34 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
4. Banqueri's rendering describes the yellow kheiri as " very 
weak." Clement-Mullet's version is that it is " more double than 
the others." There is thus a difference of opinion on two points : 
(1) whether the character alluded to in the original is weakness or 
doubleness, and (2) whether the form of the statement in regard to 
this character implies a comparison of one plant with another. Both 
writers interpret the concluding half of the sentence as stating that 
(owing presumably to the condition described) seed is said not to be set. 
5. With regard to the first point of difference mentioned under (4), 
Banqueri's view that the allusion here is to " weakness " accords 
ill both with our knowledge of the character of the Wallflower as we 
are familiar with it to-day, and also with various other statements 
occurring later in the book. 
6. Clement-Mullet's interpretation of the passage as having refer 
ence to " doubleness/' not " weakness," on the other hand, receives 
great support from the fact that the original old-fashioned double 
Wallflower was so fully double as to be incapable of producing seed, 
and the succeeding comment of the writer in regard to seedlessness is 
therefore entirely in accord with the facts, and is precisely the state- 
ment which we might expect to follow any reference to this form. 
This very remark appears repeatedly in the descriptions of the double 
Wallflower in sixteenth and seventeenth century Herbals. 
7. We may then conclude with some certainty that the double 
Wallflower was known and in cultivation not only as far back as the 
twelfth century, which is the date assigned to Ibn al Awam's work, 
but even before the end of the eleventh century, since the statements 
in Ibn al Awam's book on which our evidence rests are based on the 
authority of another writer whose work is supposed to have been 
written about 1073. 
8. There is only very questionable ground for supposing that 
we also have here a reference to the double Stock. If in regard to 
the form though not the substance of the passage under discussion 
Banqueri's version is correct, then clearly we have no evidence for 
the existence of the double Stock at this date. Furthermore, even 
if Clement-Mullet's rendering is accepted both in form and substance, 
there is still the uncertainty whether a comparison is intended between 
one form of double Wallflower and another, or between the double 
Wallflower and the double Stock, since both genera are included 
under the same name, and more than one form, if our identifications 
are correct, is mentioned in each case. The original text, on any 
interpretation therefore, leaves us without decisive evidence on this 
point. 
9. On the view here advanced we have a reference to the double 
Wallflower earlier by some five hundred years than that quoted in 
my previous paper. We therefore need to reverse the chronological 
order in which the double Wallflower and the double Violet stand in 
the list there given, and thus give first place to the double Wall- 
flower. 
