THE OKIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF TUE CACTUS DAHLIA. 4G9 



June 1873). They flowered later, and surprised me and others who saw 

 them by their large rich crimson Howers, (juite different from all other 

 Dahlias. My catalogue of 1874 will prove the truth of my assertion, 

 and in that catalogue it is mentioned for thp first time under the name of 

 Jiiarezii, which name I gave it in honom* of Sefior Juarez, then President of 

 ]\Iexico. The fact of its having been derived from France is easily under- 

 stood when I say that I sent one of the leading French seedsmen a great 

 many Dahlia roots and amongst them were some of Juarezii. It is 

 a little remarkable tliat the name Cactus Dahlia should have been used 

 in the Gardeners' Chronicle, as in my catalogue of 1874 I said the 

 flowers, when seen at a distance, resembled those of Cereas (Cactus) 

 speciosissinms.'' 



It still, however, remains a matter of doubt whether Dahlat Juarezii 

 was a distinct species reproducing itself tolerably true from seed in 

 Mexico, or whether it was a chance seedling, a natural deviation from and 

 doubling of the old Dahlia variabilis, which was introduced from Mexico 

 Jibout a hundred years previously. Personally I incline to the latter idea. 

 The very fact of its being called variabilis shows that the plant from the 

 first was — shall I call it fickle-minded, unstable, variable ? And with the 

 experience of a lifetime in the raising of Dahlia seedlings and noting the 

 variable character of their progeny, I think nothing is more probaLle than 

 that successive generations of seedlings under natural conditions, and with 

 none of the Dahlia fanciers of the old school near to throttle the life out 

 of every seedling which presumed to show a flat floret or to differ in one 

 iota from a florist's standard of the old show flower, might very probably 

 have evolved something of the Juarezii stamp — a double flower with a 

 long flat floret. 



In fact, to proceed with the history of the Cactus JJahlia nearer home, 

 I believe that D, Juarezii and its progeny are in themselves not so 

 entirely responsible for the revolution which their introduction brought 

 about as the idea of encoui'aging the propagation of seedlings having long 

 fiat florets, which the introduction of Juarezii suggested. In other words, 

 had it been known that varieties having long flat petals would be in 

 demand we might easily have selected such, even before the introduction 

 of Juarezii. I know for a fact that, previous to the arrival of Juarezii^ 

 any seedlings (and I have often seen such) which showed a tendency to 

 produce long flat florets were destroyed — aye, and I might even say that 

 had Juarezii itself appeared in the beds of seedlings we were every year 

 growing, it, like the others, would have been ruthlessly torn up and 

 thrown into oblivion. 



Do not understand me to say that Juarezii and seedlings from it 

 played no part in the evolution of the modern Cactus Dahlia — that is 

 far from my meaning — but that much of the cross-fertilisation which has 

 produced the beautiful flowers we all admire to-day has been with other 

 than the progeny of Juarezii. Juarezii, no doubt, gave us in cross- 

 fertilisation many of the varieties through which the modern develop- 

 ments have come about, but it gave us, over and above this, the ide^ of 

 admiring and saving varieties with long florets produced by the variable 

 nature of the ])alilia family, apart altogether from Juarezii. 



In referring to the improvement — shall I call it the ixjrfecting '? — of 



