April 25, 1908 



HORTICULTURE 



669 



Narcissi and Daffodils 



( Confiniteii ) 



Daffodils proper, the large single-trumpet section of 

 Narcissi, have witliin recent years held the center of 

 the stage, and have been by far more popular here than 

 their next-smaller cousins to whom we have referred in 

 a former article; consequently a larger varietal number 

 of this section is generally better known. 



Yet notwithstanding the greater favor in which the 

 large trumpet section has been held here, there still 

 exists a remissness on our part in not introducing larger 

 numbers of later superior kinds. When I recall, as 

 a personal observer for over the space of twenty years 

 and as an exhibitor and competitor for most of that 

 time, our Massachusetts Horticultural Society shows, I 

 cannot without misgivings compare our status in. this 

 specific field with that of our English cousins, seeing 

 that during that long period of time the same kinds 

 still continue to lift the "blue ribbon and cash" from 

 the showboards; only three recent worthy new comers 

 having been added during that time to the "Eoyal gal- 

 axy of Standbys'"' comprised of Emperor, Empress, 

 Horsfieldii, Henry Irving, Double Von Sion, Prineeps, 

 Trumpet Major, Ard Eigh, Dean Herbert, Maximus, 

 Sir Watkins and a few others. Of the three added, 

 Bicolor Victoria has been added for a number of years 

 and a splendid variety it is: Madame de Graaf some- 

 what sparingly and, last but not least, comes Glory of 

 Leyden, a massive and glorified Emperor in fact, with 

 straw shading in the perianth. 



While not minimizing the effectiveness and usefulness 

 of double Von Sion for general decorative purposes, I 

 cannot help regarding it as rather coarse and inelegant 

 in a stand alongside the others mentioned; its doubleness 

 has a pronounced discordant bearing when grouped 

 with the large single-trumpet daffodil, and therefore it 

 should be eliminated from this class in the show arena. 



To whet the appetite of the yet lukewarm daffodil 

 enthusiast and to stimulate a love for them, as well as 

 to show our comparatively low status as general narcissi 

 entlmsiasts, is in a large measure the reason for writing 

 this article. I will mention a few of the very finest 

 varieties that are scarcely known as yet except through 

 catalogue or magazine mention. 



Weardale perfection, enormous size, known to 

 measure five inches across, not many years ago worth 

 two hundred and fifty dollars apiece, now somewhere 

 about three dollars apiece; King Alfred, now eight 

 dollars or less apiece, considered by many to be among 

 the very finest; Duke of Bedford, four dollars or less 

 each; Monarch, four dollars or less each, a grand mas- 

 sive variety and now famous as one of the parents of 

 the finest wliite large trumpet-daffodils to date, Peter 

 Barr, Madame de Graaf being the other parent. Pearl 

 of Kent, another white from the same parentage but 

 raised by the Eev. G. P. Hayden, the former having been 

 raised by the firm from which it derives its name. 

 These, however, are comparatively new and therefore 

 very expensive, no less than one hundred and fifty dol- 

 lars being asked for a single bulb in 1906. Pearl of 

 Kent, is adjudged to be the equal in merit if not likely 

 yet to eclipse Peter Barr. Cleopatra and a host of 

 other fine varieties could be added to this list. 



Soluble Fertilizers 



AN APPEAL TO THE BDREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY 



Dr. Galloway has honored us with a communication 

 in which he has reiterated his views as presented before 

 the Carnation Society, but has not given us one iota 

 of real information on soluble fertilizers. He says: 



* * * "fully as good results could be secured by 

 the use of good composts alone as where chemical ma- 

 nures were applied." Just so, but he does not divulge 

 any information for those ignoramuses who might like 

 to try a few experiments under their own peculiar con- 

 ditions. Is it not apparent that if chemical manures 

 can do as well as composts then the chemicals may be 

 advantageous to use for other reasons? 



He says ; * * * "florists are prone to overes- 

 timate the value of chemical manures, especially bone." 



* * * They certainly are, but the Doctor should be 

 careful about calling Bone names or the manufacturers 

 (_)f the same will be after his scalp as their proudest 

 claim is that there are no chemicals in theirs. Now, will 

 not the Bureau of Plant Industry please tell the folks 

 iiow to estimate chemical manures? 



He says ; * * * '-jt was extremely diflBcult to 

 properly gauge the handling of these materials." 



* * * This we have knocked into us every 

 few minutes, but as tlie Doctor has already concluded 

 experiments where chemicals were used and has the 

 data why not at least outline the danger zone in the 

 use of these? 



He says ; * * * "if we were in position to al- 

 ways get good well-decomposed stable manure." * * * 

 Yes, but how many growers are in this position ? 



Now let nobody mistake our attitude, we do not claim 

 that soluble fertilizers are the whole thing. We are 

 not optimists like Dr. Hensens. This gentleman, 

 while on the roof of his office building, wholly absorbed 

 in the Precession of the Equinoxes walked over the 

 edge, and started down without aid of elevator. Being 

 an optimist and wishing to allay the fears of his friends 

 at the open windows he airily waved his hands at the 

 various stories exclaiming, "AH right, fellows, so far." 

 Neither are we pessimistic. The Bureau of Plant In- 

 dustiy is too late now to shoo off this dangerous chem- 

 ical business. Along with the approved use of chem- 

 icals in the field, does anyone think that the green- 

 liouse man has overlooked all this? We hope no one 

 reasons that the mere possibility of injury to stock will 

 dissuade all brave investigators. It will not. 



Consider Cyanide of Potash (or same thing. Potas- 

 sium Cyanide). This is no candy for plants, nay, not 

 even for human Iseings or dogs, but we ask in all seri- 

 ousness. Has this entirely or even largely eclipsed its 

 wide use as an insecticide? Proper chemicals are not 

 harmful to life or property or even to plants, when 

 dilute enough, and many are now using them. More 

 want to and more must. Can not the Bureau of Plant 

 Industry, having already the available data, publish a 

 few pertinent facts as to experiments already performed 



with soluble fertilizers? Please! Dr. Galloway. 



y^^.^..^^ 



>^^vc 



U^i^a^. 



