426 



JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



is almost invariably a permanent one, and the plant, while retaining its 

 naturally-acquired abnormal character thenceforth under culture, produces 

 true offspring, or, if according to the aforesaid rule they tend to vary, the 

 type is maintained, and is only extended or otherwise modified. It fulfils, 

 in fact, all specific requirements. 



Finally, their great diversity points to indefinite variation in all 

 directions, and not to variation in any special direction in response to 

 the environment. On one and the same hillside, with the same aspect, 

 we may find foliose forms and depauperate ones ; indeed, I once found 

 two such side by side. Some "finds," too, have been discovered under 

 conditions which indicated that had they not been found they would 

 speedily have perished among their robuster normal neighbours, indicat- 

 ing an "injurious variation," which Professor Henslow states is not 

 known to occur. 



The above, it will be seen, are "facts," and not theories, except as 

 regards the deductions made from them, which seem to me to be in- 

 controvertible. Professor Henslow also speaks of indefinite variations 

 as " occurring in the garden, not in nature at all," but in my opinion no 

 such line can possibly be drawn. Practically the sole difference between 

 a garden and wild habitat is that in the former man steps in as a selective 

 and protective factor, while in the latter Nature alone selects, the principles 

 underlying variation being absolutely identical in both cases, since organic 

 phenomena in both situations follow precisely the same natural laws. 



With reference to the power of further variation in wild " sports " to 

 which I have adverted, an instance recently came under my own observa- 

 tion. A Hart's-tongue was found in Cornwall whose fronds, otherwise 

 normal, were divided into several points at the tips, while the usually heart- 

 shaped pair of lobes at the base were lengthened and dilated or forked at their 

 tips, constituting a " sagittate " form. Sowing spores from the wild find 

 sent me, I obtained a large batch of plants, the large majority of the 

 parental form, but seven or eight, all alike, had dense heavy crests at the 

 three terminals, and the fronds so shortened as to be triangular, with the 

 three bunches closely approximated, and two others were simply round 

 balls of cresting on bare stalks. Several of the first kind are also studded 

 with bulbil plants on the frond faces. All the batch developed in one and 

 tin same pan, i.e. under the same environment exactly, and all the spores 

 were, as stated, already developed on the wild frond. 



Another point of Professor Henslow's paper also clashes materially 

 with my experience. He says on page 73, " moreover, the destruction, 

 when variations are supposed to arise, to which Darwin refers, takes place 

 in infancy only: that is, before any varietal or specific characters as a 

 rule exist ; because if the individual reaches maturity or the adult stage, 

 as when flowers or fruit are borne by plants, such have been thereby 

 • elected' o thai an) ' beneficial or favourable characters,' which Darwin 

 supposed to be able to determine the survival, are non-existent when the 

 destructive period occurs." 



The italics are Professor Henslow's own, and constitute precisely the 

 points I contest. In raising Ferns from spores, the varietal and specific 

 characters are manifest even in the primary fronds produced from the 

 prothallus, and abundantly so in those subsequently produced, long before 



