230 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
March 19, 1885. 
compete with the slightest prospect of success with those resident in 
more favoured localities. 
Horticultural societies are established to promote and encourage the 
cause of horticulture ; this is an admitted fact. Then why make pro¬ 
vision in schedules which would tend to the contrary ? For a society 
to make classes in which its own members, through no fault of their own, 
are debarred from competing with the slightest prospect of success is not 
the way to encourage horticulture in its district; it is direct discourage¬ 
ment.—A. R. Cox. 
GUM ON CAMELLIAS. 
I AM much obliged by your publishing my letter, and for the trouble 
you have taken to give me information on this subject, and I am par¬ 
ticularly obliged to Mr. Lynch for his careful examination of the leaves ; 
hut may I ask whether, if the gum exuded from the surface of the leaves, 
there would of necessity be any sign on the surface after the gum had 
been washed off ? 
After reading the answers you printed, I determined to make a further 
and closer examination into the state of my plants. I am unable, through 
lameness, to go up a ladder myself, but my gardener is a very careful and 
very unprejudiced man, and happily has a remarkably keen eye for blight, 
so I got him, while I was present, to make a close examination of the 
Tecoma overhanging the worst affected Camellia. He could discover no 
insects at all upon it. He then examined the tops of the Camellia very 
carefully, and found the uppermost parts quite free from gum, and no 
sign whatever of aphides, scale, or mealy bug ; and as to all the lower 
parts where there is so much gum, I can attest that there is no aphis 
visible, and very little scale. He also examined the Tacsonia which over¬ 
hangs to a small extent the less affected Camellia, and this (the Tacsonia) 
he found perfectly clean, and the uppermost part of this Camellia also 
free from gum. I am sorry that I made a mistake in saying that a little 
mealy bug was found in the autumn on the Tecoma, I should have said 
scale, and there were very few, and quite small ones. 
I may mention that I have another large Camellia trained against 
a wall at the far end of the house from the bad Camellias, and though 
this Camellia on the wall is quite close to the Habrothamnus, the flower 
trusses of which were certa’nly full of aphides', it has no gum on it, and 
the plants and floor under the Habrothamnus have not, I should say, a 
hundredth part of honeydew as compared with the amount of gum on 
the bad Camellias, which is so great that it has run down on to the 
floor of the house in large spots. Surely if this were from aphides, 
scale, or mealy bug, the vermin must be visible somewhere in huge 
numbers. 
It seems to me much more likely that the mischief should arise from 
what you suggest—namely, drought at the roots. But then the plants 
are kept well watered, and are growing freely. I examined the soil too 
with a rod to the depth of over 2 feet, and apparently the earth was 
just moist and of a somewhat sandy character, so that it hardly seems 
probable that drought at the roots is the real cause of the gum, while it 
seems, under the circumstances, impossible that it should be caused by 
any blight. 
The shoot, in the list of the box which accompanies this, was taken 
from the worst affected Camellia about a foot or more from the top, as 
being the highest shoot showing any sign of the gum. The loose leaves 
are from the two worst plants, except the very black leaf marked I, 
which is from a smaller white Camellia growing between and under 
the two larger and worst affected ones. This white plant seems to receive 
the gum from the trees above it rather than to produce it spontaneously. 
The black leaf was taken off from quite the under part of the plant, and 
close to the ground. I hoped that perhaps something further maybe learned 
from an inspection of these additional leaves and shoot.— Borderer. 
[jAfter closely examining the leaves sent and noting attentively the 
points in the letter admitting the presence of a “little scale,” also that 
the white Camellia receives the “gum” from the worst affected plant, 
and further that the soil is moist, we could arrive at no other conclusion 
than that the condition of the leaves i3 due to the presence of insects, 
scale probably, from the leaves or stems above. We, nevertheless, re¬ 
quested Mr. Lynch to examine the specimens very closely and report 
further on the whole case. Here is the re ; ult :— 
“ I have carefully examined the additional specimens of Camellia leaves, 
and further consideration leads me still to the conclusion stated in my letter 
of your issue of February 26th, page 171. That the origin of the glutinous 
matter is exterior to the leaf I have no doubt, and it can come, so far as I am 
aware, only from insects. I have thought it well, however, to submit leaves 
to Mr. W. Gardiner, one of our most able botanical investigators. Taking 
first the point of view of a normal secretion, he says, ‘ Besides arising from 
specialised structures, such as nectaries and the like, nectar may in some 
cases— e.g., the very young stem and petioles of Manihot Glaziovi—as we 
saw, and as I find from the same positions in a young plant of Bryophyllum 
grown in a very hot house, arise from the activity of ordinary tissue cells. 
