ON HYBRIDIZATION AMONGST VEGETABLES. 



17 



fore, if these characters are so important, another genus must 

 be formed for Gloxinia hirsuta and another for Gesnera zebrina 

 and Geroldtiana. The fruit of Gesnera tubiflora is horizontal, 

 and I have no hesitation in saying that it does not conform 

 with Gloxinia speciosa, but approaches rather to Gesnera zebrina, 

 having the tube however less inflated. Here then we have a 

 beautiful race of plants which are in cultivation, concerning 

 which the most skilful botanists are quite adrift, and which lies 

 open to experiments on the part of those who have opportunities 

 of testing their respective individuality. 



The genus Lycopsis is distinguished specially by Endlicher, as 

 having the stamens included in the tube. I brought from 

 Cephalonia a pretty unknown Lycopsis (L. sanguinolenta, mild; 

 staminibus non inclusis, limbo albo maculis sanguineis, foliis 

 variegatis), scarcely distinguishable from Lycopsis variegata in 

 its singularly variegated foliage, but having the stamens not 

 included in the tube. I entertain no doubt of the possibility of 

 crossing it with Lycopsis variegata, or of their joint origin in 

 times long bygone. Let the cultivator therefore not be discou- 

 raged by every nominal generic separation, but let him take his 

 own view of apparent affinities, and bring the accuracy of those 

 separations to the test. It has not been unfrequent with eminent 

 botanists to speak of the convenience of uniting or separating 

 some plants generically ; a remark which I can never observe 

 without dissatisfaction. If botanical distinctions are matters of 

 convenience, and not the limits assigned to His created works by 

 the Almighty, and investigated by the humble researches of 

 human science, the botanist is degraded to the mere character of 

 an index-maker. It is a matter of convenience and useful to 

 separate extensive genera, which have various subordinate forms, 

 into sections and sub-genera, to which names may be affixed ; but 

 we render the book of botany a deceptive tissue in inconsistency 

 if we lose sight of the fact that the genus or generic character is 

 (or, according to our amount of knowledge, is presumed to be) 

 the definition of the limitations of the created type, and confound 

 the sub-divisions made by us for convenience with the natural 

 divisions that originally proceeded from the Divine Artificer. 

 I will exemplify this rather from my own immature views than 

 from those of others, though the evil is of rapid growth amongst 

 those to whom botany is a study and profession, and not, as to 

 me, an occasional amusement, which has been often neglected 

 for months and even years together. Perceiving that the plants 

 called by me Choretis differed from Hymenocallis by the inser- 

 tion of the filament into a callus on the anther, I inquired of 

 those who were much better informed than myself whether such 

 a difference existed amongst the species of any well-ascertained 



vol. n. c 



