more information given ⸮ of result of self impregnation
     The vry near to approch to (K) & yet th rarity of actual (K) makes me think th effect of artificial fecundation .
show subjects subjects
Page 685
top-margin annotation in dark pencil Hooker thinks tht probaly Canadensis & atropurpurea, are merly synonyms «no, see p. 469 middle»t01 : Hooker thinks Canadensis & vulgaris distnct
t01 - `no, see ... middle' in pencil
line 5 at "atropurpurea" annotation Siberia
show subjects subjects
lines 8—9 annotation var. Hooker — (of vulgaris) (⸮⸮) —
show subjects concepts
line 9 at "viridiflora" annotation (Steudel ‹?› var of atro-purpurea)
show subjects concepts
line 14 underline "2" in dark pencil
lines 10—17 annotation in dark pencil ⧟ This means frst hybrid crossed by Father
line 22 annotation (What Ask author)t01    Steudel makes var of atropurpureat02
t01 - `(What Ask author)' in dark pencil
t02 - `Steudel makes ... atropurpurea' in pale pencil
lines 26—27 annotation — var of vulgaris —
show subjects concepts
line 28 annotation var of atropurpur ⸮ —
show subjects concepts
⇑line 13 annotation cancelled ⸮—
⇑line 10 annotation cancelled ⸮—
⇑line 3 annotation var. of vulgaris
show subjects concepts
bottom-margin annotation viridiflora is a Siberian species of Pallas
     var. of atropurpurea according to Steudelt01
t01 - `var. of ... Steudel' in pale pencil
Page 686
erroneously printed `986'
line 3 score
line 1 annotation var of vulgaris
show subjects concepts
lines 12—15 score
lines 12—15 annotation Steudel makes synonyms
show subjects concepts
line 13 annotation Prop. Poll
show subjects subjects
⇑line 22 annotation in pale pencil — Prop pol
show subjects subjects
⇑line 19 unmarked
top-margin annotation ⧟ In this country Hooker says, C. littoralis or maritimus is considered a vy close, but distinct species
⇑line 19 annotation wild var
⇑line 17 annotation wild var.
⇑lines 23—3 annotation Dr Hooker considers undoubtedly vars. except Italicus /
     In text p. 197 & elswhr C maritimus is spoken of as crossing with C. Behen
     must be a misprint. anyhow C. Maritimus = S. inflata according to Steudel.—
⇑line 15 at "italicus" annotation (Vry different Hooker)
⇑line 18 annotation in pale pencil —Prop Poll
⇑line 17 score in dark pencil
⇑line 17 cols 3 & 4 underline in pale pencil "5 | 5"
⇑line 14 score in dark pencil
⇑line 14 cols 3 & 4 underline "9 | 8"
⇑line 14, 12, 11, 10, 4 score in dark pencil "i α"
⇑line 3, 2 score in dark pencil "a"
⇑line 1 score in dark pencil "i β"
⇑lines 15—1 annotation All these i α &c are frm crossing varieties.
show subjects concepts
bottom-margin annotation Cucubalus alpinus ― behen angustifolius ― behen latifolius ― littoralis «or maritimus»t01 } = Silene inflata, Steudel    Some authors think Silene italica, ― pilosa
     There is nothng in London Catalogue to make me doubt this conclsn
t01 - `or maritimus' in dark pencil
show subjects concepts
Page 687
line 19 ✔
show subjects subjects
line 25 annotation = incornis of Kolreuter
show subjects concepts
Page 688
top-margin—line 24 annotation Asa Gray considers the D. tatula as var of D. Stramonium & introduced into America    Dr. Bromfield in Phytologst says he has tried evry gradation betwen these two forms, & yet here not fertile (K). This then is case of some sterility, if we are to trust th same class of facts as we infer sterility from.—
lines 22—29 annotation See p. 385 for degree of sterility of D. tatula & stramon
⇑line 23 annotation Art.
show subjects concepts
⇑line 13 annotation = plumaria Linn.
show subjects concepts
Page 689
⇑line 21 annotation in dark pencil — Prop . Poll
Page 695
line 17 annotation in dark pencil — Prop. Poll.
