68 



JOURNAL OF HOETIOULTUBE AND COTTAGE GABDENBB. 



[ January 23, 1877. 



an annaal repetition of this practice. After pruning a good 

 quantity of decayed manure should be spread over the roots 

 and turned in about 2 inches below the surface of the soil with 

 a fork. Do not turn up any of the rootj in doing this ; some 

 only spread the manure over the surface, and do not cover it 

 with soil , but this is the least profitable way, although it is rightly 

 supposed that part of the nutriment from the manure is washed 

 down to the roots. Plenty of good feeding at the roots is ex- 

 cellent at all times for the Raspberry, and this must not be 

 neglected or failure will be the result. When in a healthy free- 

 growing state insects or disease of any kind is never trouble- 

 some. 



The following varieties are worth growing : — Carter's Prolific, 

 very large red ; Red Antwerp ; Fastolf, dark red, great bearer ; 

 Fillbasket, prolific and excellent; and Yellow Globe, pale yellow 

 with fine flavour. — Pkactitioner. 



CATALOGUES. 



Although an amateur my address appears to be known to 

 most nurserymen, seedsmen, and florists, for a pile of cata- 

 logues are already to hand. I shall select from time to time 

 something from most of them, and they will be also kept for 

 reference — at least such of them as can be conveniently referred 

 to — and this brings me to what I have to say. 



An eminent horticulturist remarked to me the other day 

 that a catalogue should possess two essentials — accuracy and 

 convenience of arrangement — should be, in fact, like a dic- 

 tionary, where the representatives of any known genus, at 

 least those of current value, should be alphabetically arranged, 

 enabling them to be turned to at once. I am quite sure that 

 that is a right view to take of catalogues, and it becomes the 

 more necessary to adhere to it since these compilations have 

 become so voluminous. I willingly admit that many catalogues 

 are admirably "turned out," and far surpass in excellence of 

 execution the trade lists of any other country that I am 

 acquainted with, but the English do not surpass the foreign 

 catalogues in accuracy. 



A catalogue of plants and seeds, but especially of the former, 

 should be copious yet concise, and if the contents are not 

 alphabetically arranged a full index becomes a necessity. Yet 

 there are some catalogues which are bulky in their nature and 

 arranged in sections, but are without even a sectional index. 

 For myself I never refer to such lists. I cannot spend half an 

 hour in searching for that which ought to be found in a few 

 minutes. A catalogue should be a guide and not a puzzle. 



I recently had occasion to consult some lists of popular 

 plants, such as florists' flowers and bedding plants. I laid my 

 hand on a " guide " which I considered would contain precisely 

 what I wanted, so perhaps it did, for it was very comprehen- 

 sive but so divided into sections, sub-sections, and minute 

 " classifications " that the work of wading through it became 

 positively irksome. I submitted this " guide " to an author 

 (above alluded to) of standard horticultural works, who after a 

 careful perusal of it returned it with the remark — "It is one 

 of the best and one of the worst catalogues that I have seen." 

 I quite feel that he was justified in that remark, for the lists of 

 plants are extremely ample but most perplexingly arranged. 



I am glad to see that the names of the raisers are being 

 attached to meritorious flowers. That is an act of justice to 

 the men, and renders a list additionally instructive and less 

 liable to be thrown aside as ephemeral. The good old plan of 

 placing the raisers' names in parenthesis in an alphabetical 

 list of the names of flowers has not yet been improved upon, 

 and catalogues thus arranged are the most generally acceptable. 



The descriptions attached to many plants and flowers are 

 frequently unnecessarily prolix. I do not mean the scientific 

 descriptions, but the details of the merits and qualities of the 

 plants described. There is too much repetition, too many 

 sentences of praise, as if each was a prop for the other, 

 strengthening it. It is not so. Many props are suggestive of 

 weakness, and mixing is generally diluting. A clear, torse, 

 firmly written sentence in one line is worth a dozen lines of 

 laboured eulogium. 



It is common to hear the opinion expressed that catalogues 

 are growing unwieldly in size. I think there is force in that 

 remark, and from this fact — I have two or three excellent 

 examples of modern catalogues ; so attractive are they that I 

 could wish that many of my amateur friends could see them, 

 friends who have gardens but who know nothing of the exist- 

 ence of these elaborate garden annuals. It is only my nearest 

 aeighbonrs to whom I can conveniently show these " volumes," 



but were they of a size to fit my breast pocket or even my 

 " black bag " without being crushed and injured, I am confi- 

 dent they would be " handed about " much more extensively 

 than they now are. 



