o

; ear Tena : yee

rea acount : RuS thet et

SRM Mu Pua : : oer
causteny eee
fe x Bay ar

PEMAEIN

 
 

ALBERT R. MANN
LIBRARY

AT

CORNELL UNIVERSITY

 

 
 
 
A Lecture given before the Massachusetts State

‘Board of Agriculture in “Boston, Dec. 1, 1891.

CROSS-BREEDING AND
HYBRIDIZING

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CROSSING OF

 

WITH A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE SUBJECT.

By L. H. BAILEY.

NEW YORK:

THE RURAL PUBLISHING COMPANY.
1892.
Ww.
Copyrighted 1892, by
THE RURAL PUBLISHING COMPANY.

All Rights Reserved.

ELECTROTYPED AND PRINTED BY
‘THE RURAL PUBLISHING COMPANY.
URAL LIBRARY SERIES.

 

Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CROSSING OF PLANTS, CONSID-
ERED WITH REFERENCE TO THEIR IMPROVE-
MENT UNDER CULTIVATION.

determined largely by the survival of the fittest in a long and severe

struggle for existence. The proof that this struggle everywhere exists
becomes evident upon a moment's reflection. We know that all organisms
aré eminently variable. In fact, no two plants or animals in the world are
exactly alike. We also know that very few of the whole number of seeds
which are produced in any area ever grow into plants. If all the seeds pro-
duced by the elms upon Boston Common in any fruitful year were to grow

[" is now understood that the specific forms or groups of plants have been

into trees, this city would become a forest as a result. If all the seeds of

* arest orchid in our woods were to grow, in a few generations of plants
? our farms would be overrun. If all the rabbits which are born were
*  -h old age and all their offspring were to do the same, in less than
rs every vestige of herbage would be swept from the country and our

, would become barren. There is, then, a wonderful latent potency
‘se species; but the same may be said of every species of plant and

4 even of man himself. If one species of plant would overrun and
© -e@ land if it increased tothe full extent of its possibilities, what
iL the result if each of the 2,061 plants known to inhabit Middlesex
were todo the same? And then fancy the result if each of the ani-

4, from rabbits and mice to frogs and leeches, were to increase without
+k! The plagues of Egypt would be insignificant in the comparison!
fact is, the world is not big enough to hold the possible first offspring of
‘ants and animals at this moment living upon it. Struggle for existence,
4 The Rural Library.

then, is inevitable, and it must be severe. It follows as a necessity that those
seeds grow or those plants live which are best fitted to grow and to live, or which
are fortunate enough to find a congenial foothold: It would appear at first
thought that much depends upon the accident of falling into a congenial place,
or one unoccupied by other plants or animals ; but inasmuch as scores of plants
are contending for every unoccupied place, it follows that everywhere only the
fittest can germinate or grow. In the great majority of cases, plants grow ina
certain place because they are better fitted to grow there, to hold their own,
than any other plants are ; and the instances are rare in which a plant is so
fortunate as to find an unoccupied place. We are apt to think that plants
chance to grow where we find them, but the chance is determined by law and
therefore is not chance !

Much of the capability of a plant to persist tinder all this struggle,
therefore, depends upon how much it varies; for the more it varies the
more likely it is to find places of least struggle. It grows under various
conditions—in sun and shade, in sand and clay, by the seashore or upon
the hills, in the humidity of the forest or the aridity of the plain. In
some directions it very likely finds less struggle than in others, and in these
directions it expands itself, multiplies, and gradually dies out in other direc:
tions. So it happens that it tends to take on new forms or to undergo an
evolution. In the meantime, all the intermediate forms, which are at best
only indifferently adapted to their conditions, tend to disappear. In otler
words, gaps appear which we call ‘‘missing links.” The weak links break
and fall away, and what was once a chain becomes a series of rings. So the
‘missing links" are among the best proofs of evolution.

The question now arises as to the cause of these numerous varizt ::
animals and plants. Why are no two individuals in natureexactly alike: : ne
question is exceedingly difficult to answer. It was once said that plants vi)?
because it is their nature to vary, that variation is a necessary function;  ‘
much as growth or fructification. This really removes the question /°
yond the reach of philosophy; and direct observation leads us to think .
some variation, at least, is due toexternal circumstances. We ate now 1"
ing for the cause of variation along some of the lines of evoluticr, an
are wondering if the varied surroundings, or, as Darwin putit, the ‘'cbe.
conditions of life," may not actually induce variability. This cor: a
would seem to follow to some extent from the fact of the severe and
versal struggle in nature whereby plants are constantly forced into new}
strange conditions. But there is undoubtedly much variation whic
sprung from more remote causes, one of which it is my purpose to dix:

  

   

ib

here.
In the lowest animals and plants the species multiplies by. mean‘

y
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 5

simple division, or by budding. One individual, of itself, becomes two, and
the two are therefore recasts of the one. But as organisms multiplied and
conditions became more complex, that is, as struggle increased, there came a
differentiation in the parts of the individual, so that one cell or one cluster
of cells performed one labor and other cells performed other labor; and
this tendency resulted in the development of organs. Simple division, there-
fore, could no longer reproduce the whole complex individual, and as all
organs are necessary to the existence of life, the organism dies if it is divided.
Along with this specialization came the differentiation into sex, and sex
clearly has two offices—to hand over, by some mysterious process, the com-
plex organization of the parent to the offspring, and also to unite the essen-
tial characters or tendencies of two beings intoone. The second office is
manifestly the greater, for, as it unites two organizations into one, it insures
that the offspring is somewhat unlike either parent and is, therefore, better
fitted to seize upon any place or condition new to its kind. And as the
generations increase, the tendency to variation in the offspring must be con-
stantly greater, because the impressions of a greater number of ancestors are
transmitted to it. Ihave said that this office of sex to induce variation is
more important than the mere fact of reproduction of a complex organiza-
tion, for it must be borne in mind that the complexity of organization is
itself a variation made necessary by the increasing struggle for existence.
If, therefore, the philosophy of sex is to promote variation by the union
of different individuals, it must follow that greatest variation must come
from parents considerably unlike each other in their minor characters.
Thus it comes that inbreeding tends to weaken a type and cross-breeding
tends to strengthen it. And at this point we meet the particular subject
which Iam to present to you. I have introduced to you this preliminary
sketch because I contend that we can understand crossing only as we make
it a part of the general philosophy of nature. There are the vaguest notions
concerning the possibilities of crossing, some of which I hope to correct by
presenting this subject in its relations to the general aspects of the vegetable
world.
We are now prepared to understand that crossing is good for the
species, because it constantly revitalizes offspring with the strongest traits of
the parents and ever presents new combinations which enable the individuals
‘to stand a better chance of securing a place in the polity of nature. All the

‘arther discussions of the subject are such as have to do with the extent to
which crossing is possible and advisable, and the mere methods of perform-
ing the operation.

At this point I must digress for the purpose of defining certain terms which
it is necessary to use frequently. I use the term cross to denote the offspring
6 The Rural Library.

of any sexual union between plants, whether of different species, or varie-
ties, or even different flowers upon the same plant. It is a general term.
And the word is also sometimes used to denote the operation of performing
or bringing about the sexual union. There are different kinds of crasses.
One of these isthe kybvid. A hybrid is across between two species, as a plum
and a peach, or a raspberry and a blackberry. There has lately been some
objection urged against this term because it is often impossible to define the
limitations of species, to tell where one species ends and another begins.
And it is a fact that this difficulty exists, for plants which some botanists re-
gard as mere varieties others regard as distinct species. But the term
hybrid is no more inaccurate than the term species, upon which it rests, and
so long asimen talk about species,so long have we an equal right to talk about
hybrids. Here, as everywhere, terms are mere conveniences, and they sel-
dom express the whole truth. In common speech, the word hybrid is much
misused. Crosses between varieties of one species are termed half-breeds
or cross-breeds, and those between different flowers upon the same plant are
called zxdividual crosses. ‘

If crossing is good for the species, which philosophy and direct experi-
ment abundantly show, it is necessary at once to find out to what extent it
can be carried. Does the good increase in proportion as the cross becomes
more violent, or as the parents are more and more unlike? Or do we soon
find a limit beyond which it is not profitable or even possible to go—a point
at which we say that ‘An inch is as good asanell”? If great variability
is good for the species in the struggle for existence, and if crossing induces
variability because of the union of unlike individuals, it would seem to fol-
low that the more unlike the parents are-the greater would be the variation
in offspring and the more the species would prosper; and carrying this
thought to its logical conclusion we should expect to find that the most
closely related plants would constantly tend to refuse to cross, because the
offspring of them would be little variable and, therefore, little adapted to
the struggle for existence, while the most widely separated plants would
constantly tend to cross more and more, because their offspring would present
the greatest possible degrees of differences. We should expect, for instance,
that a Baldwin apple would be less likely to cross with a Greening than
with a Norway spruce or Indian corn! And if we should carry our
thought a step farther, we should at once see that this crossing between
different species would soon fill in all differences between those species, and
that definite specific types would cease to exist. This would be pandeme-
nium, and crossing would be the cause of it!

Now, essentially this reasoning has been advanced to combat the evolution
of plants and animals by means of natural selection, and this proposition
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 7

that intermixing must constantly tend to obliterate all differences between
plants and to prevent the establishment of well-marked types, has been
called the ‘‘swamping effects of intercrossing.” It is exceedingly important
that we consider this question, for it really lies at the foundation of the
improvement of cultivated plants by means of crossing, as well as of the
persistence and evolution of varieties and species under wholly natural
conditions. :

We find, however, that distinct species, as a rule, refuse to cross, and the
first question which naturally arises in this discussion is, What is the imme-
diate cause of this refusal of plants to cross? How does this refusal express
itself? It comes about in many ways. The commonest cause is the posi-
tive refusal of a plant to allow its ovules to be impregnated by the pollen of
another plant. The pollen will not ‘‘take.” For instance, if we apply the
pollen of a Hubbard squash to the flower of the common field pumpkin
there will simply be no result—the fruit will not form. The same is true of
the pear and the apple, the oat and the wheat, and most very unlike species.
Or the refusal may come in the sterility of the cross or hybrid. The pollen
may ‘‘take” and seeds may be formed and the seeds may grow, but the
plants which they produce may be wholly barren, sometimes even refusing
to produce flowers as well as seeds, as in the instance of some hybrids be-
tween the Wild Goose plum and the peach. Sometimes the refusal to cross
is due to some difference in the time of blooming or some incompatability in
the structure of the flowers. But it is enough for our purpose to know that
there are certain characters in widely dissimilar plants which prevent inter-
crossing, and that these characters are just as positive and just as much in-
fluenced by change of environment and natural selection, as are size, color,
productiveness and other characters. Here, then, is the’ sufficient answer to
the proposition that intercrossing must swamp all natural selection, and also
the explanation of the varying and often restricted limits within which
crossing is possible: that is, the checks to crossing have been developed
through the principle of universal variability and natural selection, as has
been shown by Darwin and Wallace. Plants vary in their reproductive
organs and powers just the same as they do in other directions, and when
such a variation is useful it is perpetuated, and when hurtful it islost. Sup-
_ pose that a certain well-marked individual of a species should find an un-
usually good place in nature and it should multiply rapidly ; crosses would be
made between its own offspring and perhaps between those offspring and
itself in succeeding years, and it is fair to suppose that some of the crosses
would be particularly well-adapted to the conditions in which the parent
grew, and these would constantly tend to perpetuate themselves, while less
adaptive forms would constantly tend to disappear. Now the same thing
8 The Rural Library.

would take place if this individual or its adaptive offspring were to cross
with the main stock of the parent species; for all the offspring of such a cross
which are intermediate in character and therefore less adapted to the new
conditions, would tend to disappear, and the two branches of the species
would, as a result, become more and more fixed and the tendency to cross
would constantly decrease. The refusal to cross, therefore, becomes 'a posi-
tive character of separation, and the ‘‘missing links" which result from
crossing are no more and no less inexplicable than the ‘‘ missing links” due
to simple selection; or, to put the case more accurately, natural’ selec-
tion ‘weeds out the tendency to promiscuous crossing when it is hurtful, in.
just the same manner that it it weeds out any other injurious tendency. It
makes no difference in what way this tendency expresses itself, whether in
some constitutional refusal to cross—if such exists—or in infertility of off-
spring, or in different times of blooming: all equally come under the same
power of natural selection. We are apt to look upon infertility as the ab-
sence of a character, a sort of a negative feature, which is somehow not the
legitimate property of natural selection ; but such is not the case. We are
perhaps led the more to this feeling because the word infertility is itself
negative, and because we associate full productiveness with the positive at-
tributes of plants. But loss of productiveness is surely no more a subject
of wonder than loss of color or size, if there is some corresponding gain to
be accomplished. In fact, wesee in numerous plants which propagate easily
by means of runners and suckers, a very low degree of productiveness.

Now, if this reasoning is sound, it leads us to conclusions quite the reverse of
those held by the advocates of the swamping effects of intercrossing, and
these conclusions are of the most vital importance to every man who tills
the soil. The logical result is simply this: the best results of crossing are
obtained, as a rule, when the cross is made between different individuals of
the same variety, or, at farthest, between different individuals of the same
species. In other words, hybrids—or crosses between species—are rarely
useful ; and it follows, as a logical result, that the more unlike the species,
the less useful will be the hybrids. This, 1 am aware, is counter to the
notions of most horticulturists, and; if true, must entirely overthrow our com-
mon thinking upon this subject. But I think that I shall be able to show that
observation and experiment lead to the same conclusion to which our philds-
ophy has brought us.

“At this point we must ask ourselves what we mean by ‘‘best results.” I
take this phrase to refer to those plants which are best fitted to survive in
the struggle for existence—those which are most vigorous or most productive

or most hardy, or which possess any well-marked character or characters:

which distinguish them in virility from their fellows. We commonly asso-

us
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 9

ciate the term more particularly with marked vigor and productiveness;
these are the characters most useful in nature and also in cultivation, the
ones which we oftenest desire to obtain. Another type of variation which
we constantly covet is something which we can call a new character, which
will lead to the production of a new cultural variety; and we are always
looking to this as the legitimate result of crossing. We have forgotten, if,
indeed, we ever knew, that the commoner, all-pervading, more important
function of the cross is to infuse some new strength or power into the off-
spring—to improve or to perpetuate an existing variety rather that to create
a new one. Or, if a new one is created, it comes from the gradual passing of
one into another—an inferior variety into a good one, a good one intoa
superlative one. So nature employs crossing in a process of slow or gradual
improvement, one step leading to another, and not in any bold or sudden
creation of new forms. And there is evidence to show that something akin
to this must be done to secure the best and most permanent ‘results under
cultivation. The notion is somehow firmly rooted in the popular mind that
new varieties can be produced with the greatest ease by crossing. parents of
given attributes. There is something captivating about the notion. It
smacks of a somewhat magic power which man evckes as he passes his wand

- over the untamed forces of nature. But the wand is often only a gilded
stick, and is apt to serve no better purpose than the drum-major’s preten-
tious baton !

Let me say, further, that crossing alone can accomplish comparatively little.
The chief power in the evolution or progression of plants appears to be selec-
tion, or, as Darwin puts it, the law of ‘‘ preservation of favorable individual
differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious."
Selection is the force which augments, develops and fixes types. Man must
not only practice a judicious selection of parents from which the cross is to
come, which is in reality but the exercise of a choice, but he must constantly
select the best from among the crosses in order to maintain a high degree of
usefulness and to make any advancement; and it sometimes happens that
the selection is much more important to the cultivator than the crossing. I
do not wish to discourage the crossing of plants, but I do desire to dispell
the charm which too often hangs about it.

