The apple seems to be governed by the same general physiological laws regarding reproduction, as the pear. From my own experience, the female parent gives size, shape and color to its progeny, - season and quality being more likely to be affected by extraneous fertilization. A Garden Royal produced its size, shape and color, but was acid and a winter fruit. A Red Astrachan became evidently crossed with the Baldwin, being large, well colored, but firmer, and two months later than the Astrachan, with the lat-ter's flavor. The same can be said of a product of the Williams, which probably became influenced by the Baldwin, so far as to make it a winter or late autumn fruit. The Ladies' Sweeting reproduced itself, and was probably an instance of purely cross-fertilization. Others I have raised, which need, perhaps, no special notice.

Speaking generally, from my own experience, I think the female parent has the greater influence on the progeny, though this may not always come from the degree of its self-fertilization, but from other inherent forces before alluded to. Still, the opinion seems somewhat hazardous, for a few years ago, Mr. Cox, of California, exhibited on the tables of the Massachusetts Horticultural Society something like a dozen different seedling pears, all said to be raised from the seed of the Belle Lucrative. Only one resembled the parent, while a number of well-known varieties were represented in a marked degree.

On this complicated subject I take the liberty of observing, that in artificial impregnation, the presumption is that we get a union of two varieties, that of the one impregnated and the other that fertilizes. But if the anthers of the female plant are clipped out, to avoid self-fertilization, the product would be no cross, but only partake of the character of the male parent - unless some uncertain, innate power of the other parent exerted itself. The latter not existing, a Bartlett seed fertilized by the Seckel pollen would produce merely a Seckel.

In his "Darwiniana," Prof. Asa Gray observes that the causes of variation are not known. Is this assertion consistent with a belief in the sexuality of plants? Does close or cross-fertilization give no character to the progeny, but simply vitalize the seed?