THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN, July 3, 1860. 
211 
and that conclusion has been forced on me against a preconceived 
opinion quite as strong as that asserted by Mr. W. Wooler. 
I am willing to discuss the whole subject of cross-breeding 
plants, and the theories which have been formed on that subject 
for the last hundred years, or from the reports of Kolreuter, the 
German father of cross-breeding, in the Acts of the Petersburgh 
Academy, to the last experiment on the “ origin of species ” by 
the best cross-breeder of the present day—the account of that last 
experiment being published in The Cottage Gardener week 
before last. 
The first thing, however, before any useful progress can be made 
in our knowledge on the subject by discussion, is to divest our 
minds of nine-tenths of the ideas which have been entertained on 
it upon inconclusive evidence. 
The first and greatest error on cross-breeding was propounded 
by Mr. Knight, our greatest physiologist. He assumed, in the 
“ Transactions of the Horticultural Society,” and in the “ Philo¬ 
sophical Transactions,” that a fertile offspring between two 
parents was conclusive evidence that the two were of one species ; 
and he took it for granted, as a consequence, that a barren offspring 
was direct evidence that the two were of different species. 
This hypothesis was received by botanists as a sound theory on 
the authority of its author, and a vast deal of unsound reasoning 
and writing has since been made on that text. Dr. Lindley went 
so far as to classify the reasonings, in order to facilitate the labour 
of cross-breeders. The former ho called crossing, the latter 
muling; and a whole mountain was thus placed across a plain 
path, and thousands have been benighted and lost upon that 
mountain. The way Nature has is this : One pod of seed, without 
crossing, will produce a fertile, a half fertile, and a barren plant 
—a fact I have proved a thousand times. Two of the most 
distant and dissimilar species of any known genus of plants, if 
they will cross at all, will produce seedlings fertile, half fertile, 
and barren. In another year the same parents will produce all 
fertile seedlings ; and at another cross the progeny may be all 
barren, or be a mixture of all the cases. That also I have myself 
proved in numberless cases; and the two nearest species in looks 
and habit will produce barren seedlings among half barren and 
fertile ones. 
I have not read Mr. Darwin’s work on the origin of species; 
but I can originate botanical species almost at will—that is, 
produce a plant different from all other plants, which will repro¬ 
duce itself pure from seeds to the end of time—that I am quite 
certain of. And farther, I assert most confidently, that a3 far as 
crossing has yet proved, there is not the slightest natural difference 
between a botanical species and a cross-brod variety which will 
reproduce itself from seeds. 
I have an opinion which I have held for years, but 1 can never 
prove it—therefore it is not of the smallest value in discussing a 
point, but it may be practically useful to some one : it is, that we 
are wrong in nine times out of ten in saying a seedling is barren. 
I hold that it may only be barren under the circumstances of 
soil and climate. Some of our very finest plants are barren in 
our climate. Are they so in all climates ? I think not. 
Well, on the Continent, Gaertner, the authority produced by 
Mr. Wooler, has done ten times more damage to cross-breeding 
than the President of the Horticultural Society. His reports 
were received both here and abroad as sound gospel. He has 
been challenged to prove some of his reports, but he never did it; 
and no one will ever prove one out of ten of Gaertner’s crossing 
experiments, for they were not capable of proof. So, you see, 
before you can discuss the subject profitably, you would need 
Hercules to clear the ground first. 
Thero are only two facts yet learned from alltho cross-breeding 
that has been effected. The one is, that no two plants belonging 
to two natural genera will cross. The second fact is, that no 
accidental sport can be transmitted to a second generation by 
means of crossing, as we know the natural peculiarities of men— 
their idiosyncracy, as they say, are constantly so transmitted. 
And there is a third fact all but proved, and it is this—that no 
reliance can be placed on crossing any plants if one of the parents 
or both sport naturally from self seeds. The Polyanthus belongs 
to this third class ; and the hose-in-hose variety of it belongs to 
the second fact. The liose-in-hose is an accidental sport, and you 
cannot transmit it to the next generation by crossing. A common 
Polyanthus may be crossed with a hose-in-hose rarely ; and some 
of the seedlings may come hose-in-liose, because there is some¬ 
thing in the soil which predisposes the seedlings to that freak. 
