672 
THE GARDENERS’ 
CHRONICLE. 
[May дї, 1887. 
cuve —— yd 
rich maroon colour. The top sepals very curiously scape, inexact; Wallich's description and figure having 
Е Н Е р O U G L A S F I Б А Е Ces the o ор ning in the la tigi and t the lower bee n made from m aver y vigorous plan t. ) This i 18 at jm 
PENRHYN CASTLE. ^g ê separated ы : hs int. ike i ai B once distinguished fro не х above three Irises, and, И 
Үү "ou is a very attractive plan indeed, from every un ris outside the “ о’ л 
ЕхАстіү sixty years ago (іп 1827) this distinct A which collectors would soon be after if they only офарин еч feeds of M | 
and beat Fir (Pseudotsuga Douglasii) was sent knew where to Б P. p га of Maximowiez by ОЁ 
e remarkable fleshy finger-like gni 
аа о us by Douglas, and when I now state that А : m 
imen at least has, during that time, pro- а. 1 py ages Royle. This i & branched 4 
n 
duced about 300 feet of timber, the Douglas Fir may 
ll be reckoned as the fastest growing tree that has 
yet ed introduced to Britain. 
The largest specimen in this country is, so far a 
I can find out, the one at Penrhyn, and of which ihe 
accompaying cut (fig. 130), taken from a photograph 
by Mr. T Bangor, gives a fairly good 
representation. 
Within a score yards of this tree is another of nearly 
equal dimensions. 'The spread of branches is from 
о 60 feet. 
Much interesting information might be. given 
about the Douglas Fir, but as this has been pretty 
fully dealt with in the pages of the Gardeners’ 
Chronicle, I need not here enter into details; suffice 
more sheltered portions of the British Isles. 4 
Webster 
ONCIDIUM BRUNLEESIANUM. 
Bx the nadie of W. B. Lemon, Esq., of Moat 
am, we are enabled to give the accom- 
f this handsome, dis- 
h is no less curious than the plant itself. It 
883 Mr. Lemon obtained through 
an engineer at Rio Janeiro a small parcel of mixed 
saw it took for Onc 
cylindrical pseudobulbs and broad da 
resemble that plant. In the course of time the 
plant flowered, and it was at once seen to be new— 
indeed many persons asserted that it could not pos- 
sibly be an Oncidium at all, as the individual flowers 
did not resemble those of any other of that 
] 
being more like tha 
gynes. In 1885 it was awarded 
ficate by the Royal Horticultural Society, and in the 
middle of February, 1886, it again flowered with Mr. 
Lemon, producing a densely branched spike, con- 
sisting of over 150 fl main plant then 
passed into Baron Schroder’s collection, the piece 
which was taken from it rema ining with Mr. 
Lemon, who it again t = уеаг апа 
received a certificate wet اا‎ at the Royal Botanic 
Societys Gardens. Sir Seti evi also has 
a plant of this rare Oncidium, hada o far as we "pete 
the ee —— dose cunt the nie of it 
Eng the p appearance the 
and at In 
plant is exactly like: 0. pin Its singular flower 
ich are borne on densely br месе. upright spikes, 
als (which a 
g ich the 
showiest part of the flower, is усу sin gularly pe: 
for an Oncidium in that for two-thir ds, or more, of 
its length it juts straight out from the centre of the 
i i ( th 
yellow, & 
abruptly turns down, presenting in striking contrast 
SOME NEW IRISES. 
(Continued from p. 611.) 
E three Irises are, all of them, obviously dis- 
tinct from any of the bearded Irises of the Mediter- 
Fig. 130,—THE DOUGLAS FIR (PSEUDOTSUGA DOUGLASII). 
ranean basin, and I cannot identify either of them 
with any of the Irises of Central Asia known to me, 
or described by Regel or Maximowicz ; nor do they 
correspond to the descriptions of any knov yn Hima- 
layan Iris. 
Putting aside the Oriental variety of I. germanica 
(described by Wallich as I. nepalensis, and figure 
er that name ir t. Reg., t. 818), and the 
dle i 
еу, 
essentials a form of I. spuria, the Himalayan Irises 
are 
1. L decora, Wallich = I. Kumaonensis, Royle = I. 
nepalensis, Don. (There can be no doubt all these 
be are identical, though Don's rentem is 
canty, and in one point at least, viz., the fistulous 
scape, and nsiform leaves, and hence differs 
wholly from all the posi three Irises. 
Royle. — This is a beardless 
Iris, мы & superficial resem- 
blance in its long, lax leaves to I. Kingi and L 
‚ ' T$ 
sca d differs wholly in essential characte 
rom all . 
4. 4. Milesi, 
шы. ина шт, is also. wholly differen 
Baker, with branching жер A 
. decora а plant, @ 
which is 1 
not been able to study 
it is wholly. different. from the three 
tion. Concerning I. Moorcroftiana, 
Royle, I cannot obtain any information. 
he three 
Irises in question, again, while whollf: 
