446 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ June 5, 1884. 
In noticing such extensive collections the mere mention of any out¬ 
standing items must suffice. I remember, then, at Raploch the bloom of 
one plant of Mrs. Sturrock as certainly the most refined I have seen, the 
best Duchess of Oldenburgh, excellent examples of Campbell’s Confidence 
and Trail’s Anna, and the only cases I met of Page’s Champion and 
Ashton’s Bonnie Lass. Mr. Meiklejohn’s own green-edge, J. B. Kerr, I 
missed in bloom this year, but his grey edge, John Morris, was very fine. 
It bears itself very much in the style of Acme, and will yet be more 
heard of. A second truss on a plant of Prince of Greens was the best I 
have seen. The same variety was promising to be as fine in the collection 
of Mr. Jeffrey at Falkirk. With these two exceptions I have never met 
the Prince in very attractive form. Mr. Jeffrey had also Lord of Lome 
of very fine quality, indeed a large proportion of his flowers were so. 
His Headly’s Petronella was equal in all but size of truss to a very fine 
example of it in the capital healthy stock of Mr. Menzies at Bankhead. 
Along with all the commoner and many of the rarer varieties, I there 
saw for the first time Duke of Argyle. Charles Jas. Perry and Pohlman’s 
Mazzini were both in fine form, as were also Smith’s Ne Plus Ultra and 
Lightbody’s Countess of Dunmore. I could not manage to run to 
Dundee, where Mr. Morris has had, as he writes me, a display rather 
irregular in time, but of fine quality. I welcome as a fine addition to 
the class of seifs, which I consider still the most defective in many 
points, a plant of Low’s Mazzini he kindly sent me, and which, though 
received late, sent up three pips. From what it showed I shall look 
forward with interest to its flowering next year. One may be unduly 
biassed in such judgment and his vision unintentionally impaired by 
partiality, but I fancy—and I do not speak without sanction—that I came 
across no Acme, John Waterston, Countess of Wilton, Glory, Lycurgus, 
or Pizarro that surpassed my own. 
Somewhat astounded at this blast of my own trumpet, I pas3 on to 
answer a question often put tome by those who so much admired my 
own flowers—“ Are they difficult to manage ? ” I write in the hope that 
many more of my brother amateurs will be induced to take stage 
Auriculas in hand, and I believe they would do so were the delusion 
fairly dispelled under which I laboured when with no little trepidation I 
some years ago began with a dozen varieties. Let me state a few facts. 
I know them grown and thriving in the closer quarters of towns, and in 
the free pure air of the country, in all sorts of houses, except where there 
is heat, in all sorts of frames, and in some rickety structures in which I 
would almost hesitate to try any plant. Some growers use carefully 
prepared composts ; one large collection is grown with but little addition 
in the ordinary garden soil. I find them in pots glazed and unglazed, 
and of widely differing sizes. In some cases the lights are almost never, 
except in the most inclement weather, closed on them ; in the case of one 
of the best and largest collections I know circumstances render it neces¬ 
sary to keep the lights constantly down, except when the plants are being 
tended, air being admitted from below and at the sides. What other 
flower is so accommodating ? I now repeat what I replied to all inquirers, 
that very few flowers give me so little concern as to their management. 
And so to all who may be induced to join the ranks I would say : Begin 
at once with good sorts. You will succeed with them or with none ; and 
many of the varieties that have been recommended in the Journal can be 
bad as cheap or nearly so as inferior varieties. 
I cannot understand, except on the explanation of wanton waste, how 
such varieties as Arabella, for instance, which I have never had or seen 
worth one-third the money, or Trail’s Beauty, both of which, as a friend 
says, “grow like weeds,” should continue to command the price they do. 
Another friend whom I consulted, and to whom I am indebted for a 
helping hand, wrote me, “ For some sorts you may whistle as sailors do 
for wind, and with much the same result.” But by what is known as 
paying for your whistle and by welcome friendly aid, it is wonderful how 
one gets one. Of course, for some of the later additions that we read of 
at the great southern tournaments we must just make up our minds to 
long, and sigh, and wait. 
Suitable soils have been often described in these pages. I place most 
reliance on a little good old turf. With the soil moderately damp crock 
well and pot firmly, they like that. Admit air freely at all suitable times. 
Do not at any season expose them to strong sunshine. I have now con¬ 
cluded to keep my frames always facing north. Keep the surface of the 
soil always clean and open, and never allow the leaves to flag; give 
water all the year round sufficient to prevent that. Do not take off 
offsets till they are pretty strong and rooted. Above all, avoid that most 
objectionable phase of the period of “resting,” falsely so termed, where, 
as I have seen it carried out to the full, the poor Auricula is pitted against 
grass and plantation as if to decide the question of the survival of the 
fittest. Yet even to such unequal odds the ill-used flower will long refuse 
to succumb. Pity that it should ever again reward its owner’s neglect 
with a sight of its beautiful face ! Try them on the lines indicated, and 
your experience will, I hope, be mine in a returning display of such 
attractiveness that the ejaculations of admiring visitors would seem 
enough to make the sweet flowers droop their lovely modest heads. But, 
a last caution. If you have already enough on hand leave them alone. 
A growing acquaintance with these winsome insinuating flowers will be 
certain to result in a growing drain on your time and attention, to the 
detriment if not the dismissal of some of your present favourites.— 
A Northern Amateur. 
LESS AIR FOR PEACHES. 