Page 696
⇑line 18 annotation Croatia
show subjects subjects
⇑line 11 annotation ‹nati›
show subjects subjects
⇑line 1 annotation perhaps var.
show subjects concepts
Page 697
top-margin annotation [ p 225. Much important on reciprocal crosses in Digitalis. ]
show subjects subjects
line 11 annotation var of last Lindly make
line 12 annotation ‹probably› «perhaps» vars.
show subjects concepts
lines 17—18 annotation some think var of 2 last
lines 16—26 annotation
show subjects concepts
line 17 annotation ambigua of Kolreuter p. 175. ‹m› ambigua anyhow probably distinct
show subjects concepts
line 19 annotation — ‹probaly› «perhap var» var
line 20 annotation — ‹prob› perhp var.
show subjects concepts
⇑line 19 annotation var. of ferruginea acc to Lindly
show subjects concepts
Page 698
line 2 at "spicatum" annotation = angustifolium Steudel
show subjects concepts
line 7 col 3 underline "6"
line 7 annotation — Prop pol
line 8 cols 3 & 5 underline "2 || a"
show subjects subjects
lines 7—16 score
lines 6—12 annotation crossest01 more fertile than with own pollen.
line 11 annotation —yet Newman say quit fertile
line 16 cols 3 & 4 underline "3 | 3"
line 16 annotation — Prop polln.
t01 - `crosses' in dark pencil
line 22 annotation — Prop. Poll.
⇑lines 8—4 score deleted in dark pencil
⇑line 8 annotation ----t01 Dr Salter Bell says quite fertile Phytologist
t01 - `----' in dark pencil
show subjects concepts
Page 699
line 18 score in dark pencil
⇑line 19 annotation = niger
show subjects concepts
⇑line 19 at "pallidus" annotation = niger
⇑line 18 at "agrestis" annotation = niger
⇑line 18 annotation — Probaly Vars.
⇑line 13 at "pictus" annotation = niger ?
⇑line 12 at "pallidus" annotation = niger
⇑lines 12—11 annotation — perhaps vars.
bottom-margin annotation p. 578. G. says agrestis = albus as knwn by experimnt & Steudel makes albus distinct —
Page 700
line 10 annotation = undulata
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 20—19 score
⇑line 20 annotation ‹I think› { Herbert p. 345 succeeded & they sowed themselves.
⇑line 19 cols 3 & 4 underline "22 | 10"
⇑line 19 annotation — !
⇑lines 13—12 score
⇑line 12 score
⇑lines 8—7 score
⇑lines 8—7 annotation Prop. Poll
Page 701
⇑line 13 annotation cancelled —X
⇑line 7 annotation —X Prop poll
show subjects subjects
Page 702
lines 7—8 annotation cancelled — Pr
line 11 score
show subjects concepts
⇑line 18 annotation Prop. pollen
⇑line 13 annotation Prop Pol
⇑line 10 score
⇑lines 10—2 annotation This is speciosa fertile according to Herbert p. 346
Page 703
line 14 annotation = sylvestris
lines 15—20 score
lines 15—21 annotation see my slip of Paper about Synonyms
show subjects concepts
line 15 annotation — Prop polle
show subjects subjects
line 18 annotation var. self im
line 20 annotation = dioica
show subjects concepts
line 23 score
show subjects concepts
line 24 annotation = Silene viscosa
show subjects concepts
line 28 score
⇑line 18 score
show subjects concepts
⇑line 13 annotation = Silene
show subjects subjects
show subjects concepts
bottom-margin annotation It is evident from Steudel that Silene, Lychnis & Cucubalus all most closely allied
Page 704
line 9 annotation — p 385. contradicted
⇑lines 16—12 double score
⇑lines 16—9 annotation Here it is evident that first cross normal
⇑lines 16—13 annotation — Prop poll
⇑lines 12—5 score
show subjects concepts
Page 705
lines 22—25 score
lines 22—24 score
lines 18—30 annotation see Beitrage p 598, & compare with p. 385 of this Book. Shows that (K) is quite correct
⇑lines 13—11 score
show subjects concepts
Page 706
line 4 cols 3 & 4 underline "12 | 8"
lines 1—7 score in pale pencil
lines 2—5 annotation (What differences)
line 19 cols 2—5 underline "1839 | 1 | | a"
line 20 annotation —!!
