1. _Stocks_ (_Matthiola_). Professor Weldon quotes Correns’ observation that glabrous Stocks crossed with hoary gave offspring all hoary, while Trevor Clarke thus obtained some hoary and some glabrous. As there are some twenty different sorts of Stocks[128] it is not surprising that different observers should have chanced on different materials and obtained different results. Miss Saunders has investigated laws of heredity in Stocks on a large scale and an account of her results is included in our forthcoming Report. Here it must suffice to say that the cross hoary ♀ × glabrous ♂ always gave offspring all hoary except once: that the cross glabrous ♀ × hoary ♂ of several types gave all hoary; _but_ the same cross using other hoary types did frequently give a mixture, some of the offspring being hoary, others glabrous. Professor Weldon might immediately decide that here was the hoped for phenomenon of “reversed” dominance, due to ancestry, but here again that hypothesis is excluded. For the glabrous (recessive) cross-breds were _pure_, and produced on self-fertilisation glabrous plants only, being in fact, almost beyond question, “false hybrids” (see p. 34), a specific phenomenon which has nothing to do with the question of dominance. [128] The number in Haage and Schmidt’s list exceeds 200, counting colour-varieties. Professor Weldon next suggests that there is discrepancy between the observations as to flower-colour. He tells us that Correns found _violet_ Stocks crossed with “_yellowish white_” gave violet or shades of violet flaked together. According to Professor Weldon “On the other hand Nobbe crossed a number of varieties of _M. annua_ in which the flowers were white, violet, carmine-coloured, crimson or dark blue. These were crossed in various ways, and before a cross was made the colour of each parent was matched by a mixture of dry powdered colours which was preserved. In every case the hybrid flower was of an intermediate colour, which could be matched by mixing the powders which recorded the parental colours. The proportions in which the powders were mixed are not given in each [any] case, but it is clear that the colours blended[129].” [129] The original passage is in _Landwirths. Versuchstationen_, 1888, XXXV. [_not_ XXXIV.], p. 151. On comparing Professor Weldon’s version with the originals we find the missing explanations. Having served some apprenticeship to the breeding of Stocks, we, here, are perhaps in a better position to take the points, but it is to me perfectly inexplicable how in such a simple matter as this he can have gone wrong. Note then