tEt)t ^ocietp ^otesi 
Characteristics 
of seedlings. 
Gardeners’ Chronicle, March Uh, 1882. 
The Editor writes to me : "Is there any marked difference in the seedlings 
of Rhododendrons ? ’’ 
In venturing to give an answer to this question, so far as my obsert^ation and 
experience among Himalayan Rhododendrons permits, I will for the present 
confine the word " Seedlings ’’ to plants grown from seed imported from their 
native places, that is to say, plants of the first generation, and mj^ answer must be 
in the negative. I believe that a packet of seed, gathered from the same species 
and in the same locality, will yield in Europe seedlings, not of course, absolutely 
uniform, but certainly showing no marked difference. This result, although 
often questioned, was surely to be expected, seeing that Himalayan Rhodo¬ 
dendrons are mostly social plants, and must commend itself to the experience 
of our old-fashioned R. ponticum, which, when kept apart from other species 
and hybrids, continues very true for many generations. Certainly, for the first 
generation, the seedlings of Himalayan Rhododendrons are often produced in 
great numbers, almost absolutely alike. Sometimes this uniformity descends 
to later generations, and sometimes even to hybrids. 
Thus Mr. G. Shepperd has raised about 150 hybrids between R. Edgeworthii 
and R. formosum, most of which have bloomed, and he can see no difference 
whatever in any of them. I must not, however, at present go so far afield, but 
confine myself to the assertion that carefully collected native seed will, when 
grown in this country, faithfully reproduce the parent type. 
I may seem, perhaps, to have unduly laboured this highly probable statement. 
Nevertheless, the Editor’s question is a very important one, even in my limited 
sense, and is not to be disposed of quite easily. For how comes it that 
in European collections there prevails such a variet)^ of tjqre with plants of the 
first generation as fairly to puzzle a connoisseur ? SpeciMists are often justly 
accused of magnifying unimportant distinctions, but I hope to avoid this charge 
on the evidence about to be adduced. Take, for instance, R. fulgens, which 
has been derived exclusively from Sikkim or close by, figured very finely in 
Sir J. Hooker’s magnificent work from his own drawing taken on the native spot. 
After awhile the seed transmitted by him to Kew produced plants ajid 
blossom, and a plate of that blossom appeared in the Botanical Magazine,* 
prepared by the very best flower artist. Now, I defy any one not to remark a 
most striking difference between the two portraits, and this not in colour, but in 
character. The Botanical Magazine indeed mentions one difference, and 
the section of the ovary suggests another ; but I have seen in li\dng plants of the 
first generation quite enough to make me believe both portraits correct, and each 
type distinct. Again, the late Mr. Gorrie was one of the first to grow Sikkim 
Rhododendrons, and in 1854 he was reporting on them to Sir J. Hooker, who 
published his reports. In these reports he noticed that he had apparently 
* Plate 5317. 
96 
