32 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ January 8, 1885. 
germs like Primulas of the denticulata type. We are dependent upon its 
charity of offsets, and of this charity the Auricula is oft-times chary. 
If your correspondent will suppose himself gifted with just one small 
sucker, say of the grey-edged George Lightbody, and watch how long it 
takes him to get a stock sufficient for himself and for the present demand, 
north and south, for a first-rate Auricula, he will understand the seeming 
slowness in which trustworthy seedlings must be getting on. If I may 
instance my own collection, he would be lost in the unfamiliar forms of 
well-known foliage; not merely because there are but few of the old 
sorts left among them, but because, with few exceptions, no seedling 
appears in quantity enough to make any leafy feature of its own. It is a 
few of many varieties, and not many of one, that form at present the 
striking feature and infinite interest of a seedling collection of classic 
Auriculas. 
One of the principles upon which raisers are bound to act for their 
own credit’s sake, and for the best interests of the flower, is to try a 
seedling well before letting it out. It should be the equal or superior of 
what has been the best attained before it. It may not be yet the perfection 
of its class, but should have claim to some nearer approach, though in 
difficult points this may be slight. It is time the day was over of having 
to grow a quantity of some wavering sort for the offchance of a correct 
bloom ; of having to say to a brother who asks what unstable thing you 
have there, “ Ah ! you should have seen the truss I had of that ten years 
ago.” On these lines of belief and practice the unwritten history of 
many seedlings which I kept at first is—that they were distributed, not 
by a “ letting out,” but by a gentle “ letting down ” where they would 
not be heard of (though might live happy ever) afterwards. 
Lest I might, single-handed, lose a seedling of marked merit, a few 
florist friends have plants, of which the increase, and if necessary, the 
plants themselves come back. In these hands “ T.” has seen “ no attempt 
to increase the plants beyond the ordinary method of removing side 
shoots,” and verily I have not imposed the risk or labour of extraordinary 
methods, yet most minute and patient pains are kindly taken. However, 
in due time, which with the Auricula is so largely in Nature’s hands, I 
think I may say, for others and myself, that we hope to see the distribu¬ 
tion of such seedlings as we may raise worthy of all cultivation, and 
that meanwhile we would rather speak within bounds than outside 
them. 
As to the outlook for the coming bloom, the winter condition of the 
plants here, as elsewhere, is very fine. They have kept a very rich winter 
habit, and this is a great help towards the formation of a full heart and 
its hid treasure. 
As to autumn blooming, “ T.” is quite right in saying that the time 
of potting has little to do with it. It is a mere catchword to say that 
early potting means autumn blooming. I have always repotted as early 
as possible, from the end of April to middle and end of May, with always 
but little, and often a very minimum of autumn bloom. Autumn blooming, 
so far as I can see, is either the trick and tendency of a variety, or, if 
widespread, is the result of summer-time mistreatment; it may be by 
starvation, overdryness, neglect by uncleanliness, exhaustion by heat, or 
some cause that incites a plant, in circumstances of distress and danger, to 
hurry on towards the nearest process by which it can save its species 
before the hour of death. 
As to top-dressing, I have for years not practised it on the old plan. 
If the plant be already up to the neck in the soil, I do nothing but keep 
the surface open. If earth need be added, some of the ordinary potting 
compost—which is very simple—is put on as soon as the foliage starts in 
spring. 
With reference to green-edged Auriculas being chief transgressors in 
autumn blooming, there are Col. Taylor, Freedom, and Beeston’s Apollo, 
and others that are continually given to that way ; but I do not think it 
is limited to class so much as to variety. I have seen the tardy Richard 
Headly, grey edge, bloom in autumn, and that old white edge, Smiling 
Beauty, which comes out with such deliberate slowness in spring, likewise 
the green edges I have mentioned, and divers seifs as well. Some of my 
own seedlings in all four classes will indulge in this ill-timed display, and 
the habit is decidedly constitutional. Other instances with me are happily 
rare, but never quite unknown. Only half a shock is the unwelcome 
surprise over some usually decorous plant sending up an autumnal stem, 
over which one says, “Whatl you among the insurgents 1 ”— F.D.Hokner, 
Burton-in-Lonsdale, Yorkshire. 
“THE ROSARIAN’S YEAR BOOK, 11885/’ 
As each January comes round we have articles on this little book 
written by men who have attacked and overcome the natural difficulties 
of climate, situation, and soil, and have proved conclusively that with 
most others things, so with Rose-growing, “ Where there’a a will there’s 
a way.” 
Mr. Pemberton on his gravel, Mr. Hall on the stiffest of clays, Mr. A. 
Hill Gray on his precipice, Mr.’Biron on his cliff at Lympne—all four, 
with many others, have come, seen, and conquered; and the results of 
their victories is the delight of every visitor to our Rose shows. 
