552 Mutations 



were repeated in this third generation (1895). 

 I was sure to get nearly all of them, without any 

 important exceptions, as I now knew how to de- 

 tect them at almost any age. In fact, I found 

 many of them; as many as 60 nanella and 73 

 lata, or nearly .5^ of each. Rubrinervis also 

 recurred, and was seen in 8 specimens. It 

 was much more rare than the two first-named 

 types. 



But the most curious fact in that year was 

 the appearance of ohlonga. No doubt I had 

 often seen it in former years, but had not at- 

 tached any value to the very slight differences 

 from the type, as they then seemed to me. I 

 knew now that any divergence was to be es- 

 teemed as important, and should be isolated for 

 further observation. This showed that among 

 the selected specimens not less than 176, or more 

 than 1% belonged to the ohlonga type. This 

 type was at that time quite new to me, and it had 

 to be kept through the winter, to obtain stems 

 and flowers. It proved to be as uniform as its 

 three predecessors, and especially as sharply 

 contrasted with lamarckiana. The opportuni- 

 ty for the discovery of any intermediates was as 

 favorable as could be, because the distinguish- 

 ing marks were hardly beyond doubt at the time 

 of the selection and removal of the young plants. 

 But no connecting links were found. 



