492 



JODENAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GABDENEB. 



t June 22, 1876. 



introduction givo bnt a feeble idea of what they ultimately 

 become. What, then, will Ih-s be?" 



The time that has elapeed s'noe the above was written has 

 brought an answfr to th'i closiug query o[ that report. The 

 p'ant hai then four flowers, but a plant has now bfen exhi- 

 bited with ten times that number of flowers. When Professor 

 Beichenbaoh first directed attention to thij plant in the Gar- 

 d-ners' CItronide of 1867 he deFcribed it as a " wonderful 

 beauty," which he hoped would " one day appear at South 

 Kensington." Plants have fince appeared at South Kensing- 

 ton in all their magnifleence. Messrs. Veitch have exhibited 

 them in splendid condition and in great variety, but the honour 

 of producing the grandest example which has hitherto been 

 brought before the public rests with Mr. Richards of Gunners- 

 bury. From one psendobnlb of Baron Rothschild's plant more 

 than forty flowers were expanded. Mr. Banning has also 

 grown this plant well, and Mr. Ward has exhibited it in superior 

 condition. Mr. David Thomson's racent remarks will also be 

 remembered of his growing a plant of 0. vexillarium " in a pot 

 about the size of a breakfast cap with sixteen flowers on one 

 bulb, some of the flowers measuring .S} by 3 inches in diameter, 

 the colour being a rich glossy-pink with a pure white centre 

 and yellow-pencilled eye, forming the most captivating object 

 imaginable." There is great variety in the colours of the 

 flowers of this Orchid, and also in their size and shape; but 

 all are beautiful, and a plant or plants should be grown by all 

 who have a house wherein the minimum winter temperature of 

 45° to 50" is provided, for the plant flourishes perfectly well in 

 a cool house. The acuompanyiDg figure is a correct represent- 

 ation of a small spray of this " Queen amongst Orchids," and 

 is submitted at a time when its worth has been fully esta- 

 blished, and also when plants are sulTiciently plentiful to be 

 off:;red at prices which must ensure their still wider distribution. 



BIG SHOWS. 



WiiH much that has been written on shows by " Eadical 

 Conservative " I agree. We are worshipping the idol of big- 

 ness— I do not say greatnf ss, for that includes merit. Bigness 

 jiiay include it, but whether it does or not does not appear to 

 be of prime importance. I have not one word to say against 

 la'ge plants (if they are good) or large prizes (if they reward 

 merit and foster horticiliure), but I object to bigness going 

 for more than it is worth and having such a high place of 

 honour in the estimation of critics. It is not uncommon to 

 hear such remarks and read such sentences as these — "The 

 quality of the show was good, but (us if disparaginglj) it 

 was not a big show." "The prizes were very liberal, but 

 (ignin disparogingly) the plants were not large" (big). 



Now thue can be no doubt whatever that "bigness" is 

 occisionally overestimated and rewarded at the expense of 

 quality. Take, for instance, AzaleaP, Pelargoniums, Heaths, 

 end other plants ; they are big because they are old, but they are 

 not better, as expresfirg cultural skill, than are smaller well- 

 grown plants, while the latter embrace modern and improved 

 varieties. Awarding the same honours to the same plants 

 year after year, and chronicling their names in the press over 

 and over again for a dozen years consecutively, would seem to 

 have become the (horticultural) law of the laud. I say nothing 

 against those preserving thtse elephantine plants in good 

 health being rewarded, but quoting the names of the plants 

 continually is akin to a paragraph of " news " telling us that 

 an express train runs from London to Edinburgh daily, or 

 that Bristol is connected with the metropolis by telegraphic 

 communication. The tendency of the day is to honour and 

 ennoble the big and to forget the strictly good if not connected 

 with mere size. I am led into these remarks from what I 

 have read, what I have heard, and what I have seen. 



The popular standard for an exhibition would appear to be 

 that it must be a " big show " — the biggest show that has ever 

 been held in . To this end attractions are held out in- 

 viting competition. Large prizes are offered (quite right), and 

 the public are expected to crush in in their thousands to view 

 the monster treat, and repay the promoters for their spirit and 

 enterprise. That is the object of these shows, and it were a 

 pity that the objects sought should not be attained. Every 

 undertaking which (whatever its primary object may be), re- 

 sults in inculcating horticultural tastes is worthy of success, 

 bnt unfortunately the public is not sufficiently interested in 

 horticultural pursuits as to congregate in their thousands and 

 support the objects of the promoters of shows in making even 

 big prizes and big plants " pay." According to the present 



tastes of the public, where ten persons will saunter to a flower 

 show a thousand will rush to a race. 



