THE FLORAL WORLD AND GARDEN GUIDE. 57 



nections — plants that need not propping up behind their neighbour's back, nor to 

 peep over their fellow's shoulder. There is a place for all the tall things you 

 mention— Phloxes, Campanulas, Delphiniums, etc., and I had prepared a list of tall 

 plants suitable for such places. And as regards the allusion to the seven-feet high 

 Tritoma, it has certainly very lofty pretensions ; but I am heretical enough to con- 

 sider it a very untidy plant, with no foliage at all commensurate with its "rake 

 handle" of a spike. I must pass by your notice on Campanulas. Many of these are 

 truly beautiful, but the reflexing of the outer corolla of C. coronata and its milky 

 whiteness are matters of special interest. I feel certain that much confusion exists 

 in this and other tribes of plants; thus, in the number of the Floral World for 

 January, the Editor speaks of C. carpatica, three inches. This certainly cannot be 

 what is known about here as C. carpatica. Granted that Narcissus triandnis is 

 not so capable of roughing it as poeticus, odorus, and others, simply because it is 

 too rare and expensive ; but it is hardy anywhere, and is of matchless beauty. N. 

 hulbocodium does excellently in our damp sandy soil. Papaver involucra maxima, 

 which I see is creeping into many catalogues, if not a species, must have originated 

 from *' bracteata," which its brncteated stem seems to indicate. I shall not descend 

 to individual criticism on the O'Sliane's list, as he has done with mine ; but, in the Brst 

 place, I have not agood plant nor anysortofaplant at all of Z>racocei?fea?«w^mnrf«^orM772. 

 I never had but two plantsof it, which I was forced topartwith. Ifound it in a garden 

 of a small road-side inn some distance from here, and I should be glad to beg, buy, or 

 borrow a plant of it myself. Saw it in a London catalogue the other day, and sent 

 for it; of course they had not got it. I cannot see how you can call Lobelia siphi- 

 litica second rate; all that I know is it is much in demand. My Ranunculus, I 

 find, is not R. montana I had years ago under the name of the "Mountain Ranun- 

 culus." It has a very pubescent leaf, habit of plant like Ranunctdus ceris phno, but 

 far more handsome. As to the prize offered by the Editor of the " Gardeners' 

 Magazine" for a selection of Alpines, if you will oblige me with particulars, whether 

 the list must comprise truly Alpine plants, or plants suitable for rockeries, I will 

 certainly have a try. I consider AspTiodelus ramosus, the " King's Spear," fit for 

 the hand of any king or even queen, and am sorry you appear so [much out of 

 humour with the pretty yellow foxglove. You ask what is Digitalis speciosa. 

 Don't know; never heard of it; never mentioned it! The reason 1 mentioned the 

 worst Yucca {fitamentosa) is because it is the best to flower. When well looked 

 after it flowers freely, and is always a sensation plant, and a well-flowered large 

 mass of it is before all the Tritomas in the world. Y. gloriosa, Y. reciirva, and 

 Y. glaucesens are not often seen in flower. Gloriosa was in flower a summer or 

 two ago in a garden near Beaumaris, and all the people went on pilgrimage to see 

 the '* wonderful aloe," as it was called in the papers. Cheiranthiis Marshallii is a 

 hardy perennial plant, and a most beautiful thing it is. I have grown it for fifteen 

 years ; it is even quite shrubby. I feel sorry for your positiveness as regards this 

 fine plant, and feel certain that my assertions will be borne out by all who know 

 the plant. I know C. alpina very well, and shall not confound it with Marshallii. 

 I do not know whether Stachys aurantiaca is a proper species. I had it above twenty 

 years ago, from a nurseryman at St. Leonards; it is a curious shade of brown- 

 orange, a pretty companion for S. coccinea. Perhaps it is one of those things that 

 you have not seen, and is no more a Phlomis than a duett is a fiddle. Statice lati- 

 folia is a noble thing. I see you have withdrawn Trillium grandijlorum, more 

 curious than useful. What has become of I. sessilis 1 I am sorry you cannot 

 deteimine your Iberis Gibraliarica. If /. sempervirens is distinct from /. saxatilisy 

 I do not know one from the other. I have a fine variety of 7. garrexiana, but the 

 best of all tliese fine things is what is known as I. corifolia (not correafolia). I 

 shall have a word to say on these plants some day. I am glad of your deter- 

 mination to rescue these old things from oblivion. I had intended the same thing 

 myself, but will gladly yield up ; but I believe there is work for more than one in 

 this line; and as for your promise of calling on me, come and welcome. 



J. Williams. 