Further discussion of this subject naturally falls under two heads: the
improvement of existing types or varieties by means of crossing, and the
summary production of new varieties. I have already stated that the former
office is the more important one, and the proposition is easy of proof. It is
the chief use which nature makes of crossing—to strengthen the type.
Think, for instance, of the great rarity of hybrids or pronounced crosses in
nature. No doubt all the authentic cases on record could be entered in one
10 The Rural Library.

or two volumes; but a list of all the individual plants of the world couldnot
be compressed into ten thousand volumes. There are a few genera in which
the species are not well defined, or in which some character of inflorescence
favors promiscuous crossing, in which hybrids are conspicious; but even here
the number of individual hybrids is very small in comparison with the whole
number of individuals. That is, the hybrids are rare, while-the parents may
be common. This is well illustrated even in the willows and oaks, in which,
perhaps, hybrids are better known than in any other American plants. The
great genus carex or sedge, which occurs in great numbers and many species
in almost every locality in New England, and in which the species are par-
ticularly adapted to intercrossing by the character of their inflorescence,
furnishes but few undoubted hybrids. Among 167 species and prominent
varieties inhabiting the northeastern states, there are only nine hybrids re-
corded, and all of them are rare or local, some of them having been collected
but once. Speciesof remarkable similarity may grow side by side for years,
even intertangled in the same clump, and yet produce no hybrid. These
instances prove that nature avoids hybridization, a conclusion at which we
have already arrived from philosophical considerations. And we have reason
to infer the same conclusion from the fact that flowers from different species
are so constructed as not to invite intercrossing. But, on the other hand,
the fact that all higher plants habitually propagate by means of seeds, which
is far the most expensive to the plant of all methods of propagation, while
at the same time most flowers are so constructed as to prevent self-fertiliza-
tion, prove that some corresponding good must come from crossing within
the limits of the species or variety; and there are purely philosophical rea-
sons, as we have seen, which warrant a similar conclusion. But experiment
has given us more direct proof of our proposition, and we shall now turn
our attention to the garden.

Darwin was the first to show that crossing within the limits of the species
or variety results in a constant revitalizing of the offspring, and that this is
the particular ultimate function of cross-fertilization. Kélreuter, Sprengel,
Knight, and others, had observed many, if, indeed, not all the facts obtained
by Darwin, but they had not generalized upon them broadly and did not
conceive their relation to the complex life of the vegetable world. Darwin's
results are, concisely, these: Self-fertilization tendsto weaken the offspring,
as compared with its natural condition ; crossing between different plants of the
same variety gives stronger and more productive offspring than arises from
self-fertilization ; crossing between stocks of the same variety grown in different
places or under different conditions gives better offspring than crossing between
different plants grown in the same place or under similar conditions; and his
researches have also shown that, as arule, flowers areso constructed as to favor
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 11
cross-fertilization. In short, he found, as he expressed it, that ‘‘nature abhors
perpetual self-fertilization.” Some of his particular results, although often
quoted, will be useful in fixing these facts in our minds. Plants from crossed
seeds of morning-glory exceeded in height those from self-fertilized seeds as
roo exceeds 76 in the first generation. Some flowers upon these plants were
self-pollinated and some were crossed, and in this s¢cond generation the
crossed plants were to the uncrossed as 100 is to 79; the operation was again
repeated, and in the third generation the figures stand 100 to 68; fourth
generation, the plants having been grown in midwinter when none of them
did well, 100 to 86; fifth generation, 100 to 75; sixth generation, 100 to 72;
seventh generation, 100 to 81; eighth generation, 100 to 85; ninth genera-
tion, 100 to 79; tenth generation, 100 to 54. The average total gain in
height of the crossed over the uncrossed was as 100 to 77, or about 30 per
cent. There was a corresponding gain in fertility, or the number of seeds
and seed-pods produced. Yet, striking as these results are, they were
produced by simply crossing between plants grown near together, and under
what would ordinarily be called uniform conditions. In order to determine
the influence of crossing with fresh stock, plants of the same variety were
obtained from another garden, and these were crossed with the ninth genera-
tion mentioned above. The offspring of this cross exceeded those of the other
crossed plants as 100 exceeds 78 in height, as 100 exceeds 57 in the number
of seed-pods, and as 100 exceeds 51 in the weight of the seed-pods. In other
words, crosses from fresh stock of the same variety were nearly 30 per
cent. more vigorous than crosses between plants grown side by side for some
time, and over 44 per cent. more vigorous than plants from self-fertilized
seeds. It is evident, from all these figures, that nature desires crosses be-
tween plants, and, if possible, between plants grown under somewhat differ-
ent conditions. All the results are exceedingly interesting and important,
and there is every reason to believe that, as a rule, similar results can be ob-
tained with all plants.

Darwin extended his investigations to many plants, only a few of which need
be discussed here. Cabbage gave pronounced results. Crossed plants were
to self-fertilized plants in weight as roo to 37. Across was now made be-
tween these crossed plants and a plant of the same variety from another
garden, and the difference in weight of the resulting offspring was the dif-
ference between 100 and 22, showing a gain of over 350 per cent. due to a
cross with fresh stock. Crossed lettuce-plants exceeded uncrossed in height
as 100 exceeds 82. Buckwheat gave an increase in weight of seeds as 100 to
82, and in height of plant as 100 to 69. Beets gave an increase in height
represented by 100 and 87. Maize, when full-grown, from crossed and un-
12 The Rural Library.

crossed seeds, gave the differences in height between 100 and 91. Canary-
grass gave similar results.

Ihave obtained results as well marked as these upon a large and what
might be called commercial scale. I raised the plants during the first genera-
tion of seeds from known parentage, the flowers from which they came
having been carefully pollinated by hand. In some instances the second
generations were grown from hand-crossed seeds, but in other cases the
second generations were grown from seeds simply selected from the first-
year patches. As the experiments have been made in the field and upon a
somewhat extensive scale, it was not possible to measure accurately the
plants and the fruits from individuals in all cases; but the results have been
so marked as to admit of no doubt as to their character. In 1889, several
hand-crosses were made among egg-plants. Three fruits matured, and the
seeds from them were sown in 1890. Some 200 plants were grown, and
they were characterized throughout the season by great sturdiness and vigor
of growth. They grew more erect and taller than other plants near by
grown from commercial seeds. They were the finest plants which I had
ever seen. It was impossible to determine productiveness, from the fact that
our seasons are too short for egg-plants, and only the earliest flowers, in the
large varieties, perfect their fruit, and the plant blooms continuously through
the season. In order to determine how much a plant will bear, it must be
grown until it ceases to bloom. When frost came, I could see little differ-
ence in productiveness between these crossed plants and commercial plants.
A dozen fruits were selected from various parts of this patch, and in 1891
about 2,500 plants were grown from them. Again the plants were remark-
ably robust and healthy, with fine foliage, and they grew erect and tall—an
indication of vigor. They were also very productive, but as the cross had
been made between unlike varieties and they were therefore unlike either
parent, I could not make an accurate comparison. But they compared well
with commercial egg-plants, and I am satisfied that they would have shown
themselves to be more productive than common stock could they have grown
a month or six weeks longer. Professor Munson, of the Maine Agricultural
College, grew some of this crossed stock this year (1891) and he writes me
that it is better than any commercial stock in his gardens.

In extended experiments in the crossing of pumpkins, squashes and gourds,
carried on during several years, increase in productiveness due to crossing
has been marked in many instances. Marked increase in productiveness has
been obtained from tomato crosses, even when no other results of crossing
could be seen.

Bearing in mind these good influences of crossing, let us recall another
‘series of facts following the simple change of seed. Almost every farmer
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 13

or gardener at the present day feels that an occasional change of seed re-
sults in better crops, and there are definite records to show that such is often
the case. In fact, I am convinced that much of the rapid improvement in
fruits and vegetables in recent years is due to the practice of buying plants
and seeds so largely of dealers, by means of which the stock is often
changed. Even a slight change, as between farms or neighboring villages,
sometimes produces marked results, as more vigorous plants and often more
fruitful ones. We must not suppose, however, that because a small
change gives a good result, a violent or very pronounced change gives a bet-
ter one. There are many facts on record to show that great changes often
profoundly influence plants, and when such influence results in lessened
vigor or lessened productiveness we call it an injurious one. Now, this in-
jurious influence may result even when all the conditions in the new place
are favorable to health and development of the plant; it is an influence
which is wholly independent, so far as we can see, of any condition which
interferes injuriously with the simple processes of growth. Seeds of a native
physalis or husk-tomato were sent me from Paraguay in 1889 by Dr. Thomas
Morong, then traveling in that country. I grew it both in the house and out-
doors, and for two generations was unable to make it set fruit, even
though the flowers were hand-pollinated; yet the plants were healthy and
grew vigorously. The third generation, grown out-doors this year, set
fruit freely. This is an instance of the fact that very great changes of
conditions may injuriously affect the plant, and an equally good illustration
of the power to overcome these conditions. Now there is great similarity
between the effects of slight and violent changes of conditions and small and
violent degrees of crossing, as both Darwin and Wallace have pointed out,
and it is pertinent to this discussion to endeavor to discover if there is any
real connection between the two. és ;

It is well proved that crossing is good for the resulting offspring, because
the differences between the parents carry over new combinations of charac-
ters or at least new powers into the crosses, It is a process of revitaliza-
tion. And the more different the stocks in desirable characters within the
limits of the variety, the greater is the revitalization; and frequently the.
good is of a more positive kind, resulting in pronounced characters which
may serve as the basis for new varieties. In the cross, therefore, a new
combination of characters or a new power fit it to live better than its
parents in the conditions under which they lived. In the case of change of
stock we find just the reverse, which, however, amounts to the same thing,
that the same characters or powers fit the plant to live better in conditions
new to it than plants which have long lived in those conditions. In either
case, the good comes from the fitting together of new characters or powers
14 The Rural Library.

and new environments. Plants which live during many generations in one
place become accustomed to the place, thoroughly fitted into its conditions,
and arein what Mr. Spencer calls astate of equilibrium. When either plant or
conditions change, new adjustments must take place,and the plant may find an
opportunity to expand in some direction in which it has before been held back ;
for plants always posséss greater power than they are able to express.
‘These rhythmical actions or functions [of the organism],” writes Spencer,
‘tand the various compound rhythms resulting from their combinations, are
in such adjustment as to balance the actions to which the organism is sub-
ject. There is a constant or periodic genesis of forces, which, in their kinds,
amounts, and directions, suffice to antagonize the forces which the organism
has constantly or periodically to bear. If, then, there exists this state of
moving equilibrium among a definite set of internal actions, exposed toa
definite set of external actions, what must result if any of the external
actions are changed? Of course there is no longer an equilibrium.
Some force which the organism habitually generates is too great or
too small to: balance some incident force, and there arises a residuary
force exerted by the environment on the organism or by the organism
on the environment. This residuary force—this unbalanced force—of
necessity expends itself in producing some change of state in the
organism." The good results, therefore, are processes of adaptation,
and when adaptation is perfectly complete the plant may have gained no per-
manent advantage over its former conditions, and new crossing or another
change may be necessary; yet there is sometimes a permanent gain, as when
a plant becomes visibly modified by change to another climate. Now this
adaptive change may express itself in two ways, either by some direct in-
fluence upon the stature, vigor or other general character, or indirectly
upon the reproductive powers by which some new influence is carried to the
offspring. If the direct influences become hereditary, as observation seems
to show may sometimes occur, the two directions of modification may
amount, ultimately, to.the same thing.

For the purposes-of this discussion it is enough to know that crossing
within the variety and change of stock within ordinary bounds are bene-
ficial, that the results in the two cases seem to flow from essentially the same
causes, and that crossing and change of stock combined give much better
results than either one alone. These processes are much more important
than any mere groping after new varieties, as I have already said, not only
because they are surer, but because they are universal and necessary means
of maintaining and improving both wild and cultivated plants. Even after
one succeeds in securing and fixing a new variety, he must employ these
means to a greater or less extent to maintain fertility and vigor. In the case
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 15

of- some garden crops, in which many seeds are produced in each fruit and in
which the operation of pollination is easy, actual hand-crossing from new
stock now and then may be found to be profitable. But in most cases, the
operation can be left to nature, if the new stock is planted among the old.
Upon this point Darwin expressed himself as follows: ‘‘It isa common
practice with horticulturists to obtain seeds from another place having a very
different soil, so as to avoid raising plants for a long succession of genera-
tions under the same conditions ; but with all the species which freely inter-
cross by the aid of insects or the wind, it would be an incomparably better
plan to obtain seeds of the required. variety, which had been raised for some
generations under as different conditions as possible, and sow them in alter-
nate rows with seeds matured in the old garden. The twostocks would then
intercross, with a thorough blending of their whole organization, and with
no loss of purity to the variety ; and this would yield far more favorable re-
sults than a mere change of seeds."

But you are waiting for a discussion of the second of the great features of
crossing—the summary production of new varieties. This is the subject
which is almost universally associated with crossing in the popular mind,
and even among horticulturists themselves. It is the commonest notion that
the desirable characters of given parents can be definitely combined ina
pronounced cross or hybrid. There are two or three philosophical reasons
which somewhat oppose this doctrine and which we will do well to consider
at the outset. In the first place, nature is opposed to hybrids, for species
have been bred away from each other in the ability to cross. If, therefore,
there is no advantage for nature to hybridize, we may suppose that there
would be little advantage for man to do so; and there would be no advantage
for man,did he not grow the plant under conditions different from nature or
desire a different set of characters. We have seen that nature’s chief bar-
riers to hybridization are total refusal of species to unite, and entire or com-
parative seediessness of offspring. Wecan overcome the refusal to cross in
many cases by bringing the plant under cultivation ; for the character of the
species becomes so changed by the wholly new conditions that its former
antipathies may be overpowered. Yet it is doubtful if such a plant will ever
acquire a complete willingness to cross. In like manner we can overcome
in a measure the comparative seedlessness of hybrids, but it is very doubt-
ful if we can ever make such hybrids completely fruitful. It would appear,
therefore, upon theoretical grounds, that in plants in which fruits or seeds are
the parts sought, no good can be expected, as a rule, from hybridization, and
this seems to be affirmed by facts.

It is evident that species which have been differentiated or bred away from
each other in a given locality will have more opposed qualities or powers than
16 The Rural Library.

similar species which have arisen quite independently in places remote from
eachother. In the one case, the species have likely struggled with each other
until each one has attained a degree of divergence which allows it to persist ;
while in the other case there has been no struggle between the species, but simi-
lar conditions have brought about similar results. These similar species which
appear independently of each other in different places are called representative
species. Islands remote from each other, but similarly situated with refer-
ence to climate, very often contain representative species, and the same may
be said of ‘other regions much like each other, as eastern North America and
Japan. Now it follows that if representative species are less opposed than
others, they are more likely to hybridize with good results; and this fact is
well illustrated in the Kieffer and allied pears, which appear to be hybrids
between representative species of Europe and Japan, and I am inclined to
think that the same may be found to be true of the common or European
apple and the wild crab of the Mississippi valley. Various crabs of the
Soulard type, which I once thought to constitute a distinct species, appear upon
further study to be hybrids. We will also recall that the hybrid grapes
which have so far proved most valuable, are those obtained by Rogers be-
tween the American /’%t7s Labrusca and the European wine grape ; and that
the attempts of Haskell and others to hybridize associated species of native
grapes have given at best only indifferent results. To these good results
from hybrids of fruit-trees and vines I shall revert presently.

