THE NARCISSUS. 



83 



common botanical names as found in the books. When we take 

 the common hybrids between the Daffodil and N. Tazetta, we 

 are again met by several different sectional names, such as N. 

 Sabini, N. Macleayi, N. Nelsoni (in part), N. Backhousei, and 

 N. tridymus, and for all, or most, of these, I think the oldest name 

 of N. Sabini should be retained, and the other forms named 

 popularly as mere varieties. The Daffodil and Jonquil hybrids 

 are so far all safely sheltered under the so-called specific name 

 of N. odorus, which may be retained to prevent confusion in the 

 books. N. gracilis and its pale form N. tenuior were supposed 

 by Herbert to be seedlings of N. poeticus x N. Jonquilla ; and 

 N. intermedins is by some supposed to be N. Jonquilla x N. 

 jmicifolius ; and N. bifrons, N. Jonquilla x N. Tazetta. N. 

 biflorus, if not of hybrid origin, I should say, is the northern and 

 extreme form of N. Tazetta as it approaches N. poeticus. Its 

 depauperated and generally sterile condition seems to be the 

 only indication of its hybrid origin, and it is quite an unreliable 

 indication. Vegetatively it increases with great rapidity, and is 

 very abundant in Ireland as an escape possibly from old gardens. 

 N. Broussonetii seems to me merely an aberrant form of 

 N. Tazetta and N. canariense, a link between the flat-leaved 

 N. Tazetta and the rush-leaved and more primitive species 

 N. elegans and N. serotinus, these reaching N. Jonquilla by 

 hybridisation, as already shown by Mr. Maw. 



I really think we ought to try and get rid, once and for all, of 

 the imaginary distinction sometimes supposed to exist between a 

 species wild, and the same wild species under cultivation in the 

 garden. In both cases the elements are the same, the environ- 

 ment different, and the species which change most in nature 

 will, of course, change still more, and more quickly, in the 

 garden. The garden is a laboratory, in which experiments are 

 continually being carried out, often unconsciously, so far as the 

 cultivator is concerned ; but, after all, the constant changes in 

 environment produced by the cultivator cannot do more than 

 develop the changes possible also to plants in a state of nature. 

 A species in its native country may not vary much during the 

 course of centuries, but that is only the case when its surround- 

 ings are also unchanged. " Like produces like " in this sense, but 

 the moment its environment is altered in any material way, the 

 plant must either alter its habits to suit the altered circumstances, 



