Our hardy Hibiscus species as ornamentals
As a common plant name, "Hibiscus" is more often applied to the showy tropical sorts, especially Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L., than to other species of the genus. There is, however, another equally showy group, the hardy herbaceous mallows, native mostly to the Eastern United States. This group includes Hibiscus moscheutos L., H. militaris Cav., H. coccineus (Medicus) Walter, H. grandiflorus Michx., H. lasiocarpus Cav., and their many garden hybrids. The various species in this group are commonly called Rose Mallows. They grow naturally in marshy areas of the Atlantic States from southern New England to Florida, also inland along rivers and lakes. Isolated populations appear in areas such as the Sacramento River Valley of California. The tall vigorous growth of Rose Mallow plants plus the abundantly produced, large, gaily colored flowers makes them a conspicuous and attractive feature of the vegetation. Hibiscus moscheutos most often occurs in almost pure stands along tidal rivers of the mid-Atlantic states. During the peak of flowering, late July to mid-August, these stands are a striking sight to behold. In spite of the large fleshy roots, Rose Mallow plants withstand transplanting easily even when in full flower. They are also readily groxvn from seed and will flower the first season if sown early. Unlike their woody tropical relatives, the Rose Mallows are herbaceous perennials, and the plants become somewhat coarse by the end of the growing season. They also lack the yellow and orange flower colors so prominent in many Hibiscus rosa-sinensis clones. Nevertheless, the various species have been cultivated as ornamentals in the United States since Colonial times. As cultivated plants they perform best when grown in good garden soil with moderate amounts of water.
The newly artificially raised amphidiploid plant named "Ai-Fuyo" (Hibiscus mutamoscheutos), obtained from the progeny of H. mutabilis × H. Moscheutos : Studies on interspecific and intergeneric hybridization in the Malvaceae VII
(1) The author bred up a new amphidiploid plants at the progeny of the cross between “ Fuyo ” (H. mutabilis) (2n = 92) and “ Kusa-Fuyo ” (H. Moscheutos) (2n = 38). (2) The main characters of these new amphidiploid plants were as follows : These amphidiploid plants showed heterosis. The characteristics of stem and leaf resembled H. mutabilis which are shrublike. The flower size was larger, the flower coloring more beautiful, the beginning of flower openning earlier and the flower period was longer than the parents. Moreover the pollon fertility was as high and the size of pollen grains was larger than the parents. The seed shape was similar to H. mutabilis. The seeds had many surface hairs like H. mutabilis, but their color was darker than H. mutabilis, and their size was larger than in length, width and thickness. (3) In these amphidiploid plants, the chromosome conjugation at MI of PMCs showed 65II with no irregularities. The chromosome number in root tips was 2n=130. (4) The author wou.Id like to propose that these new amphidiploid plants be given the Japanese name “ Ai-Fuyo ” and the scientific name H. muta-moscheutos KUWADA.
The Gospel and the land;: Early Christianity and Jewish territorial doctrine,
Ostensibly Davies' patient study of the concepton of the "land" (Israel, Jerusalem) in early Christianity is an essay in Biblical theology, but he also wishes to raise serious questions about Christian understanding (or misunderstanding) of Judaism. "Christians have usually understood Judaism in too theological, and therefore, too intellectual terms. And they have also looked at their own foundation document, the New Testament, in the same way. In their proper concern to unravel theological developments and subtleties in primitive Christianity, they have neglfected to search for evidences of an encounter between it and the realia of Judaism and for any possible resolutions of such an tencounter. In particular, they have failed to inquire after the place of the land in the thought and lives of early Christians" (p. 161). Davies observes, for example, that bible dictionaries often have no references whatsoever to "land" and those that do allot it but a few pages. Even in Old Testament scholarship, where the land is of central significance in the documents themselves, it has been neglected. His work is an attempt to provide a context of Jewish thinking from early Israelite writings up to the Talmud in which to place the Christian materials. The bulk of the book is an account of the historical and theological process by which early Christianity gave a "spiritual" interpretation of traditional Jewish views of the land. Read against the Jewish background, the radical spiritualizing of the tradition is striking. Yet Davies also shows that Jewish attitudes were not monolithic in the first century, that notions of a preexistent, heavenly or eschatological Jerusalem were present, and that some Jews considered the viability of Judaism apart from the land. At some point however what could be entertained as an abstraction in Judaism, when it was made concrete in the life of the Christian movement, could not be tolerated. The conflict was heightened, of course, by the destruction of Jerusalem and the continued existence of Christianity as a movement increasingly receptive to non-Jews. Christianity, however, while rejecting the link between the land and religion, did create a new sense of "holy space" by hallowing the places where Christ had been, a development which would find fullest expression some several centuries later. As a result of the Holocaust and the establishment of the modern state of Israel Christians are faced with a whole new series of issues which have lain dormant since the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Davies' work must be read against this backdrop to appreciate its significance. It is as much a book about modern Christian thinking as it is about the past, as many of his citations and his several appendices of speeches at Jewish-Christian conferences show. To some it may appear that he has sided too closely with certain strands of Judaism and allowed this to color his way of handling the pre-Christian and pre-Rabbinic material, but such criticism is carping. Much of the material here is gathered together in this fashion for the first time, and he has successfully shown that a major preoccupation of ancient Judaism is missing in contemporary biblical scholarship. Further, he has given us a moving yet scholarly statement of the pathos of the modern Christian who cares about Christ and Israel and who tries to understand Israel while loving Christ.