of the Subsection Nobiles . 2 1 1 
of typical Statice arborea and Statice macrophylla. The wings of the 
branches are more developed than in Statice ‘ fruticansl and the wing- 
auricles as a rule obtuse as in Statice macrophylla. The bracts again 
have the characteristic pubescence of Statice macrophylla , and also fre- 
quently a small blue frill, whilst the dorsal keel is much less distinct 
than in Statice ‘ fruticans ’ and overtopped by the frill. The flowers, 
finally, are certainly larger than in Statice fruticansi Compared, however, 
with the finest specimens of Statice arborea collected by Webb and 
Bourgeau and the figures 1 * of the plants of that species grown in England 
between 1830 and 1850, the supposed hybrid of the Orotava garden 
agrees with them much more than with Statice fruticansi the main 
differences being in the marked pubescence of the inner bract, the reduction 
of the dorsal keel, and its tendency to run into a frill. As to the auricles 
of the ultimate branchlets, I would remark that their shape is fairly 
constant in Statice macrophylla , but rather variable in Statice arborea 
(including Statice fruticans ’). The Orotava garden plant may therefore 
have been very well a descendant of a specimen of the typical Statice 
arborea growing in the garden by the side of Statice macrophylla , and 
therefore exposed to the chances of fertilization from the latter. I admit 
readily its hybrid character, but the parents would be typical Statice 
arborea (not Statice fruticans ’) and Statice macrophylla. Otherwise 
we would, indeed, have to assume that the reduction of the stem in 
Statice fruticans ’ is so little fixed a character that the latent tendency 
towards the arborescent habit, which it might have inherited from its 
ancestors, could assert itself in the cross product with Statice macrophylla 
to such a degree as to become quite paramount. However that may 
be, it seems to me a perfectly untenable hypothesis that the arborescent 
Statice from the Burgado cliffs itself could have been a cross between 
the stunted Statice fruticans * and Statice macrophylla , free as it is 
from any taint traceable to the latter. 
As to the presence of both supposed parents on the Burgado cliffs 
we have no clear evidence. I have already pointed out that the assumption 
of the former occurrence of Statice fruticans ’ in that locality rests chiefly 
on Bourgeau’s determination of some specimens which Perraudiere collected 
there in 1855. Of more importance is the fact that there is at Kew 
a sheet of Statice macrophylla collected by Gustav Mann in 1863 with 
the indication ‘ La Longera.' This 6 La Longuera,’ as it ought to be 
spelled, Dr. Perez says is a place not more than a stone-throw’s distance 
from the Burgado islets. I have, of course, no reason to doubt that there 
is some locality of that name in the Burgado Cove, the less so as Mann’s 
specimen of Statice arborea , also marked ‘ La Longera,’ points to that 
1 See note 3 on p. 208. 
P 2 
