142 





by one of Sir George King's collectors. It is the smallest species 

 ■of the genus and an exceedingly pretty one, but, unfortunately, 

 difficult to cultivate. Success in flowering it has at last been 

 achieved in the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, where plants 

 had been raised from seeds distributed from the Royal Botanic 

 Garden, Calcutta. One of these plants bearing a number of rather 

 large pale blue flowers borne singly on scapes 1^3 ins. long, was 

 presented by Prof. Bayley Balfour, F.R.S., in August, 1906, and 

 from it the figure was prepared. The beautiful Gymbidium is 

 another of Messrs. Sanders' introductions from Annam. It 

 flowered for the first time under cultivation in the Royal Botanic 

 Garden, Glasnevin, in November, 1905, and material having been 

 sent to Kew for determination, a figure was prepared for the 

 magazine. The specific name was given on account of the crimson 

 column. The rest of the large flower, except part of the lip, which 

 is red-purple, is white. 



i JS i m pe A PP les "Writing from Pretoria, 4th December, 

 ±JUo, on the subject of the Kew Bulletin, the Government Horti- 

 culturist, Transvaal Department of Agriculture, remarked :— " I am 

 specially interested in the Horticultural section, and whilst I do 

 not by any means agree with many conclusions arrived at in the 

 pages of your publication, I am anxious to keep in touch with 

 English ideas. Replying to this passage from Kew, 31st Decem- 



«* n £i 7?f ^ id : ~" U is Citable that the same subject, if 

 at all a debatable one, should present itself under different aspects 

 to different minds which may be occupied in considering it. But 

 wlnle we may be led at Kew to suggest particular conclusions 

 trom a consideration of the facts at our disposal, we endeavour at 

 a 1 times to remain receptive to new facts and to modify any con- 

 clusions which new facts show to be untenable. I should there- 

 fore feel extremely grateful to you if you will be so good as to 

 tavour js with a reference to those conclusions arrived at in the 

 ?al eS °* the *"««*«» with which you find yourself unable to 

 a^ree. it at the same time you will further favour us with your 

 reasons for disagreeing with tho™ «,;» ™;~u* ,._ -_n :_x :« 



knowledge." 



common 



oonrt^nai^' DaVi ?' , Govepn ment Horticulturist, Transvaal, has 

 2?S fI™ re8P i°oA7 ed ~° this invit ation in a letter dated Pretoria, 

 cluLn^wi^' ]™1\ F ^° m this letter M transpires that the con- 

 whioh ™ ^ IC " e **» not agree are contained in an article 



S a rSST m the KeW Builetin for 1906 ' PP. «", embody- 

 offioialwK? * consignment of diseased apples forwarded 



^enev 7 ^fth e ^ nUnatl ,° U by the Ca P e of Good Hope Commercial 

 annles \ Zl J ♦ explanation that the disease by which these 



Sr^, 81 ^ t0 P revent ^e fruit from being 

 subTect of a vJrv Va l U t The a PP lea in ^ es tioii were made the 

 ind cation wLr? e *amination which failed to afford any 



for the r cond^n e U UDgi ° r insects could be ^ld accountable 

 under comSw?; T he conclusion was formed that the disease 

 nnaer consideration is of a purely physiological nature, and in 



