296 The American Naturalist. [April, 
for its fruit; butin general it met small favor, particularly 
as the flowers were often imperfect and it did not fertilize 
itself. It did not seem to vary much under cultivation; at 
least, when Barnet wrote, about a century later, he knew only 
three varieties in England which he could refer to it, one of 
which he considered to be identical with the original plant 
as introduced by Frezier. The Chilian strawberry grows 
along the Pacific coast in both North and South America, and 
it has been introduced into our eastern gardens several times 
from wild sources; but it always soon disappears. There is 
little in the record of this species, therefore, of promise to the 
American horticulturist. 
In the middle of the last century, a third strawberry 
appeared in Europe. Some writers place the date of its intro- 
duction with considerable exactness; but the fact is that no 
one knew just when or howit came. Phillip Miller described 
and figured it in 1760 as the Pine strawberry, in allusion to 
the pine-apple fragrance of its fruit. There were three opinions 
as to its origin at that time, some saying it came from Louisi- 
ana, others that it came from Virginia, while there was a 
report, originating in Holland, that it came from Surinam, 
which is now the coast of Dutch Guiana. None of these 
reports have been either confirmed or disproved, although 
Gay, in making extensive studies of the growth of strawber- 
ries, may be said to have effectually overturned the Surinam 
hypothesis in his remark that to find a strawberry growing at 
sea-level within five degrees of the equator, is like finding & 
palm in Iceland or Hammerfest !* Duchesne, in his Natura 
History of Strawberries,‘ 1766, described a Pine-apple straw- 
berry as Fragaria ananassa, and while he did not know its ori- 
gin he argued that it must be a hybrid between the Chilian 
and Virginian species. The pine-apple strawberries of Eng- 
land and France were found to be different from each other 
upon comparison, although the differences were such as might 
arise within the limits of any species or type, and by the end 
of the century most botanists began to regard the two as 
šAnn. Sci. Nat. 4th Ser, viii, 203 (1857). 
‘Histoire Naturelle des Fraisiers. Par M. Duchesne fils. Paris, 1766. 