Another theoretical point which is borne out by practice is the conclusion
that, because of the great differences and lack of affinity between parents,
pronounced hybrid offspring is unstable. This is one of the greatest diffi-
culties in the way of the summary production of new varieties by means of
hybridization. It would appear also, that because of the unlikeness of
parents, hybrid offspring must be exceedingly variable, but as a matter of
fact, in many instances the parents are so pronouncedly different that the
hybrids represent a distinct type by themselves or else they approach very
nearly to the characters of one of the parents. There are, to be sure, many
instances of exceedingly variable hybrid offspring, but they are usually the
offspring of variable parents. In other words, variability in offspring ap-
pears to follow rather as a result of variability in parents than as a result
of mere unlikeness of character. But the instability of hybrid offspring
when propagated by seed is notorious. Wallace -writes that ‘‘ the effect of
occasional crosses often results in a great amount of variation, but it also
leads to instability of character, and is therefore very little employed in the
production of fixed and well-marked races."

I may remark again that, because of the unequal and unknown powers of
the parents, we can never predict what characters will appear in the hybrids.
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 17

This fact was well expressed by Lindley a half century ago in the phrase,
‘ Hybridizing is a game of chance played between man and plants.”

Bearing these fundamental propositions in mind, let us pursue the subject
somewhat in detail. We shall find at the outset that the characters of hy-
brids, as compared with the characters of simple crosses between stocks of
the same variety, are ambiguous, negative, and often prejudicial. The
fullest discussion of hybrids has been made by Focke, and he lays down the
five following propositions concerning the character of hybrid offspring :

1. ‘All individuals which have come from the crossing of two pure species
or races, when produced and grown under like conditions, are usually exactly
like each other, or at least scarcely more different from each other than
plants of the same species are.’’ This proposition, although perhaps true
in the main, appears to be too broadly and positively stated.

2. ‘‘The characters of hybrids are different from the characters of the
parents. The hybrids differ most in size and vigor and in their sexual
powers.” i

«3. “Hybrids are distinguished from their parents~by-their powers of vege-

tation or growth. Hybrids between very different species are often weak,
especially when young, so that it is difficult to raise them. On the other
hand, eross-breeds are, as a rule, uncommonly vigorous; they are distin-
guished mostly by size, rapidity of growth, early flowering, productiveness,
longer life, stronger reproductive power, unusual size of some special organs,
and similar characteristics.”

4. ‘‘Hybrids produce a less amount of pollen and fewer seeds than their
parents, and they often produce none. In cross-breeds this weakening of
the reproductive powers does not occur. The flowers of sterile or nearly
sterile hybrids usually remain fresh a long time.”

5. ‘Malformations and odd forms are apt to appear in hybrids, especially
in the flowers.” .

Some of the relations between hybridization and crossing within narrow
limits, are stated as follows by Darwin: ‘‘It is an extraordinary fact that
with many species, flowers fertilized with their own pollen are either abso-
lutely or in some degree steriie ; if fertilized with pollen from another flower
on the same plant, they are sometimes, though rarely, a little more fertile ;
if fertilized with pollen from another individual or variety of the same
species, they are fully fertile; but if with pollen from a distinct species, they
are sterile in all possible degrees, until utter sterility is reached. We have
thus a long series with absolute sterility at the two ends—at one end due to
the sexual elements not having been sufficiently differentiated, and at the

Cc-B, H.—2
18 The Rural Library.

other end to their having been differentiated in too great a degree, or in some
peculiar manner.”

The difficulties in the way of successful results through hybridization
are, therefore, these: The difficulty of effecting the cross, infertility, insta-
bility, variability, and often weakness and monstrosity of the hybrids, and
the absolute impossibility of predicting results. The advantage to be
derived from a successful hybridization is the securing of a new variety
which shall combine in some measure the most desirable features of both
parents; and this advantage is often of so great moment that it is worth
while to make repeated efforts and to overlook numerous failures. From
these theoretical considerations it is apparent that hybridization is essentially
an empirical subject, and the results are such as fall under the common
denomination of chance. And as it does not rest upon any legitimate func-
tion in nature, we can understand that it will always be difficult to codify
laws upon it. :

Among the various characters of hybrid offspring, I presume that the most
prejudicial one is their instability, their tendency still to vary into new forms
or to return to one or the other parent in succeeding generations. It is diffi-
cult to fix any particular form which we may secure in the first generation
of hybrids. At the outset we notice that this discouraging feature is mani-
fested entirely through the medium of reproduction ; and we thereby come upon
what is perhaps the most important practical consideration in hybridization,
the fact that the great majority of the best hybrids in cultivation are in-
creased by bud-propagation, as cuttings, layers, suckers, buds or grafts. In
fact, I recall very few instances in this country of good undoubted hybrids
which are propagated with practical certainty by means of seeds. You will
recall that the genera in which hybrids are most common are those in which
bud-propagation is the rule, as begonia, pelargonium, fuchsia, gladiolus,
rhododendron, roses, and the fruits. This simply means that it is difficult
to fix hybrids so that they will come ‘‘true to seed,” and makes apparent the
fact that if we desire hybrids we must expect to propagate them by means
of buds. And this, too, isa point which appears to have been overlooked
by those who contend that hybridization must necessarily swamp all results
of natural selection ; for as comparatively few plants propagate naturally by
means of buds, whatever hybrids might have appeared would have been
speedily lost, and all the more, also, because, by the terms of their reasoning,
the hybrids would cross with other and dissimilar forms and therefore lose
their identity as intermediates. Or, starting with the assumption that hy-
brids are intermediates and would therefore obliterate specific types, we
must conclude that they should have some marked degree of stability; but
as all hybrids tend to break up when propagated by seeds, it must follow
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 19

that bud-propagation would become more and more common, and this is
associated in nature with decreased seed-production. Now seed-production
is the legitimate function of flowers, and we must concede that as seed-
production decreased floriferousness must have decreased, and, that, there-
fore, pronounced intercrossing would have obliterated the very organs upon
which it depends, or have destroyed itself!

But I may be met by the objection that there is no inherent reason why
hybrids should not become stable through seed-production by inbreeding,
and I might be cited to the opinion of Darwin and. others that inbreeding
tends to fix any variety whether it originated by crossing or other means.
And it is a fact that inbreeding tends to fix varieties, within certain limits,
but those limits are often overpassed in the case of very pronounced crosses,
whether cross-breeds or true hybrids. And if it is true, as all observation
and experiment show, that sexual or reproductive powers of crosses are
weakened as the cross becomes more violent, we should expect less and less
possibility of successful inbreeding, for inbreeding without disastrous re-
sults is possible only with comparatively strong reproductive powers. Asa
matter of fact, it is found in practice that it is exceedingly difficult to fix:
pronounced hybrids by means of inbreeding. It sometimes happens, too,
that the hybrid individual which we wish to perpetuate may be infertile with
itself, as I have often found in the case of squashes. It is often advised
that we cross the hybrid individual which we wish to fix with another like
individual, or with one of its parents. These results are often successful, _

- but oftener they are not. In the first place it often happens that the hybrid
individuals may be so diverse that no two of them are alike; this has been
my experience in many crosses. And again, crossing with a parent may draw
the hybrid back again to the parental form. So long ago as last century
Kélreuter proved this fact upon nicotiana and dianthus. A hybrid between
Nicotiana rustica and N. paniculata was crossed with WV. paniculata
until it was indistinguishable from it; and it was then crossed with
N. rustica until it became indistinguishable from that parent. Yet there is
no other way of fixing a hybrid to be propagated by seeds than by inbreed-
ing, so farasI know. Fortunately, it occasionally happens that a hybrid is
stable and therefore needs no fixing.

In this connection I may cite some of my own experience in crossing egg-
plants and squashes; for although the products were not true hybrids in the
strict interpretation of the word, many of them were hybrids to all intents
and purposes because made between very unlike varieties, and they will
serve to illustrate the difficulties of which I speak. Offspring of egg-plant
crosses were grown in 1890, and upon some of the most promising plants
some flowers were self-pollinated. But these self-pollinated seeds gave just
'20 The Rural Library.

as variable offspring in 1891 as those selected almost at random from the
patch; and, what was worse, none of them reproduced the parent or ‘‘came
true to seed,” and all further motive for inbreeding was gone. My labor,
therefore, amounted to nothing more than my own edification! My experi-
ence in crossing pumpkins and squashes has now extended through five years,
and although I have obtained about one thousand types not named or de-
scribed, I have not yet succeeded in fixing one! The difficulty here is an
aggravated one, however. The species are so exceedingly variable that all
the mongrel individuals may be unlike, so that there can be no crossing be-
tween identical stocks, and if inbreeding is attempted, it may be found that
the flowers will not inbreed! And the refusal to inbreed is all the more
strange becduse the sexes are separated in different flowers upon the same
plant. In other words, in my experience, it is very difficult to get good seeds
from squashes which are fertilized by a flower upon the same vine. The
squashes may grow normally to full maturity, but be entirely hollow or con-
tain only empty seeds. In some instances the seeds may appear to be good,
but may refuse to grow under the best conditions. Finally, a small number
of flowers may give good seeds. I have many times observed this refusal of
squashes (Cucurbita Pepfo) to inbreed. It was first brought to my attention
through efforts to fix certain types into varieties. The figures of one season’s
tests will sufficiently indicate the character of the problem. In 1890, 185
squash-flowers were carefully pollinated from flowers upon the same vine.
Only 22 of these produced fruit, and of these, only 7, or less than one-third,
bore good seeds, and in some of these the seeds were few. Now these 22
fruits represented as many different varieties, so that the ability to set fruit
with pollen from the same vine is not a peculiarity of a particular variety.
The records of the seeds of the 7 fruits in 1891 are as follows:

Fruit No. 1.—4 vines were obtained with 4 different types of fruit, 2 of
them being white, 1 yellow and 1 black.

Fruit No. 2.—23 vines: 15 types, very unlike, 12 being white and 3
yellow.

Fruit No. 3.—2 vines: 1 type of fruit which was almost like one of the
original parents.

Fruit No. 4.—32 vines: 6 types, differing chiefly in size and shape.

Fruit No. 5.—20 vines: 19 types, of which 10 were white, 8 orange, 1
striped, and all very unlike.

Fruit No. 6.—13 vines: 11 types, 8 yellow, 2 black, 1 white.

Fruit No. 7.—1 vine.

These offspring were just as variable as those from flowers not inbred,
and no more likely, apparently, to reproduce the parent. These tests leave
me without any method of fixing a pronounced cross of squashes, and lead
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 21

me to think that the legitimate process of origination of new kinds here, as
indeed, if not in general, is a more gradual process of selection, coupled, per-
haps, with minor crossing.

I will relate a definite attempt towards the fixation of a squash which I
had obtained from crossing. The history of it runs back to 1887, when a
cross was effected between a summer Yellow Crookneck and a White Bush
Scallop squash. In 1889 there appeared a squash of great excellence, com-
bining the merits of summer and winter squashes with very attractive form,
size and color, and a good habit of plant. I showed the fruit to one of the
most expert seedsmen of the country and he pronounced it one of the most
promising types which he had ever seen ; and as he informed me that he had
fixed squashes by breeding in-and-in, I was all the more anxious to carry
out my own convictions in the same direction. It is needless to say that I
was very happy over what I regarded as a great triumph, and I remember
that I experienced a keen feeling of satisfaction that I had been able to over-
come nature’s prejudices. Of course I must have a large number of plants
of my new variety that I might select the best, both for inbreeding and for
crossing similar types. So I selected the very finest squash, having placed
it where I could admire it for some days, and saved every seed of it. These
seeds were planted upon the most conspicuous knoll in my garden in 1890.
It was soon evident that something was wrong ; I seemed to have everything
except my squash. One’plant, however, bore fruits almost like the parent,
and upon this I began my attempts towards inbreeding. But flower after
flower failed and I soon saw that the plant was infertile with itself. Careful
search revealed two or three other plants very like this one, and I then pro-
ceeded to make crosses upon it. I was equally confident that this method
would succeed. When I harvested my squashes in the fall and took account
of stock, I found that the seeds of my one squash had given just as many
different types as there were plants, and I actually counted 110 kinds dis-
tinct enough to be named and recognized! Still confident, in 1891 I planted
the seeds of my crosses, and as the summer days grew long and the crickets
chirped in the meadows, I watched the expanding blossoms and wondered
what they would bring forth. But they brought only disappointment! My
squash had taken an unscientific leave of absence and I do not know its
whereabouts. And when the frost came and killed every ambitious blossom,
my hopes went out and have not yet returned !

Let us now recall how many undoubted hybrids there are, named and
known, among our fruits and vegetables. In grapes there are the most.
There are Rogers’ hybrids, like Agawam, Lindley, Wilder, Salem and Barry;
and there is some reason for supposing that Delaware, Catawba, and other
varieties are of hybrid origin. And many hybrids have come to notice
22 The-Rural Library.

lately through the work of Munson and others. But it must be remembered
that grapes are naturally exceedingly variable and the specific limits are not
well known, and that hybridization among them lacks much of that definite-
ness which ordinarily attaches to the subject. In pears there is the Kieffer
class. In apples, peaches, plums, cherries, apricots, quinces, currants, goose-
berries, blackberries, dewberries, there are no commercial hybrids. The
strawberry is doubtful. Some of the raspberries, like Caroline and Shaffer,
appear to be hybrids between the red and black species. Hybrids have been
produced between the raspberry and blackberry by two or three persons, but
they possess no promise of economic results. Among all the list of garden
vegetables—plants that are propagated by seeds—I do not know of a single
authentic hybrid; and the same is true of wheat—unless the Carman wheat-
rye varieties become prominent, oats, the grasses, and other farm-crops.
But among ornamental plants there are many ; and itis a significant fact that
the most numerous, most marked, and most successful hybrids occur in the
plants most carefully cultivated and protected—those, in other words, which
are farthest removed from all untoward circumstances and an independent
position. This is nowhere so well illustrated as in the case of cultivated
orchids, in which hybridization has played no end of freaks, and in which,
also, every individual plant is nursed and coddled. For such plants the
struggle for existence is reduced to its lowest terms, for it must be borne in
mind that even in the garden plants must fight severely fcr a chance to live,
and even then only the very best can persist or are even allowed to try.

I am aware that this list of hybrids is much more meager than most cat-
alogues and trade-lists would have us believe, but I am sure that it is approxi-
mately near the truth. Itis, of course, equivalent to saying that most of the
so-called hybrid fruits and vegetables‘are myths. There is everywhere a
misconception of what a hybrid is and how it comes to exist; and yet, per-
haps because of this indefinite knowledge, there is a widespread feeling that
a hybrid is necessarily good, while the presumption is directly the opposite.
The identity of a hybrid in the popular mind rests entirely upon some super-
ficial character, and proceeds upon the assumption that it is necessarily in-
termediate between the parents. Hence we find one of our popular authors
asserting that because the kohlrabi bears its thickened portion midway of
its stem, it is evidently a hybrid between the cabbage and turnip, which re-
spectively bear the thickened parts at the opposite extremities of the stem !
And then there are those who confound the word hybrid with kigh-bred, and
who build attractive castles upon the unconscious error. And thus is con-
fusion confounded !