When, however, the petioles, leaves, and stems are old, fully developed, and 
cuticularised it is impossible, I should think without doubt, that nectar could 
be secreted from them. This is the case with the Camellia. The nectar 
there has almost certainly not come from the leaf.’ Then further on he 
writes, ‘I have made sections of the leaf. The epidermal cells are not 
affected. The cuticles are entire, and I see no reason to believe that any of the 
tissue is affected.’ This testimony is as strong as any can be in support of 
the opinion I have expressed ; and as Mr. Gardiner finds as I did that the 
tissue is perfectly healthy, the possibility of an abnormal exudation in¬ 
volving the breaking down of tissue is, I think, disposed of. Indeed, any 
exudation of that kind would not, I think, resemble the glutinous matter 
now in question. 
“ ‘ Borderer’s ’ question, ‘ Whether, if the gum exuded from the surface 
of the leaves, there would of necessity be any sign on the surface after the 
gum had been washed off,’ does not admit, from me at any rate, of a direct 
answer, because I cannot conceive the possibility. If it were a normal 
secretion there would be no tale told by a mere microscopic examination. 
But this is not normal to the leaf, and that, I believe, is admitted. If, 
however, there were an abnormal exudation of anything like this extent I 
can but think that the leaf would necessarily show it. There would be 
disease of some kind, and somewhat extensive it would be. To sum up, it 
may be said that a normal glutinous secretion is unknown from Camellia 
leaves, and that an abnormal exudation could only result from the destruc¬ 
tion of something, and that it would differ, as before remarked, from this. 
“ I have carefully read ‘ Borderer’s ’ letter, but need only remark from it 
that ‘ the Tecoma overhanging the worst affected Camellia ’ leads me to 
think that he will yet have the means of demonstrating to us that the 
glutinous matter has certainly been derived from insects. To the suggestion 
given in the Journal of Horticulture , I may add that he would do well 
perhaps to look on the upper surface of the sheet of glass for spots of honey- 
dew, as there it would be seen pretty easily, and of course it would not have 
exuded from that substance. It would have come from something over it. 
I shall be interested to see 1 Borderer’s ’ report, and if the matter cannot be 
settled satisfactorily to his raind at once, I hope when the opportunity 
arrives he will kindly record his ultimate opinion.—R. Irwin Lynch, 
Botanic Gardens , Cambridge .”] 
NEW VEGETABLES. 
The notes that have appeared in the Journal under this heading 
induce me to put in writing a question which I have often asked myself 
relative to Peas: Why cannot a better class of Pea be purchased at the 
ordinary greengrocers’ shops ? In the height of the season, and when 
they are mostly plentiful, the Peas supplied to the public are flavourless, 
and in the majority of cases far from young and juicy. In my own little 
plot I am still old-fashioned enough to be satisfied with Advancer and 
Veitch’s Perfection, and the few dishes I get repay me for my trouble 
because I know I cannot buy such. There is a juiciness and a sweetness 
about these Peas which one never seems to meet with in those bought at 
the greengrocers. Why is this ? Surely the public appreciate the better 
class of article, or is it that the market gardener makes a larger profit out 
of a cheaper and more flavourless Pea? “ D. W.,” on page 210, after 
referring to some of the good old sorts, speaks of them as being “ cheap 
and within the reach of the poorest.” Unhappily this is not my ex¬ 
perience, and I have yet to learn that a dish of Peas purchased in the 
shop can hold it own with those grown even in a suburban garden.— 
N. S. R. 
[“ D. W.” doubtless referred to the price of the seed for sowing of 
the varieties he named, some of which are even cheaper than Advancer 
and Veitch’s Perfection that are not easily surpassed in quality. Inferior 
varieties, comparatively poor soil, and the heating of large bulks of Green 
Peas in sacks, are among the contributory causes of the general low 
quality of market Peas.] 
To Rosarians. —A correspondent “ X. K.” asks if any reader of the 
Journal will be kind enough to give such directions and measurements 
as will enable a village carpenter to make the best possible box for 
exhibiting twelve Roses. 
- A Winchester correspondent forwards us a fine spike of 
Celsia Arcturus and remarks :—“ This is a plant which is not very 
generally known. The first time I saw it, about four years ago, was at 
Clevedon, where I procured some cuttings. The plant I saw there was 
a good specimen with six or seven stout spikes on it, and it looked very 
handsome—in fact, rivalling many Orchids, and a plant like the one 
described above could not fail to attract attention. It is very easdy 
cultivated, and may be had in flower all though the year by a little 
management. It lasts a long time, every flower expanding to the tip of 
the spikes.” The bright yellow flowers and purplish stamens of this 
plant render it very attractive at this early season, and it well deserves 
all our correspondent’s praise. 
-The thirty-ninth annual Exhibition of the National Chrysanthe¬ 
mum Society will be held in the Royal Aquarium, Westminster, on 
November 11th and 12th, 1885. The usual liberal prizes are offered 
}n addition to a number of important special prizes of the Veitch 
Memorial medal, and £5 for thirty-six Chrysanthemum blooms will pro¬ 
bably attract much interest. A special Exhibition of late-flowering 
Chrysanthemums will also be held on January 13th, 1886, in the West¬ 
minster Aquarium, when prizes will be offered in six classes. The 
