THE NARCISSUS. 



71 



Evolution, after all, is no novelty— it is no new thing. All 

 the old nations of the earth have, or had, some idea of its pro- 

 gress, and often typified it in the form of a tree, with an idea of 

 perpetual youth connected with it, and having its roots in the 

 earth, and its head in the skies. And we are daily finding out 

 that some of these primitive ideas are the true ones, and espe- 

 cially those relating to the Life-tree, or trunk of Nature, which is 

 always reproducing itself, and is always young. 



Of course, if evolution is true generally, it is true of all the 

 lesser divisions of natural objects — the so-called natural orders 

 and genera and species — so that when we look at such a complex 

 and highly specialised flower like the Narcissus, and its still 

 earlier type the Daffodil, we know for a certainty that it was 

 not always made as we see it now — nay, we know that its crea- 

 tion has never ceased, but is being changed and modified around 

 us to-day in field and garden alike, and that it had its primary 

 origin as a Narcissus from some flower not a Narcissus accord- 

 ing to our modern notions, but from some starry-flowered 

 Amaryllid of far more simple structure as a flower ; and this is 

 true not only of our favourite Narcissi, but of all our most 

 beautiful garden flowers, all of which have come down to us by 

 hereditary ascent or descent, and have become gradually more 

 and more beautiful and delightful to us as we ourselves have 

 become more and more appreciative of them. 



The late Hon. and Rev. Dean Herbert, whose paper on 

 " Hybridisation amongst Vegetables " (J. H. S. ii. p. 1 ; part ii. 

 p. 81) is one of the literary jewels enshrined in the old Journal 

 of this Society, was, as is well known, probably the first to 

 hybridise the Narcissi in this country (see " Botanical Re- 

 gister," 1843, vol. xxix. t. 38) ; and he had a pretty clear notion 

 of the hereditary descent, not only of genera, but of natural 

 orders, from one primaeval or early created or specialised type. 

 And this, we must bear in mind, was fifty or sixty years ago, 

 before many of us were born, and when many botanists strongly 

 and openly objected to the practice of hybridisation, and years 

 and years before the publications of Charles Darwin had turned 

 the old, ever- winding, and narrow rivers of thought into one 

 broad and straight and clear-cut channel. 



Our so-called " natural system " of botanical classification is 

 almost as artificial as that of Linnaeus, and there are signs, many 



