l^fje i^tjobctienbron ^ocietp ^otess. 
several forms of R. fulgens. Mr. Gorrie continued to grow Rhododendrons, R- fulgens. 
and shortly before his death, in 1880, he read a paper to the Edinburgh Botanical 
Society, in which he gave so extraordinary an account of a so-called R. fulgens 
that I thought it desirable to ask leave to inspect his plants. Among them I 
found one form of R. fulgens, but it was not so named. I do not marvel, 
however, that Mr. Gorrie did not recognize it, but described it as “ R.— ? an 
unnamed species,” for it is unlike both the types alluded to above. The plant 
which Mr. Gorrie named R. fulgens may possibly be yet another form of the 
species ; but if so, it is a fourth form. His description is as follows : " R. 
FULGENS —a plant which is now about twenty-five years old, and only 15 inches 
in height by 33 inches in diameter—has never suffered from either winter or 
spring frosts, nor has it yet flowered, but its compact growth and the bright 
verdigris-green of its young leaves render it a favourite dwarf evergreen.” 
Once again, Mr. Luscombe has been growing Sikkim Rhododendrons from 
the very first, and his plants are, or were, of the first generation. He has written 
to me on the subject of R. fulgens, and he tells me that his type of the species 
is, “not like that in Sir J. Hooker’s work, but loose-flowering like R. Thomsonii.” 
Now, considering that Sir J. Hooker’s R. fulgens has a cluster of many flowers 
crammed closely together, and that R. Thomsonii hangs its few flowers as loosely 
as may be, this is saying a great deal. Mr. Anderson-Henry considers that he 
has two or three varieties of the species, and not many weeks ago I discovered 
in Mr. Roger’s most picturesque nursery, near Southampton, a form which in 
foliage seemed different from all that I have described. But as this last was a 
grafted plant, I must not rely too much on its appearance. At Kew there are 
several types, which with the kind assistance of the authorities I propose to study 
during the ensuing season. 
Similar remarks might be made with regard to other species, such as R. 
argenteum, Falconeri, Thomsonii, and others ; but I must postpone these for 
the present, and devote a few words to my explanation of the facts as illustrated 
by the example of R. fulgens. I may be wrong, but, if so, I have the satisfaction 
of knowing that a most competent observer, who is much interested in the 
subject, will probably this very spring be in a position to confute me on the spot. 
The explanation, then, is this : That as the Himalayan range passes eastward Geography of the 
through Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan, the genus Rhododendron becomes truly 
protean in form, and presents not only an extraordinary number of species in a 
small space, but also striking geographical varieties in very great abundance. 
Even R. arboreum, which, according to Dr. Thomson, is so uniform except in 
colour, westward begins to yield to variation in Nepal. On some future occasion 
I may show how this notion of extreme variety is quite in accordance with 
high authority, and especially with the writings of Sir J. Hooker (who mentions 
the case of R. Falconeri, R. Aucklandii and others),' and I may then point 
out the curious resemblances, and yet the differences, between the Rhododendrons 
of Sikkim and Bhutan, which have now been brought together in the Flora 
OF British India. For the present I will only add that the circumstances 
attending the collection of Rhododendron seed, and the fact that ripe seed and 
blossoms are seldom to be seen together, wiU explain how many smaller differences 
97 