Some months ago Mr. Mclndoe of Hutton Hall, I think, contributed 
some very interesting notes on growing Melons without air, and promised 
your readers further notes on growing Peaches with less air. I have not 
noticed that this promise has been fulfilled, and I scarcely think it can 
have escaped my notice. He will now have the advantage of another 
season’s observations, and I hope he will favour the readers of the Journal 
with any information on this point, as I think it is moving in the right 
direction.—R. I. 
DOUBLE NARCISSI. 
Personally I am not so partial to double as to single Daffodils, yet 
there is much of value and interest in them, so much of the latter that 
I cannot allow this season to pass without penning a few remarks upon 
them. I have been unusually interested in the flowers as well as in the 
numerous notes in the horticultural press ; and while gladly coinciding 
with the larger portion of what has been written, yet there have been 
certain instances in which, judging solely from my own observations, I 
could not agree with the writers. This is particularly so with regard to 
the supposed origin or parents of some of the varieties now cultivated. 
The few remaiks made herewith are summarised after examining many 
flowers of many forms. 
Beginning with the trumpet section, with the almost endless forma 
included therein, all are in my opinion of one common origin, which for 
convenience sake we may name N. Pseudo-Narcissus, proceeding in one 
direction from the typical size to the much smaller mininus ; while 
another line diverges from the type till we reach the larger form called 
bicolor Emperor, which, as far as I know, is the largest of all single 
Daffodils. In this trumpet series there are several duplicated forms, but 
all can be arranged under two groups—viz., 1, Double Pseudo-Narcissus. 
2, Telamonius double, each having a very varying series of duplicated 
forms, which becomes extremely puzzling the more they are studied, so 
that without any d fficulty they might be thrown together. In the first 
group may be included the double forms of the true wild Daffodil and 
Capax or Eystettensis, commonly known as “ Queen Anne’s Daffodil.” 
The latter I believe to be a double form of one of the sulphur-coloured 
varieties of N. Pseudo-Narcissus, as it is almost self-coloured, with a 
stellate imbricated arrangement of the segments, very similar to that 
in a very rare double form of N. Pseudo-narcissus, and there is little or no 
perfume, such as is so strikingly emitted from the duplex forms of Tela¬ 
monius ; the leaves, bulb, and habit evidently favour what is here given 
as its probable origin. Then there are the double forms of the common- 
wild Daffodil, of which I have three—1, with the perianth quite perfect, 
but sometimes there are more than six divisions, and the trumpet is 
intact, but partially filled with petaloid segments, all of the same colour 
as the tube ; this was collected in Devonshire, and occurred with some 
of the single form amongst a batch of the double Telamonius, and its 
origin is not at all difficult to understand, for many of the petaloid seg¬ 
ments of double Telamonius are polleniferous, and it is quite likely that 
flowers of the single form were impregnated with such pollen, and the 
progeny would most likely by that means become semi-double. 2, Peri¬ 
anth quite perfect as in the last; trumpet more crowded and shortened 
ultimately splitting up, with the segments freely fringed ; usually these 
are all of the same deep yellow colour, but sometimes there are a few 
light-coloured segments intermingled. This is evidently a still further 
development from the last, and was collected from the same batch. 
3, Perianth and corona interblended, having the stellate-imbricated 
arrangement of Capax, with the paler and deeper-coloured segments 
regularly alternated, forming a most charmiDg contrast, rendering it in 
my opinion the prettiest double Daffodil in existence ; the leaves are- 
very much broader and altogether larger than the typical form. This 
form, too, is almost scentless. This form is, I think, figured in Bur- 
bidge’s “ Monograph,” but the edges of the segments as there shown are 
fringed, whereas those of the flowers I have are not. I must not forget 
to mention the double form of the variety cernuus, which is very double 
and rose-like in form, and, unfortunately, far too rarely seen in our 
gardens. 
The Telamonius section of duplex forms are, I fancy, the result of a 
cross between double forms of N. incomparabilis and some of the larger 
single-flowered varieties of Pseudo-Narcissus. I take this view chiefly on 
account of the strong perfume you get in this section ; whereas, as far as 
I know, the single forms of trumpets have at most but a very slight 
scent, besides the perfume is much like that of the peerless Daffodils. I 
am inclined to ask where this perfume comes from. Is it possible that 
in the multiplication of parts—assumiDg this to have had a common 
origin—there would also be a development of perfume so striking as is 
evidenced in the case of these Daffodils ? If so, why is there not a pro¬ 
portionate increase of scent in the double forms of N. Pseudo-Narcissus 
proper? I fail to detect it if there is. Taking this view of the matter, 
the question arises, Which of the double forms were first cultivated in 
our gardens or those of continental Europe, the peerless or the trumpets ? 
and this is a difficult matter to be certain about. We should be mate¬ 
rially assisted if authentic information could be obtained from con¬ 
tinental sources, as I am of opinion that the double forms of N. incom¬ 
parabilis are of south or middle European origin. There is a great 
variation in size and form of this series of double Daffodils, and I include 
therein what one may call the typical double Telamonius, grandipienus,. 
and lobularis plenus. The former is, I think, the Van Sion of continental 
dealers, and is very variable. Some of the flowers are crowded with 
segments, evidently the result of extra doubling of the corona, while in 
others the number of segments is materially lessened, and they are dis¬ 
posed in a stellate-imbricated manner similar to the form of N. Pseudo- 
Narcissus described, and yet I should be slow to say that in such flowers- 
