Augu&t 12, 1886. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
127 
12 
Th 
Taunton Show. 
IS 
F 
14 
S 
15 
SUN 
8th Sunday after Trinity. 
IS 
M 
17 
TU 
Bilston Show (two days). 
18 
W 
Shrewsbury Show (two days). 
BIGENERIC HYBRIDS. 
^Innumerable experiments have been under¬ 
taken during the past fifty years in hybridising 
and cross-breeding plants, and the results have 
been very important in effecting the improve¬ 
ment of particular races either for ornamental or 
useful purposes. Hybrids between indisputably 
distinct species have been obtained in large 
numbers, and crosses between varieties of such 
species have produced similarly beautiful or re¬ 
markable cross-breeds, until in many cases it has become 
very difficult to trace the parentage or lineage of the culti¬ 
vated forms. With so many persons engaged in this work 
and such abundant results in other directions, it is strange 
that so few hybrids between species of different genera should 
have been raised. At the first glance this would seem to 
indicate that the botanists have been especially careful in 
determining what should constitute genera, and that in 
grouping the species under them they have only associated 
those that agree in certain essential characters, clearly 
marked from all other genera. Unfortunately we know that 
this task has been too difficult to accomplish satisfactorily, 
and scores of instances could be given in which some species 
of allied genera are so nearly alike, or so variable in character, 
that their distinction is often purely arbitrary. This conse¬ 
quently renders the scarcity of bigeneric hybrids the more 
remarkable. 
Amongst the extensive collections of plants now in culti¬ 
vation we find but few well-marked bigeneric hybrids, and 
including those of doubtful parentage it would be difficult to 
enumerate more than a score, and certainly not half that 
number is generally seen in gardens. Perhaps some of the 
best known examples of this crossing are afforded in the 
genera Libonia and Sericographis, which have yielded two 
hybrids of some merit as garden plants, and which faithfully 
show the leading characters of both parents. For these the 
compound name of Sericobonia was appropriately suggested, 
and has been commonly adopted, though they are occasion¬ 
ally seen under the titles of Libonia or Sericographis ignea 
and penrhosiensis. In both these cases we believe Libonia 
floribunda was the seed-bearing plant, yet the characters of 
the hybrids approach more nearly to Sericographis Ghies- 
breghtiana, which furnished the pollen, than they do to the 
Libonia, a result different from the experience of hybridists 
in some other genera, though much evidence of a similar 
kind has also been afforded, and it appears very difficult to 
lay down any rule respecting the matter. 
Equally as interesting and nearly as well known is the 
bigeneric hybrid obtained between Lapagaria rosea and 
Philesia buxifolia, upon which the title Philageria Veitchi has 
been bestowed, thus happily indicating the parentage of the 
plant and the firm that succeeded in raising it. In this case 
the Lapageria was the seed parent, but the characters of 
both parents seem nearly equally shared, and if the pre¬ 
potency of the pollen parent were a general rule it would 
No. 310 .—Yol. XIII., Third Series. 
perhaps have been more satisfactory had the cross been 
reversed, as we might then have had a hybrid more nearly 
resembling the Lapageria in floriferousness than is the case 
with the Philageria. The Philesia, unfortunately, is a some¬ 
what shy-flowering plant usually, and a year or two since we 
gave an illustration of a plant which had not flowered for 
twenty years, though under good management, and yet sud¬ 
denly produced its flowers in the greatest profusion after it 
had been discarded as worthless. " The Philegeria seems to 
resemble the pollen parent in habit and shyness, or erratic 
character of flowering, the flowers themselves being more like 
the Lapageria. 
Other instances might be named, but attention may be 
turned for a few minutes to the Orchids, which afford us the 
most numerous examples of bigeneric crosses. In connection 
with this family the remarks made by Mr. H, J. Veitch in 
the paper he read before the Orchid Conference last year are 
well worth reproduction :— 
“ Glancing over the whole range of our operations, and the 
results obtained from them, I may safely reply that thus far 
the stability of the genera is scarcely affected, and the changes 
in nomenclature need be very few indeed. Leaving the progeny 
derived from species of Cattleya x Lselia out of considera¬ 
tion, the last named genus being confessedly an artificial one, 
only two bigeneric hybrids have yet flowered — namely, 
Phajus irroratus, and P. irroratus purpureus. Many years 
ago Dominy raised Anoectochilus Domini from Goodyera 
discolor and Anoectochilus Veitchi. Plants derived from 
both crosses are still in cultivation, but the names they bear 
are simply garden names. We have plants, but which have 
not yet flowered, raised from Cattleya Trianae crossed with 
Sophronitis grandiflora, and from Cattleya intermedia crossed 
with the same species of Sophronitis. We have besides a 
seedling whose parents are Cattleya Triante and Brasavola 
Digbyana, but as the last-named is now referred to Lfelia, 
this can hardly be regarded as a bigeneric cross. With these 
few cases I have exhausted the list. But when we enume¬ 
rate the capsules with apparently good seed that have been 
obtained from bigeneric crosses, but from which no seedlings 
have been raised, the list is somewhat more formidable. 
Some of the most remarkable of these were produced by 
Acanthopbippium Curtisii x Chysis bractescens, Bletia hya- 
cinthina x Calanthe masuca, Chysis aurea x Zygopetakm 
Sedeni, Odontoglossum bictonense x Zygopefcalum maxillare, 
Zygopetalum Mackayi x Lycaste Skinneri.” 
Phajus irroratus mentioned in this paragraph is especially 
interesting as a bigeneric hybrid, because the parents are so 
different in habit, P. grandifolius being evergreen, and the 
Calanthe deciduous with strong pseudo bulbs. 
An exceedingly important addition has been made to 
these bigeneric hybrids by a cross between Sophronitis 
grandiflora and Cattleya intermedia, and though when the 
statement was first made that plants had been raised from 
crosses between Cattleya and Sophronitis it was received 
rather incredulously by some, yet the matter is now satis¬ 
factorily proved by a plant that has just flowered in Messrs. 
Veitch & Sons’ Chelsea Nursery. This is one of the Sedenian 
experiments, the Sophronitis having been fertilised with 
pollinia from Cattleya intermedia, and the seed resulting 
from this cross was sown five years ago. Several plants 
have been showing flowers for some weeks, and on one of 
those the long-expected flower opened a few days ago and 
revealed the fact that a satisfactory bigeneric cross had been 
accomplished. The plants are as yet small, and the one 
which has flowered is the weakest, so that a fair estimate 
can scarcely be formed of the real merits of the hybrid. The 
growths are slender, 2 to 3 inches high, with oval leaves 1 to 
inch long. The flowers 2J inches in diameter, like the 
Sophronitis in general outline, the sepals elliptical rather 
acute, the petals oblanceolate, and both of a light rosy purple 
tint—a rather curious shade, and having somewhat the 
No. 1976 .—Yol. LXXV., Old Series 
