December 27, 1883. J 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
555 
invariably make, when allowed, 5 or 6 inches of young growth before 
roots appear. 
Three years ago I purchased a poor plant (not recently imported) 
of Laelia purpurata. It had been badly treated and had lost every 
particle of root, being composed simply of three pseudo-bulbs with leaves 
and an embryo bud. It neither made roots nor growth till this spring, 
when the bud began to extend, and it reached 9 inches in length before 
any roots appeared at its base, nor have any yet been formed at the 
base of the other bulbs. By what means, I would ask, was sufficient vital 
force retained or restored (for the partially shrivelled pseudo-bulbs 
began to swell even before the bud started) after such a lengthy 
suspension between life and death, to enable this plant to grow without 
a particle of root, and what different laws of Nature were put into force 
in either of the instances enumerated. If stored-up sap in the pseudo¬ 
bulbs of the Laelia preserved its life, surely the prolonged life of the other 
subjects was due to the same cause. 
In respect to root hairs on Vines, I have no hesitation in saying if they 
do exist on one year’s and on older roots, they are infinitely less than on 
those recently formed. In my leisure hours during the last two months 
I have done little else than examine Vine roots through a very powerful 
microscope, and although not for this specific purpose, still I have not 
detected any of these hairs except on the youngest roots. Whether 
these hairs, however, are the only means that Vine roots possess for 
taking in their food is, I think, doubtful, and requires further demon¬ 
stration before being finally accepted.—C. W. 
This discussion originated, 1 believe, in a statement made by 
Mr. Taylor in one of his articles, “ Six Months in a Vinery,” page 372, to 
the following effect:—“ The shoots are now from 3 to 7 inches long, with 
two to four fully expanded leaves, the largest of which measure 4^ or 
5 inches across. Here and there in a few of the older ones are patches of 
dark colour, a sort of bluish green, only visible at present to the practised 
eye which is watching for its appearance. Yesterday it was only dis¬ 
cernible on two or three leaves, now it shows slightly on a score or 
more, and indicates that the roots have commenced action, and that the 
leaves are no longer dependent on the stored-up food which was prepared 
last autumn and preserved in the stems for early use.” Does Mr. Taylor 
adhere to this idea still, or is he prepared to admit that as soon as the 
growth commences, and a green surface is exposed to light, changes are 
also commenced in the crude sap. It appears to me that he has avoided 
repeating the statement as to the exact size the shoots and leaves attain 
before the stored-up sap is exhausted. In his principal argument he is 
undoubtedly right, but in this I consider he errs, and I would advise a 
graceful retreat from an untenable position. Is he also prepared to ad¬ 
here to his statement that “root-action and root-extension are synony¬ 
mous terms ? If so, what does he mean by this ?— Beta. 
I will not prolong this controversy with Mr. Taylor, as it seems 
hopeless to expect him to answer any questions involved in his arguments, 
and so make himself clear. I am driven, however, to point out his 
inconsistencies and contradictions, for they indicate unsettled convictions 
and loose teaching which may mislead. He has all along spoken of his 
stored-up sap as “prepared” and elaborated ” sap, but finally admitted 
the sap was stored up a month to six weeks after the elaborating organs 
were dead (I notice he makes no answer to that thi3 week). Next he 
said one reason why Vines depended on stored-up sap was that in spring 
when growth began the only roots which could absorb the sap from the 
soil were “non-existent;” but now this week he says that when Vines 
bleed, as it is called, in spring the water is absorbed from the soil and 
forced up into the plant by the roots— i.e., when the latter are “ non¬ 
existent 1” At page 490 he says “he would leave it to me to find out 
how roots could take up nourishment when they were non-existent,” 
the only means of absorption being by the root-hairs, he said. This 
week he says, “ There is a continual absorption of water going on by one 
or more of the processes enumerated,” which, to explain, he launches 
into a description of “ osmosis,” protoplasm, and the like—all matters no 
more affecting his original assertions than the man in the moon. I ask 
any reader what reliance is to be placed upon a writer who confuses his 
points and contradicts himself in this way ?— Non-Believer, 
P.S.—I have no difficulty in accepting your “Competent Micro- 
scopist’s ” statements so far. We know 6tarch granules are hardly found 
anywhere else than in the cellular tissue of plants, but they have to 
undergo certain processes before becoming available by seeds or buds. 