line 24 score
line 24 cols 3 & 4 underline "12 | 4"
line 25 score
line 27 score
line 30 score
line 23 score in reddish-brown crayon
line 30 score in reddish-brown crayon
lines 18—32 annotation (This very important) see Koelreuter about this.t01
t01 - `see Koelreuter ... this.' in dark pencil
⇑line 18 score
⇑line 19 annotation X    Loudon ten week stock O
⇑line 16 annotation X    smooth —|
⇑line 15 score
⇑line 7 score
⇑line 7 annotation Prop. poll.
⇑line 1—bottom-margin annotation These seem distinct ‹but have been sometime confounded›
show subjects concepts
Page 707
line 2 score
line 2 annotation Kolreuter raised them
line 4 annotation —?
show subjects concepts
line 25 score
line 25 annotation Sageret raised thm p 35
⇑line 5 score
show subjects concepts
bottom-margin annotation according to Steudel «nearly» all these are true species of Nicotiana
show subjects concepts
Page 708
in dark pencil
line 26 score
line 26 annotation f
line 29 score
show subjects concepts
Page 709
⇑line 15 score
show subjects concepts
Page 711
⇑line 9 annotation — Prop P.t01
t01 - `Prop P.' in brown ink
show subjects subjects
Page 713
in dark pencil
line 4 score
line 9 score
show subjects concepts
Page 717
in pale pencil
line 27 annotation = suaveolens Lamarckii acaulis
show subjects concepts
Page 718
lines 22—23 score
lines 22—23 annotation p. 168 some authors think vars.
⇑line 19 col 3 underline "10"
⇑line 18 col 3 underline "6"
⇑lines 19—18 annotation — Prop
⇑lines 20—9 score in pale pencil
⇑line 12 col 3 underline "4"
⇑lines 12—10 score
⇑lines 12—10 annotation others have succeeded ⇑lines 18—13 annotation More fertile than with own pollen /
Page 719
line 6 at "Pen" annotation t
show subjects concepts
line 9 annotation in dark pencil or coccinus
line 16 annotation coccinus
show subjects concepts
line 20 annotation = vidacea St
show subjects concepts
line 22 annotation see Herbert
     p. 379 . More fertile than either parent
Page 720
line 3 annotation = vulgaris
show subjects concepts
line 14, 15, 19, 20, 28, 29 score
lines 14—30 score
lines 14—30 annotation Here are plenty of undoubted vars. producing only i α.— / Great effect of artificial impregnation or separation in House.
⇑lines 19—17 score
⇑lines 20—18 annotation — This really only cross betwen two peas
show subjects concepts
Page 721
line 1 col 3 annotation in dark pencil — nmber of Flower
line 1 col 4 annotation in dark pencil — of Fruit
line 5 annotation in pale pencil Prop. Poll
line 15 annotation in pale pencil Prop pollen
line 22 annotation in pale pencil vars fertile
⇑line 25 annotation primrose
show subjects concepts
⇑line 24 annotation (Florist var of Oxlip.)—
⇑line 24 annotation Not normal or K
show subjects subjects
⇑line 23 annotation Oxlipt01    elatiort02
⇑lines 23—21 score in dark pencil
t01 - `Oxlip' in dark pencil
t02 - `elatior' in pale pencil
⇑line 20 annotation in dark pencil Cowslip —
⇑lines 20—19 score in blue crayon
⇑17—15 cols 3—5 crossing-out "4 ... a"
⇑lines 16—3 annotation p ‹721›.
     p. 247 it is evident that he did cross elatior & officinalis. Table not correct.