When I ask my friends, “ Why don’t you grow Roses ?” I often get 
this answer, “Well, you see, they are only in flower for about a month in 
the year, and when out of bloom they are an eyesore.” How thoroughly 
this nonsense is exposed in this annual by Mr. George Paul in his article 
on “ Tea Roses as Bedding Plants !” 
Yery few gardeners (professionals) understand the pruning of Roses, 
and if they say they do, then I can only answer that not one in twenty 
oarries hig knowledge^into practice. Well, in the last three or four issues 
of “ The Year Book ” the subject of pruning, when and how it should be 
done, has been practically exhausted, and although the doctors differ at 
times in detail, still the reader will now be able to learn the whole art of 
pruning from these articles. 
Let me ask gardeners to swallow their pride and learn something from 
amateurs, who, so far as the Rose is concerned, are the real professors in 
the art of its culture. I will not write more about this “ Year Book,” 
or I shall spoil the feast which I can promise to all who will buy and 
read it.—J. A. W., Alderminster. 
[An excellent photograph of Mr. George Paul forms the frontispiece 
to the book.] 
MENTZELIA BARTONIOIDES. 
A LOVELY annual, which I have long known as Microsperma bartoni- 
oides—it is also known as Eucnide bartonioides, but on referring to the 
“ Genera Plantarum ” I find it placed under the genus Mentzelia. It is 
quite rare, and I have found it known to none who have seen it here, 
but once seen it is too beautiful to be forgotten, and now, after some 
trouble at first in getting the seeds, 1 have grown it for several years, 
chiefly as a greenhouse pot plant. For this purpose it is admirable, and 
continues flowering for a long time. The specimen here illustrated (fig. 5) 
was taken from a plant set aside for seed after it had done duty through the 
summer in the Cambridge Botanic Gardens. It is attractive in its light 
green elegantly cut foliage, and especially so by its clear and bright yellow 
flowers from the centre protruding an elegant brush of yellow stamens. 
It is far superior to Bartonia aurea for the greenhouse. I have found 
several of the Loasese, to which order this belongs, very useful and 
interesting for indoor culture, especially Loasa vulcanica, the best way 
of growing which I find is to plant it out in summer and take it up very 
carefully as soon as a good specimen is formed, or in autumn when the 
flowers would suffer injury from the weather. For this Mentzelia that 
treatment is unnecessary, and it is well grown in pots, planting three in 
a 32-sized pot. It is a native of Mexico.—R. Irwin Lynch. 
ORCHIDS. 
[A paper read by Mr. D. Birt before the Caterham Horticultural Society, 
December 12th.] 
( Continued from, page 5.) 
And now let us pass to what I think is not the least interesting 
part of our subject—viz., the structure of the Orchid flowers. It may 
assist us to appreciate some of their peculiarities if we recall to our 
minds the formation of an ordinary flower. Let us take for example 
a Wallflower. This flower in its bud stage, and before it opens, is 
encased in a green envelope. This outer covering expands as the 
flower opens and turns back in four pieces, thus forming a sort of cup 
in which the flower proper appears to stand. This cup is called the 
calyx, and the four divisions are called the sepals. The sepals though 
useful as a support for the flower add little to its beauty. Standing 
in the calyx or sepals there is a ring of four coloured leaves or divi¬ 
sions, which chiefly give the flower its own peculiar character and 
colour. These four coloured divisions are the petals of the flower. If 
the Wallflower consisted only of the four green sepals and the four 
coloured petals we should be content with it so far as appearances 
are concerned, but it would have one great defect. It would be with¬ 
out any organs of reproduction. These organs are two. There is 
first the pistil which you see in the centre of the flower. Inside this at 
the base are the seeds of the plant. The top of the pistil is called the 
stigma. Around the pistil are clustered six organs called stamens. 
The top of each of these organs is called its anther, on which the 
pollen is found in the form of fine yellow dust. This pollen is the 
fertilising agent, and when some of it becomes deposited on the 
stigma the grains of pollen shoot out long and minute tubes, which 
strike down the pistil and come in contact with the seeds, which till 
this operation is effected are unfertile and useless. 
It has been established beyond dispute that finer seed is produced, 
and the strength and constitution of the plants grown from it are 
increased and improved by cross-fertilisation—that is, fertilisation 
brought about by the pollen of another flower or plant than that 
which produces the seed. Mr. Darwin says upon this subject, “ It is 
hardly an exaggeration to say that Nature tells us in the most em¬ 
phatic way that she abhors perpetual self-fertilisation.” Now, un¬ 
doubtedly insects do cross-fertilise ordinary flowers. They often carry 
pollen from one plant to another. But you will observe that in the 
case of the Wallflower (and the remark applies to all common flowers), 
no special means are present for securing cross-fertilisation, and it 
would seem to be a matter of chance whether a flower is fertilised 
by its own or by foreign pollen. With Orchids, on the contrary, there 
are most elaborate contrivances by which cross-fertilisation is insured, 
and it is these contrivances which distinguish Orchids from common 
flowers. And here permit me to say, I speak of other flowers a 
