Under such disadvantages it is not to be expected that seed capsules would be often found upon imported Cypripeds. Messrs. Veitch state that they rarely observed one among the myriads of plants that have passed through their hands. With some species, however, it is not by any means so uncommon. When Messrs. Thompson, of Clovenfords, bought a quantity of the first _Cyp. Spicerianum_ which came upon the market, they found a number of capsules, and sowed them, obtaining several hundred fine plants. Pods are often imported on _Cyp. insigne_ full of good seed.
In the circumstances enumerated we have the explanation of an extraordinary fact. Hybrids or natural species of Cypripediums artificially raised are stronger than their parents, and they produce finer flowers. The reason is that they get abundance of food in captivity, and all things are made comfortable for them; whilst Nature, anxious to be rid of a form of plant no longer approved, starves and neglects them.
The same argument enables us to understand why Cypripeds lend themselves so readily to the hybridizer. Darwin taught us to expect that species which can rarely hope to secure a chance of reproduction will learn to make the process as easy and as sure as the conditions would admit--that none of those scarce opportunities may be lost. And so it proves. Orchidaceans are apt to declare that "everybody" is hybridizing Cypripeds nowadays. At least, so many persons have taken up this agreeable and interesting pursuit that science has lost count of the less striking results. Briefly, the first hybrid Cypripedium was raised by Dominy, in 1869, and named after Mr. Harris, who, as has been said, suggested the operation to him. Seden produced the next in 1874--_Cyp. Sedeni_ from _Cyp. Schlimii × Cyp. longiflorum_; curious as the single instance yet noted in which seedlings turn out identical, whichever parent furnish the pollen-masses. In every other case they vary when the functions of the parents are exchanged.
For a long time after 1853, when serious work begun, Messrs. Veitch had a monopoly of the business. It is but forty years, therefore, since experiments commenced, in which time hundreds of hybrids have been added to our list of flowers; but--this is my point--Nature has been busy at the same task for unknown ages, and who can measure the fruits of her industry? I do not offer the remark as an argument; our observations are too few as yet. It may well be urged that if Nature had been thus active, the "natural hybrids" which can be recognized would be much more numerous than they are. I have pointed out that many of the largest genera show very few; many none at all. But is it impossible that the explanation appears to fail only because we cannot yet push it far enough? When the hybridizer causes by force a fruitful union betwixt two genera, he seems to triumph over a botanical law. But suppose the genera themselves are artificial, only links in a grand chain which Nature has forged slowly, patiently, with many a break and many a failure, in the course of ages? She would finish her work bit by bit, and at every stage the new variety may have united with others in endless succession. Few natural hybrids can be identified among Cattleyas, for instance. But suppose Cattleyas are all hybrids, the result of promiscuous intercourse among genera during cycles of time--suppose, that is, the genus itself sprang from parents widely diverse, crossing, returning, intercrossing from age to age? It is admitted that Cypripedium represents a primeval form--perhaps _the_ primeval form--of orchid. Suppose that we behold, in this nineteenth century, a mere epoch, or stage, in the ceaseless evolution? Only an irresponsible amateur could dare talk in this way. It would, in truth, be very futile speculation if experiments already successful did not offer a chance of proof one day, and others, hourly ripening, did not summon us to think.