⇑line 14 annotation Oxlip —
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 13—12 {
⇑11—10 cols 3—5 crossing-out "4 ... a"
⇑lines 9—8 {
⇑lines 7—5 {
⇑line 7 annotation cowslip—
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 4—1 score in brown ink
⇑line 4 annotation cowslip    Elatiort01
bottom-margin annotation ⧟ If this be elatior calycantha, most stranget02
t01 - `Elatior' in dark pencil
t02 - `If this ... strange' cancelled
Page 722
top-margin annotation I see he has not tried Primula proprio polline
3—4 cols 3—5 crossing-out "5 ... a"
line 5 annotation Cowslip
show subjects concepts
line 6 annotation primrs
show subjects subjects
show subjects concepts
lines 6—7 score in blue crayon
8—9 col 3 crossing-out "13 ... 11"
line 10 annotation Oxlip var
line 11 annotation Oxlip.
show subjects concepts
line 16 annotation = floridum
show subjects concepts
⇑line 16 annotation —Prop. poll.
show subjects subjects
⇑line 15 annotation Silene inflata —
⇑line 14 annotation S ----
⇑line 13 annotation S. pilosa
⇑line 12 annotation S. italicus
show subjects concepts
Page 723
line 26 annotation Prop Pollen
⇑line 10 annotation Prop. pollen
show subjects subjects
⇑lines 9—1 score in pale pencil
bottom-margin annotation I see Moerch considers same species p 549 Gaertner says perhas only varieties
Page 724
top-margin annotation It is impossible to make out whether vars. albus & luteus are put first & second on principle or by chance
line 3 score in reddish-brown crayon
lines 3—4 annotation ‹make out colour of real species.›    Yellow ‹?› yes see p. 180
lines 5—7 score cancelled
line 10 annotation ‹— thapsus ?›
show subjects concepts
lines 8—14 annotation vertically crossed Colour ? If Yellow half agrees & opposed to rule of vars. of same colour most opposed
line 20, 26 at "albo" annotation agrees with
show subjects concepts
lines 30—34 annotation 1845 [-] 1827 [=] 18
⇑line 14 at "flore luteo" annotation Blattaria
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 8—4 score
⇑line 8 annotation Colour ?
bottom-margin annotation Steudel make = virgatum, which is yellow
⇑line 1 col 3 annotation Xt01 [total] 286
⇑line 1 col 4 annotation [total] 161
t01 - `X' in reddish-brown crayon
show subjects subjects
Page 725
lines 3—4 score
show subjects concepts
line 9 annotation yellow
line 11 → cancelled
line 13 → cancelled
lines 11—13 annotation opposed to rule
line 17 annotation Probably yellow, both parents being yellow
line 20 score
lines 17—37 annotation in dark pencil Even Babington admits there are 2 coloured vars of V. lychnitis
⇑line 29 score
⇑line 28 score
⇑line 25 score
⇑line 24 crossing-out "luteo ... H"
⇑line 22 crossing-out "Thapsus ... H"
⇑lines 22—19 annotation These lines merely guiding
⇑line 17 crossing-out "speciosum ... a"
⇑line 7 crossing-out "― cuspidatum ... h"
⇑line 4 crossing-out "Phlomoides ... H"
⇑line 3 crossing-out "thapsiforminigrum ... α"
⇑line 2 crossing-out "elongatomacranthum ... α"
⇑line 20 col 5 crossing-out "f α"
⇑line 15 col 5 crossing-out "f α"
⇑line 13 cols 5 & 6 crossing-out "k | H."
⇑line 10 ✔
⇑line 8 ✔
⇑line 6 ✔
⇑line 5 ✔
⇑line 1 ✔
⇑line 7 at "cuspidatum" annotation yellow
⇑line 1 col 3 annotation [total] 226 Xt01 ‹182›
⇑line 1 col 4 annotation [total] ‹119› 142
t01 - `X' in reddish-brown crayon
show subjects subjects
Page 726
line 1 score
line 1 annotation Colour see Index.
     not in index
line 19 score
line 25 annotation yellow
line 28 score cancelled
line 28 annotation ‹[illegible word]›
⇑line 21 annotation yellow
⇑line 15 →
⇑line 10 →
⇑line 10 crossing-out "luteo ... 2"
⇑line 10 annotation ?
