British Primula Hybrids 299 
Nearly every European botanist must be acquainted with this 
curious plant; for it occurs in many parts of Europe and in all 
parts of Britain, but everywhere more-or-less sporadically and no¬ 
where abundantly. It has been known by a host of names, such as 
Primula variabilis, P. caulescens, P. intricata, P. vulgaris var. multi¬ 
flora, var. caulescens, var. variabilis, and the like. In Britain it is 
often spoken of popularly as the “False Oxlip,” or the “Hybrid 
Oxlip.” Here it is still often confused with the “True” or “Bard- 
field” Oxlip (P. elatior Jacquin), though its distinctness was pointed 
out by Henry Doubleday as long ago as 1842. In 1897 I clearly 
defined the distribution of the latter in this country 1 . 
The “Hybrid Oxlip” is an exceedingly-variable plant. Its 
flowers (which are always more or less sterile) present almost every 
conceivable intermediate gradation between those of the two parent 
species, in respect of colour, size, and general floral characters. They 
are sometimes borne singly (without any obvious peduncle); some¬ 
times in more-or-less lax straggling umbels; and sometimes both 
forms of inflorescence appear on the same plant. Its hybrid nature 
was early suspected on the Continent. As long ago as 1843, Godron 
expressed his belief that it was a hybrid 2 ; and, in the following year, 
he declared himself convinced that it was so 3 . Nearly twenty years 
later, he discussed the question exhaustively 4 , maintaining his con¬ 
clusion and even declaring that he had produced hybrids by artificial 
cross-pollination of the two reputed parents, though he gives no 
details of this experiment. Soon after, in 1868, Darwin accepted this 
view completely and set forth at length his reasons for so doing 5 . 
Later, in 1897, I summarised the known facts in favour of this view, 
which I accepted unreservedly 6 . A large majority of the many 
French and British writers who have discussed the plant recently 
have done the same 7 . It is, in spite of its partial sterility, a much 
handsomer and more vigorous plant than either of its parents, as is 
so often the case with first-cross 1 hybrids. For this reason, cottagers 
1 See Journ. Linn. Soc., Bot. 33 (1897), PP- 183-188. 
2 FI. de Lorraine, 2 (1843), p. 225. 
3 De I’hybridite dans les Vegetaux, p. 21 (Nancy, 1844). 
4 Bull. Soc. Bot. de France, 10 (1863), pp. 178-182. 
5 See Journ. Linn. Soc., Bot. 10 (1869), pp. 437 and 443-449; also Different 
Forms of Flowers, etc. pp. 55-71 (1877). 
6 Journ. Linn. Soc., Bot. 33 (1897), pp. 174-176. 
7 Among the latest are E. G. Highfield (see ante, p. 294 n.) and Blaringhem, 
in Compt. Rend, de VAcad, des Sci. 172 (1921), pp. 992-994. The last-named 
writer even suggests that the Primrose itself may be a hybrid, because (he says) 
a considerable proportion of its pollen is always more or less imperfect—a 
statement which requires to be confirmed. 
