As crop plants are derived from wild ones, as the effect of cultivation, it follows as a matter of course that these will be varied, both in form and constitution, according to the circumstances under which they have been produced. Thus we may expect that any attempts to ennoble a wild root in different countries would not, even if successful, be sure to bring about the same results. Much depends even upon the individual root with which our trial may be started, and more upon the judgment employed in selecting the stock from which the experiments are to be continued. That position and soil may make a great difference may be inferred from the fact that the attempts to improve the wild parsnip and carrot have met with varied success. De Candolle is reported to have tried to improve the carrot with success, whilst with the parsnip he utterly failed; whilst Professor Lindley, in Morton’s “Cyclopædia of Agriculture,” tells us that M. Ponsard has ascertained that “the wild parsnip becomes improved immediately when cultivated, and that experiments in improving its quality promise well:” how well, indeed, may be seen from the foregoing chapter. But still, we utterly failed with the wild carrot. Having collected seeds of the _Daucus Carota_ (the common wild carrot) from some fine specimens growing on the road-side between Cirencester and Cheltenham, they were subjected to experiment at the same time as the parsnip, but with little, if any, favourable result. Upon this plant Professor Lindley observes as follows:— That the hard-rooted wild carrot is really the parent of our cultivated varieties, remarkable as they are for the succulence and tenderness of their roots, has been experimentally proved by M. Vilmorin, who succeeded in obtaining by cultivation perfectly tender, eatable roots, from seeds saved from plants only three or four generations off the wild species. Still, a modern French naturalist of great experience, M. Decaisne, tells us that he has tried to ennoble the wild carrot, and has not succeeded; and from this he draws the conclusion that our cultivated forms were created specially for the use of man. As we should suppose that very few botanists agree to this theory, we shall let the facts we have already brought forward stand in maintenance of its opposite, namely, that cultivated forms are derived from wild species often apparently very different; but at the same time it may be well to state, that in all probability some of the discrepancies of experimenters may have arisen from some confusion in the species operated upon.