88 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ January 29, 1885. 
creatures is faulty, yet there is still much more of truth in them than is 
represented in the foregoing remarks. Plants never do, neither have they 
power to consume solid food in the sense that animals consume it, not even 
insectivorous plants, however highly developed they may be. The root is 
the recognised medium by which plants receive their food, nitrogenous 
included. In some instances there doubtless is an incapacity on the part 
of the root to obtain nitrogen from the soil, so that special organs are 
developed to secure for the plant what in a general way is the function of 
the root to do, such special organs being in my opinion no more the 
analogues of the stomach in animals than the primordial vegetable cell 
itself. Certain is it that in these special organisms, whether we consider 
the leaf of the Sundew, the bladder of the Utricularia, the dilated petioles 
of Nepenthes, Sarracenia, and Cephalotus, or the cup-like cavity in the 
common Teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris), there are marvellous contrivances 
to effect a purpose ; but in all cases, in varying degree, a protoplasmic 
solvent is poured forth which completely dissolves the material sought by 
the plant; the nitrogenous material is absorbed by special cells, but in no 
extraordinary manner, and the useless material is discarded. I am not 
sure whether any carbon is thus taken up, which is so important a feature 
of animal assimilation. For example, examine the remains of flies upon 
the Sundew and you will find nothing left but what is either insoluble by 
the solvent excreted by the plants or which would not serve as nutrients 
to them. 
Reading through the article referred to brought to my mind some 
interesting examples of these plants which are not mentioned in it, and 
which may perhaps interest some of the numerous readers of the 
Journal. These are the Bladderworts (Utricularias). And first of all 
allow me to ask one question, Can any reader record instances where he or 
anyone else has ever seen water fleas actually entering the small bladder¬ 
like cavities ? Certain it is they do get inside, for they are found there in 
abundance, but few have ever seen them really pass through the small 
trap-door, A Mrs. Trench of New Jersey says she has, and of course we 
must accept her statement, as we are sure they get in, and there is but one 
way of doing so—by a curious little opening guarded with projecting hairs, 
supplemented by acute hairs inside, which makes ingress easy but egress 
impossible. The prisoners struggle and struggle in vain until they are 
exhausted, and are finally dissolved by the protoplasmic fluid given out 
inside the bladders. Another question anent these plants—viz., Have any 
readers of the Journal ever known them to produce seed 1 An interesting 
provision is made for the perpetuation of the species in the form of a 
terminal bud, in which the future plant rests during the winter, and in 
spring developes rapidly. 
Another very interesting plant is the common Teasel, the upper leaves 
of which, it is almost superfluous to say, are united by their bases, forming 
a cup-like cavity round the stem, in which may be found collecte i in 
varying quantities a fluid putrid with the decaying bodies of insects, the 
nutrient material of which, or at least as much as is necessary, is absorbed 
by the plant. This fluid is rendered a solvent of this insect food through 
the agency of protoplasm, which is evolved in thin strings from short 
obtuse glands, these strings being naked protoplasm, the only instance 
where such is known to occur ; these coming in contact with the water 
previously collected elongate rapidly and ramify in all directions in the 
cavity, and possess the power of reducing previously solid food to a state 
of solution in the fluid modified by its presence, in which condition it is 
absorbed by the plant. 
With regard to the introduction of Sarracenia I think there is some 
doubt. It is generally said to have been introduced in 1640, but undoubtedly 
it was introduced some years before then. Parkinson figures examples 
both of the flowers and plant in his “ Theatre of Plants,” page 1235, this 
work being published in 1640. The author says, “This was sent to 
Clusius from Paris, but of late Mr. John Tradescant the younger found 
this same plant in Virginia having his top thereon, which he brought 
home, and groweth with him, which I here show you with Clusius his 
figure.” Curiously enough, Parkinson classed it with the Sea Lavenders, 
and called it a Limonium or the “strange plant of Clusius.”—T. 
CHRYSANTHEMUM NOTES. 
Large Blooms and “ Naturally ” Grown Plants.— In spite 
of all that is said against them large blooms are fast gaining favour. 
Although I am a lover of such, I am at the same time not so foolish as to 
think that i3 the only proper way to grow them. Why not allow every¬ 
body to please themselves ? After all, it is only a matter of taste as to 
which system i3 adopted. The correct way where space can be afforded 
is to grow them in several styles. At the present time a confusion exists 
as to which is the “natural” way of growing Chrysanthemums. Many 
people advocate the “ natural ” style, but it only requires a little 
thought to see that scarcely any plants are grown “ naturally.” What I 
consider “natural” grown plants are those grown from cuttings, never 
stopped, the shoots not thinned, nor any flower buds taken off. Now, are 
there any Chrysanthemums so grown ? I would ask. If so, are the results 
satisfactory ? If they are grown in the way intimated they will be from 
2 feet to 10 feet high, according to the variety, with, in the case of the 
largest varieties, long stems, with perhaps no leaves for about 6 feet high. 
When the step ladder has been brought into use to examine them a host 
of flowers will be found, most of them with a large yellow eye, the 
blooms not a quarter the size they ought to be, and the variety scarcely 
recognisable. 
What I suspect is often meant by naturally grown plants are those 
that are raised from cuttings in the usual way, pinched two or three times 
to make them bushy by increasing the number of shoots to each plant, 
then allowing them to produce as many flowers as they choose. I 
admire plants grown in the way I have last described. These should 
be called bush plants, which term is much more applicable than 
“ naturally ” grown. 
