8 



The Weekly Florists^ Review. 



jANlAItY 12, 1911. 



pipe, and Celastrus scandens. If usinsr 

 one variety only, let it be Clematis 

 paniculata. Some of the hardiest of the 

 rambler roses are also suitable for cov- 

 ering such. By alternating with the 

 clematis the latter succeeds the former 

 in coming into bloom. Crimson Rambler 



or Dorothy Perkins are hardy, florifer- 

 ous ramblers and will stand a minimum 

 of 10 to 15 degrees below zero without 

 injury. You can secure plants of any 

 of these climbers from one of the many 

 nurserymen advertising in The Review. 



C. W. 



CHLOBIDE OF LIME IN WATER. 



Several correspondents have taken 

 alarm lest the reply ' ' Chloride of Lime 

 in Water," published under this head- 

 ing, page 12 of The Review for Jan- 

 uary 5, should have understated the 

 danger of using water containing even 

 a little of this corrosive. The corre- 

 spondent said he was "compelled to 

 use all the time water containing 

 chloride of lime put in to kill germs of 

 typhoid fever. He wanted to know 

 what the ultimate effect would be — ap- 

 parently there had been no effect at all 

 up to the date of writing. A. F. J. B. 

 said: "If the chloride of lime is put 

 into the water to make it potable, or, 

 in other words, fit for drinking and do- 

 mestic use, it will not injure your car- 

 nations. " One correspondent writes: 

 "I don't want to criticise something 

 that may be right, but I would be much 

 alarmed to have chloride of lime put in 

 water to be used on my carnations or 

 any other plant." Another says: "The 

 correspondent evidently does not un- 

 derstand the difference between ordinary 

 lime and this strongly corrosive sub- 

 stance, chloride of lime, used for dis- 

 infecting and bleaching. I feel sure 

 that his statements are wrong, and that 

 if acted upon by a florist might cause 

 a great amount of damage. I am cer- 

 tain that this substance is soluble 

 enough so that if added to water in 

 sufficient quantity it would destroy 

 every plant with whose roots it came 

 in contact. There may be accuracy in 

 the conclusion that any amount added 

 to the water which did not interfere 

 with its value for drinking purposes 

 would not seriously damage the plants, 

 although I . am not sure about this 

 either, as chlorine in small quantities 

 has very deleterious effects on small 

 plants." 



Referring these letters back to A. F. 

 J. B., he says: "Further inquiry into 

 the matter of chloride of lime has re- 

 vealed nothing of which I was not 

 aware when I wrote the answer to the 

 inquiry in question. Chloride of lime 

 is more soluble than ordinary quick- 

 lime, and it does possess a corrosive 

 power not possessed by the other article, 

 and no doubt it would do greater dam- 

 age if used in excessive quantity. It 

 seems to me, however, that the above 

 does not enter into the question at 

 hand at all. The question was, would 

 the quantity of the chloride added to 

 the water for destroying the typhoid 

 germs be enough "to make it injurious 

 to plant life? My informant advised 

 me that the quantity added to the 

 water would have to be very small, in 

 order not to destroy its potability; that 



if enough were added to seriously affect 

 plant life, it certainly would render it 

 unfit for drinking purposes. My further 

 remarks about the solubility of chloride 

 and common lime should not be under- 

 stood as meaning that no overdose 

 could be given unless the contents were 

 stirred up, nor that the chloride could 

 be substituted for the ordinary lime. I 

 merely wished to state that when 

 stirred up the water would hold in sus- 

 pension a much greater quantity of the 

 lime than it could hold in solution. I 

 also wished to show that the chloride is 

 not added to the water with an idea of 

 consuming the typhoid germs. Its ac- 

 tion is to precipitate the matter upon 

 which the germs feed, to the bottom of 

 the container, carrying the germs along 

 with it and leaving the main body of 

 the water clear. Perhaps I should have 

 gone into the subject more fully and 

 pointed out the dangers in using chlo- 

 ride of lime, but I considered the ques- 

 tion as stated above as constituting the 

 point at issue. 



"Undoubtedly the best and safest 

 plan for the correspondent to adopt,, 

 would be to submit a sample of the 

 water to his state experiment station, 

 or to the government 's department of 

 agriculture, where it could be definitely 

 determined just how much chlorine the 

 water contained and what its effect 

 would be. In the meantime I should 

 like to hear from E. M., who asked the 

 original query, if he has been able to 

 see any injurious effect from the water, 

 which he apparently now has been 

 using for some time. ' ' 



A further contribution to the discussion 

 comes from Edmund T. Cable, Reading,. 

 Pa., as follows : * ' There is a vast differ- 

 ence between lime and chloride of lime. 

 Oxide of lime, or lime, as it is usually 

 called, is only slightly soluble ; chloride of 

 lime, or, properly, chlorinated lime, read- 

 ily yields its chlorine to water. Two 

 ounces of chlorinated lime to every sixty 

 gallons of water is the proportion used to 

 kill typhoid germs in drinking water. 

 Chlorine water will inhibit the growth 

 of all micro organisms and undoubtedly 

 will retard the growth of any plant. 

 There is no comparison between what is 

 fit for human consumption and what is 

 fit for plants. We had an epidemic of 

 typhoid in oUr town. The authorities put 

 copper sulphate in the proportion of one 

 pound to every million pounds of water in 

 the creek supplying our reservoirs. The 

 water did not injure the people, but the 

 fish died by the thousands. I am not a 

 grower, only a beginner in the retail busi- 

 ness, but as a chemist and druggist, 1 

 would dislike to feed a steady diet of 

 chlorine water to my plants. If E. M. 

 continues the use of the water, I would 

 be pleased, at some future time, to see in 

 The Review the results of the chlorine. ' * 



THE NAMING OF A ROSE. 



In The Review of December 8, page 

 19, there appeared an article by W. R. 

 Pierson, of A. N. Pierson, Inc., concern- 

 ing the name of their rose. Prince de 

 Bulgarie. Now, is this correct? Look- 

 ing up the catalogue of a well known 

 California grower, I notice that Prince 

 of Bulgarie is there listed as yellow, 

 while Antoine Rivoiro is described as 

 flesh colored. Which one is right? 



L. G. G. 



The foregoing letter, from a Cali- 

 fornia correspondent, has been referred 

 to me for an answer. While I do not 

 wish to cast discredit upon the firm 

 from whose catalogue the correspondent 

 quotes, I should like to call attention 



to a few facts regarding the naming 

 of the rose we are sending out as Prince, 

 de Bulgarie. 



Among the authorities for nomen- 

 clature of roses I know of none better 

 than the catalogue of Alex. Dickson 

 & Sons, Newtownards, Ireland. They 

 are among the largest growers of roses 

 in the world, and their catalogue con- 

 tains many descriptions — more, in fact, 

 than are contained in any other cata- 

 logue which we receive. I regret that 1 

 have not a copy of the Pernet-Ducher 

 catalogue from which I could quote. 



We showed the rose in question as 

 Antoine Rivoire in Chicago, having 

 taken the name from the similarity be- 

 tween the plants we had and a newly 

 imported lot of Antoine Rivoire grown 

 in a garden. The California correspond- 

 ent states that Prince de Bulgarie in the 

 list referred to is described as yellow, 

 and Antoine Rivoire as flesh colored. 

 To quote from Dickson's 1910 cata- 

 logue: 



