PAXTON'S FLOWER GARDEN. 



181 



July 30.— The Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society to the Secretary of Botanical Society, forwarding, 

 at the request of Mr. Schomburgk, one copy of the drawings aud descriptions, and adding, that as Mr. Schora- 

 burgk was travelling entirely under the control, and at the cost, of the Geographical Society, the Council 

 were of opinion, that whatever drawing he may wish to present to Her Majesty should pass directly to 

 the Queen through the hands of the Royal Geographical Society, and they will therefore relieve the Botanical 

 Society from any further trouble on that account. 



Aug. 1.— Secretary of Royal Geographical Society to Mr. Schomburgk, stating that his drawing had been 

 presented to the Queen, that Her Majesty had accepted the dedication under the name of Victoria Rcgia, as it 

 would prove to be a new genus ; and that it would be placed in proper train for being suitably published. 



Aug. 3.— Secretary of Royal Geographical Society to Dr. Lindley, transmitting the Queen's copy of the 

 drawings, and requesting him to superintend the publication of the flower, and a correct description of it. 

 Also stating, that the Queen had been pleased to accept the dedication of it, and to signify her pleasure that 

 it should bear the name of Victoria Rcgia, if, as believed, the flower should prove to be an undescribed genus. 



Thus it is manifest that Mr. Gray's statement is nothing less than a tissue of mistakes ; as he has, indeed, been sub- 

 sequently obliged to admit in the Annals of Natural History. 1. The plant received the name it bears, by Her Majesty's 

 permission, before Mr. Schomburgk's drawings were even in the hands of the Botanical Society. We may add, that it 

 was generally known to the Council of the Royal Geographical Society, and to the numerous visitors that called to see the 

 drawings within the first fortnight, by the name of Victoria Regia, and by no other ; and that, consequently, Mr. Gray 

 might have informed himself of that circumstance had he made any inquiry, as we think he was called upon to do, before 

 he ventured to make public a document which the Botanical Society had been officially informed was forwarded by a 

 traveller "entirely under the control and at the cost of the Geographical Society,"— a tolerably intelligible, although 

 courteous hint, which most men would have known how to receive. 2. That the Editor of the Athenseum, in changing 

 the words Victoria Rcgina to Victoria Regia, in the Index of the year 1837, did not commit " an error of the press," but 

 silently corrected one, by employing the name which he, as a well-informed man, knew was that by which the plant 

 would be in future called. Possibly, too, as a scholar,, he saw the absurdity of the name Victoria, Rcgink. 3. That 

 Mr. Schomburgk's papers did not " find their way into the hands of Dr. Lindley," as Mr. Gray pretends, but were 

 officially communicated to him for the express purpose of publication, and by the only Society which had any property 

 i;i them. 4. That the Geographical Society could scarcely have afterwards borrowed drawings which they already 

 possessed, and most certainly did not do so, if they borrowed them at all, for any such purpose as Mr. Gray asserts. 



But Mr. Gray's inaccuracy does not terminate here. He says, that Dr. Lindley adopted his view, that the plant forms 

 a genus intermediate between Euryale and Nymphfea ; and in support of this assertion he quotes the Botanical Register 

 for 1 838, p. 1 1. But if the reader will consult that work, he will find nothing of the sort. Dr. Lindley's statement, before 

 examining the plant personally, and judging merely from Mr. Schomburgk's drawings, was this :— " This noble plant 

 corresponds with the genus Euryale in the spiny character of the leaves and stalks, and to a certain extent in the great 

 development of the former organs ; but it is, in fact, most nearly related to Nymphsea itself." At p. 12, where the 

 result is given of an examination of some decayed flowers, it is stated that " Victoria is quite distinct from Euryale ;" 

 and the whole of the succeeding observations are made for the purpose of showing that Victoria is very different from 

 Euryale; the last words of the little dissertation referred to being these — "notwithstanding a prima facie resemblance to 

 Euryale, Victoria is, in fact, more nearly allied to Nymphsea." 



So much for Mr. John Edward Gray. Another proposal, made by Mr. Sowerby, to change the name of Victoria rcgia 

 to that of V. amazonica, because it now appears that the plant was originally called Euryale amazonica, we do not think 

 worth serious consideration. 



Ddpladenia hybrida. At the Manchester great Horticultural Exhibition in August, 

 1S81, amongst a number of fine specimens shown for the handsome prize and Veitch 

 memorial medal, offered for the best single stove plant in bloom, was a Dipladenia 

 exhibited by J. E. G. Williams, Esq., Henwick Grange, Worcester, which took the 

 prize. Independent of the high culture which the plant evinced, it possesses extraordi- 

 nary merit as a variety, distancing all the species and varieties that have yet appeared 

 of these, the finest of stove twiners. It is a garden hybrid, distributed by Messrs. 

 Veitch, a few years back, under the above name. The colour of the flowers when fully 

 matured is an intense glowing crimson, so brilliant as to make everything in the way 

 of blooming plants near it look dim. In addition to which it appears to be of strong 

 robust habit, and an extraordinarily free bloomer. These Dipladenias are iirnongst the 

 most continuous in flowering of all cultivated plants ; when well managed they keep 