But before leaving the subject of hybridization, I must speak of the old
yet common notion that there is some peculiar influence exerted by each sex
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 23

in the parentage of hybrids, for I shall thereby not only call your attention
to what I believe to be an error, but shall also find the opportunity to illus-
trate still further the entanglements of hybridization. It was held by cer-
tain early observers, of whom the great Linnzeus was one, that the female
parent determines the constitution of the hybrid, while the male parent gives
the external attributes, as form, size and color. Theaccumulated experience
of nearly a century and a half appears to contradict this proposition, and
Focke, who has recently gone over the whole ground, positively declares
that it is untrue. There are instances, to be sure, in which this old idea is
affirmed, but there are others in which it is contradicted. The truth appears
to be this, that the’ parent of greater strength or Virility makes the stronger
impression upon the hybrids, whether it is the staminate or pistillate parent,
‘and it appears to be equally true that it is usually impossible to determine
beforehand which parent isthe stronger. It is certain that strength does
not lie in size, neither in the high development of any character. It appears
to be more particularly associated with what we call fixity or stability of
character, or a tendency towards invariability. This has been well illus-
trated in my own experiments with squashes, gourds and pumpkins. The
common little pear-shaped gourd will impress itself more strongly upon
crosses than any of the edible squashes and pumpkins with which it will
effect a cross, whether it is used as a male or female parent. Even the im-
posing and ubiquitous great field-pumpkin which every New Englander asso-
ciates with pies, is overpowered by the littke gourd. Seeds from a large and
sleek pumpkin which had been fertilized by gourd-pollen produced gourds
and small hard-shelled globular fruits which were entirely inedible. A more
interesting experiment has been made between the handsome green-striped
Bergen fall squash and the little pear-gourd. Several flowers of the gourd
were pollinated by the Bergen in 1889. The fruits raised from these seeds
in 1890 were remarkably gourd-like. Some of these crosses were pollinated
again in 1890 by the Bergen and the seeds were sown in 1891. Here, then,
were crosses into which the gourd had gone once and the Bergen twice, and
both the parents are to all appearances equally fixed, the difference in
strength, if any, attaching rather to the Bergen. Now the crop of 1891.
still carried pronounced characters of the gourd. Even in the fruits which
most resembled the Bergen, the shells were almost flinty hard and the
flesh, even when thick and tender, was bitter. Some of the fruits looked so
much like the Bergen that I was led to think that the gourd had largely dis-
appeared. The very hard, but thin paper-like shell which the gourd had
laid over the thick yellow flesh of the Bergen, I thought might serve a useful
purpose and make the squash a better keeper. And I found that it wasa
great protection, for the squash could stand any amount of rough handling
24 The Rural Library.

and was even not injured by ten degrees of frost. All this was an acquisi-
tion, and as the squash was handsome and exceedingly productive, nothing
more seemed to be desired. But it still remained to have a squash for din-
ner. The cook complained of the hard shell, but once inside, the flesh was
thick and attractive and it cooked nicely. Butthe flavor! Dregsof quinine,
gall and boneset! The gourd.was still there!

We have now seen that uncertainty follows hybridization, and in closing
I will say that uncertainty also attaches to the mere act of pollination. Be-
tween some species, which are closely allied and which have large and strong
flowers, four-fifths of the attempts towards cross-pollination may be success-
ful, but such a large proportion of successes is not common, and it may be
infrequent even in pollinations between plants of the same species or variety.
Some of the failure is due in many cases to unskillful operations, but even the
most expert operators fail as often as they succeed, in promiscuous pollinating.
There is good reason to believe, as Darwin has shown, that the failure may
be due to some selective power of individual plants, by which they refuse
pollen which in many instances is acceptable to other plants, even of the
same variety or stock. The lesson to be drawn from these facts is that opera-
tions should be as many as possible and that discouragement should not come
of failure. In order to illustrate the varying fortunes of the pollinator,
I will transcribe some notes from my field-book :

Two hundred and thirty-four pollinations of gourds, pumpkins and
squashes, mostly between varieties of one species (Cucurbita Pepo) and in-
cluding some individual pollinations, gave 117 failures and 117 successes.
These crosses were made in varying weather, from July 28 to August 30. In
some periods nearly all the operations would succeed, and at other times
most of them would fail. I have always regarded these experiments as
among my most successful ones, and yet but half of the pollinations ‘‘ took.”
But you must not understand that I actually secured seeds from even all
these 117 fruits, for some of them turned out to be seedless, and some were
destroyed by insects before they were ripe, or were lost by accidental means.
A few more than half of the successful pollinations—if by success we mean
the formation and growth of fruit—really secured us seeds, or about one-
fourth of the whole number of efforts.

Twenty pollinations were made between tomato-flowers, and they all failed ;
also 7 pollinations of red-peppers, 4 of husk-tomato, 2 of Vicotéana affinis
upon petunia and 2 of the reciprocal cross, 12 of radish, 1 of A/zrabdilis
Jalapa upon M. longifiora and two of the reciprocal cross, 3 Convolvulus
major upon C. minor and one of the reciprocal, 1 muskmelan by squash,
2 muskmelon by watermelon and one muskmelon by cucumber.

This is but one record. Now let me give you another :
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 25

Cucumber, 95 efforts: 52 success, 43 failures.

Tomato, 43 efforts: 19 successes, 24 failures. .

Egg-plant, 7 efforts: 1 success, 6 failures.

Pepper, 15 efforts: 1 success, 14 failures.

Husk-tomatoes, 45 efforts: 45 failures.

Pepino, 12 efforts: 12 failures.

Petunia by Vicotiana afinis, 11 efforts: 11 failures.

Nicotiana afinis by petunia, 6 efforts: 6 failures.

General Grant tobacco by Wicotéana affinds, 11 efforts: 8 successes, 3
failures.

Nicotiana afinis by General Grant tobacco, 15 efforts: 15 failures.

General Grant tobacco by General Grant tobacco: 1 effort, 1 success.

Nicotiana affinis by Nicotiana afinis, 3 efforts: 2 successes, 1 failure.

Tuberous begonia, 5 efforts: 5 successes.

Total, 312 efforts: 89 successes, 223 failures.

And now, the sum.of it all is this: Encourage in every way crosses within
the limits of the variety and in connection with change of stock, expecting
increase in vigor and productiveness; hybridize if you wish to experiment,
but do it carefully, honestly, thoroughly, and do not expect too much! Ex-
tend Darwin's famous remark to read: Nature abhors both perpetual self-
fertilization and hybridization.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.

The following list, while very incomplete, will enable the student to select
literature bearing upon the various questions of cross-breeding and hybridiza-
tion. The literature of cross-fertijization itsel{—the means and adaptations
by which flowers are fertilized—has been omitted. Those who desire a bibliog-
raphy of this subject should consult d'Arcy Thompson’s excellent list in
Mueller’s Fertilization of Flowers. In the present list I have included such
references as I have found upon the subject of the immediate influence of
pollen upon the resulting fruit.

1724. Dudley, P. An Observation on Indian Corn. Trans. Royal Phil.
Soc. vi. (2), 204-5.

1745. Cooke, Benj. Concerning the Effect which the Farina of the
Blossoms of different sorts of Apple trees had on the fruit of a neighboring
Tree. Trans. Royal Phil. Soc. ix. 169.

1748. Cooke, Benj. Ona Mixed Breed of Apples, from the Mixture of the
Farina. Trans. Royal Phil. Soc. ix. 599.

1749. Cooke, Benj. On the Effects of the Mixture of the Farina of Apple
trees; and of the Mayze or Indian Corn, etc. Trans. Royal Phil. Soc.
ix. 685.

1761. Koelreuter, Joseph Gottlieb. Vorldufige Nachricht von einigen das
Geschlecht der Pflanzen betreffenden Versuchen und Beobachtungen.
50 pp. Leipzig. Continued in 1763, 1764, and 1766.

1793. Sprengel, Christian Konrad. Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur
im Bau und in der Befruchtung der Blumen. 444 pp. 25 tab. Berlin.
1806. Knight, Thomas Andrew. Observations on the Means of Producing
New and Early Fruits. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. i. 30. Reprinted in

Physiological and Horticultural Papers of Thomas Andrew Knight, 172.

1809. Knight, Thomas Andrew. On the Comparative Influence of Male and
Female Parents on their Offspring. Trans. Royal Phil. Soc. 1809, pt. i.
392; Phys. and Hort. Papers, 343.

1814. Knight, Thomas Andrew. An Account of two New Varieties of
Cherry. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. ii. 137.

(26) °
Cross-Breeding and FAlybridizing. 27

1816. Knight, Thomas Andrew. An Account of three New Peaches. Trans.
Royal Hort. Soc. ii. 214.

1817. Knight, Thomas Andrew. An Account of a Peach tree produced
from the Seed of the Almond tree, with some Observations on the Origin
of the Peach tree. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. iii. 1.

1818. Herbert, W. Instructions for the Treatment of the Amaryllis
longifiora, asa hardy Aquatic, with some Observations on the Production
of Hybrid Plants, and the Treatment of the Bulbs of the Genera Crinum
and Amaryllis. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. iii. 187.

1818. Knight, Thomas Andrew. Upon the Variations of the Red Currant
when propagated by Seed [Crosses of white and red currants]. Trans.
Royal Hort. Soc. iii. 86.

1818. Knight, Thomas Andrew. Upon the Variations of the Scarlet Straw-
berry (Frugaria Virginiana) when propagated by Seeds. Trans. Royal
Hort. Soc. iii. 207.

1818. Knight, Thomas Andrew. Description of a New Seedling Plum.
Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. iii. 214.

1818. Sabine, Joseph. Observations on, and Account of, the Species and
Varieties of the Genus Dahlia; with Instructions for their Cultivation and
Treatment [Refers to Experiments in Crossing]. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc.
iii. 217.

1818. Van Mons, J. B. Substance of a Memoir on the Cultivation and
Variation of Brussels Sprouts. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. iii. 197.

1819. Anderson, David. Account of a New Melon, with a Description of

the Method by which it was obtained. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. iv. 318.
‘8x9. Herbert, W. On the Production of Hybrid Vegetables; with the
~~ Result of many Experiments made in the Investigation of the Subject.
Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. iv. 15.

1820. Sabine, Joseph. Account of a Newly Produced Hybrid Passiflora.
Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. iv. 258; also vol. v. 70 (1822).

1820. Turner, John. Observations on the Accidental iatermivlane of
Character of Certain Fruits. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. v. 63.

1821. Gowen, Robt. On the Production of a Hybrid Amaryllis. Trans.
Royal Hort. Soc. iv. 498.

1821. Guillemin et Dumas. Observations sur l’hybridité des Plantes en
Général et particuligrement sur celle de quelques Gentianes alpines. Mém.
Soc. Nat. Hist. Paris, i. 79-92.

1821. Knight, Thomas Andrew. Observations on Hybrids. Trans. Royal
Hort. Soc. iv. 367; Phys. and Hort. Papers, 251.

1822. Goss, John. On the Variation in the Color of Peas, occasioned by
Cross Impregnation. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. v. 234.
28 The Rural Library.

1823. Gowen, Robt. Description of Amaryillis Pstttactna-Johnsoni, a
New Hybrid Variety raised by William Griffin, Esq., and recently flowered
in the Collection at Highclere. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. v. 361.

1823. Gowen, Robt. Ona Hybrid Amaryllis produced between Amaryl-
lis vittata and Amaryllis regina-vittata. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. v.
390.

1823. Knight, Thomas Andrew. An Account of some Mule Plants. Trans.
Royal Hort. Soc. v. 292; Phys. and Hort. Papers, 275.

-1823. Knight, Thomas Andrew. Some Remarks on the Supposed dl wenies
of the Pollen, in Cross-Breeding, upon the Color of the Seed-Coats of
Plants, and the Qualities of their Fruits. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. v. 377;
Phys. and Hort. Papers, 278.

1823. Knight, Thomas Andrew. An Account of a New Variety of Plum,
Called the Downton Imperatrice. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. v. 38r.

1823. Lindley, John. A Notice of Certain Seedling Varieties of Amaryllis,
presented to the Society by the Hon. and Rev. William Herbert, in 1820,
which flowered in the Society's Garden in February, 1823. Trans. Royal
Hort. Soc. v. 337.

1824. Knight, Thomas Andrew. Observations upon the Effects of Age upon
Fruit Trees of Different Kinds; with an Account of some New Varieties of
Nectarines. Trans. Royal Hort. Soc. v. 384.

1826. Sargeret. Considérations sur la production des hybrides, des varian-
tes et des variétés en général, et sur celle de la famille des Cucurbitacées
en particular. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. viii. 294-314.

1826. Wiegmann, A. F. Ueber Bastarderzeugung im Pflanzenreiche.

1827. Hamelin, Baron. On the Hybrids Obtained by Baron Melazzo and
others. Annales de la Soc. d’Hort. de Paris, i. No. 2. Oct. Abstr. in Gar.

a Mag. iii. 443.

1828. Sweet, R. The Permanency of Hybrids. Gar. Mag. iv. 182.

1830. Gowen. Hybrid Azaleas. Edward's Bot. Reg. 1830, No. viii. 1365,
Vol. iv. 1407. Abstr. in Gar. Mag. vii. 62, 471.

1830. Newman, Jno. The Influence of Parent on Offspring. Gar. Mag.
vi. 499.

1831. Hybrid Rhododendron. Brit. Flower Garden No. xxiii. n. s. gr.
Abstr. in Gar. Mag. vii. 341.

1831. Hybrid Rhododendrons. Edward's Bot. Reg. iv. 1413. Abstr. in
Gar. Mag. vii. 205. :

1831. Lindley, John. Various Notes on Hybridization, in hea Guide to the
Orchard and Kitchen-Garden. London, 1831.” Abstr. in Gar. Mag. vii.

579.
Cross-Breeding and LHybridizing. 29

1831. Potentilla Russelliana, Bot. Garden No. Ixxvi. 304. Abstr. in Gar.
Mag. vii. 343.

1831. Remarks on Hybrids. Florists’ Guide No. xliv. 174. Abstr. in Gar.
Mag. vii. 205.

1831. Saunders, Wm. Hybrid Rhododendron. Gar. Mag. vii. 135.
32. Dutrochet. The Sterility of Hybrid Plants. Gar. Mag. viii. 500.

1832. Graham, Dr. Hybrid Poppies. Gar Mag. viii. 355.

1832. Henslow, J. S. On the Examination of a Hybrid Digitalis. Gar.
Mag. viii. 208. Extract from pamphlet. ‘

1832. J.C. K. MHardihood of Hybrid Melons. Gar. Mag. viii. 52.

1832. Mallet, Robert. Hybrid Melons. Gar. Mag. vii. 87

1832. Oliver, J. A Hybrid of the Cucumber with the Maltese Melon. Gar.
Mag. viii. 611.

1832. Wimmer, C. F.H. Ueber einen Bastard aus der Gattung Digitalis.
Breslau Schles. Gesell. Uebersicht, 61-62; also 1835, 85.

1837. (Editorial). Cabbage and Horse-radish. Hovey's Mag. Hort. iii. 351.

1837. Herbert, W. Amaryllidacez, with a Treatise upon Cross-bred Vege-
tables. London.

1841. Wimmer, C. F. H. Ueber 6 Weidenbastarde. Breslau Schles.
Gesell. Uebersicht, 93-94.

1843. Wimmer, C. F. H. Ueber die Hybriditat im Pflanzenreiche. Bres-
lau Schles. Gesell. Uebersicht, 208-209.

1844. (Editorial.) Hybridizing. Gard. Chron. 1844, 459.

1844. Gaertner, Karl Friedrich. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Befruchtung.
644 pp. Stuttgart.

1844. Godron, D. A. Ee l'hybridité dans les végétaux. pp. 22. Nancy.

1845. L. Hybridsin Turnips. Gard. Chron. 1845, 173.

1845. Lecoqg, H. Fécondation naturelle et artificiel du végétaux. Paris.
Second edition, 1862.

1845. O. Hybrid between a Yellow Picotee and aRed Picotee. Gard. Chron.
1845, 363.

“847. Herbert, W. On Hybridization amongst Vegetables. Journ. London

Hort. Soc. ii. 1, 81.

1847. Morton, S.G. Hybrid Plants. Am. Journ. Sci. and Arts, 2 ser. iii.
209.

ae Wimmer, C. F. H. Ueber die Hybriditat der Weiden. Breslau,
Schles. Gesell. Uebersicht, 124-131.

