254 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
hesitate for a moment in ranking it as a distinct species. 
Some of the Marcgraavias present similar phenomena. In both 
the plants just named the writer has seen on plants growing 
against a wall shoots produced of the character of those formed 
by the plant when growing unsupported. The inference from 
these facts is that what we call 44 sports ” or bud variations are 
often only exceptional illustrations of a normal tendency — 
exceptional in so far that they are manifested at unusual times 
and places and under unusual conditions. 
The individuality or comparative independence of buds — a 
circumstance often noticed — is also brought prominently into 
view by such facts as we have recorded. An interesting ques- 
tion arises as to whether there are differences in the plant 
originating from hud variation as compared with one the pro- 
duce of variation from seed. It is a matter of every-day ex- 
perience with gardeners that seedling plants vary greatly — even 
though the produce of the same seed-vessel, and even though 
not the offspring of hybridized or cross-fertilised parents. Is 
there any perceptible difference between a seedling variety 
obtained as just explained and a bud variety ? In other words, 
are there any means of distinguishing, in the case of a cultivated 
plant of unknown history, a “sport” from a “seedling” ? We 
have tried in vain to find any such difference. The experience 
of the most able cultivators furnishes no data on this head. 
But although this is so, there is an equally prevalent impression 
that while a variety cannot always be perpetuated “ true” from 
seed, it can be propagated unchanged by cuttings or grafts. 
The best varieties of apples or pears — to cite only one instance 
— are propagated by grafts, because there is no certainty at all 
that the pips will reproduce the desired variety ; far more com- 
monly they produce something else. There is, then, a difference 
between seed variation and bud variation, in the greater degree 
of permanence of the latter. That this difference is not abso- 
lute is shown by the following case recorded by M. Kafarin in a 
French horticultural journal. 
“ In 1866, at LaMuette, a pelargonium with pale rose-coloured 
flowers was observed to bear a branch, all the flowers on which 
were of a deep red colour. Cuttings were taken from this 4 sport,’ 
from which 20 plants were raised, which flowered in 1867, when 
it was found that scarcely two were alike. Thus while some 
bore rose-coloured flowers like those of the original plant, 
others had red flowers, like those of the 4 sport ’ ; others again 
had red and rose-coloured blossoms on the same plant and even 
in the same truss. Nay more, even the petals partook of the 
parti-coloured nature, for in the same flower were petals of a 
rose, or a red colour, or of a blended hue. Unfortunately 
neither the name of the variety nor its genealogy are given, so 
