208 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



the leaves do not appear to me noticeably broader or larger than those 

 of the type ; and as to the second, neither this variety nor the type 

 have ever borne acorns at Aldenham, so I can say nothing about 

 their size. As, however, I read in Bean that when Q. Phellos does 

 bear acorns, which is very seldom the case in this country, they are 

 not much bigger than a red currant, I cannot help shrewdly suspecting 

 that the foreign grower from whom I acquired this plant mistook 

 the natural tiny acorns habitual to the type for an exceptional case 

 of abnormally arrested development. As to the third, I can observe 

 no special silkiness to call for the name sericea, nor indeed any other 

 peculiarities which would differentiate it from the type. 



It is a great pity that so many nurserymen should be addicted 

 to attaching to trees and shrubs grown by them varietal names which 

 have only the slenderest justification. For instance, there are few 

 commoner features in plant life than that the foliage of young trees 

 should be bigger than is the case when the subject has reached 

 maturity, and to put these on the market with grandiose appellations 

 such as macro phylla Jonesii or grandijolia Robinsoniana is little 

 more than a flat-catching trick, though it may be urged in excuse 

 for Messrs. Jones & Robinson that they are probably as much deceived 

 about the exceptional character of the plants which they sell as their 

 buyers are likely to be disappointed later on. This kind of thing 

 brings varieties into contempt, and leads to the misfortune that those 

 really wortlry of note are likely to be neglected or ignored in serious 

 botanical works. 



Excessive and wanton multiplication of varieties is undoubtedly 

 a mischief, but is it not almost as bad to take up the narrow and 

 bigoted line that one will have nothing to do with varieties and will 

 only confine oneself to species ? I confess to a feeling of irritation when 

 a friend of mine well known in the gardening world responded to an 

 offer of mine of a plant, " I shall be very glad to have it if it be a true 

 species, but not if it be merely a variety." I suppose that every known 

 species was once a variety, and that many varieties of to-day may in a 

 few million years have become species. Again, I have no idea where 

 varieties end and species begin, or vice versa, and though it may be truly 

 retorted that such ignorance in an amateur who has made no study 

 of botany is in no way remarkable, yet who is the botanist or man of 

 science, however learned, who can answer the question definitely and 

 satisfactorily ? It seems to me that when the special features have 

 become so far fixed in a variety that it can be counted upon to come 

 true from seed, it has very nearly attained the dignity of a species, 

 but I do not know that such doctrine is recognized. 



It is not even as if there were agreement among the cognoscenti 

 as to what constitutes a species. Take the case of the American 

 Crataegus ; their name is legion, and Professor Sargent has named, 

 classified, and described literally hundreds, yet, as the old Latin 

 exercise book says, " There were some who laughed," and it is not 

 only among nobodies and know-nothings that you will hear the 