1847-8. Kegel, E. Ueber Varietaten und Bastarde im Pflanzenreiche..
Mittheil. Ziirich, i. Heft 2, 69-71. °

1848. Loiseleur-Deslongchamp. Observations sur les Plantes dont les
fleurs paraissent de refuser 4 l'Hybridation. Rev. Hort. 3 ser. ii. 149.
30 The Rural Library.

1848. Mackenzie, G.S. An Account of Some Hybrid Melons. Jour. Lon-
don Hort. Soe. iii. 299. .

1849. Gaertner, Karl Friedrich. Versuche und Beobachtungen iiber die
Bastarderzeugung in Pflanzenreich. 791 pp. Stuttgart.

1849. Lahérard. Raisin précoce Malingre. Rev. Hort. 3 ser. ii. 444.

1849. Pépin. Hybrides des Abutzlon striatum et venosum. Rev. Hort..
3 ser. iii. 46.

1849. Wimmer, C. F. H. Uebersicht’der bisher bekannt gewordenen
Bastarde von Salix. Breslau Schles. Gesell. Uebersicht, 87-93.

1850. Berkeley, M. J. Gaertner's Observations upon Muling among Plants.
Journ. London Hort. Soc. v. 156; vi. x (1851).

1850. Naudin, C. Hybridation des Orchidées. Rev. Hort. 3 ser. iv. 9.

1850. Standish and Noble. A Chapter in History of Hybrid Rhododendrons.
Journ. London Hort. Soc. v. 271.

1851. Decaisne, J. Hybridation. Rev. Hort. 3 ser. v. 62.

Sian, Rousselon and others. Sur l'Hybridation. Ann. d'Hort. de Paris,
xliii, 35.

1852. Weddell, H. A. Description d'un cas remarqueble d’hybridité, entre
des Orchidées de genres différents. Ann. des Sci. Nat. Bot. 3 ser. xviii. 5.

1853. Grenier, Ch. De l’hybridité et de quelques hybrides en particulier.
Ann. des. Sci. Nat. Bot. 3 ser. xix. 140.

1853. Malbranche, M. A. De l’Origine des Espéces en Botanique, et de
l’Apparition des Plantes sur le Globe.

1853. Morren, C. La Fécondation des Céréales. Lidge.

1853. Wimmer, C. F..H. Wild-Wachsende Bastardpflanzen, hauptsich-
lich im Schlesien beobachtet. Breslau Schles. Gesell. Denkschr. 143-182.

1854. Klotzsch, J. F. Ueber die Nutzanwendung der Pflanzen-Bastarde
und Mischlinge. Berlin, Bericht. pp. 535-562.

1855. (Editorial.) Hybrids Exhibited at the Horticultural Society. Gar.
Chron. 1855, 451. é

1855. Godron, D. A. De la Fécondation des Agylops par les Triticum.
Nancy.

1855. Klotzsch. Sur l'Utilité des Hybrides. Rev. Hort. 4 ser. iv. 342.

1855. Naudin, C. Hybridation des Cucurbitacées. Rev. Hort. 4 ser. iv. 64.

1855. Naudin, C. Réflexions sur I'Hybridation dans les Végétaux. Rev.
Hort. 4 ser. iv. 351.

1855. Regel, E. Zur Aegilops Frage. Bot. Zeit. xiii. 569-573.

1856. Gray, Asa. Review of Hooker and Thomson’s Flora Indica, in which
Hybridization is discussed in its relation to Variability. Am. Jour. Sci.
and Arts. 2 ser. xxi. 135 ; reprinted in Scientific Papers of Asa Gray, i. 62.

1856. Naudin, C. Nouvelles recherches sur les charactéres spécifiques et
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 31

les variétés des plantes du genre Cucurbita. Ann. des Sci. Nat. Bot. 4 ser.
v. is. Review by Asa Gray in Am. Journ. Sci. and Arts, 2 ser. xxiv. 440;
reprinted in Scientific Papers of Asa Gray, 1. 83.

1856. Radikofer, L. Befruchtung der Phanerogamen. Leipzig.

1856. Regel, E. Der Bastard zwischen 4gzlops ovata and Triticum
vulgare. Bonplandia, iv. 243-246.

1856. Sansey, J. Del'Hybridation. Rev. Hort. 4 Ser. v. 223.

1857. Regel, E. Ueber Parthenogenesis and Pflanzen Bastarde. Bonplan-
dia, v. 302-305.

1857. Vilmorin, L. and J. Groenland. Note sur l'Hybridation du Genre
gilops. Rev. Hort. 193.

1858. Gray, Asa. Action of Foreign Pollen upon the Fruit. Am. Journ.
Sci. and Arts, 2 ser. xxv. 122.

1858. Regel, E. MHybridation des Begonia rubrovenia et xanthina.
Gartenflora, Jan. 1858. Ext. in Ann. d'Hort. de Paris, iv. 442.

1859. (Editorial.) A Leguminous Hybrid. Gard. Chron. 1859, 71.

\859. Darwin, Charles. Chapter on Hybridism (ix.) in ‘‘ Origin of Species."

1859. Saulget, G. du. Résultats de l'Hybridation du Cactus (Epiphyllum)
Ackermanni. Ann. d’Hort. de Paris v. 394.

1859. Stange, F. E. Hybrides et formes diverses obtenus par la Fécon-
dation de differents Begonia entre eux. Hamburger Garten-und Blumen-
zeitung. March, 1859. Reviewed in Ann. d’Hort. de Paris v. 295.

1859. Vilmorin, L. Notices sur l'Amélioration des plantes par le semis et.
Considerations sur l’Hérédité dans les Végétaux. Paris. Review by Asa
Gray in Am. Journ. Sci. and Arts, 2 ser. xxvii. 440; reprinted in Scientific
Papers of Asa Gray, i. 109. 7

1860. Wylie, Dr. Hybridizing the Peach with the Plum. Gard. Month.
ii. 231.

1861. Anderson-Henry. I. Variegation, Cross-Breeding and Muling of
Plants. Journ. Hort. xxvii. o. ». 41.

1861. Beaton, D. Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. Journ. Hort. xxvii.
237.

1861. Beaton, D. Facts and Opinions, Past and Present, relative to Cross-
Breeding Plants. Journ. Hort. xxvii. o. s. 289.

1861. Beaton, D. Phenomena in the Cross-Breeding of Plants. Journ.
Hort. xxvi. 0. s. 112.

1861. Brent, B. P. Cross-Breeding Sweet-Peas. Journ. Hort. xxvi. o. s.
160.

1861. Carr. Quelques mots sur les Hybrides. Rev. Hort. 47.

1861. Darwin, Chas. Cross-Breeding in Plants. Journ. Hort. xxvi. o. s.
151.
32 The Rural Library.

1861. Naudin, C. Sur les plantes Hybrides. Rev. Hort. 396.

1861. Smith,Wm. Hybridizing Mangle’s Silver-Bedding Geranium. Journ.
Hort. xxvii. 0. s. 195.

1861. Wimmer, C. F. H. Ueber Weiden-Bastarde und tiber Salds grandi-
flora, Breslau Schles. Gesell. Jahresb. xxxix. 100-101.

1862. Beaton, D. Progress of Cross-Breeding among Florists’ Flowers.
Journ. Hort. xxvii. 0. s. 309. ‘

1862. Caspary, Robt. Ein Bastard von Digztalis purpurea, L., und lutea,
L. Schrift. Phys. Okon. Gesell. Kénigsb. iii. 139-146.

1862. Goeze, Emmanuel. Hybridation du Poa aquatica et du Clyceria
fiuttans. Rev. Hort. 375. ; 5

1862. Lecog. See 1845.

1863. Anderson, J. On Orchid Cultivation, Cross-Breeding and Hybridiz-
ing. Journ. Hort. 206. :

1863. Brongniart, Decaisne, Tulasne, Moquin-Tandon, and Ducharte. Rap-
port sur la question de l'Hybridité dans les Végétaux, mise an Concours
par l'Académie des Sciences en 1861. Ann. des Sci. Nat. Bot. 4 ser. xix.
125. See also Ann. d'Hort. de Paris, ix. 56.

1863. Godron, D. A. Des hybrides Végétaux considérés au point de vue
de leur fécondité et de la perpétuité ou non-perpétuité de leurs caractéres.
Ann. des Sci. Nat. Bot. 4 ser. xix. 135.

1863. Godron, D. A. Recherches expérimentales sur l'hybridité dans le
régne végétal, pp. 76. Nancy.

1863. Naudin, C. Nouvelles recherches sur l'hybridité dans les végétaux.
Ann. des Sci. Nat. Bot. 4 ser. xix. 180.

1864-66. Marés, Henri. De la fécondation des fleurs steriles de la Vigne.
Mém. Acad. Sci. Montpellier, vi. pp. 40-42.

1865. Bentham, George. Anniversary address to the Linnezean Society.
Journ. Linn. Soc. viii. pp. xi-xxiii.

1865. Carriére, E. A. Production et Fixation des variétiés dans les végé-
taux. Pp. 72. Paris.

1865. Déy. Lettres sur la fécondation artificielle des plantes. Vesoul.

1865. (Editorial.) Is the Quality of Fruit Changed by Hybridizing? Gar.
Month. vii. 304; vol. viii. 144.

1865. Gray, Asa. Spontaneous Return of Hybrid Plants to their Parental
Forms [Note upon the essays of Naudin and Godron]. Am. Journ. Sci.
and Arts, 2 ser. xxxix. 107. ‘

1865. McNabb. Will Pines Hybridize? Gar. Month. vii. 318.

1865. Mendel, G. Versuche iiber Pflanzen-Hybriden. Briinn Verhandl.
iv. 3-47. :

1865. M. J.B. Variation in Hybrids. Gar. Chron. 1865, 6or.
Cross-Breeding and Flybridizing. 33

1865. Nageli, Karl. Die Bastardbildung im Pflanzenreiche. Sitzungsber.
der Kéngl-bayer. Akad. der Wissensch. zu Miinchen, ii. 395-443.

1865. Scott, John. Notes on the Sterility and Hybridization of Certain
Species of Passiflora, Disemma, and Tacsonia. Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot.
vill. pp. 197-206. i

1865. Verlot, J. B. Sur la production des Variétiés.

1865. Wichura, Max. Die Bastard-befruchtung im Pflanzenreich erlautert
an den Bastarden der Weiden. 95 pp. 2 tab. Breslau.

1866. Godron, D. A. Nouvelles recherches sur l’'Hybridité dans le régne
végétal. pp. 40. Nancy.

1866. Neumann, L. Phénoméne d’hybridation observé dans le genre Math-
iola. Rev. Hort. 286.

1866. Standish, J. Hybridizing Fruits. Gar. Chron. 1866, 109. Also
Gar. Month. ix. 284.

1866. Stayman, J. Is the Quality of Fruit Changed by Hybridization ?
Gar. Month. wiii. ror.

1867. Anderson-Henry, I. The Hybridization of Plants. Gar. Month.
1867, 379.

1867. Anderson-Henry, I. On Pure Hybridization, or Crossing Distinct
Species of Plants. Gar. Chron. 1867, 1296, 1313.

1867. -Braun, A. Rejuvenescence, Especially in Mosses and Ferns. Gar.
Month. ix. 147.

1867. Crucknell, Chas. Does Hybridizing Change the Fruit as well as its
-Progeny? Gar. Month. ix. 165.

1867. (Editorial.) Hybridization. Gar. Chron. 1867, 403.

1867. Hildebrand, F. Die Geschlechtsvertheilung bei den Pflanzen und
das Gesetz der Vermiedenen und unvortheilhaften stetigen Selbstbefrucht-
ung. Pp, 92. 62 fig.

1867. Marés, H., and J. Planchon. Sur la floraison et la fructification de
la vigne. Comp. Rend. Ixiv. pp. 254-259. Translation in Ann. and Mag.
Nat. Hist. 3 ser. xix. pp. 220-224.

1867. Niageli, K. Intermediate Forms in Plants. Gar. Chron. 1867, 405.

1867. R.D. Hybrid Tropzolums. Gar. Chron. 1867, 906.

1867. Rivers, Thos. Hybridizing and Cross-Breeding. Gard. Chron. 1867,

16.

a, Stelzner. The Hybridization of Ferns. Gard. Month. ix. 60.

1868, Darwin, Charles. Chapters xv.-xix. on ‘‘ Variation of Animals and
Plants under Domestication.”

1868. (Editorial.) Hybrid Coleuses. Gar. Chron. 1868, 1210.

1868. Hildebrand, F. Ueber die Einfluss des fremden Pollens auf die
Beschaffenheit der durch ihn erzeugten Frucht. Leipzig.
34 The Rural Library.

1868. Moore, Jacob. Grape Hybrids. Gard. Month. x. 240.

1868. St. Pierre, M. G. de. Hybridization of the Gourd. Gar. Chron.
1868, 681.

1868. Tidey, A. Effect of Cross-Impregnation on Seeds. Journ. Hort.
XXXix. O. S. 199.

1868. T.M. New Hybrids of Coleus. Gar. Chron. 1868, 376.

1868. Wylie, A. P. Hybrid Grapes. Gar. Month. x. 153. 7

1869. Darwin, Chas. On the Character and Hybrid-like Nature of the
Offspring from the Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic
Plants. Jour. Linn. Soc. Bot. x. pp. 393-437.

1869. Darwin, Charles. On the Specific Differences between Primula
verts, P. vulgaris and P. elatior; and on the Hybrid Nature of the
Common Oxlip. With Supplementary Remarks on Naturally-produced
Hybrids in the genus verbascum. Jour. Linn. Soc. Bot. x. pp. 437-454.

1869. Mendel, G. Ueber einige aus Kiinstlicher Befruchtung Gewonnenen
Hieracium-Bastarde. Briinn Verhandl. viii. 26-31.

1869. Wilder, Marshall P. Remarks on Hybridization. Gar. Month. xi. 3.

1870. Anderson-Henry, I. Imperfect Hybridity. Gar. Chron. 1870, 1634;
Journ. Hort. xliv. 493.

“1870. Higbee, C. H. Hybrid Grapes. Gar. Month. xii. 205.

1870. Meehan, Thos. Cross-Fertilization and the Law of Sex in Euphor-
bia. Gar. Month. xii. 262.

1871. Anderson-Henry, I. Hybridism vs. Mimicry. Gar. Chron. 1871, 10.

1871. Campbell, G. W. Grape Seedlings and Hybrids. Gar. Month. xiii.
80.

1871. Kerner, A. Koennen aus Bastarden Arten werden? Vienna.

1871. Saportaet Marion. Observations sur un Hybride spontané du Tere-
binthe et du Lentisque. Paris.

1871. Wylie, A. P. Curious Results of Hybridization on Pollen. Gard.
Month. xiii. 123.

1872. Anderson-Henry, I. MHybridism vs. Mimicry. Gar. Chron. 1872,
671.

=872. Anderson-Henry, I. On Pure Hybridization, or Crossing Distinct
Species of Plants. Garden i. 480, 506, 521, 574.

1872. Blomberg, A, Om Hybridbildning hos Phanerogamae. Stockholm.

1872. Carriére, E. A. Des Hybrides. Rev. Hort. 51.

1872. Denny, J. The Relative Inflnence of Parentage in Cross-Breeding.
Garden ii. 15.

1872. Denny, J. The Influence of Parent on Offspring. Gar. Chron. 1872,
1263.
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 35

1872. (Editorial.) The Influence of Parentage on the Offspring. Gar.
Chron, 1872, 1321.

1872. (Editorial.) Hereditary Transmission. Gar. Chron. 1872, 1224.

