Trans. Hort Soc. London 4: 42-44 (1822)
On the Production of Hybrid Vegetables
Hon. and Rev. William Herbert

Amaryllis Hybrids

*February 18, 1820. Twenty-four bulbs having been lately sent by me to the Society, each being an offset from a different seedling of a mule Amaryllis equestri-vittata, crossed again with A. rutila and A. fulgida, I think it desirable to give a more particular account of them, as, from their rapid growth and increase, their free habit, and probable beauty of blossom, they are likely to become favourites in every collection, and to supplant A. crocata and A. equestris, which, though they thrive in a cool stove, appear equally impatient of too much heat, and too much cold.
     In March 1818, being desirous at all events of obtaining some seed from a splendid scarlet and white mule A. equestri-vittata, I touched the stigma of its four flowers with the dust of A. rutila and A. fulgida. I believe all the stigmas were touched with the pollen of both, but to one or two the dust of A. rutila was applied a day before that of A. fulgida, and the others were touched first with that of A. fulgida. The anthers had not been taken out, and before the flowers withered, the natural dust of the plant was purposely super added, to make more sure of ascertaining whether the plant was fertile. Four capsules were ripened, each being furnished with three cells. The seeds of each cell were kept distinct, and sown in April. They vegetated vigorously, and in a few months they began to shew evidently the type of A. fulgida and A. rutila, by the production of offsets. On their examination, a few days ago, they had all, with the exception of one plant, from five to above twenty offsets. The seedling, which has no offsets, is unlike the rest, and has clearly the leaf of A. equestri-vittata simply, and must be the only seedling produced by the subsequent addition of the natural pollen. It was raised from the same cell with others that shew the type of either A. rutila or A. fulgida. I apprehend that those amongst the seedlings which have a strong purple stain at the base of the leaves, will prove to be the offspring of A. fulgida, though some may perhaps have partaken of a joint impression. Plants with green and with purple stained leaves have proceeded from the same cells, those with green leaves are probably the offspring of A. rutila.
Flora Peruviana, Vol. III. page 57.

I have many seedlings from Johnson's mule Amaryllis Reginae-vittata, and I have some mule A. equestri-vittata, superior to Johnson's flower, in size and colour, with the longer tube of A. equestris. They make seed pretty freely, and I obtained a further cross by impregnating one of them with the pollen of A. rutila and A. fulgida. The bulb of A. rutila and A. fulgida is always surrounded by a crown of blind offsets, and the mule seedlings obtained from their dust began at five or six months old, to produce young bulbs, and every one of them has now several strong offsets adhering to the bulb; these will be a valuable acquisition.* I have seedlings of A. rutila with the dust of A. fulgida, approaching as nearly as possible to the A. miniata of the Botanical Magazine, (Plate 1943), which is not, however, that of RUIZ and PAVON. I have also seedlings from A. fulgida with A. rutila, and from A. Reginae with A. crocata. Seedlings of A. rutila, of A. crocata, and of Cyrtanthus purpureus, (which has been called A. purpurea,) have flowered with me at little more than two years old. Seedlings of A. vittata do not flower till they are at least seven or eight years old; but that from the mule A. Reginae-vittata flowered at the intermediate age of three years and a half, which is worthy of note, as it appears to be an intermediate specific habit.

CybeRose note: Contrary to Herbert's assertion, Amaryllis x Johnsoni was reportedly a hybrid of Amaryllis vittata and Sprekelia formosissima.

A Preliminary Treatise (1821)
William Herbert

Bis hybridum, Rutilo-Equestri-vittatum.—Splendid Knight's-star-lily, twice muled.

In consequence of a confusion of labels I have some doubts whether the female parent of these mules was produced from Vittatum by the pollen of Reginae or of Equestre. Its flower was of a very bright scarlet with a white star, and having been deprived of its anthers and impregnated by the dust of Rutilum, it produced 50 or 60 seedlings, most of which have now flowered, varying a little in shape and colour, and some of them scarcely distinguishable from Rutilum, except by a little vestige in the mouth of the tube of the beard, which is derived from the two other species. The flower which is represented was amongst the brightest of the seedlings, but no painting can approach the splendour of the natural hue. One alone of them had the coroll considerably larger. The coroll of Mule Amaryllideae seems to follow the size of the male parent, which might indeed have been expected, since the coroll bears the filaments, and therefore belongs to the male portion of the flower. The strong scent of Vittatum is entirely lost in this second cross, all the seedlings having proved scentless, like Rutilum, with which they also conform in the production of an infinity of offsets, but the offsets are not blind or dormant, like those of Rutilum. They flower freely in a cool greenhouse, appearing to be as hardy as Vittatum, and will doubtless succeed well out of doors. The leaves are narrower than those of Vittatum, and they will bloom in a much smaller pot.

Herbert Bibliography