The conception of latency of characters as the common source of the origination of varieties, either in the positive or in the negative way, leads to some rules on variability, which are known under the names given to them by Darwin. They are the rules of repeated, homologous, parallel and analogous variability. Each of them is quite general, and may be recognized in instances from the most widely distant families. Each of them is quite evident and easily understood on the principle of latency. By the term of repeated variability is meant the well-known phenomenon, that the same variety has sprung at different times and in different [243] countries from the same species. The repetition obviously indicates a common internal cause. The white varieties of blue- and red-flowered plants occur in the wild state so often, and in most of the instances in so few individuals that a common pedigree is absolutely improbable. In horticulture this tendency is widely and vexatiously known, since the repetition of an old variety does not bring any advantage to the breeder. The old name of "conquests," given by the breeders of hyacinths, tulips and other flower-bulbs to any novelty, in disregard of the common occurrence of repetitions, is an indication of the same experience in the repeated appearance of certain varieties. The rule of parallel variations demands that the same character occasionally makes its appearance in the several varieties or races, descended from the same species, and even in widely distinct species. This is a rule, which is very important for the general conception of the meaning of the term variety as contrasted with elementary species. For the recurrence of the same deviation always impresses us as a varietal mark. Laciniated leaves are perhaps the most beautiful instance, since they occur in so many trees and shrubs, as the walnut tree, the beech, the birch, the hazelnut, and even in [244] brambles and some garden-varieties of the turnip (_Brassica_). In such cases of parallel variations the single instances obviously follow the same rules and are therefore to be designated as analogous. Pitchers or ascidia, formed by the union of the margins of a leaf, are perhaps the best proof. They were classified by Morren under two heads, according to their formation from one or more leaves. Monophyllous pitchers obey the same law, viz.: that the upper side of the leaf has become the inner side of the pitcher. Only one exception to this rule is known to me. It is afforded by the pitchers of the banyan or holy fig-tree, _Ficus religiosus_, but it does not seem to belong to the same class as other pitchers, since as far as it has been possible to ascertain the facts, these pitchers are not formed by a few leaves as in all other cases, but by all the leaves of the tree.