210 



REPORT ON THE 



In the selection of questions like this, the only hope of arriving 

 at any definite solution is from the co-operation of botanists and 

 horticulturalists. The value of the Royal Horticultural Society lies 

 in the fact that it furnishes common ground on which botanists 

 and florists can meet together, and put before a meeting like this 

 the contributions that we have to make to our knowledge of the 

 subject. When I wrote a few words in the Gardeners' Chronicle, 

 June 13th, 1885, p. 757, on this very question a year ago, I expressly 

 said that the reason why we as botanists could not come to a 

 conclusion on the matter was that we needed to have laid before 

 us and consider fully the evidence the florists can give. Of 

 course in a questiou like this the florists can tell the botanists 

 far more that the botanists can tell the florists. With regard to 

 the historical point of view, I think, however, that I can tell 

 Mr. Hibberd a few things that are not contained in his paper. 

 In the first place, there is an excellent figure of an Auricula of 

 an earlier date than that to which he refers in the New Kreu- 

 terbuch book of Matthiolus, page 403, published in the year 1563. 

 He gives an excellent though rough figure of an Auricula. That 

 is the earliest figure which I know of, and no botanist could see 

 it and read the remarks without agreeing that it represents the 

 wild Primula Auricula of which we have been speaking. From 

 the " Stirpium Adversaria Nova," of Lobel and Pena, published in 

 1605, we find that at the beginning of the seventeenth century 

 purple, rose, and white-flowered Auriculas were known in cul- 

 tivation. The next statement by Mr. Hibberd to which I take 

 very decided exception is this. " But the sixteenth century 

 botanists were but little better informed on the subject than the 

 writers of the later Roman period, and it would be waste of 

 time to attempt to formulate their scraps of information." 

 Now Mr. Hibberd was never more mistaken in his life than 

 he was in making that statement, and I am sure Mr. Churchill 

 will back me up. The fact is that Mr. Hibberd has dealt with 

 the early books, and taken great pains with them, but too much 

 on the plan of the Irishman who said that one man was as good 

 as another and a great deal better. The fact is that those 

 early books are just like recent books, exceedingly variable in 

 their value. Some are mere slipshod compilations ; some contain 

 a fund of original observation ; and the one book of all others 

 which furnishes full and clear information bearing upon this 



