EMBELLISHMENT OF SHRUBBERY BORDERS. 117 
place than be tormented with a hundred little “dots” of 
flowers—alpine, rock, wood, copse, or meadow plants—all 
mixed up in that usually wretched soup called the “mixed 
1 
border No plants that require staking ought to be used 
in the way we are speaking of. Day lilies, for example, 
are good plants. In some bold opening what a fine effect 
we could get by having a spreading colony of these therein ; 
scores of plants might be named, that want no sticking, for 
such places. Each plant having a sufficient space and 
forming its own colony, there is much less doubt in case 
of alterations as to what should be done. In fact, in the 
case of an intelligent cultivator, there should be no doubt. 
Observe the advantage of this plan. Instead of seeing the 
same plants everywhere, we should pass on from narcissi to 
iris, from iris to bluebell, and thus meet with a different kind 
of vegetation in each part of the park or garden, instead of the 
eternal monotony of privet and long dreary line of “ golden- 
feather” everywhere. The same kind of variety, as suggested 
for the flowers, should be seen among the shrubs. The 
sad planter’s mixture—privet, laurel, etc.—taking all the 
colour and all the life and charm out of the shrubbery, should 
be avoided; so, too, the oppressive botanical business, with 
everything labelled, and plants classified out of doors as they 
are in an herbarium. They should be put where they would 
look well and grow best. Well carried out, such a system 
would involve labour, and, above all things, taste at first; but 
it would eventually resolve itself into the judicious removal 
of interloping weeds. The labour that is now given to dig 
and mutilate once a year and keep clean at other times of the 
year would easily, on the plan proposed, suffice for a much 