⇑line 9 crossing-out "albo ... 3"
⇑line 1 col 3 annotation Xt01 [total] 234
⇑line 1 col 4 annotation [total] ‹72› 83
t01 - `X' in reddish-brown crayon
show subjects subjects
Page 727
line 3 annotation yellow
line 5 →
line 12 →
lines 7—8 annotation opposed to rule
line 11 crossing-out "albo ... β
lines 11—12 annotation why luteo put first?
show subjects concepts
line 15 annotation Purple
⇑line 24 annotation yellow
⇑line 20 crossing-out "1828 ... f"
⇑line 19 crossing-out "1828 ... 3"
⇑lines 20—17 annotation why luteo put first
show subjects concepts
⇑line 1 col 3 annotation Xt01 [total] ‹179› 201
⇑line 1 col 4 annotation [total] 68
t01 - `X' in reddish-brown crayon
show subjects subjects
Page 728
line 1 col 2 annotation in dark pencil — years
line 1 col 3 annotation in dark pencil — no of flwrs
line 1 col 4 annotation in dark pencil — nmber of seed
show subjects subjects
line 1 annotation Light yellow
line 2 →
line 9 →
line 19 annotation Yellow
line 23 →
line 28 →
⇑line 13 col 3 annotation Xt01 [total] 138
⇑line 13 col 4 annotation [total] 84
t01 - `X' in reddish-brown crayon
show subjects subjects
⇑line 11 at "numulariaefolia" annotation = serpyllifolia
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 8—1 score
⇑lines 8—1 score
lines 8—1 score in brown ink
⇑lines 8—1 annotation vars yet all i β. & i γ.
show subjects subjects
⇑line 1 col 3 annotation [total] 22
show subjects subjects
Page 730
lines 10—12 (    )
show subjects concepts
line 29 score
show subjects concepts
Page 734
line 9 score
lines 4—11 annotation at Hort Soc ?
     account of experiment with Peas, see to this. }—
from End Note annotation Books of great importance to Refer to
     Note 62 — 67 — 17 } p. 734 of this Book—
line 15 score
lines 13—18 annotation Berg Read Variation of Leguminosae.
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 2—1 annotation in dark pencil Read
show subjects concepts
Page 736
lines 28—29 double score
line 27 annotation wrng
Page 737
line 11 score
show subjects concepts
line 20 annotation ‹138—›
show subjects concepts
⇑line 17 score
⇑lines 18—14 annotation See to this for Blyth
show subjects concepts
line 5 annotation ‹[illegible word]›
show subjects concepts
lines 11—13 annotation / (Read) /
show subjects concepts
lines 16—18 annotation Herbert {
lines 16—18 score
lines 16—18 annotation ‹Herbert›
show subjects concepts
line 19 annotation — Worth reading or consulting
     p. 145 of Book
Page 738
lines 3—9 score
lines 1—9 annotation seeds retaining long vegetating power
lines 10—11 score
show subjects concepts
line 18 score
lines 17—21 annotation Omalius disputes vars going back
⇑line 15 score in reddish-brown crayon
show subjects concepts
line 22 score
line 22 annotation /See to this
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 5—4 score
⇑line 3 score
⇑line 3 annotation in reddish-brown crayon X
bottom-margin annotation || Read Girou. on vars. of Cucurb crossng
     Sageret do not crossing
Page 740
in dark pencil
⇑line 11 score
⇑lines 13—11 annotation X Read
show subjects concepts
Page 742
lines 13—14 score
lines 13—14 annotation X
show subjects concepts
Page 743
⇑line 16 annotation X
show subjects concepts
Page 744
line 3 score
lines 1—5 annotation on curious sport in Oenothera    /Read
⇑lines 8—7 score
⇑lines 12—5 annotation Read — on th 2. Anagallis being vars.
