a 
novelty. 
_ gazine, No. 51, with two varieties, ib. No.1301. 4. Bicolor, ib. No. 1187-5. 
o: a a ee a 
; MONTHLY BOTANICAL REPORT. . 
WE have frequently had occasion to remark upon the difficulty which attends the making 
out what are real species, and what are mere varieties, in plants that have been long 
eultivated. This difficulty arises, not only from the changes which many plants undergo 
from a diversity of scil, but likewise from a real admixture of the species, the pistil of one 
being impregnated by the pollen of another, an admixture which frequently takes place al- 
together unintentionally on the part of the gardener, or principally by means of bees, and 
other insects,which, flying from one kind to another in search of honey, carry tbe pollen of 
one plant adhering to their hairy bodies, and wipe it off on the stigma of a different species. 
The seeds of the latter, after such an operation, instead of producing an offspring similar te 
the mother plant, produce a hybrid breed, compounded of the species from which the pollen 
brought by the bees originated, and of the mother plant. Thus the young plants will resem- 
ble in some points the one species, and in some points the other. Of late years too, the in- 
genuity. and industry of man, ia pursuit of gain, have prompted him purposely to occasion 
this admixture, in order to produce varieties, which may be striking fyom their beauty or 
By this accidental, or intentional, breeding of mule-vegetables, added to the changes occa 
siened by varying the culture, and industriously supplying a soil, found by experience best 
fitted to produce the required changes, such a multitude of varieties-have been produced, 
particilarly in plants which, having been fevourites among florists, have been longer and 
more carefully cultivated, that to determine the original stork from whence the vast host has 
o:iginated, has, in some cases, become almost impossible. 
Were these varieties, whether obtained by diversifying the culture, or by the intermixture — 
of two species, equally permanent with the natural plants, there would be no possibility of 
wnravelling these intricacies ; but there is a constant tendency in the varieties from the first 
of these causes to degenerate, as it is called, that is, to retura back to their original state, 
and in the mule breeds to perish, from being generally barren. through some defect in the 
organs of fructificatioa. At the same time we do not believe that the sterility of hybrids, 
neith:r in the animal nor vegetable kingdoms, is a constant law of nature, as some philoso- 
phers have supposed; on the contrary, we apprehend, that there are many exceptions to bE 
found in both, and that it cannot be inferred because the offspring may occasionally prove 
prolific, that therefore the male and female parents must have been of the same species ; a 
conclusion which the celebrated physislogist, Mr. John Hunter, adopted with regard to the 
wolf andthe cog. Jt is enough for our purpose.that the law, though not universal, is very 
general, and sufficient to prove a tendency in nature to restore varieties, in the cqurse of tinic, 
back to their original stock, or to occasion them to perish. ; 
Linn zus entertained an idea, which seems to be totally incompatible with the above ob- 
servations, He believed that, at the creation, genera only were made, and that all the spe- 
cies have arisen since from the intermixture of one genus with another. ‘That such an liy- 
pothesis however cannot be true, what we know of the very frequent barrenness of inixed 
species, and of the impossibility of impregnating the ovary of one genus with the pollen of 
another, unless so nearly allicd as to make the generic distinction dubious, is amply sufficieng 
to prove. . 
We are led to these reflections from the perusal of the last number of the Botanical 
Magazine, in which Mr, Gawler laudably continues his labours in unravelling the mysteries. 
of the parterre, with respect to the favourite genus Narcissus, of which this Number contains 
accurate figures of five varieties. ‘It appears, from an enumeration of the species known by 
Bir-Gawier, that nearly the whole has been figured-in the Botanical Magazine, together with 
their principal varieties. And this excellent botanist has taken the opportunity afforded, of 
correcting some errors which he had befare fallen into, tith respect to referring some of the 
varieties to their proper species. Some of our readers will be surpiiséd to find that the most 
common white Narcissus, N. diforus of Curtis, No. 197, (crroneovsly quoted in one plece 
No. 19-4, in two others No. 179,) is the-orientalis of Linnzeus, but not of Hortus Kewensis. 
The species enzmerated by Mr. Gawler are, 1. Psendo-Narcissus, English Botany,-17. 
©, Minor, Botanical Magazine, No. 65 witha doubt whether these two species are really dis- 
tizct.. “Ih confirmatios of such doubt we can state, that we haveseen an intermediate variety 
zbout as much larger than AZinor as smaller than Pseudo-Narcissus. 3. Major, Botanical Ma- 
l  Moschatus, 
Wo. 924, and No. 1500. Of the last three, Mr. Gawler expresses some doubt if really dis- 
tinct. 6. Incomparibilis, No. 121, (not 51) see also Addenda to No. 954, and what he fore 
merly considered as a variety of Orientalis, No. 948, he now considers as a variety of this. 
7. Bulbocodium. ib. No. 88. 8. Lriandrus. 1b. No. 48 and 1262. 9. Calathiaus. Ib. No. 934, 
szhich Mr. Gawler has elsewhere remarked was ltterly takén up by Linnzus as his odorus, 
though the species he first described under that name was evidently the ixcomparabilis of the 
Magazive. Curtis’s Odorus, No.78, Mr. G. now makes a variety of calathinus; ‘so that the 
; > = . ¥ 3 
tame of odorus is now sunk. 10. Trilobus, Ib, 945, 11, Bifrons. Ib, Nu. 1186; and No. 
an Par nto age ae Nee ae "1299. 
“ 
oe 
