CAMPANULA BALCHINIANA. 



273 



with." Be that as it may, the eccentricity is very interesting 

 to the botanist, as it suggests the possibility that what is now 

 exceptional and eccentric was in prehistoric times the normal 

 state of things ; in other words, that the hybrid Campanula, as 

 here figured, affords an illustration of what naturalists call 

 11 reversion." Writing, not from definite knowledge of what 

 goes on in the course of the progressive development of a 

 Campanula flower from its initial to its complete condition, but 

 from the analogy presented in countless other plants, it may be 

 inferred that all Campanulas in the course of their existence 

 present for a time an initial arrangement of parts like that 

 shown in the figure. This relative simplicity of construction 

 and arrangement is, however, soon lost. Growth here, growth 

 there occurs, but in unequal measure, and results in the greatly 

 modified flower usually seen. But if the growth here and the 

 growth there be equal, or in regular proportion, then a corre- 

 spondingly regular flower is produced. There can be no question 

 about the facts — the progression from the simple to the complex 

 in the normal flower, the arrest or suppression of that progress 

 in the malformed bloom — but we are almost entirely in the 

 dark as to the reason why the floral development was checked, 

 and made to assume a simpler character. We may say it was 

 brought about by a change in the process of nutrition occurring 

 at a particular stage of the plant's growth. But that is only a 

 conjectural assertion. It may be true or it may not be. The 

 cultivator may be inclined at first to consider any such specula- 

 tions as outside of his province and vein. But a moment's 

 consideration will show him that if we did but know the causes 

 producing such changes we should, in all probability, have the 

 power of inducing them ourselves, and of doing systematically, 

 and with more or less certainty, what now, if done at all, is 

 effected in a fortuitous, haphazard manner. 



In the present instance hybridisation may fairly be assumed 

 to have upset the balance of " nutrition " and " construction." 

 But if so, why in one plant and not in the others ? It is as well 

 to say, " We don't know ! " Nevertheless, we trust some hybridist 

 will, with greater precautions to ensure certainty of result, trans- 

 fer the pollen of C. fragilis on to the stigma of C. isophylla, 

 and vice versa, and having noted his results will communicate 

 them to the B.H.S. Scientific Committee. 



M. T. M. 



