108 JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. [ August 4, mi. 
agreeably fragrant; and being much admired I have thought it 
well to draw the attention of others towards it, as it has not been 
long introduced into this country, yet sufficiently so to try the 
hardiness of its constitution. With me it stood against the full 
force of a north-easterly wind that blew for weeks, killing and 
injuring many old-established trees around, and yet not a leaf was 
turned brown. Viburnum Awafurkii was one of the first to go in 
the same position, though I have one plant left and doing well in 
a sheltered corner. The Loquat, too, is alive, though sadly 
crippled.— Harrison Weir. 
CLERODENDRONS AT DRAYTON MANOR. 
Having seen the small plants of Clerodendron Balfourianum 
referred to by Mr. Thomas on page 81, I can bear testimony to 
their usefulness and great decorative value. By this simple 
mode of culture this beautiful plant can be grown by many 
who have only small houses at their disposal, as there is no 
need for training the growths to wires near the glass, nor for 
securing them to balloon trellises, which occupy much space. 
When the plants are from 6 to 9 inches high they are simply 
stopped, and as fast as further growths form they are kept 
pinched to a leaf, the same as Peach trees are pinched for 
bearing on the spur system. Eventually clusters of flower buds 
form, and when the Clerodendrons flower they resemble in 
character dwarf Hydrangeas, but are far more beautiful. There 
is little doubt that others will try the pinching plan that has 
been recommended, and a valuable addition to early summer- 
flowering decorative plants will be the result. Plants such as 
those grown at Drayton Manor would sell well in Covent Garden 
Market. 
There is much more that is noticeable at Drayton Manor and 
its 75 acres of pleasure grounds, noble walks, grand terraces, 
fine Conifers, and splendid avenues of Araucarias, Pinus excelsa, 
and Irish Yews. The glaucous form of Cedrus atlaiitica is 
superb, and ought to be in all collections. Larix Kmmpferi is 
about 9 feet high and through ; and there are hundreds of fine 
examples of various Conifers, and splendid masses of Golden 
Yews tastefully grouped ; but the Araucaria avenue, backed with 
a liue of the Douglas Yew, is the feature of the grounds. The 
glass structures are extensive, and include a remarkably fine 
range of vineries, the rafters being of iron, and the sashbars 
of copper. The Grapes are also fine, a late house having a 
splendid crop, the early varieties being cut. Rich surface 
dressings and copious supplies of water—in a word, plenty of 
healthy roots and plenty of food, are the elements of success. 
Peaches, Figs, Plums, and Pears are largely grown under glass, 
and the kitchen garden is in a high state of fertility and 
profitably cropped. Weeks’s tubular boilers are much liked by 
Mr. Thomas, one to which 3000 feet of piping is attached having 
worked satisfactorily for thirty years. It must have been one 
of the first that was made ; it has just been new bottomed, and 
is commencing another term of work. There are very good 
plant houses erected by Mr. Gray, and a fine octagonal domed 
conservatory, which is an attractive adjunct of the mansion. 
All these and more merit attention ; but after all nothing was 
more striking, because novel and effective, than the dwarf 
Clerodendrons above referred to, and Mr. Thomas has done 
well to make his simple and easy mode of culture known.— 
A Traveller. 
SINGLE v. 'DOUBLE FLOWERS. 
There is much that is worth noting and remembering in both 
the articles contributed by “ Single-handed,” but as there is 
some little difference of opinion between him and myself, it will 
be as well to explain my views more fully. This I will do by 
referring to some of what I have proved to be really useful flowers, 
and your readers can then judge for themselves. 
The Pansy has already had a decision in its favour. Roses have 
not come otf quite so well. I admire and use wild Roses ; at the 
same time I should not prefer a bunch of wild Roses to one com¬ 
posed of opeu and unopened buds of Marshal Niel, Safrano, 
Niphetos, General Jacqueminot, Coupe d’Hebe, and Cabbage 
Roses, though I certainly would not object to the wild variety 
being associated with the others. Need I remind your correspon¬ 
dent that “Dahlias and Hollyhocks and a host of other prim, 
double, artificially formed flowers,” is a rather loosely worded 
definition? Single Dahlias are well represented in gardens. 
Single Hollyhocks are not in the least likely to rival the double 
forms, for the simple reason that they are not nearly so effective. 
I do not know any more effective plant than the Hollyhock for 
late flowering. Why should we examine everything closely ? 
Though Hollyhocks are not particularly beautiful under close 
inspection, then “let distance lend enchantment to the view.” 
