JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
May 4, 1882. ] 
is kept from the soil, as on a wall. But I am not yet sure that it 
is good for use as I have proposed to use pitch pine. 
I believe my experience shows that the durability of paint 
depends very greatly on the material upon which it is laid. We 
have here a few slate labels upon which the paint still remains 
with the name readable after an exposure of about twenty years. 
On wood there would probably be no paint at all after that length 
of time. I have noticed that on wood the durability of paint 
greatly varies, and I have reasoned that, as on slate, paint would 
last a great length of time on wood of sufficient density and 
imperviousness. In the case of the labels about which I am con¬ 
cerned, I think it would be of little use to regard the preservation 
of the name by the impressed character of the writing, as they 
would cease to serve their purpose when not easily read at some 
little distance. Therefore we have to depend on whatever goes 
on the surface. 
All the labels of this kind I have charred at the base, and a 
coat of varnish is laid over the waiting. Each operation seems to 
improve the durability of the label in far greater proportion than 
the cost of time and material. This I have done for more than 
two years, and I now send a complete label of red deal that has 
been in use that length of time—probably the whole of three 
winters. The varnish appears still sound, and the paint and 
pencil are perhaps totally unaffected The charred foot of the label 
is perfectly good. The labels (15 inches long and 2 inches broad) 
are cheap, the material for 100 labels costing about 3s. 3 cl. The 
entire cost docs not exceed about 6«. 8 d. per 100. They are also 
handy, but I fear that some of the composite labels recommended 
are not. I am about to try some, however, but according to an 
estimate I have received for wire, the kind figured in issue of 
April the 13th, on page 308, would be much more expensive. To 
suit my purpose the wire would cost, according to estimate, D7. 
for each if cut ready for use. The best label if attainable, other 
things being equal, would be one that is self-contained. The most 
simple is always the best in practical use, though after all the 
question in a great measure is one of expense. 
In writing on the subject of labels I believe the purpose and 
point of view should be clearly given, as there is considerable 
difference in the results to be attained. The label I am looking 
for is one of moderate initial cost, legibility at a distance, strength, 
durability, and to be written upon with pen or pencil. Slate 
labels, I believe, are very good, but the cost is too great at first, 
and they require to be written upon in oil coloirr wdth hair pencil, 
which alone condemns them in my case, so far as I see at 
present. Many gardeners require a label that can be executed by 
the gardeners during wet weather or at other convenient seasons. 
—E. Irwin Lynch. 
[Without doubt the last condition named by our excellent 
correspondent is important. The form of labels is a question of 
fancy with some, and of adaptability to certain positions by others. 
Those wffio require a durable label on which the name can be con¬ 
veniently read will prefer the one sent by “ F. J.,” and figured on 
the page above quoted. This label gardeners can make in wet 
weather. Mr. Lynch’s label is excellent of its kind, and will, 
without doubt, last several years. We have not used pitch-pine 
labels nearly so large as this, and those that we have employed 
decayed, not in the ground, nor decidedly above it, but they broke 
off just at the surface of the soil practically as soon as those made 
of white deal did, neither kind being either charred or painted 
with the object of preserving them. Would not the two kinds of 
wood be equally durable if both were charred ?] 
MR. HIBBERD’S LECTURE ON THE AURICULA. 
The following is an abstract of Mr. Shirley llibberd’s lecture, 
delivered at South Kensington on April 25th, to which we referred 
last week :— 
In this eventful history the endeavour to begin at the beginning is 
likely to be frustrated by the meagreness and vagueness of the facts. 
