122 A REPLY TO MR. SLATER'S REMARKS ON THE ARTICLE 



No. 3.— CINERARIA, var. COSLESTIAL.— Harrison's Cineraria, var. 

 The above are beautiful hybrids, the handsomest we have seen of 

 their kinds, and deserve a place in every greenhouse. This lovely 

 tribe is now coming into much repute; we have raised a considerable 

 number, which are now in profuse bloom, and amongst them arc 

 some of considerable beauty, especially of the various shades from 

 light sky-blue to the deepest and richest. We have seen several very 

 beautiful ones in the neighbourhood of London, and they are amongst 

 the most ornamental plants for the greenhouse ; with proper treatment 

 blooming from March to October. 



No. 4.— NEMOPHISA DISCOIDALIS. 

 This very singular flowering Nemophila was scut to us by our 

 friend Mr. Cripps, nurseryman, of Tonbridge Wells in Kent, and 

 will be a striking contrast with the other pretty kinds. 



ARTICLE II. 



A REPLY TO MR. SLATER'S REMARKS ON THE ARTICLE 

 BY A MIDLAND COUNTIES' FLORIST. 



In replying to Mr. Slater's observation on my last Article, inserted 

 in the March Number of the Cabinet, I shall proceed to consider 

 his remarks seriatim. 



Mr. Slater commences by stating his hesitation in replying to such 

 remarks because they are anonymous. On this point I merely observe, 

 that I am not the first anonymous contributor to the Cabinet, and 

 that my name cannot have any weight with the readers in forming 

 their judgment upon the merit of disputed flowers. In the nest 

 place, I give an unqualified contradiction to the assertion, that " Don 

 John" was raised in my neighbourhood or district, as Mr. Slater terms 

 it; my residence being more than sixty miles from Cambridge, where 

 the raiser of the flower in question resides, and to whom I am per- 

 sonally unknown ; neither do I admit the charge of partiality for a 

 particular flower, on the untenable ground of its being raised in my 

 neighbourhood. 



I assure Mr. Slater that I have carefully perused his condemnatory 

 allusion, deprecating the merits of " Don John," and that it was its 

 sweeping nature alone which induced me to reply ; and although the 