As to the “ host ” of other double flowers, does that mean every 
double form, or does “ Single-handed ” make reservations ? I 
readily grant that many double flowers are unattractive. For 
instance, a double Fuchsia, a double Petunia, a double Pelar¬ 
gonium, or a double Campanula, are not improvements on the 
single forms ; but these do not necessarily decide the question. 
In a previous communication I named some wild flowers the 
double forms of which I thought prettier than the single. I now 
ask if your correspondent would expel Mule Pinks, common 
double Pinks, laced Pinks, Picotees, Clove Carnations, and florists’ 
Carnations from gardens, and substitute single forms in. their 
places ? Would he place double Stocks, Asters, Marigolds, 
Poeonies, Wallflowers, Zinnias, Primulas, Azaleas, and Camellias 
in the background, and substitute single forms for them ? If 
so, for what reason? Certainly not because the single forms are 
more beautiful, nor even because they are more useful for various 
purposes of decoration. 
With regard to wild flowers contrasted with those that are 
cultivated, let us consider of what “Single-handed ’ tells us 
his bouquet was composed. If instead of the Ox-eye Daisy we 
substitute Eucharis, or the old Pancratium speciosum instead of 
the Woodruff, Rogiera cordata, white Bouvardia, white Heath or 
Rhynchospermum ; and Odontoglossum Alexandra;, 0. cirrhosum, 
O. Pescatorei, or Stephanotis in place of Gueldre Rose, should 
we spoil our bouquet ? If for yellow, Alstroemeria, Masdevallia 
Davisii, Lonicera japoniea, or Aquilegia chrysantha were em¬ 
ployed, should we be destitute of taste? Amongst wild Forget- 
me-nots only one is worth cutting, and that is M. sylvatica, and 
amongst wayside Veronicas only one is showy—namely, V. 
Chammdrys ; but place either Y. rupestris or Y. verbenacea beside 
it, and see how this pretty wayside flower must yield the palm 
to its cultivated congeners. I would commend the double forms 
of the wild Geranium as superior by far to the singles for garden 
plants. Then the reds are a really poor selection. Why, the rose 
variety of the common Milfoil is far superior to any of them, and 
so is the dark variety of Centranthus ruber. But if you pass these 
by and employ in the bouquet some red Rose buds, sprays of 
Zonal Pelargoniums, single flowers of Epidendrum vitellinum, or 
Ixora flowers, what a different effect is produced ! 
With “ Single-handed’s ” remarks about florists’ flowers I 
cannot agree. We have certain standards of beauty in form 
in architecture and kindred arts, in the animal kingdom and in 
the vegetable kingdom, and the forms which are condemned as 
being in bad taste are in all cases recognised as standards of 
beauty. We simply cannot help ourselves in this matter. Even 
“ Single-handed,” when picking his bouquet, has selected the 
perfectly circular Horse-gowan to head his list, the largest and 
roundest of the Starvvorts, the common Buttercup, Forget-me- 
nots, two of the largest and roundest Geraniums, and red Clover 
—actually approaching the model of the double flower. What 
would your correspondent make as the standard of beauty in 
flowers? If we take a Geranium with three or five pips to a 
truss, and with pips a quarter of an inch in diameter, shall we 
let it remain so ? or may we improve (?) it to a certain extent 
in size, in roundness, and in the number of flowers ? If so, where 
shall we stop ? Take the Phlox ; shall we return to the starry 
P. pyramidalis, and consign the newest varieties to the rubbish 
heap ? Or the Gladiolus, shall we again grow the varieties which 
held sway before Berthe Rabourdin appeared ? The true lover 
of flowers sees beauty in all—the wild Rose and the cultivated, 
the wayside annual and the exotic.—R. P. Brotherston. 
[With this communication Mr. Brotherston sent us a huge 
bouquet of hardy flowers, some double, some single; all are 
equally beautiful, and excellent examples of cultivation.—E d.] 
RENANTHERA LOWII. 
One of the most remarkable members of a large and interesting 
family of plants is the superb Orchid Renanthera, or Vanda, Lowii, 
which is well known, at least by name, to most growers who 
make a speciality of these plants. Not that it is at all common, 
for on the contrary it is extremely rare, but because a few large 
specimens included in some amateur and trade collections have 
flowered at various times, and, being described, have attracted the 
attention not only of orchidists but of plant-growers generally. 
Some, too, have been exhibited occasionally, and these have 
served to still further extend the fame of the plant both as 
regards its beauty and peculiarity. Still, however, it is by no 
means frequently in flower, and quite a sensation is yet created 
amongst Orchid lovers by the announcement that an example can 
be seen in that condition. Such, indeed, was the result of Mr. 