When “ Microscopist ” brings his facts to bear in support of Mr. Taylor’s 
original assertions on the subject of Vines depending on the stored-up 
sap alone from December till the 10th of February, when the shoots were 
7 inches long, and each bore a number of leaves from 4J to 5 inches 
broad, I may have more to say. 
In the second paragraph from the top, right-hand column, page 528, 
for “ roots ” read “ shoots ” in the third line. 
[The portions of Vine shoots were certainly not sent for microscopical 
examination with the object of supporting the arguments of any indi¬ 
vidual, but for the purpose of obtaining information that should be 
equally acceptable to all. Mr. Taylor has not yet proved the strict 
accuracy of all his statements, and we doubt very much whether the 
revelations of the microscope in question will assist him in doing so.] 
BATEMANIAS. 
THOUGH some seven or eight Orchids are described by certain authors 
under the title Batemania, three only are really worthy of cultivation, except 
where the object is to form as complete a collection as possible. Some 
of the species have been referred to the genera Galeottia and Huntleya, 
but those now included in Batemania are the following :—B. Colleyi, 
B. fimbriata, B. grandiflora, B. meleagris, B. Beaumontii, B. armillata, 
B. lepida, and B. Wallisi. Respecting these, however, Mr. G. Bentham 
has stated that “Batemania, reduced to the original Guiana species, 
appears to be very different both in habit and character from Huntleya 
meleagris and the allied species referred by Reichenbach to Batemania, 
but which we should include in Zygopetalum.” Of the latter genus it 
may be noted Mr. Bentham makes six sections :—1, Zygopetalum proper ; 
2, Zygopetalum of Reichenbach; 3, Huntleya, including Galeottias; 
4, Bollea ; 5, Warszewiczella, including Pescatorea ; and 6, Promienaea, 
including Kefeirsteinia. A large group of closely allied species s thus 
formed, the majority of which can be traced through various steps into 
others. The great similarity between the Bolleas and Pescatoreas is well 
known, and the generic distinctions between some of the others are so 
slight that it often puzzles experienced observers to determine to which 
a particular species may belong. As, however, Reichenbach’s system is 
generally adopted, the few species may be noted under this h ead. 
Batemania Burti .—The most beautiful of them all is this fine Orchid, 
which, though having the reputation of being difficult to grow satisfac¬ 
torily, has proved in competent hands that the opinion is an erroneous 
Pig. 114— Batemania Burti. 
one. There is some uncertainty about what growers commonly term the 
“ Bollea breed” of Orchids. They will appear to progress well up to a 
particular stage, and then almost without warning the leaves turn yellow 
and the whole plant fails in an unaccountable manner. Such is the 
general idea, and there is some ground for it, though the causes no doubt 
vary under different circumstances. One of the chief reasons for failures 
of this character which has come under my observation is placing the 
plants in too strong heat, where they seem to make good progress at first, 
but ultimately become enfeebled and collapse. Cool treatment suits 
most Batemanias, and especially B. Burtii, whether it be grown in a pot 
or on a block, and the finest plants that I have seen have been subjected 
to a much lower temperature than usual. Peat and moss form the best 
compost, but when grown on blocks of course the first-named can be 
dispensed with. Liberal supplies of water are required under either 
system, especially in the growing season. 
B. Burtii is a native of Costa Rica, whence it was introduced in 1872. 
It has small pseudo-bulbs and leaves about a foot long and 2 inches 
broad, of compact and sturdy habit. The flowers (fig. 114) are 4 inches 
in diameter, the petals If inch long and 1 broad at the base, ovate, 
tapering, of a peculiar shining reddish chocolate colour, very distinct and 
beautiful, and the surface is studded with little bladder or wart-like dots ; 
the base is yellow with a few crimson streaks radiating from the column. 
The sepals are 2 inches long and seventh-eighths of an inch broad, the 
same colour as the petals ; yellowish fading to white at the base. The 
lip is ovate, 1 inch broad and 1J inch long, the upper half reddish, the 