1872. Grieve, P. Hybridization. The Relative Influence of Parentage in
Flowering Plants (Pelargonium). Gar. Chron. 1872, 1103.

1872. Laxton, Thomas. Notes on Some Changes and Variations in the Off-
spring of Cross-Fertilized Peas. Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. new ser. iii. pp.
10-13.

1872. Maximowicz, C. J. Einfluss fremden Pollens auf die Form der
erzeugten Frucht. Bull. de l'Acad. Imper. des Sci. St. Petersburg, viii.
422.

1872. Moore, Jacob. Immediate Effect on Hybridized Corn. Gar. Month.
xiv, 218.

1872. Pearson, J. W. The Relative Influence of Parentage in Cross-Breed-
ing. Garden ii. 51.

1872. Wylie, A. P. Experiments in Hybridization, Especially with Peaches
and Nectarines. Gar. Month. xiv. 302.

1873. Anderson-Henry, I. Imperfect Hybridity. Jour. Hort. xlix. 0. s. 185.

1873. Arnold, C. Immediate Effects of Cross-Fertilization. Gar. Month.
XV. 104. :

1873. (Editorial.) New Hybrid Rose. Floral Mag. 1873, No. 14, 0. s.

1873. Jordan, A. Remarques sur le fait de l’existence en société, a l'état
sauvage des espéces végétales affines, et sur d’Autres faits relatifs a la
question de l’espéce. French Assoc. Adv. Sci. Lyons, 1873.

1873. Meehan, T. Influence of Pollen in Cross-Fertilization. Phila.
Acad. Sci. 1873, pp. 16, 17.

1873. Saunders, W. Hybrid Raspberries. Gar. Month. xv. 314.

1873. T. Hybridization on Indian Corn. Garden iv. ro.

1873. Temlin, L. J. Hybridization and Cross-Fertilization. Gar. Month.
XV. 302.

1873. Wilder, Marshall P. Hybridization. Gar. Chron. 1873, 575.

1874. Arnold. Influence of Parent on Offspring. Garden v. 222.

1874. (Editorial.) Hybridation et fécondation pratiquées par M. Rivers.
Rev. Hort. 182. 7

1874. (Editorial.) New Blandfordias. Floral Mag. 1874, No. 32 n.s.

1874. (Editorial.) New Variety of Amaryllis. Flor. Mag. 1874, No. 31, n. s.

1874. Experiments in Hybridizing. Journ. Hort. li. 0. s. 442.

1874. Gray, Asa. Do Varieties Wear Out? New York Tribune, Semi-
Weekly ed. Dec. 8, 1874; reprinted in Am. Journ. Sci. and Arts, 3 ser.
ix. rog, and in Scientific Papers of Asa Gray, ii. 174, and Darwiniana,
chapter xii.
36 The Rural Library.

1875. Barron, A. F. Hybridization of the Monukka and Black Hamburgh
Grapes. Garden vii. 19. .

1875. Cox, E. W. Heredity and Hybridism. A Suggestion. London.

1875. Devansaye, A. de la. Fécondation et Hybridation des Aroidées.
Bull. Soc. Hort. Maine-et-Loire, 223; Fl. des Serres, xxii. 37-47.

1875. (Editorial.) A New Hybrid Lily. Floral Mag. 1875, No. 48 n. s.

1875. (Editorial.) A Hybrid Tacsonia. Gar. Chron. iv. n. s. 167.

1875. (Editorial.) Hybrid Fern. Gar. Month. xvii. 330.

1875. (Editorial.) Variation in Hybrid Plants. Gar. Chron. iv. n. s. 748.

1875. Grieve, P. Results of Hybridization, Especially in Pelargoniums.
Gar. Chron. iv. u. s. 711.

1875. Koch, Karl. Hybrid Aroids. Gar. Chron. iv. u. s. 398.

1875. Lowe, E. J. Hybrid Pelargoniums. Gar. Chron. iii. n. s. 83, 115.”

1875. Meehan, T. Are Insects any Material Aid to Plants in Fertilization ?
Proc. A. A. A. S. xxiv. 243-251; Gar. Chron. iv. 327; Archiv. des Sci.
Nat. lvi. pp. 294-296 (1876).

1875. Naudin, C. Variation disordonnée des plantes hybrides et déduc-
tions qu-on peut en tirer. Ann. des Sci. Nat. Bot. 6 ser. ii. 73; Comp-
Rend. 1875 (2), 520, 553. Review by Asa Gray in Am. Jour. Sci. and Arts,
3 ser. xi. 153; reprinted in Scientific Papers of Asa Gray, i. 212.

1875. Parkman. A New Hybrid Lily. Gar. Chron. iv. n. s. 237, 366.

1875. Sisley, J. Hybridization, Especially in Pelargoniums. Gar. Chron.
iv. n. s. 654.

1875. Tillery, Wm. Hybridizing Liliums. Gar. Chron. iv. n. s. gor.

1875. Tillery, Wm. Results of Crossing the Black Monukka Grape. Gar.
Chron. iii. n. s. 84.

1875. Wilson, A.S. Wheat and Rye Hybrids. Gar. Chron. iii. n. s. 496.

1876. A.D. The Hybridization of the Potato. Garden x. 419.

1876. Anderson-Henry, I. A Hybrid between Fuchsia uirgata and
F. procumbens. Gar. Chron. vi. u. s. 592.

1876. B. Hybridization in Relation to Grafting. Garden x. 349.

1876. Bessey, C. E. Immediate Effects of Cross-Fertilization on Fruits.
Gardener's Monthly, 23.

1876. Burbidge, F. W. Hybrids, Especially a Hybrid between the Red
Cedar and the American Arbor-vitze. Gar. Chron. v. n. s. 373.

1876. Crossed Auriculas. Floral Mag. No. 54, n. s.

1876. Darwin, Charles. The Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilization in the
Vegetable Kingdom. London. Review by Asa Gray in Am. Jour. Sci. and
Arts, 3 ser. xiii. 125; reprinted in Scientific Papers of Asa Gray, i. 217.
Review by W. J. Beal, Rep. Mich. Pom. Soc. 1877, 454.

1876. Devansaye, A. dela. Fructification des Aroidées. Rev. Hort. 288-9.
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. ~ 37

1876, (Editorial.) A New Clematis. Floral Mag. 1876, No. 59, n. »s.
1876. (Editorial.) Hybrid Columbines. Floral Mag. 1876, No. 60, n. s.
1876, (Editorial.) Hybrid Narcissi. Floral Mag. 1876, No. 56, n. s.

1876, (Editorial.) Immediate Effects of Cross-Fertilization on Fruits.
Gar. Month. xviii. 23.

1876. (Editorial.) Peach and Apricot Hybrids. Gar. Month. xviii. 214.
1876. Grieve, P. Influence of Foreign Pollen on the Progeny of Plants.
Gard. Chron. v. 699; vi. 49. ,

1876. Grieve, P. The Sterility of Hybrids. Garden x. 67, 150.

1876. Hovey, C. M. The Sterility of Hybrids. Garden x. 251.

1876. Meehan, T. Are Insects a Material Aid in Fertilization? Garden x.
PP. 493-494.

1876. Pasquale, G. A. Fecondita d'un Mandarino. Naples.

1876. Syme, Geo. Hybridization. Gar. Chron. v. n. s. 404.

1877. Beal, W. J. Experiments in Breeding. Rep. Mich. Bd. Agric. 1877,
55-56.

1877. Burbidge, F.W. Pp. 87-168 of ‘‘Cultivated Plants, their Propagation
and Improvement." London.

1877. Creighton, J. H. Seedlings of Hybrid Grapes. Gar. Month. xix.
113.

1877. (Editorial.) Hybrid Greenhouse Rhododendrons. Floral Mag. 1877,
No. 63, n. s.

1877. (Editorial.) Various Hybrids. Floral Mag. 1877, No. 67,71, n. s.;
1879, No. 89. n.s.

1877. Haskell, Geo. An Account of Various Experiments for the Pro-
duction of New and Desirable Grapes. Pp. 18. Ipwich, Mass.

1877. Henslow, Geo. The Fertilization of Plants. Gar. Chron. pp. 42,
139, 203, 270, 336, 534, 560. (Review of Darwin's Cross- and Self-Fer-
tilization.)

1877. Meehan, Thos. Mr. Darwin on the Fertilization of Flowers. Penn.
Monthly, June.

1878. Barron, A. F. Hybridization of the Monukka and Black Hamburgh
Grapes. Gard.Month. xx. 16.

1878. Beal, W. J. Cross-Breeding of Fruits. Rep. Mich. Pom. Soc. 1878,
I.

oe Beal, W. J. The Improvement of Grains, Fruits and Vegetables.
Rep. Mich. Bd. Agric. 1878, 445. .

1878. (Editorial.) Parentage in Hybrids. Gar. Chron. x. n.s. 50.

1878. Heckel, Ed. Des relations que présentent les phénoménes propres
aux organes reproducteurs de quelques phanérogames avec la fécondation
croisée et la fécondation directe. Comp. Rend. lxxxvii. pp. 697-700.
38 The Rural Library.

1878. Meehan, Thos. On Hybrids in Nature (Extract). Gar. Month. xx.
344.

1878. Parkman, F. Hybridization of Lilies. Bull. Bussey Inst. ii. 161.

1878-9. Eaton, D.C. Hybrids and Hybridism, in Rep. Conn. Board Agr.
34.

1879. Beal, W. J. Experiments in Cross-Breeding Plants of the Same
Variety. Am. Journ. Arts and Sci. ser. iii. xvii. PP. 343-345-

1879. Beal, W. J. The Effect of Pollen on Corn during the First Year.
Rep. Mich. Bd. Agric. 1879, 198.

1879. (Editorial.) Deux hybrides intéressantes. Rev. Hort. 283.

1879. Henslow, Geo. On the Self-fertilization of Plants. Trans. Linn.
Soc. Bot. 2 ser. i. Review by Asa Gray in Am. Journ. Sci. and Arts,
2 ser. xvii. 489; reprinted in Scientific Papers of Asa Gray, i. 263.

1879. Wallace, Dr. On Hybridization of Lilies, in ‘‘ Notes on Lilies and
their Culture,” 60-65 (2 ed. 1879.) London.

1880. Beal, W. J. Crossing Corn with Foreign Stock. Rep. Mich. Bd.
Agric. 1880, 287.

1880. (Editorial.) A Hybrid Fir. Gar. Month. xxii. 39.

1880. (Editorial.) Results of Hybrization, especially with Regard to Pel-
argoniums. Gar. Chron. xiv. n. s. 391.

1880. Ernst, Dr. The Relative Degrees of Fertility of Melochia parviflora
when Intercrossed. Gar. Chron. xiii. n. s. 48.

1880. Haberlandt,G. DieSamen-productiondes Rothklees. Biedermann’s
Centralbl. fiir Agriculturchemie, pp. 199-201.

1880. Henslow, Geo. Self-fertilization asa Cause of Doubling. Gar. Chron.
534-

1880. Laxton, T.T. Cross-fertilizing and Raising Roses from Seed in Eng-
land. Gar. Month. xxii. 322.

1880. Martindale, 1I.C. Sexual Variation in Castanea Americana. Phil.
Acad. Sci. 1880, pp. 351-353. ;

1880. Meehan, T. On the Laws Governing the Production of Seed in
Wistaria Sinensis. Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. xvii. pp. go-92.

1880. Some Phenomena Attached to Hybridization. Floral World, 1880,
220.

1881. Briggs,T. R. A. On the Production of Hybrids in the Genus Epilo-
bium. Journ. of Botany, xix. 308.

1881. Focke, W. O. Die Pflanzenmischlinge. Pp. 569. Berlin.

1882. (Editorial.) Hybrid Orchids. Gar. Month. xxiv. 184.

1882. (Editorial.) Hybrid Nepenthes. Gar. Month. xxiv. 371-

1882. Lazenby, W.R. Improvements or Modifications of Vanieties by Cross-
ing or Hybridizing. Rep. O. Exp. Sta. i. 66-68.
4

Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 39

1883. B. J.C. Effects of Cross-Fertilization on Fruit. Gar. Month. xxv.
274.

1883. Carman, E.S. Cross-Breeding Wheat. Gar. Month. xxv. 52.

1883. Crucknell, Chas. Hybridizing Araceous Plants. Gar. Month. xxv.
182.

1883. Culverwell, W. A Hybrid between the Gooseberry and the Black
Currant. Gar. Chron. xix. n. s. 635.

1883. (Editorial.) A Hybrid between the Strawberry and the Raspberry.
Gar, Chron. xx. n. s. 12.

1883. (Editorial.) Hybrids. Gar. Month. xxv. 184.

1883. (Editorial.) The Hybrid Cotton Plant. Gar. Month. xxv. 23.

1883. Lazenby, W. R. Crossing Varieties of Corn. Rep. O. Exp. Sta. ii.
63-65.

1883. Sturtevant, E. L. Corn Hybridization. Rep. N. Y. Exp. Sta. i.
(for 1882), 54.

1884. B.T. The Fertility of Hybrids. Gar. Chron. xxii. n. s. 406.

1884. Carman, E. S. Hybrids between Wheat and Rye. Gar. Month. xxvi.
278.

1884. (Editorial.) A New Hybrid Pear. Gar. Month. xxvi. 142.

1884. (Editorial.) Hybrid Anthuriums. Gar. Month. xxvi. 330.

1884. (Editorial.) Hybrid Lobelias—Illustrating Fertility of Hybrids.
Gar. Month. xxvi. 356.

1884. (Editorial.) Hybrid Orchids—lIllustrating Fertility of Hybrids.
Gar. Month. xxvi. 279.

1884. (Editorial.) Hybrid Sarracenias. Gar. Month. xxvi. 53.

1884. (Editorial.) Immediate Effect of Crossing on Fruit. Gar. Month.
XXVi. 305. .

1884. Garfield, C. W. Influence of Pollen. Mich. Hort. Soc. 246.

1884. Lazenby, W.R. Corn Experiments. Rep. O. Exp. Sta. iii. 64.

1884. Meehan, Thomas. Immediate Influence of Pollen on Fruit. Proc.
Phila. Acad. Nat. Sci. 297. :

1884. Meehan, Thos. The Fertility of Hybrids. Gar. Chron. xxii. n.s.,
362, 394.

1884. Pearson, C. E. Results obtained from Hybridizing Pelargoniums,
Gar. Chron. xxi. n. s. 712.

1885. Arnold, Charles. Hybrid Raspberries. Amer. Gar. vi. 50.

1885. Fertile Hybrids. Gar. Month. xxvii. 250.

1885. Goff, E. S. Results of Cross-fertilization in Peas. Rep. N. Y. Exp.
Sta. iii. (for 1884) 236.

1885. Lazenby, W.R. Experiments with Corn: Cross-fertilization. Rep.
O. Exp. Sta. iv. 31.
40 The Rural Library.

1885. Lazenby, W. R., T. J. Burrill, A. S. Fuller, E. Williams, e¢ al.
Upon the Immediate Influence of Pollen, especially upon the Strawberry.
Proc. Amer. Pom. Soc. 66 ef seq.

1885. Meehan, Thomas. On the Immediate Action of Pollen on Fruit.
Rural N.-Y. June 13 and 20. See also Gar. Month. 1885, pp. 86, 116, 150,
341.