Many observant florists have speculated on the origin of the Auricula, 
and have scarcely as yet arrived at satisfactory conclusions. In the 
delightful discourse by the Rev. F. D. Horner in this place on the 
19th of April last year several species of Primula were named as likely 
progenitors of this remarkable flower, but I must confess I have not 
been able to satisfy my mind in respect to more than two or three of 
them. Those that appear to have the largest claims are Primula 
Auricula, P. hortensis, and P. ciliata. Possibly P. amcena may have 
some claim, and it would be convenient to regard it so because of its 
purple colour. But although we thus obtain four names we have in 
reality only two species, for hortensis and ciliata are but varieties of 
Auricula, and amoena comes too near to the common Primrose to be 
classed with the ancestry of our exhibition favourite. Mr. Darwin in 
his “ Forms of Flowers,” page 43, declares on the authority of Kerner 
that “ the garden Auriculas are descended from P. pubescens (Jaccp), 
3G9 
which is a hybrid between the true P. Auricula and P. hirsuta. This 
hybrid,” he continues, “ has now been propagated for about three hun¬ 
dred years, and produces when legitimately fertilised a large number 
of seeds.” But in this supposed pedigree we have the making at the 
utmost of an Alpine Auricula ; and in Primula villosa, which I take to 
be the same as pubescens, we seem often to have the Alpine Auricula 
ready made, as, for example, in the plant figured in the “ Botanical 
Magazine,” t. 14. The Hon. W. Herbert in “ Horticultural Transac¬ 
tions,” iv., 20, gives reasons for regarding P. Auricula, P. helvetica, 
P. nivalis, and P. viscosa as varieties of the same species. One of his 
reasons is that he raised a powdered Auricula and a P. helvetica from 
the seed of P. nivalis. But a powdered Auricula is not enough for 
our purpose ; we want an edged Auricula. However, the raising of 
an Auricula of any kind from the species named is a fact of great im¬ 
portance, and suggests a more Darwinian view of the case than the 
one Mr. Darwin himself adopted. It certainly takes us, on the basis 
of experiment, back to the variable P. Auricula, and for other blood 
we seem to search in vain. Therefore, if we are bound to begin with 
a plausible beginning, we must take the wild Auricula as the sole basis 
of this department of floriculture, and pronounce the current opinion 
to have many claims on our acceptance as at once philosophical and 
historical. The wild Auricula is very widely distributed on the Car¬ 
pathians, the lower ranges of the Alps, the higher ranges of the Black 
Forest, and on the northern slopes of the Caucasian range. In places 
where a scattering of fertile soil on stony declivities favours its growth 
it is met with in thousands ; it is, in fact, more abundant in certain 
localities than is the common Primrose in some of our own western 
valleys. The interest of the inquiry all turns upon the apparent im¬ 
possibility of deriving from this humble flower of a pale yellow colour 
the variety and the exceeding beauty of the flowers that are cherished 
by the florists for their sharply defined edges, their rich body colours, 
their pure paste, and brilliant centres that are like perforated nuggets 
of the purest gold. But I shall ask you to believe that the flowers 
w'e find especial delight in to-day are the true descendants of Primula 
Auricula, without admixture of blood from any other source whatever. 
Our common Primrose is a sportive beauty that is now yellow, now 
white, and anon purple, crimson, and amethyst, and in form single, 
double, and hose-in-hose. And it happens, too, that the wild Auricula 
sports without man’s aid into red and purple, and thus provides us 
with some of the colours readymade for working up into the glorious 
edged flowers that now afford us so much pleasure, mingled with sur¬ 
prise. But although the plant that ranges far and varies much, and 
is often so abundant as to pave with a solid floor of its own lovely 
herbage the meadowy levels and sunny slopes of the mountain ranges 
of central Europe, there is no record of the faintest hint of an edged 
flower having been discovered in any of the wild forms, and thus the 
Auricula of the florist comes before us as peculiarly and pre-eminently 
the production of the florist. He has discovered how to develope its 
capabilities of varying in colour, and more especially how to augment 
and redistribute the farina or meal which Nature has provided for the 
defence of the plant in the oftentimes trying circumstances of its wild 
life on the mountains. The richness and precision of the body colour, 
whatever it may be, has less interest from a scientific point of view 
than the distribution of the meal, which in the wild plant is only found 
sparingly on the leaves and in the centre of the flower, whereas in 
some of the florists’ varieties the leaves are as white as wool, and the 
paste in the flower is as dense as the ice on a bride cake, though infi¬ 
nitely purer in quality. 
This change, so marvellously distinct, and so full of fine floral 
character, has been accomplished in so short a space of time that the 
truth is hard to believe. The Auricula is literally a flower of yester¬ 
day, and there is nothing worth searching for in the old books.to 
throw light on its history. The grower of Carnations and Tulips 
may find a feast prepared for him in the books that take us far back 
in the annals of floriculture ; but although on the mountains the 
Auricula has been blooming plentifully since the third day.of crea¬ 
tion, it makes but little show on the classic heights of horticultural 
literature. We may assume it was not known at Antwerp or Leyden 
in the middle of the sixteenth century, for had it been it must have 
obtained the notice of Rembert Dodoens, who commenced publishing 
in 1552, and in none of his works has he mentioned it. Gerarde and 
Parkinson are necessarily quoted by writers on this subject, but they 
give us far less help than they have had credit for ; however, one 
must excuse them if they do not describe a flower that in their day 
had no existence. Gerarde appears to have had two or three Au¬ 
riculas of the class now known to us as Alpines, with yellow, red, 
and purple flowers. He indeed in the “Herbal” of 1597 describes, 
at page 640, eight sorts of mountain Cowslips or Bear's Ears, as they 
were then called, but three at least of the number are not Auriculas, 
and of the remaining five one is doubtful. The great John Parkinson, 
of blessed memory, publishing in the year 1629, describes twenty-one 
sorts of Auricula ursi, or “ Beares-Ears.” But criticism founded on 
knowledge will quickly reduce the twenty-one to a smaller number, 
and at the very best there is not an edged flower, and perhaps not a 
proper self, amongst them. Of the eight varieties figured by Par¬ 
kinson, on page 237, two are not Auriculas, and the remaining four 
differ but little in their characters, and we really cannot say that 
the history of the flower begins there. 
In Mr. Horner’s lecture mention is made of the Flemish weavers 
who settled in Norwich, Ipswich, Rochdale, and Middleton about the 
year 1570, and who brought with them Tulips and Auriculas from 