A word cannot be withheld on the piciorial aspect of cata- 

 logues. The illustrations are more chaste than before, and 

 more truthful. There is lees of the " Little-Red-Riding- 

 hood" character about them than formerly, when they were 

 suggestive that horticultural readers were as children, requiring 

 "plenty of colour" to catch the eye and amuse. A first-rate 

 plain engraving leaves a much better and more lasting im- 

 pression than does a fifth-rate coloured picture, and not one 

 in a hundred of these are of more than that calibre. In this 

 respect the preparers of catalogues have shown excellent taste 

 in giving a few good coloured impressions rather than a 

 plethora of cheap "Red Ridinghoods." As I can hand my 

 catalogues to but few friends I can only advise other amateurs 

 to purchase, for the catalogues are " marvels of cheapness" at 

 their advertised prices, and they are highly calculated to foster 

 a taste for flowers and increase the interest in gardening 

 which is so desirable and beneficial. — Amateub, F.E.H.S. 



HTDBANGEA HORTENSIA OK HOKTENSIS. 



The common garden Hydrangea is called H. hortensis, a 

 very common error. Knowing it to be named H. Hortensia 

 in honour of some French Madame Hortense, I wrote it " Queen 

 Hortense," without stopping to consult the authorities, as I 

 should have done had I supposed that the note would be 

 printed. I was wrong as to the particular Hortense, but right 

 as to the point I wished to make — that Hortensia is the proper 

 specific name of the plant, and that horteufcis is wrong. 



The botanical name of the plant is Hydrangea Hortensia. 

 The reason for giving this name is tolJ by several authors, bn 

 the story is nowhere more concisely relatud than in Loudon's 

 "Arboretum et Fruticetum," vol. ii., page 996. After giving the 

 names for the plant in Chinese and Japanese, Loudon says : — " In 

 Europe it was named by the celebrated Commerson in honour of 

 Madame Hortense Lapante, wife of his most particular friend, 

 M. Lapante,awatchmaker. Commerson first named itLapantiff, 

 but in order that the compliment to Madame Lapante might 

 be the more direct, he changed the name to that of Hortensia, 

 from her Christian name, Hortense. The plant was afterwards 

 discovered to be a species of Hydrangea, a genus previously 

 established by Gronovius ; but the name Hortensia was re- 

 tained as its specific appellation, and it is still the common 

 name by which the plant is known in French gardens." — 

 {American Gardeners' Monthly.) 



CLIVE HOUSE SEEDLING GRAPE. 



The notice of this seedling by Mr. Bowie in your last issue 

 requires a few plain words. 



First, as to the implied charge of claiming to have raised 

 the seedling myself. I have to say that I did not exhibit it 

 as my own raising. This condition was not required by the 

 Committee, nor was it demanded in the interest of horticul- 

 ture. It is sufficient that the variety be new, distinct, and of 

 superior merit. 



Second, as to the actual history of the seedling. That given 

 by Mr. Bowie, that it was raised by Mr. Wm. Caseley twenty 

 years ago, is absolutely and demonstrably wrong. The Vine 

 from which my specimen is believed to have been taken was 

 raised by Mr. Bailey, late gardener to the Duke of Northumber- 

 land, at Stanwiok upwards of twenty years ago, and brought 

 by him to Alnwick along with several other seedlings. Two 

 of these are now preserved in the Castle Gardens, and have 

 all along been known and shown as Bailey's seedlings. I 

 received mine six years ago; it was given, and was labelled 

 as Lady Downe's. On being fruited the diffurenoe was obvious 

 to myself, to Mr. Ingram the present head gardener at the 

 Castle Gardens, and others, and it was supposed to be, and has 

 been freely spoken of, as one of Bailey's seedlings ever since. 

 No story of Mr. Caseley having raised it has been given out till 

 the past summer, when its superiority became manifest. The 

 story of Mr. Caseley having raised it was then and there flatly 

 contradicted in the presence of a noted Grape-grower. So far 

 as I know and can discover, no seedling Vine other than those 

 brought by Mr. Bailey has been raised or fruited at Alnwick 

 Castle Gardens since Mr. Bailey came, upwards of twenty 

 years ago. 



Third, as to my right to the seedling. On discovering its 