1885. Munson, T. V. American Grapes [with discussion of Hybridization].
Proc. Amer. Pom. Soc. 95.

1885. Sturtevant, E. Lewis. An Observation in the Hybridization and
Cross-Breeding of Plants. Amer. Nat. xix. 1041.

1885. Sturtevant, E,L. Hybrid Barley. Rep. N. Y. Exp. Sta. iii. (for
1884), 81.

1885. Sturtevant, E. L. Crossing in Maize. 3rd Rep. N. Y. Exp. Sta.
(for 1884), 148.

1885. Veitch, H. J. The Hybridization of Orchids. Gar. Chron. xxiii. n.
s. 628; Garden, xxvii. 450.

1886. Carman, E. S. Blackberry and Raspberry Hybrids. Rural N.-Y.
53 (Jan. 23); also 468 (July 17).

1886. Carman, E.S. Wheat-Rye Hybrids. Rural N.-Y. Feb. 13.

1886. (Editorial.) A Hybrid Palm. Gar. Month. xxviii. 118.

1886. (Editorial.) A New Hybrid Pear. Gar. Month. xxviii. 365.

1886. (Editorial.) Hybrid Dendrobiums. Garden xxix. 291.

1886. (Editorial.) Hybrid Montbretias. Garden xxx. 139.

1886. (Editorial.) Hybridizing the Potato. [An account of Experiments
made by Arthur W. Sutton, England.] Country Gentleman, 974 (Dec. 23).

1886. (Editorial.) Immediate Effects of Crossing on Fruit. Gar. Month.
xxviii. 148.

1886. (Editorial.) The Effects of Hybridizing in Wheat. Gar. Chron.
XXVi. 1D. Ss. 240.

1886. Goff, E.S. The Influence of Different Pollens upon the Character
of the Strawberry. 4th Rep. N. Y. Exp. Sta. (for 1885), 227.

1886. Goff, E.S. Cross-Fertilizations. Same, p. 184.

1886. Halsted, B.D. Cross-Fertilization of Fruits [Immediate Influence
of Pollen]. Bull. Bot. Dept. Iowa Agric. Coll. 37.

1886. H. G, Lela Batemaniana, a Hybrid between a Cattleya and a
Sophronitis. Gar. Chron. xxvi. n. s, 263.

1886. L.C. Bigeneric Hybrids. Journ. Hort. xiv. 3 ser. 127.

1886. Munson, T. V. Hybridity and its Effects. Proc. Soc. Prom. Agric.
Sci. vii. 51.

1886. Munson, T. V. Hybridization. 3 parts. Amer. Gar. vii. 42, 75, 168.

1886. Munson, T. V. Peachand Plum. Country Gentleman, 972 (Dec. 23).
Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing. 41

1886. Sturtevant, E. L. Atavism the Result of Cross-Breeding in Lettuce.
Proc. Soc. Prom. Agric. Sci. vii. 73.

1886. Sturtevant, E. L. MHibridization and Cross-Breeding of Plants.
[Several Kitchen-Garden Vegetables.] Am. Gar. vii. 307.

1887. Bailey, L.H. Notes on Crossing and Hybridizing. Bull. 31, Mich.
Agric. Coll. go.

1887. Bauer, M. A Hybrid Cypripedium. Gar. Chron. i. 3 ser. 419.

1887. Burrill, T. J. Notes on Crossing in Annual Hort. Rep. in Rep. Bd.
Trustees Univ. Ill. xiv.

1887. Claypole, E. W. Secondary Results of Pollination. Rep. U. S.

* Dept. Agric. 318.

1887. Crozier, A.A. Immediate Influence of Cross-Fertilization upon the
Fruit. Rep. U. S. Dept. Agric. 312.

1887. Crozier, A.A. Immediate Influenceof Pollen. Agric. Sci. i. 35, 227.

1887. Crozier, A.A. Influence of Cross-Fertilization on the Fruit. Proc.
Amer. Pom. Soc. 21.

1887. Crozier, A. A. Some Crosses in Corn. Proc. Soc. Prom. Agric.
Sci. viii. gi.

1887. Dod, Wolley. A Hybrid between Narcissus Bulbocodium var.
nivalis and N. triandrus. Gar. Chron. 3 ser. i. 358.

1887. Goff, E.S. Attempts to Obtain Potato Hybrids. Rep. N. Y. Exp.
Sta. v. (for 1886), 150.

1887. Goff, E.S. The Influence of Foreign Pollen upon the Character
of the Fruit,—Strawberry and Grape. 5th Rep. N. Y. Exp. Sta. (for
1886) 179.

1887. Goldring, F. The Flamingo plant. (Anthurium Scherzerianum.)
Am. Flor. ii. 466.

1887. H.E. Cross-Breeding of Wheat. Gar. World, iv. 6.

1887. Laxton, T. The Tendency to Heredity or Reversion Exhibited by
Plants, Especially Concerning Roses. Gar. Chron. 3 ser. i. 387.

1887. Masters, M. T. A New Bigeneric Hybrid, the Issue of Phazus
egrandifolius by Calanthe Vettchit. Gar. Chron. 3 ser. i. 45.

1887. Masters, M. T. Hybrid Lychnis. Gar. Chron. 3 ser. ii. 56, 79, 99;
Abstr. in Pop. Gar. iii. 31.

1887. Schiffner, V. Ueber Verbascum Hybriden und einige neue Bas-
tarde der Verbascum pyramidalum. Bibliotheca Botanica, heft 3. 2 tab.

1887. Skeels, F. E. Cross-Fertilization of Curcurbits. Agric. Sci. i. 228.

1887. Sturtevant, E.L. Influence of Crossing in Corn. Rep. N. Y. Exp.
Sta. v. (for 1886), 63.

1887. Thorpe. John. Hybridizing and Cross-Fertilization. Jour. Hort. v.

521, 569.
42 The Rural Library.

1887. W.H.W.C. New Potato Hybrids. Am. Gar. viii. 45.

1888. Bailey, L. H. Notes on Daturas—An Experiment in Hybridization.

‘ Bull. 40, Mich. Exp. Sta.

1888. Beverinck, M. Experiments in Hybridizing Barley. Acad. Sci.
Holland ; Nature, Aug. 2, 1888; Abstract in Agric. Sci. ii. 243 (1888).

1888. Burbidge, F. W. The Tendency of Hybrids to Reproduce Them-
selves by Buds instead of by Seeds. Gar. Chron. 3 ser. iii. 179.

1888. Carman, E.S. Raspberry and Blackberry Hybrids. Rural N.-Y.,
Feb. 18. .Note in Gar. and Forest, i. 372.

1888. Cassidy, James. Potatoes. Bull. 4, Colo. Exp. Sta.

1888. Crozier, A. A. Does the Effect of a Cross Appear in the Fruit of
the First Year? Agric. Sci. ii. 319.

1888. Crozier, A. A. The Work in Crossing. [Immediate Influence of
Pollen.] Bull. 3, Iowa Exp. Sta. g1-g2.

1888. (Editorial.) Le Phylloxera et les parasites végétaux vaincus par
V’hybridation. Rev. Hort. 50.

1888. Foster, M. Concerning the Supposed Tendency of Hybrids to
Reproduce by Buds to a Greater Degree than by Seeds. Gar. Chron.
3 ser. iii. 151, 212.

1888. Hogg, James. Origin of the Le Conte Pear. Gar. and Forest, i.
392.

1888. Hooper, David. The Hybridization of Cinchonas. Tropical Agri-
culturist, viii. 6. Abstract in Agric. Sci. iii. 41 (1889).

1888. Hoopes, J. Hybrid Aquilegias. Gar. and Forest, i. 114.

1888. J.D. Experiments in Hybridization and Selection. Gar. Mag. xxxi.
592.

1888. Noble, Chas. The Dissociation of Hybrid Characters as Illustrated
by Clematis Jackmanni var. alba. Gar. Chron. 3 ser. iv. 152.

1888. Tracy, W. W. Experiments in Crossing Corn, Tomatoes and Carrots.
Rep. Mich. Hort. Soc. 43.

1888. Vilmorin, Henry L. de. Expériences de Croisement entre des Blés
Différents, pp. 4. 2tab. Paris.

1889. Bailey, L. H. Crossing of Squashes. Bull. 48. Mich. Exp. Sta. 8.

1889. Beckwith, M. H. Raspberry Hybrids. Rep. N. Y. Exp. Sta. vii.
(for 1888), 233.

1889. Briggs, T. R. A. Hybrid Thistles. Jour. of Botany, xxvii. 270.

1889. ‘‘Calypso.” Progress in Hybridizing Orchids. Gar. and Forest,
ii. 367.

1889. Carman, E.S. Raspberry < Blackberry. Rural N.-Y. Nov. 23.

1889. Castle, Lewis. Hybrid Cactuses. Jour. Hort. xviii. 3 ser. 349.

1889. (Editorial.) The Finest Hybrid Orchid. Gar. Mag. xxxii. 286.
Cross-Breeding and fHybridizing. 43

1889. (Editorial.) The Influence of Parentage upon Hybrids. Gar. Mag.
xxxil. 732. °

1889. Goodale, Geo. L. Hybridization. Gar. and Forest, ii. 188.

1889. Hays, W. M. -Improving Corn by Cross-Fertilization and by Selec-
‘tion. Bull. 7, Minn. Exp. Sta. 27-33.

1889. Jackson, R. T. Hybridization of Gladioli. Gar. and Forest, ii. 88.

1889. J. H. J. Hybrid of Alpine Auricula with Primula nivea. Gar.
XXXV. 375. :

1889. Kellerman, W. A. and W. T. Swingle. Experiments in Cross-
Fertilization of Corn. Rep. Kans. Exp. Sta. i. (for 1888), 316.

1889. Speer, R. P. Experiments with Corn. Bull. 7, lowa Exp. Sta. 247-
260.

1889. Wallace, Alfred Russell Chapters vi. and vii. in ‘‘ Darwinism.”

1890. Bailey, L. H. Experiences in Crossing Cucurbits. Bull. xxv. Cor-
nell Exp. Sta. 180.

1890. Carman, E.S. Crossing and Hybridizing. Proc. Soc. Anes Flor-
ists, 87; Rural N.-Y. xlix. (1890) 568 and 583 (Aug. 30 and Sept. 6); Am.
Flor. vi. 109; Abstract in Gar. and Forest, iii. 421, and Pop. Gar. vi. 66.

1890. -Crozier, A. A. Immediate Influence of Cross-Fertilization upon the
Fruit.—Strawberries. Agric. Sci. iv. 287. ,

1890. Culverwell. Hybrid between the Gooseberry and the Black Cur-
rant. Gar. Chron. 3 ser. vii. 585.

1890. Dod, C. Wolley. Sterile and Fertile Hybrids of Hardy Plants.
Gar. Chron. 3 ser. viii. 496.

1890.. (Editorial.) Hybrid Firs. (Abstract of Paper by E. Bailly.) Gar.
and Forest, iii. 308. :

1890. Fryer, Alfred. A New Hybrid Potamogeton of the fluitans Group.
Jour. of Botany, xxviii. 321.

18go. Hunn, C. E. Influence of Pollen upon Strawberries. Bull. 24,
(n. s.) N. Y. State Exp. Sta. 329-330.

1890. Kellerman, W. A. and W. T. Swingle. Experiments in Crossing
Varieties of Corn. Rep. Kans. Exp. Sta. ii. (for 1889), 288, 335.

1890. Kellerman, W. A. and W. T. Swingle. Crossed Varieties of Corn,
Setond and Third Years. Bull. 17, Kans. Exp. Sta.

1890. MacFarlane, J. The Microscopic Structure of Hybrids. Gar,
Chron. 3 ser. vii. 543.

1890. Thorpe, John. Chrysanthemum Crosses. Gar. and Forest, iii. 546.

1890. Truffaut, Geo. Les Nephenthes; leur fécondation. et leur hybrid-
ation. Hort. Belge, xvi. 78.

1890. Volxem, Jean Van. Hybridizing. Gar. Chron. 3 ser. vi. 141.

1890. Watson, W. Hybrid Hippeastrums, Gar. and Forest, ili. 165.
44 The Rural Library.

1891. Allen, Jas. Hybrid Between Chionodoxa and Scilla. Gar. xxxix.
308.
1891. Bailey, L. H. Crossing of Egg-Plants. Bull. 26, Cornell Exp.

 

 

Sta. 14. ,

1891. Effect of Pollination upon Tomatoes. Bull. 28, Cornell Exp.
Sta. 51. x

1891. Pollination and Crossing of Cucumbers. Bull. 31, Cornell

Exp. Sta. 134, 137.

1891. Tomato Crosses. Bull. 32, Cornell Exp. Sta. 165.

1891. Bessey, C. E. The Hybridization of Plants. Gar. and Forest, iv.
466. (Read before Am. Pom. Soc.) -

1891. Budd, J. L. Breeding of the Orchard and Garden Fruits. Bull.
14, Iowa Exp. Sta. 181.

1891. Carman, E.S. Wheat-Rye Hybrids. Rural N.-Y. 1. 653 (Sept. 12).

1891. Blackberry-Raspberry Hybrids. Rural N.-Y. 1. 670 (Sept. 19).

1891. Douglas, J. Cross-Bred Orchids. Gar. Chron. x. 396.

1891.. Druery, Chas. T. Fern Hybrids and Crosses. Gar. Mag. No. 1949,
p. 138.

1891. Em. R. Anthurium X rotundispathum. Il. Hort. xxxviii. 5 ser. 9.

1891. Engleheart, G. H. Hybrid Narcissi. Gar. Chron. ix. 702; Gar.
Mag. No. 1964, 367.

1891. Foussat, J. Les Glaieuls hybridesde M. Lemoine. Rev. Hort. 32.

1891. Fraser, P. N. Crossing of Different Species. Gar. Chron. ix. 565.

1891. (Editorial.) A new Hybrid Rose. Gar. and Forest, iv. 532.

1891. Endicott, W. E. Some Hybrid Gladioli. Gar. and Forest, iv. 403.

1891. G.R. Hybrid Lilies. Gar. Mag. No. 1945, 86.

1891. L.L. Vriesea cardinalis, Hybrid. Ill. Hort. xxxviii. 39.

1891. McFarlane, J. M. Anatomical Structure of Hybrids. Jour. of Hort.
xxiii. 86.

1891. McFarlane, J. M. The Color, Flowering Period and Constitutional
Vigor of Hybrids. Gar. Chron. ix. 753.

1891. Meehan, Thos. On the Varying Character of Hybrids. Gar. Chron.
x. 109.
1891. Oberswetter. Hybrid between a Crinum and Amaryllis. Jour.

,of Hort. x. 347.

1891. W.S. Hybrid Auriculas. Gar. Chron. ix. 3 ser. 557.

 

 

$e
THE BEST BOOKS.

A" NALS OF HORTICULTURE FOR 1891.—“‘ Bright, new, clean and fresh” may besaid

of this series, by L.H. BarLey. Each year’s experience makes the succeeding volume
abetter one. The list of introductions for each year is unique. It puts on record every
noveity of fruit, flower, vegetable and tree of the year. All the tools of the year are de-
scribed and illustrated, whether for use in orchard, garden or greenhouse, Everyadvance
in American horticulture is chronicled. The volumes are a storehouse of information to
every one who grows flowers, fruits, vegetables or trees. It describes the new insects and
fungous depredations. The obituaries of the year are included. The volume for 1891 con-
tains a census of native cultivated plants, being a carefully annotated and dated list of all
the plants in cultivation of American origin, including hundreds ofentries. Thisis one of
the boldest pieces of work yet attempted in American horticulture. The volume for 1891
also contains a history and statistical record of the Farmers’ institute movement in the
United States and Canada. The work ofthe Experiment Stations is exhaustively discus-
sed and indexed.

Price, cloth, $1; paper, 60 cents. Annals for 1889 and 1890 at the same price.

NSECTS AND INSECTICIDES.—A practical Manual concerning Noxious Insects and
the Methods of Preventing their Injuries. By CLARENCE M. WEED, Professor of Ento-
mology and Zoology, New Hampshire State College. :

I think that you have gotten together a very useful and valuable little book.—Dr. C. V.
RILEy, U.S. Entomologist.

