May 30, 1908 



HORTICULTURE 



719 



The Hardy Rhododendron Question 



Editor Horticulture : 



Eepljing to Mr. Brown's article iu Hoeticu]>tuee 

 of May 9th, in whicli lie takes issue with me, I will 

 again say that my observations and experiences do not 

 accord with his list of rhododendrons except in so far as 

 mentioned in my former article. Now he may have 

 had a different experience than I did with those kinds 

 I list as tender. 1 will admit that my experience with 

 these tenderer kinds has been confined mostly to Long 

 Island, New York. In a general way if a plant is ten- 

 der there it surely is so in Boston. Of course there may 

 be exceptions. 



As to what the term hardiness in the case of rhodo- 

 dendrons might reasonably be expected to mean my 

 idea would be that in order to be termed hardy a rho- 

 dodendron should come through an ordinary winter in a 

 situation that is at least fairly well adapted to thi.^ class 

 of plants with its buds and leaves as well as its wood 

 practically uninjured, and this without any overhead 

 protection of evergreen boughs, lath screens or the like. 

 Under the foregoing conditions, and in some cases even 

 with a winter overhead protection, I have seen on Long 

 Island the varieties I?. I. Halford, John Waterer, Mrs. 

 John Glutton, Concessum, The Queen, and Lady Elea- 

 nor Cathcart, kill so badly that it would take them 

 years to recover, while standing almost side by side with 

 them was practically the entire list which I give under 

 colors, and these latter came through in good shape. 



Now if it can be shown that the varieties I have had 

 my doubts about will in the vieinty of Boston, stand the 

 above test I shall be glad to learn it, and would of course 

 consider that they belonged in the "iron-clad" class for 

 this neighborhood. Even if they fail of the above test 

 but will come through an ordinary winter with a not 

 unreasonably troublesome or expensive protection I 

 should consider them hardy enough for use in many 

 instances. 



In New York city and vicinity it might not be un- 

 reasonable to demand, as a test for hardiness, that a 

 rhododendron be able satisfactorily to withstand a win- 

 ter without protection "in the middle of a ten-acre 

 field," as I have seen rhododendrons there stand the 

 winter without protection in some pretty exposed places, 

 where I should hesitate about planting them. 



Mr. Brown says that my list is "favored more by re- 

 pute." In reply I would say that the list under colors 

 given by me can be found fairly well represented in 

 large sized plants in and around Boston, and in New 

 York there are innumerable instances where tliis is so. 

 Can as much be said of the list which I put down as 

 tender? Also, most of the sorts listed (under colors) 

 by me are carried by a number of nurserymen. Con- 

 cerning the additional list of kinds which I give as 

 doing well in the Arboretum I do not know just how 

 widely these are distributed elsewhere, although, if I 

 remember correctly, I have run across some of them out- 

 side of the Arboretum. 



Mr. Brown states that he has proved part of his list 

 by a five years'" test. That would seem to be a pretty 

 fair test. But is it? Would it be unreasonable to re- 

 quire a test of ten years, and to demand that at the 

 end of that time the plants should still be shapely, not 

 consisting of a few gawky shoots with perhaps a bunch 

 of better growth at the base, as can sometimes be seen, 

 and which in certain cases I have attributed to lack of 

 hardiness, although this kind of development sometimes 

 takes place, through abuse, in the case of hardy varie- 

 ties. 



Concerning what Mr. Brown has to say about the cir- 



culation of Horticulture and my making a list for 

 "Boston and vieinty," it seems to me that his point is 

 not well taken. I do know, which Mr. Brown seems to 

 think I do not, that the circulation of Horticulture 

 is not restricted to Boston and vicinity. I dare say its 

 circulation takes in all the remote corners of the earth. 

 This fact it seems to me is one of the many obvious 

 reasons why in writing about the hardiness of rhodo- 

 dendrons it is best, or rather necessary, to mention lo- 

 calities, and to state what kinds will do in such and 

 such localities, otherwise a mere list of rhododendrons, 

 including all those kinds which are hardy somewhere, 

 some here and some there, where Horticulture circu- 

 lates would quite likely include the whole existing cata- 

 logue of rhododendrons, and such a catalogue would be 

 of no use whatever in this question of hardiness. Also, 

 on the same principle of the ubiquitousness of Horti- 

 culture any list of hardy rhododendrons would be use- 

 less in many places reached by this journal, simply be- 

 cause rhododendrons would not do there at all. 



What I have just said in the foregoing sentences 

 seems to me the logical conclusions of Mr. Brown's state- 

 ments in the paragraph devoted to the "principal ob- 

 ject" of his article. Admittedly many rhododendrons 

 are hardy in localities in England which are not hardy 

 in certain localities in New England. In Mr. Brown's 

 article in the April 11th number there occurs this sen- 

 tence, "There are a great many people who believe that 

 the best of the English hybrids cannot be grown in the 

 New England States, but one has only to consult any 

 up-to-date catalogue of varieties to be astonished at the 

 large number of sorts that have proved available for 

 planting in New England." Here is no mention of 

 locality except the very wide term "New England 

 States." In his statement does Mr. Brown mean to 

 include all of New England? Would he say, for in- 

 stance, -that his list of rhododendrons would survive un- 

 der the winter treatment mentioned by him, say in 

 Aroostook County, Maine? I have gone into this ex- 

 planation in detail in an attempt to make clear what I 

 had thought was obvious, viz.: why my list was in- 

 tended for Boston and vicinity. Of course the fact that 

 I am now living in Boston is an added reason for the 

 selection of this particular locality. 



I take it that Mr. Brown takes exception to the "im- 

 posing title, "Iron-Clad Ehododendrons,' " appearing at 

 the head of my article in the April 18th number. I 

 did use the term, not a new one even in connection with 

 rhododendrons, in the body of my article, but did not 

 use it as a title for my manuscript or suggest that it 

 appear as such when my article should be printed. The 

 management of Horticulture, I hope, will take no 

 offense when I state that they, not I, are responsible for 

 the use of this term as a title of my article. 



I might state that the chief object of my criticism of 

 Mr. Brown's previous article (as is also that of this 

 article) was that I hoped by means of placing before the 

 readers of Horticulture the results of my own observa- 

 tion and experience to elicit the results of the experience 

 and observations of others, thus perhaps leading to an 

 interesting discussion and to the dissemination of valu- 

 able knowledge. I was quite aware that most of us, 

 myself included, have quite a lot to learn regarding rho- 

 dodendrons, not only as regards hardiness, but in other 

 wavs. 



tX--*,^y^ 



