^ijotjobentjron ^ocietp ^ote£i. 
My own experience seems to show that it is not impossible to cross with this 
species ; but many times I have gathered large capsules, so crossed, which 
contained nothing but chaff. 
Sir J. Hooker says, I think, that R. Falconeri replaced R. argenteum as he 
ascended the mountains. Both are nearly hardy, but both start into growth 
too early in the spring. 
In the Temperate-house at Kew, I think there is a hybrid between 
R. ARGENTEUM and R. ARBOREUM. They are clearly closely allied, and few 
things could be more interesting than a breed of hybrids inheriting the grandeur 
of R. ARGENTEUM (in foliage and flower) with the hardiness and variety of 
colour of some of our arboreum hybrids. 
It is, indeed, a problem for Rhododendron growers to solve, to throw colour 
into the white Sikkim, and especially the scented species. Mr. Darwin alludes 
to the “ singular fact that white varieties generally transmit their colour much 
more truly than other varieties. The fact probably stands in close relation with 
one observed by Verlot, viz., that flowers which are normally white rarely vary 
into any other colour.”* 
I was too early to see Mr. Henry’s R. Jenkinsii (almost the same as 
calophyllum) in bloom. R. Hookeri was nearly over. R. formosum (alias 
Gibsonii) was, however, in full beauty. This, crossed with R. Edgeworthii,! 
has produced R. “Sesterianum.” An equivalent of ‘‘Princess Alice,” by which 
latter Messrs. Veitch anticipated Mr. Henry’s seedling, was also in bloom, as 
well as R. Boothii, and a curious hybrid with yellow flowers. My host has 
also fine plants of Rhododendrons Maddenii, Dalhousi.e, Aucklandii or 
Griffithianum, ‘‘ Countess of Haddington,” and many others, each of 
* The genetics and chemistry of flower colour has been and is now the 
subject of scientific experimental investigation. See works of Dr. Keeble 
and others.—I.B.B. 
f There is some confusion over the origin of R. “ Sesterianum ” and R. 
" Princess Alice.” Here, and again in his Article of August 2nd, 1879, 
Mr. Mangles gives the parentage of *' Sesterianum ” as formosum x 
Edc-eworthii. On January 22nd, 1881, after iiuoting Focke’s words 
‘‘R. FORMOSUM Wall: 9 Edgeworthii, Hook: J. $ .is 
R. ‘Sesterianum,’ Veitch. ‘Princess Alice' (Veitch & Son) is similar,” 
Mr. Mangles says : ‘‘ I have always understood and believed that the true 
pedigree of ‘ Princess Alice ' is ciliatum ^ x R. Edgeworthii and 
then gives the story of the making of this cross by Anderson-Henrj', a cross 
in which he had been anticipated by Veitch in their " Princess Alice.” 
Thus to Mangles ” Sesterianum ” was formosum x Edgeworthii, and 
“Princess Alice” was ciliatum x Edgeworthii; and he repeats tliis 
in his Article of May 7th, 1881, where he adds the information that 
“ Sesterianum ” was raised by Rinz & Co., of Frankfort-on-the-Maine. 
Focke makes “ Sesterianum ” a Veitchian hybrid, possibly misled by the 
fact that it was awarded a First-class Certificate by the R.H.S. in 1862 (see 
Proceedings R.H.S. II., 1862, p. 246), when exhibited by Veitch as a hybrid 
of Edgeworthii and Gibsonii (formosum). “Princess Alice,” exhibited 
by Veitch at the same time, also received a First-class Certificate as a 
hybrid of Edgeworthii and ciliatum. But in the Kew Handlist 
(Tender Dicotyledons, p. 589, Ed. 1900), R. “Sesterianum” is given as 
ciliatum X Edgeworthii. (See article on p. 110.) 
49 
