HORTICULTURAL JOURNAL. 243 



no change in them. Jfow this is very strong evidence. But I have evidence 

 that can overrule it. They can ask "cannot a man believe his own eyes? 

 We have watched them closely — not once, but a thousand times — not only 

 individually, but in committees, in societies, in great numbers — not in one 

 locality, or one state, or one situation, but in many. And if they do ever 

 vary, should we not have seen them? and, if others observed it, should not 

 we have heard of it?" But Botanical science is not satisfied with negative 

 evidence, she modesdy enquires why are those characters so permanent? 

 and the reply is that permanence of character is universal — one of nature's 

 immutable laws. That a character given to variety at its birth, remains 

 with it through all circumstances. That we may as well talk of changing the 

 sex of the human family, or of any animal, as to expect a plant, pistillate 

 at its birth, ever to produce flowers with perfect fairness. Now, I believe, I 

 have given their arguments fairly. It will be seen that they rest first on 

 negative evidence, which I shall oppose with positive and direct', and second- 

 ly by a supposed analogy, which I shall show to have no real foundation, 

 and to which I shall oppose acknowledged principles of Botanical science. 



Many have seen beds of strawberries change sexes, and be of different 

 sexes when only one was originally alone planted. They have had every 

 care taken of them to prevent mixture; but their owners are told, that 

 '^strangers must have got in somehow and kicked the rightful owners out of 

 the bed," "Seedlings may have come up there," anything but a change. 

 "My strawberries don't change, therefore, yours cannot." This logic don't 

 convince the owner of the mixed bed ; and yet how is he to prove the logic 

 of the other unsound? Very easily — mark one plant, note its character, 

 take runners from it alone, use the greatest care, leave no doubt for mis- 

 take, and then when in a dozen such, you do as I have done, get seven of 

 one kind and five of another, follow the Cincinnati fashion, and "Give your 

 opinion to the world." If they ajlude to the "sexes of animals, which when 

 once the same always the same," ask them to undertake the absurdity of 

 taking a runner from some animal, and make it another individual animal ; 

 then to place it in totally different circumstances to the original animal, as 

 you do the strawberry, and see whether it will then change or not, before 

 they say much about it ; and if they see the impossible absurdity of this, 

 then tell them their "analogy" cannot be applied. 



I have alluded briefly in the last paragraph to my direct and positive evi- 

 dence of the change, and in matters of fact brevity is always best. I will 

 refer the reader again to it, and now proceed to show that it is consistent 

 with Botanical science, and consequently, that any other theory is not, 



