The three experiments taken together prove, as de Vries says, that the ovules of _velutina_ are mixed, talls and dwarfs, and that the pollen is all dwarf. The condition is almost the same as that of the Stocks. It may be noted also that in the Stocks the egg-cells of the "double" type are in excess, being approximately 9 to 7 of the "single" type, but de Vries regards the two types in _velutina_ as probably equal in number. The figures (169:231) rather suggest some excess of the recessives, perhaps 9:7, and the point would be worth a further investigation. As regards _laeta_, by self-fertilisation _no dwarfs were produced_, but in all other respects it behaved almost exactly like _velutina_. The ovules are evidently mixed talls and dwarfs, and whether fertilised by dwarfs or by the pollen of _velutina_, which is already proved to be all dwarf, the result was a steady 50 per cent. of talls and 50 per cent. of dwarfs. The pollen of _laeta_ used on dwarfs gives nothing but dwarfs, and in three series of such experiments 226 dwarfs were produced. We are thus faced with this difficulty. Since the egg-cells of _laeta_ are evidently mixed, talls and dwarfs, and the pollen used on dwarfs gives all dwarfs, why does not self-fertilisation give a mixed result, talls and dwarfs, instead of _all talls_? De Vries regards the result of self-fertilisation as showing the real nature of the pollen, and declares it to be all talls, while he represents the behaviour of the same pollen used on dwarfs by stating that in these combinations the dwarf character dominates. This does not seem to me a natural interpretation. I should regard the pollen of _laeta_ as identical with that of _velutina_, namely dwarf, and I suspect the difficulty is really created by the behaviour of _laeta_ on self-fertilisation. Until a proper analysis is made in which the identity of the different individuals used is recorded, no further discussion is possible.[8] Other results of a complicated kind involving production of _laeta_ and _velutina_ together with a third form have been published by de Vries in his paper on "Triple Hybrids." To these also the same criticism applies. Some of the observations seem capable of simple factorial representation and others are conflicting.