THE C'AULESOEXCE OE BELLES PEREINTNIS 
101 
not impossible that they might have originated from a cross between 
B. perennis and B. annua. 
(3) Careful observation has convinced these authors—and in mv 
opinion is conclusive—that B. hybrida (and a, fortiori the less con¬ 
spicuously developed plants usually known as B. perennis var. 
caulescens or var. subcaulescens ) have no claim to specific rank, and 
indeed do not so much as form a variety in the sense of hereditary 
race or strain, but are merely states attained to by the Daisy in the 
latter part of its flowering season, when outward conditions are 
favourable. 
(4) Between the most richly branching individuals and those in 
which development has been arrested by lack of nutrition, or by such 
artificial interference as occurs in our lawns, there is no substantial 
difference. Many cultural experiments with achenes from plants of 
very different appearance have established that by suitably varying 
the conditions, plants with long branches may be obtained from 
achenes of compact forms, while, on the other hand, those of B. hybrid a 
may give rise to plants so compact that no one could regard them as 
other than ordinary B. perennis. 
(5) The possibility of a hybrid origin for the plants usually 
referred to B. hybrida is excluded : (A) because the system of ramifi¬ 
cation is different from that of B. annua , and, apart from the much 
greater length of the internodes, is identical with that of ordinary 
B. perennis \ (B) because artificial hybrids between annua an&perennis 
show no resemblance to hybrida —moreover, the few certain natural 
crosses between those species that have been observed in the Roman 
Campagna are similar to the artificial crosses, and like them bear no 
resemblance to hybrids ; (C) because artificial crossing of B. silvestris 
and B. perennis produces hybrids closely resembling silvestris and 
quite unlike hybrida. 
Dr. Carano’s work may therefore be considered to have finally 
solved the problem of Beilis hybrida. What follows relates to the 
great divergence of opinion on the subject that has prevailed in the 
past. Tenore in his -Flora Medica (ii. G4 ; 1823) gave this name to 
a perennial May-flowering daisy, growing in shady moist spots along 
the road from Pozzuoli to Fusaro (near Naples), at Castellammare, 
and in the damp hedge-banks round the botanic garden at Naples. 
I translate the whole of his account, in spite of its length :—“ From 
the same root issue many branched, ascending, leafy stems, whose last 
ramifications are prolonged into flowering peduncles a foot and more 
long ; radical leaves elliptic-oblong, 3 inches long and one inch broad, 
cut into acute, deep, distant teeth ; stem-leaves carried on petioles 
about two inches long, oval or spatlmlate, always with acute teeth ; 
flowers altogether white in the ray and yellow in the disk, of a size 
intermediate between those of the two preceding species (B. perennis 
and B. annua) ; the plant is slightly hairy. Is it B. perennis var. D. 
caule elonyato I)C. FI. Fr. ? I have long deferred recognising til’s 
new species, but after mature examination I have convinced myself 
that from its habit, its time of flowering, its duration and the rest of 
its characters, it is intermediate between the two preceding kinds, but 
it cannot be confused with or thought to bo a variety of either. 
