FLOWERS.
I shall not for several reasons treat the variability of plants which are cultivated for their flowers alone at any great length. Many of our favourite kinds in their present state are the descendants of two or more species crossed and commingled together, and this circumstance alone would render it difficult to detect the difference due to variation. For instance, our Roses, Petunias, Calceolarias, Fuchsias, Verbenas, Gladioli, Pelargoniums, etc., certainly have had a multiple origin. A botanist well acquainted with the parent-forms would probably detect some curious structural differences in their crossed and cultivated descendant; and he would certainly observe many new and remarkable constitutional peculiarities. I will give a few instances, all relating to the Pelargonium, and taken chiefly from Mr. Beck,[[169]] a famous cultivator of this plant: some varieties require more water than others; some are “very impatient of the knife if too greedily used in making cuttings;” some, when potted, scarcely “show a root at the outside of the ball of the earth;” one variety requires a certain amount of confinement in the pot to make it throw up a flower-stem; some varieties bloom well at the commencement of the season, others at the close; one variety is known,[[170]] which will stand “even pine-apple top and bottom heat, without looking any more drawn than if it had stood in a common greenhouse; and Blanche Fleur seems as if made on purpose for growing in winter, like many bulbs, and to rest all summer.” These odd constitutional peculiarities would enable a plant in a state of nature to become adapted to widely different circumstances and climates.
Flowers possess little interest under our present point of view, because they have been almost exclusively attended to and selected for their beautiful colour, size, perfect outline, and manner of growth. In these particulars hardly one long-cultivated flower can be named which has not varied greatly. What does a florist care for the shape and structure of the organs of fructification, unless, indeed, they add to the beauty of the flower? When this is the case, flowers become modified in important points; stamens and pistils may be converted into petals, and additional petals may be developed, as in all double flowers. The process of gradual selection by which flowers have been rendered more and more double, each step in the process of conversion being inherited, has been recorded in several instances. In the so-called double flowers of the Compositæ, the corollas of the central florets are greatly modified, and the modifications are likewise inherited. In the columbine (Aquilegia vulgaris) some of the stamens are converted into petals having the shape of nectaries, one neatly fitting into the other; but in one variety they are converted into simple petals.[[171]] In the “hose in hose” primulæ, the calyx becomes brightly coloured and enlarged so as to resemble a corolla; and Mr. W. Wooler informs me that this peculiarity is transmitted; for he crossed a common polyanthus with one having a coloured calyx,[[172]] and some of the seedlings inherited the coloured calyx during at least six generations. In the “hen-and-chicken” daisy the main flower is surrounded by a brood of small flowers developed from buds in the axils of the scales of the involucre. A wonderful poppy has been described, in which the stamens are converted into pistils; and so strictly was this peculiarity inherited that, out of 154 seedlings, one alone reverted to the ordinary and common type.[[173]] Of the cock’s-comb (Celosia cristata), which is an annual, there are several races in which the flower-stem is wonderfully “fasciated” or compressed; and one has been exhibited[[174]] actually eighteen inches in breadth. Peloric races of Gloxinia speciosa and Antirrhinum majus can be propagated by seed, and they differ in a wonderful manner from the typical form both in structure and appearance.
A much more remarkable modification has been recorded by Sir William and Dr. Hooker[[175]] in Begonia frigida. This plant properly produces male and female flowers on the same fascicles; and in the female flowers the perianth is superior; but a plant at Kew produced, besides the ordinary flowers, others which graduated towards a perfect hermaphrodite structure; and in these flowers the perianth was inferior. To show the importance of this modification under a classificatory point of view, I may quote what Prof. Harvey says, namely, that had it “occurred in a state of nature, and had a botanist collected a plant with such flowers, he would not only have placed it in a distinct genus from Begonia, but would probably have considered it as the type of a new natural order.” This modification cannot in one sense be considered as a monstrosity, for analogous structures naturally occur in other orders, as with Saxifragæ and Aristolochiaceæ. The interest of the case is largely added to by Mr. C. W. Crocker’s observation that seedlings from the normal flowers produced plants which bore, in about the same proportion as the parent-plant, hermaphrodite flowers having inferior perianths. The hermaphrodite flowers fertilised with their own pollen were sterile.
If florists had attended to, selected, and propagated by seed other modifications of structure besides those which are beautiful, a host of curious varieties would certainly have been raised; and they would probably have transmitted their characters so truly that the cultivator would have felt aggrieved, as in the case of culinary vegetables, if his whole bed had not presented a uniform appearance. Florists have attended in some instances to the leaves of their plant, and have thus produced the most elegant and symmetrical patterns of white, red, and green, which, as in the case of the pelargonium, are sometimes strictly inherited.[[176]] Any one who will habitually examine highly-cultivated flowers in gardens and greenhouses will observe numerous deviations in structure; but most of these must be ranked as mere monstrosities, and are only so far interesting as showing how plastic the organisation becomes under high cultivation. From this point of view such works as Professor Moquin-Tandon’s ‘Tératologie’ are highly instructive.