From a horticultural point of view the standard of bigness 

 and the mere object of maki-ig money is a low standard. Real 

 horticulturists look primarily to quality, variety, and an im- 

 provement in the art in which they are interested being 

 fostered and encouraged. Thoy would rather promote the 

 culture of that which is neglected, and seek to bring out and 

 reward that which is meritorious, than cause a sensation by a 

 mere gigantic display, and rely on an nnappreciative public to 

 appreciate it. 



Like your correspondent on page 452, I am of opinion that 

 shows in London are becoming too numerous. I have both 

 heard and seen sufficient to lead me to this opinion. Tho 

 competition (what an' unpleasant word that is in connection 

 with " societies), is not promotive but I fear rather preventive 

 of the solid and healthy progress of the art. The efforts thit 

 are being made by those whoso groat object is the fostering of 

 horticultural taste, the advancement of horticultural pursuits, 

 and the perfecting of all that relates to the art, are not pro- 

 ductive of the good that h desiVed. Similarly the efforts of 

 those whoso object is basel on different lines have not the 

 response which the big shows and big prizes were expected to 

 command. The cause of this is, what for want of a miMer 

 term must be termed tho antagonism of societies, and the 

 consequent racing and competing policy leading to a mnlti- 

 plication of shows, and struggling that each should bo " big." 

 So closely are the shows together that it is impossible that the 

 public appetite can be so sensitive as it otherwice would bo 

 with longer intervals of " rest." 



It is not in tho nature of things either that the plants, good 

 as many are admitted to be, and rare as are each year's novel- 

 ties, can sustain their interest under the constant repetition 

 of their being exhibited. A rare plant loses in a measure its 

 rarity by beiog continually seen and written about, and the 

 new almost savours of age during the first sea?on of its intro- 

 duction and parade. Establishments private and public are 

 seldom furnished by the constant claims of the several shows, 

 and complaints even from nurseries are heard of having 

 nothing to show to visitors. So closely are shows together 

 that even a week can scarcely be found to divide them, and 

 now and again two or three are crowded into the same day. 

 How is it possible with this state of things that shows can 

 flourish, and that the art they represent can be strengthened 

 and adequately supported ? By too frequent shows the public 

 interest is deadened instead of being sharpened, and both ex- 

 hibitors and visitors become languid by the continual calls on 

 their support and pre?eucs. 



The remedy is fewer shows and better — better iu freshness, 

 in quality, in novelty, and in prizes. Take, for instance, tho 

 two Societies whose entire aims and objects are to encouroga 

 and promote the science and practice of horticulture— the 

 Royal Horticultural Society and the Royal Botanic S jciety. 

 Would not their shows be better (good as they have been this 

 season) if their two spring shows were merged into one, 

 doubling the prizes ? and the same in regard to summer shows. 

 It is to these Societies after all that wo must look to, as their 

 objects are not to enrich themselves but the profession of 

 which they are the natural and legitimate exponents. It ii 

 only by limiting the number of shows that they can really bo 

 made great shows — great in quality as well as in size, and also 

 calculated to command a greater amount of public interest. 

 This is what is wanted — the creation of livelier horticultural 

 interest. 



Provincial shows are frequently more sncoessful than metro- 

 politan exhibitions, because the former are less numerous than 

 the latter, and the attention of horticulturists in given locali- 

 ties is centred on one date and dispUy instead of being dilated 

 and divided over a dozen. I write as a horticulturist having 

 but one d sire — the prosperity of the art from which I derive 

 so much pleasure, and which is calculated to be of great public 

 benefit.— F. H S. 



ABUNDANCE OF THE CATERPILLAR OF THE 

 BROWNTAIL MOTH. 

 I NOTED in the Journal last year the profuse occurrence of 

 the caterpillars of the Browntail Moth (Liparis ehrysorrbma) 

 in the vicinity of Gravesend. At that time I expressed a do At 

 whether their destruction was justifiable; but I am now in- 

 clined to think it is an insect that ought to be kept under when 

 it appears plentifully in any locality. List season the cater- 