But the liose-in-hose would come without crossing just as w r ell; 
or, if it were truly transmitted by the pollen, every one of the 
seedlings must be hose-in-hoee. Then, if that happens, prove it 
another way. Grow the two parents one year in very different 
soil or in another garden, and the second year cross them ; and 
if the peculiarity of the pollen reappears in that batch also, and 
in all the seedlings, the case is proved, and not without. Even 
then there is proof to the contrary recorded at the last meeting 
of the Floral Committee. 
A mother, hose-in-hose Azalea amcena wa3 crossed by Mr. 
Standish with Azalea lateritia. The plant, or seedling, follows 
the mother in every respect, except the size of the flower and the 
hosc-in-hose. It is one of the very best seedlings of the new 
race, besides proving conclusively that the liose-in-hose sport is 
incapable of being carried through to the next generation, even 
on the mother side, to a certainty, or in a way one could depend 
upon. Like the Polyanthus, some of the seedlings might come 
liose-in-hose ; but who can prove that that should be by pollen 
when there is positive proof to the contrary ? 
The yellow Polyanthus, which Mr. Wooler mentions as coming 
true from seed, if not crossed is the most curious in England, or 
perhaps in all the world ; for there is not another Polyanthus, I 
believe, that would come true from seeds. Look at my “ Good 
Gracious” yellow Polyanthus, which will only give one true 
seedling, or yellow of any kind, out of very nearly four thousand 
seedlings just proved in ten different situations. I shall be glad 
to exchange three of it for one of Mr. Wooler’s kind. I write 
“kind” or “sort” in preference to “species” or “variety.”— 
D. Beaton.] 
NEW AND RARE PLANTS. 
PnALiENOPSiS GRANDieloea (Large-flowerecl Indian 
Butterfly-plant). 
This Orchid is a native of Java. Introduced by Messrs. 
Veitch & Sons, of the Exeter and Chelsea Nurseries. Flowers 
white, with a yellow stain on the lateral lobes of the lip.—( Bo¬ 
tanical Magazine, t. 5184.) 
Scutellaria incarnata, var. Trianai ( Flesh-coloured Skull¬ 
cap, var. Trianai). 
Native of Bogota. It only differs from S. incarnata by having 
smaller glabrous leaves, and deeper scarlet flowers. Bloomed 
during spring in the Kew stoves.— (Ibid., t. 5185.) 
Chysis bractescens ( Bracteated Chysis). 
Native of Mexico. Introduced by Mr. G. Baker in 1810. 
Flowers white, with large leafy bracts.— (Ibid., t. 5186.) 
Ahorphopkallus dubius (Smooth-headed Amorphophallus). 
A very singular Arum-like plant from Ceylon. “ Our plant 
flowered in a warm stove in June, 1858, and gave out a stench 
so abominable as almost to render the atmosphere of it insup¬ 
portable.”— (Ibid., t. 5187.) 
Tradescantia Waeczewicziana (Warczewicz’s Spiderwort). 
A handsome native of Guatemala, deserving a place among 
our stove plants. Easily propagated by cuttings. . Flowers 
purple-lilac, numerous, and in constant succession during spring 
and early summer.— (Ibid., t. 5188.) 
Yanda GiGANTEA (Gigantic Vanda). 
Native of Burmali, growing on Bagerstroemia regina on the 
banks of the Tenasserim river, near Barlavo. Bloomed for the 
first time at Messrs. Yeitch & Sous’, Chelsea, in April of the 
present year. Flowers three inches in diameter; golden yellow, 
blotched with cinnamon ; in spikes.— (Ibid., t. 5189.) 
CULTURE OF THE ROSE IN POTS. 
(Continued from page 196.) 
Summer Pruning. —Encouragement in summer should be 
given to the plants, and let them be so pruned and thinned as to 
have the best-placed and strongest shoots preserved. Thin them 
out by cutting away close to the stem all superfluous or weak 
shoots. These last make excellent cuttings. This summer 
pruning should be done immediately after the summer blooming 
is over, and no autumn flowers should be allowed to bloom on 
plants that are to bloom from April to the end of May the follow¬ 
ing year. 
Autumn and Spring Pruning. —The month of November 
is a good season for priming Roses in pots to flower in the early 