show subjects subjects
Page 745
line 5 score
show subjects concepts
line 6 score
show subjects concepts
Page 746
line 10 score
lines 14—15 score
lines 10—15 annotation Read Beitrage    Read
⇑line 3 annotation /Read
show subjects concepts
Page 747
⇑line 14 annotation horizontally crossed Read
show subjects concepts
line 2 score
lines 1—5 annotation Zuccarini on sterility of Oxalis from C. of Good Hope
show subjects concepts
line 10 score
lines 9—10 annotation
show subjects concepts
lines 13—14 score
lines 13—14 annotation Read
show subjects concepts
line 16 score
line 16 annotation Read
show subjects concepts
line 18 score
lines 17—18 annotation Read
show subjects concepts
line 27 score
line 27 annotation Read
show subjects concepts
line 30 score
show subjects concepts
Page 748
in pale pencil
⇑lines 10—9 [
show subjects concepts
Page 752
lines 6—8 { cancelled
line 8 annotation cancelled ? line 54 score
line 54 annotation
show subjects concepts
lines 9—12 score
lines 6—12 annotation cases of transformd plants p. 500 text
lines 9—10 double score in dark pencil
line 12 annotation in dark pencil nothing
lines 13—14 score
line 1 ✔
top-margin annotation Perhaps worth reading «But opposed to much alteration»
Page 753
lines 12—13 score
lines 12—13 annotation on duration of seeds
Page 754
⇑line 11 score
⇑lines 12—11 annotation p 540 ✔
⇑line 18 annotation X
show subjects concepts
Page 755
line 19 score
line 19 annotation read
show subjects concepts
Page 756
⇑line 12 score cancelled
show subjects concepts
⇑line 11 score
⇑line 11 annotation See
show subjects concepts
⇑line 9 score
⇑lines 9—7 annotation very important Puvis
show subjects concepts
⇑line 6 score
⇑lines 6—4 annotation Read
show subjects concepts
bottom-margin annotation vertically crossed in dark pencil To get titles it will be necessary to look over these notes at beginning of these notes, for it is impossible to make out by index th titles.
show subjects concepts
⇑lines 11—5 score
show subjects concepts
⇑line 5 score
⇑line 5 annotation Sageret read
show subjects concepts
⇑line 2 score
⇑line 2 annotation Herbert
show subjects concepts
⇑line 1 score
bottom-margin annotation (Read)
show subjects concepts
Page 757
line 3 score
lines 2—3 annotation Read?
show subjects concepts
line 5 score
show subjects concepts
lines 15—16 score
lines 14—17 annotation Theophrastus on crossing plants : how old!
line 24 score
lines 21—24 annotation I dare say V. Baer quoted by Lecoq in    V. Berg
show subjects concepts
line 25 score
lines 25—26 annotation on Variation of Iris
show subjects concepts
Page 759
in pale pencil
⇑line 4 score
bottom-margin annotation Read Link on relation of grafting to Hybridisation
⇑line 2—bottom-margin annotation X----Puvis (Read)—?? ---- I have got impression that Puvis no good authority
Page 760
line 20 annotation ✔ Read ?
show subjects concepts
⇑line 16 annotation ----X Read
show subjects concepts
Page 761
line 7 annotation in dark pencil Diel
line 18 score
lines 17—20 annotation Puvis on crossing of grasses
show subjects concepts
⇑line 1 score
⇑line 2—bottom-margin annotation X { Beitrage on pollen & Stigma being ready at different times
Page 762
⇑line 2 annotation Read
show subjects concepts
Page 
line 18 score
show subjects concepts
Page 778
line 10 score
Page 781
line 2 score in reddish-orange crayon
Page 789
⇑line 23 annotation 253
Page 790
⇑line 26 underline "Wahlverwandtschaft"
bottom-margin annotation ⧟ “Elective affinity” Chemical term Dict.