Roses.—These flowers offer an instance of a number of forms generally ranked as species, namely, R. centifolia, gallica, alba, damascena, spinosissima, bracteata, indica, semperflorens, moschata, etc., which have largely varied and been intercrossed. The genus Rosa is a notoriously difficult one, and, though some of the above forms are admitted by all botanists to be distinct species, others are doubtful; thus, with respect to the British forms, Babington makes seventeen, and Bentham only five species. The hybrids from some of the most distinct forms—for instance, from R. indica, fertilised by the pollen of R. centifolia—produce an abundance of seed; I state this on the authority of Mr. Rivers,[[177]] from whose work I have drawn most of the following statements. As almost all the aboriginal forms brought from different countries have been crossed and re-crossed, it is no wonder that Targioni-Tozzetti, in speaking of the common roses of the Italian gardens, remarks that “the native country and precise form of the wild type of most of them are involved in much uncertainty.”[[178]] Nevertheless, Mr. Rivers in referring to R. indica (p. 68) says that the descendants of each group may generally be recognised by a close observer. The same author often speaks of roses as having been a little hybridised; but it is evident that in very many cases the differences due to variation and to hybridisation can now only be conjecturally distinguished.
The species have varied both by seed and by bud; such modified buds being often called by gardeners sports. In the following chapter I shall fully discuss this latter subject, and shall show that bud-variations can be propagated not only by grafting and budding, but often by seed. Whenever a new rose appears with any peculiar character, however produced, if it yields seed, Mr. Rivers (p. 4) fully expects it to become the parent-type of a new family. The tendency to vary is so strong in some kinds, as in the Village Maid (Rivers, p. 16), that when grown in different soils it varies so much in colour that it has been thought to form several distinct kinds. Altogether the number of kinds is very great: thus M. Desportes, in his Catalogue for 1829, enumerates 2562 as cultivated in France; but no doubt a large proportion of these are merely nominal.
It would be useless to specify the many points of difference between the various kinds, but some constitutional peculiarities may be mentioned. Several French roses (Rivers, p. 12) will not succeed in England; and an excellent horticulturist[[179]] remarks, that “Even in the same garden you will find that a rose that will do nothing under a south wall will do well under a north one. That is the case with Paul Joseph here. It grows strongly and blooms beautifully close to a north wall. For three years seven plants have done nothing under a south wall.” Many roses can be forced, “many are totally unfit for forcing, among which is General Jacqueminot.”[[180]] From the effects of crossing and variation Mr. Rivers enthusiastically anticipates (p. 87) that the day will come when all our roses, even moss-roses, will have evergreen foliage, brilliant and fragrant flowers, and the habit of blooming from June till November. “A distant view this seems, but perseverance in gardening will yet achieve wonders,” as assuredly it has already achieved wonders.
It may be worth while briefly to give the well-known history of one class of roses. In 1793 some wild Scotch roses (R. spinosissima) were transplanted into a garden;[[181]] and one of these bore flowers slightly tinged with red, from which a plant was raised with semi-monstrous flowers, also tinged with red; seedlings from this flower were semi-double, and by continued selection, in about nine or ten years, eight sub-varieties were raised. In the course of less than twenty years these double Scotch roses had so much increased in number and kind, that twenty-six well-marked varieties, classed in eight sections, were described by Mr. Sabine. In 1841[[182]] it is said that three hundred varieties could be procured in the nursery-gardens near Glasgow; and these are described as blush, crimson, purple, red, marbled, two-coloured, white, and yellow, and as differing much in the size and shape of the flower.
Pansy or Heartsease (Viola tricolor, etc.).—The history of this flower seems to be pretty well known; it was grown in Evelyn’s garden in 1687; but the varieties were not attended to till 1810-1812, when Lady Monke, together with Mr. Lee, the well-known nursery-man, energetically commenced their culture; and in the course of a few years twenty varieties could be purchased.[[183]] At about the same period, namely in 1813 or 1814, Lord Gambier collected some wild plants, and his gardener, Mr. Thomson, cultivated them, together with some common garden varieties, and soon effected a great improvement. The first great change was the conversion of the dark lines in the centre of the flower into a dark eye or centre, which at that period had never been seen, but is now considered one of the chief requisites of a first-rate flower. In 1835 a book entirely devoted to this flower was published, and four hundred named varieties were on sale. From these circumstances this plant seemed to me worth studying, more especially from the great contrast between the small, dull, elongated, irregular flowers of the wild pansy, and the beautiful, flat, symmetrical, circular, velvet-like flowers, more than two inches in diameter, magnificently and variously coloured, which are exhibited at our shows. But when I came to enquire more closely, I found that, though the varieties were so modern, yet that much confusion and doubt prevailed about their parentage. Florists believe that the varieties[[184]] are descended from several wild stocks, namely, V. tricolor, lutea, grandiflora, amœna, and altaica, more or less intercrossed. And when I looked to botanical works to ascertain whether these forms ought to be ranked as species, I found equal doubt and confusion. Viola altaica seems to be a distinct form, but what part it has played in the origin of our varieties I know not; it is said to have been crossed with V. lutea. Viola amœna[[185]] is now looked at by all botanists as a natural variety of V. grandiflora; and this and V. sudetica have been proved to be identical with V. lutea. The latter and V. tricolor (including its admitted variety V. arvensis) are ranked as distinct species by Babington, and likewise by M. Gay,[[186]] who has paid particular attention to the genus; but the specific distinction between V. lutea and tricolor is chiefly grounded on the one being strictly and the other not strictly perennial, as well as on some other slight and unimportant differences in the form of the stem and stipules. Bentham unites these two forms; and a high authority on such matters, Mr. H. C. Watson,[[187]] says that, “while V. tricolor passes into V. arvensis on the one side, it approximates so much towards V. lutea and V. Curtisii on the other side, that a distinction becomes scarcely more easy between them.”