ON HYBRIDIZATION AMONGST VEGETABLES. 



103 



pea, and bears fruit that has the appearance and flavour of a 

 small bean. At the time I mentioned it, plants of the kind 

 were fruiting' plentifully in my curate's garden. This is an 

 important fact in the consideration of our subject ; for, if it is a 

 cross between a pea and a bean, being very fertile, it must prove 

 the singleness of their origin ; if it is a variety of the pea having 

 acquired and perpetuated the fruit of a bean, it seems to give the 

 same result, that the two must have proceeded from one created 

 type, "When the generic characters, as ultimately stated by 

 Endlicher, of Pisum, the pea, and Vicia, to which the bean 

 belongs, are carefully compared, it will appear that, except a 

 little prolongation and straighter position of the flower, which in 

 some other races would be immaterial, the only fixed feature of 

 difference is the asserted roundness of the seed in pea, and its 

 lateral compression in the vetch and bean, a feature which, if 

 the fact were undeniable, is insignificant in many other genera. 

 If the pea, vetch, and erect bean have sprung from one type, 

 and are convertible, to what result does that fact lead us? Can 

 we maintain a multiplicity of created roses, cistuses, potentillas, 

 cornflags, and irises in the face of that fact ? Are we not forced 

 thereby to the points, which I urged above thirty years ago, that 

 the genera are the substantial divisions in botany ; that the 

 asserted difference between the species and local varieties of 

 botanists has no firm basis ; and that it is a matter deserving 

 grave consideration, whether even a multitude of established 

 genera are not variations from fewer original kinds, of which the 

 real limitation may be found in a higher position amongst tribes, 

 classes, or orders? And, if that point be established, as I 

 humbly think it must be in the vegetable kingdom, upon what 

 footing will the species and varieties of zoologists stand, when 

 the analogies between plants and animals are fully considered, 

 which it is not my province, and which I do not pretend to have 

 sufficient depth of knowledge, to investigate? 



The Orchidaceous plants exhibit the most confusive diversi- 

 ties. When it is made a question whether Maxillaria Warreana 

 and costata should not be removed into the genus Peristeria, 

 and whether Bifrenaria and Dicrypta should not merge in Max- 

 illaria, we seem to stand on very loose footing as to those genera, 

 though the doubt may be perfectly consistent with the most 

 skilful botanic discernment. And how should there not be 

 such doubts, when we find the genus Catasetum produce at times, 

 on the same stalk with its usual flowers, others that seemed, 

 according to analogy, to belong to a different genus ? Cycnoches 

 Egertonianus produces at random forms of inflorescence almost 

 as different, both in form and colour, from each other as those 

 of any two genera in the order, Can we, in face of those 