It.is excellent. I must congratulate you on the skill you have displayed in putting in the
most important insects, and the complete manner in which you have done the work.—
JAMES FLETCHER, Dominion Entomologist.

I am well pleased with it. There is certainly a demand for just such a work.—Dr. F. M.
HEXAMER, Editor American Agriculturist.

Price, cloth, $1.25.

HE CAULIFLOWER.—By A.A. Crozier. Origin and History of this increasingly im-
portant and always delicious vegetable. i
The Cauliflower Industry.—In Europe. In the United States. Importation of Cauli-
flowers.
Management of the Crop.—Soil. Fertilizers. Planting. Cultivating. Harvesting.
Keeping. Marketing.
The Early Crop.—Caution against planting it largely. Special directions. Buttoning.
Cauliflower Regions of the United States.—Upper Atlantic Coast. Lake Region. Prairie
Region. Cauliflowers in the South. The Pacific Coast.
Insect and Fungous Enemies.—Flee-Beetle. Cut-Worms. Cabbage-Maggot. Cabbage-
Worm. Stem-Rot. Damping-Off. Black-Leg.
Cauliflower-Seed.—Importance of careful selection. Where the Seed is grown. Influ-
enceof Climate. American-grown Seed. ‘
Vatrieties._Descriptive Catalogue. Order of Earliness. Variety tests. Best Varieties.
Broccoli.—Difference between Broccoli and Cauliflower. Cultivation, use and varieties
of Broccoli.
Cooking Cauliflower.—Digestibility. Nutitive Value. Chemical Composition, Receipts.
Price, Cloth, $1.
(45)
RACTICAL FARM CHEMISTRY.—A Practical Handbook of Profitable Crop-Feeding
written for Practical Men. By T. GREINER.

PartI. The Raw Materials of Plant-Food.

Part II. The Available Sources of Supply.

Part III. Principles of Economic Application, or Manuring for Money.

This work, written in plainest language, is intended to assist the farmer in the selection,
purchase and application of plant-foods. If you wish to learn ways how to save money in
procuring manural substances, and how to make money by their proper use, read this
book. If you want your boy to learn the principle of crop-feeding, and become a successful
farmer, give hima copy of this book. The cost of the book will be returned a hundred-
fold to every reader who peruses its pages with care and applies its teachings to practice.

Price, cloth, $1.

How TO PLANT A PLACE. (zo¢h ed.)—By Evtas A. Lone. A brief treatise illustrated
with more than 60 original engravings, and designed to cover the various matters

pertaining to planting a place. Following are the leading divisions: Some reasons for

planting; What constitutes judicious planting; Plannimg a place for planting; How and

what to order for planting ; The soil in which to plant; Caring for the stock before plant-

ing; On the sowing of seeds; After planting: Future management of the plants. Just the

thing for the busy man.

Price, 20 cents,

HEMICALS AND CLOVER.—By H. W. CoLtincwoop, managing editor of The Rural
New-Yorker. Aconcise and practical discussion of the all-important topic of com-
mercial fertilizers, in connection with green manuring in bringing up worn-out soils, and
in general farm practice. . Rural Library Series.
Price, paper, 20 cents,

H OW TO RID BUILDINGS AND FARMS OF RATS, Mice, Gophers, Ground-Squirrels,
Prairie-Dogs, Rabbits, Moles, Minks, Weasels and other pests, quickly and safely.
How to snare Hawks and Owls. Valuable Hints to Housekeepers, Farmers and Poultry-
keepers. By ‘‘ Pickett.”
Price, 20 cents.

HE NURSERY BOOK.—By L. H. Bal.ey, assisted by several of the most skillful pro-
pagators in the world. A complete Handbook of Propagation and Pollination of
Plants. Profusely illustrated.

This valuable little manual has been compiled with great pains, It is absolutely devoid
of theory and speculation, It has nothing to do with plant physiology or abstruse reason-
ing about plant growth. It simply tells, plainly and briefly, what every one who sows a
seed, makes a cutting, sets a graft, or crosses a flower wants to know. It is entirely new in
original method and matter. The illustrations number 107, and are made especially for it,
direct from nature. The book treats of all kinds of cultivated plants, fruits, vegetables,
greenhouse plants, hardy herbs, ornamental trees and shrubs and forest-trees. It tells how
to propagate over 2,000 varieties of shrubs, trees and herbaceous or soft-stemmed plants—
the process for each being fully described.

Price, cloth, $1; paper, 50 cents.

ANDSCAPE-GARDENING.—By Exras A. Lona. A practical treatise, comprising 32
diagrams of actual grounds and parts of grounds, with copious explanations. Of the
diagrams, all but nine have appeared in the serial, ‘‘Taste and Tact in Arranging Home
and Other Grounds,” which has been so attractive a feature of Popular Gardening and
The American Garden during the past year. But in the new form the matter has been
entirely rewritten. Printed on heavy plate paper, it is unsurpassed for beauty by any other
work on Landscape Gardening.
Price, 50 cents.

(46)
4

4

ORTICULTURIST’S RULE-BOOK.—By ,H. BAILEY. It contains, in handy and
concise form, a great number of Rules and Recipes required by gardeners, fruit-grow-
ers, truckers, florists, farmers, etc.

Synopsis of Contents: Injurious-insects, with preventives and remedies. Fungicides
for plant diseases. Plamt diseases with preventives and remcdies. Injuries from mice,
rabbits, birds, etc., with preventives and remedies. Waxes and washes for grafting
.and for wounds, Cements, paints, etc. Seed Tables: Quantities required for sowing
given areas. Weight and size ofseeds. Longevity of seeds. Time required for seeds to
germinate. Planting Tables: Dates for sowing seeds in different latitudes. Tender and
hardy vegetables. Distances apart for planting. Maturity and Yields; Time required
for maturity of vegetables; for bearing of fruit plants. Average yields ofcrops. Keeping
and storing fruits and vegetables. Propagation of Plants: Ways of grafting and bud-
ing. Methods by which fruits are propagated. Stocks used for fruits. Standard Meas-
ures and Sizes: Standard flower-pots. Standard and Legal measures. English measures

 
 
 

' for sale of fruits and vegetables. Quantities of water held in pipes and tanks. Effect of

‘wind in cooling glass roofs. Per cent. of light reflected from glass at various angles of in-
_Clination. Weights of various varieties of apples per bushel. Amount of various products
yielded by given quantities of fruit. Labels. Loudon’s rules of horticulture. Rules of
nomenclature. Rules for exhibition. Weather signs and protection from frost. Codlect-
ang and Preserving : How to make an Herbarium. Preserving and printing of flowers and
other parts of plants. Keeping cut-flowers. How to collect and preserveinsects. Chemi-
cal composition of fruits and vegetables, seeds and fertilizers, soils and minerals. Names
.and Histories: Vegetables which have different names in England and America. Deri-
~ vation of names of various fruits and vegetables. Names of fruits and vegetables in vari-
ous languages. Glossary. Calendar.
Price, cloth, $1; paper, 50 cents.

HRYSANTHEMUM CULTURE FOR AMERICA.—By James Morton. An excel-
lent and thorough book;-especially adapted to the culture of Chrysanthemums in
America. The contents include Propagation by Grafting, Inarching and Seed—American
History—Propagation by Cuttings—Exhibition Plants—Classification—Exhibition Blooms
—Soil for Potting—Watering and Liquid Manure—Selection of Plants—Top-Dressing—
Hints on Exhibitions—List of Synonyms—Staking and Tying—General Culture—lInsects
and Diseases—Standard Chrysanthemums—Sports and Variations— Disbudding and Thin-
ning-—-Oriental and European History—Calendar of Monthly Operations—Chrysanthemum

. .. »» Shows and Organizations—National Chrysanthemum Society—Early and Late-Flowering

‘ Varieties—Chrysanthemums as House-Plants—Varieties for Various Purposes.
Price, cloth, $1; paper, 60 cents.

THE NEW POTATO CULTURE.—By ELBERTS. CARMAN. This book gives the result
of 15 years’ experiment work on the Rural grounds. It treats particularly of: How to
ncrease the-Crop without Corresponding Cost of Production, Manures and Fertilizers:
Kinds and Methods of Application. The Soil, and How to Put It in Right Condition.
Depth of Planting. How much Seed to Plant. Methods of Culture. The Rural Trench
"System. Varieties, etc., etc.
| Nothing old or worn-out about this book. It treats of new and profitable methods; in
factof The NEW Potato-Culture, It is respectfully submitted that these experiments at
the Rural grounds have, directly and indirectly, thrown more light upon the various prob-
Jem involved in successful potato-culture than any other experiments which have been
carried on in America.
j Price, cloth, 75 cents; paper, 4o cents.

NSECTS.—An Insect Supplement to POPULAR GARDENING, containing much of valuable

1" imformation on the most approved methods of fighting insect foes.
Price, 10 cents.

, (47)
’

“It is the best paper of its class in the language.”—N. Y. Sun.

(Sarden and Forest.

“BEAUTIFULLY ILLUSTRATED. WEEKLY. FIFTH YEAR.

Devoted to the scientific, practical and beautiful in Horticulture, Land-
scape Art and Forestry. Its contents are of the highest literary character,
and include descriptions of new plants, information and advice for indoor
and outdoor planting and cultivation, descriptions of country-seats, parks
and rural scenery, with vigorous editorial discussions of all subjects em-
braced in the scope of the paper.

“The foremost journal of its class, keep- | “Tt has been influential toa marked de-
ing in touch with every advance inthesci- | gree on the press of the country in behalf
entific, artistic, and practical phases of | of the serious issues now pressing for the
horticulture and arboriculture.”—Boston | salvation of forests at the head of water-
Herald, courses.— Springfield Republican.

$4 a year. Send for specimen copy and net clubbing
rate with other periodicals.

 

Address

GARDEN AND FOREST PUBLISHING COMPANY,
Tribune Building, New York.

 

OTHET STANDARD BOOKS OF THE
RURAL PUBLISHING CO.

HE BUSINESS HEN.—Breeding and Feeding Poultry for Profit. The pat title of a
unique book is The Business Hen. A condensed and practical little enclycopedia of
profitable poultry-keeping. P.H. Jacobs, Henry Hale, James Rankin. J. H. Drevenstedt
and others equally well-known have written chapters on their specialties, the whole being
skillfully arranged and carefully edited by H. W. Collingwood, managing editor of The
Rural New- Yorker. Starting with the question, ‘‘ What is an Egg?” the book goes on
step by step to indicate the most favorable conditions for developing the egg into a ‘‘ Busi-
_ hess Hen.” Incubation, care of chicks, treatment of diseases, selection and breeding,
feeding and housing, are all discussed in aclear and simple manner. Two successful egg-
farms are described in detail. On one of these farms the owner has succeeded in develop-
ing a flock of 600 hens that average over 200 eggs each per year.
Price, cloth, 75 cents; paper, 40 cents,

IRST LESSONS IN AGRICULTURE. (2nd Edition, Revised and Enlarged.)—By F,
A. Gulley, M. S., Dean and Director of the Agricultural College and Experiment Sta-
tion University of Arizona, This book discusses the more important principles which un+
derlie agriculture, in a plain, simple way, within the comprehension of students and read!
ers who have not studied chemistry, botany, and other branches of science related to agri:
culture. It supplies a much-needed text-book for common-schools and is useful forth
practical farmer. Includes all the latest developments in agricultural science as applie
to the subject.
Price, cloth, $1. Special Prices for Schools and Colleges.

(48)

j
i
FORK RURAL LIFE.

“andscape. Gardening. ‘Notes and Suggestions on Lawns and
anes Lawn Planting. Laying Out and

Arrangement of ‘Country Places, Large and Small Parks, Cemetery
Plats and Railway-Station Lawns; Decudious and Evergreen Trees
and Shrubs, The Hardy Border, Bedding Plants, Rockwork, etc., etc.
By SAMUEL PARSONS, Jr., Superintendent of Parks, New
York City. Large 8vo, with nearly 200 illustrations; pp. xxii 329.
$3.50. zl = : , ,
“Mr. Parsons proves himself a master of this art as a landscape-gardener, and this

‘mperh book should be studied by all who are concerned in the making of parks in other ’
nities.’—Philadelphia Bulletin, © 3

The Garden, as Considered in Literature by Cer-

“tain Polite Writers. With a critical essay by WALTER
ees HOWE. With a steel portrait of
William Kent, ‘' The Father of Modern Gardening." (No. XXVI.
in the Knickerbocker Nugget Series.) 16mo. $1. i

‘tA book that will especially delight all who are fond of gardens and gardening, and
who takea certain pleasure in enjoying nature when treated by man as a work of art."—
Boston Home fournal.- . :

Among the Moths and Butterflies. 4 revised and en-

. : larged edition

of ‘‘Insect Lives.” By JULIA P. BALLARD, author of ‘‘ Build-

‘+. ing Stories,’? **SevenyYears from To-night,” etc. Small 8vo. Illus-
trated, $1.50. .

“The book, which is handsomely illustrated, is designed for young readers, relating
‘some of the most curious facts of natural history ina singularly pleasant and instructive:
_manner.”—JV. ¥Y. Tribune. Dy ee El ‘ :

BY CHARLES S. NEWHALL.

The Trees. of Northeastern GQmerica. With an intro-
ductory note

by NATH, Li. BRITTON, E.M, Ph.D, of Columbia College.
With illustrations made from tracings of the leaves of the various
trees. 8vo, cloth. Il!ustrated. $2.50.

The trees described include all the native trees of Canada and the Northern United

States east of the Mississippi river. Mention has also been made of the more important

, of the introduced and naturalized species. The descriptions are such that any given
} Spegies may be readily located and named by the help of the guide given in the volume.

i “ There has long been a great need of just such a work, and it has at last been met in
_ this handsome volume in a most satisfactory manner.”—Christian at Work.

The Leaf Collector’s Guide. 8vo, cloth. Illustrated. $2.

This book Mr. Newhall has prepared-as a hand-b»ok for the convenience of those in-
‘ terested in collecting an! preserving the characteristic leaves of the forest-trees.. This
yolume will be found invaluable to all interested in country life.

Phe Shrubs of Northeastern America, (Now in pre-

patation.)
G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS,

PUBLISHERS,
27 and 29 West 23d Street, New York.

 

 

 

 
en

Che Rural Library.

' be

  

4
4

EE
:

VOU oN culture and horticulture.

ae Each, is intended to be a
a complete manual of the sub-
ject treated. They are written or edited by
men and women whose broad knowledge. of
the specialties on which they write is undis-
puted. The range of subjects to be comprised
is well illustrated by the titles of the books
already issued or soon to appear. Among these
are: ‘‘Cross-breeding and Hybridizing -of
Plants,” ‘Chemicals and Clover,” “The Busi-
ness Hen,” “The Tuberous Begonia,” ‘‘How to
Plant a Place,” “Rats and Other Vermin,” and
“Canning and Preserving Fruits and Vegeta-
bles.”. Others to come will, in turn, enter upon
all departments of rural activity wherein more
extended information is required than the news-
paper. article can furnish, or wherein existing
books fail to condense properly for handy use
the particular information wanted. For terms,
see second page of cover of this issue.

THE RURAL PUBLISHING COMPANY,
Times Building, New York.

—AWBHE Rural Library is a series

of monthly issues of popu-.
; a lar pamphlets on_ scientific
18 EM. use| and practical topics in agri-

 
UN Dr Methane ante mand rae urassinnion,
eis Md eabtenaabesc
RSME atsnincs tone
oy

Sicha

i ”

PURE ey

eer

wieecarcharaucheneot
SASS RMANR AER
Set AUIS Mcrae

=