XXX PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



with an appearance of rotting, as caused by the rot moulds. It is 

 reported that the disease appears on this variety only ' like blisters on the 

 young stem and cracks on the older wood ; the leaves are attacked by 

 these spots, which soon cause them to wither.' The leaves sent were 

 closely crushed and compressed, so that all trace of any delicate mould, if 

 present, would have been destroyed. Examination of the spots under the 

 microscope exhibited no trace of mycelium or spores ; stems not seen. 

 From the specimens sent no evidence can be found of fungus parasite, 

 otherwise the appearance would suggest the attacks of a Peronospora, of 

 which one species is known in Germany and Belgium to attack wild 

 species of Geranium. Possibly it might prove to be the early stage of 

 one of the white moulds, such as Bamularia, but it has not the ap- 

 pearance of Bamularia Geranii. At any rate the leaves sent afford no 

 evidence from which to determine the disease. 



Copper in Soil. — With regard to the specimens of soil sent by 

 Mr. A. Gaut, Yorkshire College, Leeds, in which some fruit trees grew, 

 the leaves of which were annually of a golden colour, Dr. Voelcker 

 reported : — " Both the top and subsoil contain distinctly material amounts 

 of copper ; the top soil "046, and the subsoil '265 percent, of copper oxide 

 (CuO). Further I ascertained that the copper is in the insoluble 

 condition. There is no copper removable in a water solution in the 

 ordinary way." 



Calanthes and MendeVs Law. — Mr. Chapman forwarded the following 

 reply to Mr. C. C. Hurst's observations reported at the last meeting : — 

 " I am not at all surprised to find Mr. C. C. Hurst claiming the fact of 

 ' Oakwood Ruby ' and 1 Sibyl ' having been derived from the same seed- 

 pod as bearing directly on the action of Mendel's Law. Had the rose 

 or rose- carmine characteristics been maintained, Mr. Hurst might have 

 been sure of my support of the principles of which he is such an able 

 advocate. Let us see what has really taken place. The first cross 

 produced C. Veitchii from C. vestita and C. (Limatodes) rosea ; the 

 second cross was between C. x Veitchii and C. vestita rubro-oculata 

 (giving a second cross with G. vestita) and produced C. Cooksoni, with a 

 yellow eye or disc, also C. Alexandri. Here the first change takes place. 

 The deep ruby eye as seen in C. vestita rubro-oculata is removed to the 

 front lobe of the lip and each of the petals, the sepals only being white, 

 in some cases slightly tinted with the colour of the petals. It is remark- 

 able to note that the rose or rose-carmine colours have disappeared. I 

 cannot get at the exact parent that was used in the next generation, but 

 I gather that the darkest varieties were selected and crossed with each 

 other until the remarkable variation between 1 Sibyl ' and ' Oakwood 

 Ruby ' was produced. In the latter case the flower of C. vestita rubro- 

 (><-i< hit <i hud been turned inside out. I cannot trace any of the rose or 

 rose-carmine of C. Veitchii, or the shape of Limatodes in the flower, as 

 seen in C. Veitchii, but in the bulb the shape and general structure 

 n ml>l< ' . (Limatodes) rosea. I cannot see what advantage can be 

 procured by intercrossing 'Oakwood Ruby' with 'Oakwood Ruby.' 

 I cannot expect to gain more from this than I procured nearly six years 

 ago when crossing C. Veitchii with its own pollen, and the result was that 

 it reproduced itself from seed. I might add to this another instance in 



