220 DR J. M. MACFARLANE ON THE 



i. Lapageria gradually become modified to suit tlie climate of the plain (perhaps one such recent 



rosea. 



. piniageria instance is supplied in Boopis laciniata of the following list) ; still more slowly new 



Vcitcliii 



.? Phiiesia buxi- varieties would have been developed among the indigenous plants, from which, by natural 

 selection, new species would have been formed. No doubt these causes have been in 

 action during the short time that has elapsed since Patagonia has existed as part of the 

 continent ; but the time has been far too short to allow of the development of a rich and 

 varied flora. We are apt. I think, to underrate the extreme slowness of the operation of 

 the agencies that modify the forms of vegetation, and the fact that change in arboreal 

 vegetation must, other things being the same, proceed much more slowly than with 

 herbaceous, especially annual plants. How many of the plants found in fossil miocene 

 deposits, enormously more ancient than the commencement of the Patagonian flora, are 

 more than slightly modified forms of existing species ? " We may either consider the 

 ancestral type to have been nearly related to Phiiesia, and by suitable surroundings to 

 have evolved the finer Lapageria; or, conversely, a type allied to the latter may by degrada- 

 tion have resulted in Phiiesia ; or some nearly intermediate type, whose home may have 

 been on the Andes of South Chili, may have branched off, one on the developmental, one on 

 the degradation line. In this intermediate type we should practically recognise our 

 hybrid Philageria. It is perfectly within the limits of possibility that on some of the 

 Southern Cordilleras of the Andes, about whose flora we know as yet extremely little, a 

 natural product may be encountered in which we have very nearly reproduced the 

 artificial form Philageria. I can scarcely doubt that some of our hybrids are artificial 

 pictures of what once flourished as the progenitors of our present-day species. 



The descriptions which follow pertain to eight hybrid plants and their parents, and these 

 have been selected as typical examples of groups of flowering plants, or as presenting us 

 in many cases with interesting features in the relation of hybrid to parent, while most of 

 them are well known and easily procurable by any who wish to verify details of structure. 



These are the following, w indicating wild or natural hybrids : — 



1. Diantlius Grievei =D. alpinus X D. barbatus. 



2.wGeum intermedium = G. rivale cc G. urbanum. 



3. Ribea Culverwellii = R. Grosmlaria X R. nigrum. 



4.wSaxi/raga Andrewsii =S. Aizoon a S. Geum. 



b.iuEriea Watsoni = E. ciliaris oc E. Tetralix. 



6. Bryantlms erectus = Menziesia empetriformis,va,r. Drummondii. X Rhododendron Chammeystis. 



7. Masdevallia Chelsoni = M. amabilis X M. Veitchiana. 



8. Cyprvpedium Leeanum = C. insigne X C. Spicerianum. 



In addition, about sixty-five hybrids and their parents have been examined in some 

 of their parts, and reference will be made at a later stage to evidence of special value 

 which some of these yield. 



(b) Diantlius Grievei, x . 



This hybrid was raised by Mr Lindsay of the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. 

 The seed parent is alow-growing, narrow-leaved, one-(rarely two-) flowered pink, attaining 

 a height when in blossom of from two to three inches. D. harhatus — the Sweet William — 