I contend that the only way to show the true character of each variety 
of Chrysanthemum to its utmost capacity—that is, size, colour, and form 
—is by growing them under what is termed “ the large bloom ” prin¬ 
ciple. If Mr. Murphy were to grow his plants under that system he would 
not have to complain of hollow-eyed Elaines. There are no different 
stocks of any variety of Chrysanthemums ; one person may have one sort 
quite different in some way from what his neighbour has, but the change i3 
the result of different soil or culture. Those who wish for perfect hloom.3 
of Chrysan'hemums can have them, and without “ hop poles,” hut by 
growing “ bush ” plants they never can have really perfect blooms of all 
they would like. What I mean by perfect blooms is this: take any one 
variety and grow it as well as it is possible to do, then take the same 
variety and grow it as a “ bush ” plant, and compare the result. I do 
not contend that mere size is the only desideratum. The perfect bloom 
is one of large size in diameter, breadth of petal, substance, colour, and 
form without any dressing. Now, under the bush system you cannot have 
these points developed in the same way as they are when grown by what 
is acknowledged as the “ large bloom system.” The points I have named 
are all that can be required in a perfect bloom. It is the same with a Chrys¬ 
anthemum as with anything else—a bunch of Grapes, for instance ; size of 
the bunch, berry, colour, and form of the whole go to make a perfect 
specimen. Can this be done without special attention, such as thinning 
the bunches and berries and applying stimulants ?—would this happen if 
they were allowed to grow in a “ natural ” way ? It has been proven 
over and over again that one perfect bloom of a Chrysanthemum is more 
appreciated than twenty imperfect ones by the majority of people.— 
E. Molyneux, S?vanmore Pari . 
Chrysanthemums at the New York Show.— Mr. Gerald Howatt gives 
the Country Gentleman some account of the Chrysanthemum Show at 
the fair of the American Institute, from which we take the following, as 
giving some points in comparison with the plants exhibited in Philadelphia, 
of which we gave some account in our last. Following are some of the 
most prominent standards, grown in 10 and 12-inch pots, height of stem 
measured from surface of pot:— 
“ Empress of India—white ; stock, 2 feet 9 inches ; head of flowers, 
2 feet 9 inches diameter. Hermione—yellow ; stock, 2 feet 10 inches ; 
head, 2 feet diameter. Duchess of Edinburgh—stock, 2 feet 10 inches ; 
head, 2 feet; flesh colour. Mrs. Prindell—white ; stock, 3 feet 6 inches ; 
head, 2 feet diameter. Beauty—flesh; stock, 3 feet 6 inches; head, 2 
feet. Yenica—flesh ; stock, 3 feet 6 inches ; head, 2 feet 4 inches 
diameter ; Fulgore—crimson ; stock, 4 feet 6 inches ; head, 2 feet 4 inches 
diameter. Orange Beauty—orange ; stock, 2 feet 6 inches ; head, 2 feet 
6 inches diameter. Sir B. Seymour—orange ; stock 2 feet 10 inches; 
head, 2 feet 6 inches diameter. Mrs. C. L. Allen—pink; stock, 3 feet; 
head, 3 feet diameter. Grandiflorum—yellow; stock, 2 feet 6 inches; 
head, 3 feet diameter. President Parkman—pink ; stock, 3 feet; head, 
3 feet diameter. California—yellow ; stock, 2 feet; head, 3 feet diameter. 
Venus—pink; stock, 3 feet ; head, 3 feet diameter.” 
GROS GUILLAUME GRAPE. 
Perhaps you will allow an eye-witness of Mr. McTndoe’s system Of 
growing this Grape to give confirmatory testimony. It ha9 been my 
fortune of late to make extensive gardening tours, and what 1 have seen 
elsewhere proves conclusively to my mind that his system is the right one. 
His houses are lofty and broad span-roofed erections. The border next the 
path is about 2 feet 6 inches, and gradually deepens to a depth of 4 feet 
outside the house. Thus the roots are free to run both out and in. In his 
note be explains the distance apart of the Vines and the distance between 
the spurs, also the length he allows to the laterals. The result under his 
care is a heavy crop of enormous hunches. Mr. Mclndoe does not take 
one or two giant bunches from a Vine, as sometimes is thought, but he 
cuts his show bunches from rods bearing as many bunches as those who 
do not show are wont to allow. The only fault I could find was that they 
were not forward enough to be in perfection for the autumn shows in 
Scotland, which eventually turned out the case, as Mr. Johnstone of 
Glamis nearly made the top score. 
As may be judged from the distance apart of the laterals, a free play 
of light and air is given throughout the house. And to such a point does 
Mr. Mclndoe insist on this item in culture, that the houses are kept open 
even in heavy thunderstorms, which can very well be done with the 
system of ventilation which has been provided for him by Messrs. 
Richardson of Darlington. Constant supplies of nutriment at regular 
intervals are given to the Vines. In the wintor the border is slightly 
forked and a mulching applied, of which in August hardly a straw was 
visible. Finally, as an instance of the extraordinary vigour of these 
Vines, it was a fact that, however pinched, fresh growths were always 
visible in the month of August. In the same way Mr. Mclndoe grows 
Mr. Thomson’s Grapes, and with conspicuous success.—C. A. M. C. 
In the last issue of the Journal of Horticulture, page 63, Mr. J. 
Mclndoe has an article on late Grape3, which to me is very striking. 
The weight of Grapes he produces per rod is simply marvellous. I grow 
Lady Downe’s Seedling for market; the Vines are planted similarly to Mr. 
Mclndoe’s in a span-roofed hou=e, rods 4 feet apart and 15 feet 1 ing ; 
but I do not produce quite half the we : ght of Grapes. It would be very 
