158 JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. [ August 18, 1881, 
urceolate ; they are white sometimes with a greenish tinge, and are 
borne in terminal erect panicles. The fruit bears some resemblance 
to that of the well-known Strawberry Tree, Arbutus Unedo, but 
is not frequently matured in England. One peculiarity of the 
tree is the reddish colour of the bark in winter, the outer layer 
separating from the other portion in spring, falling off as in the 
Plane, though not under precisely the same conditions. 
A moderately sheltered position is best suited for this species, as 
when much exposed, if not positively injured the foliage often 
assumes a brown appearance that is far from satisfactory. 
RHUBARB—A HINT TO AMATEURS AND 
COTTAGERS. 
Last spring at the beginning of April I sowed six-pennyworth 
of Rhubarb seed in a bed on a warm border facing the south. As 
soon as the seedlings were large enough to handle I transplanted 
them temporarily into another quarter of the garden, which had 
been previously manured and dug, in rows 2 feet apart and 2 feet 
between the plants in the row. The result now is (August 12th) 
that I have two hundred strong plants, many having from six to 
ten sticks on, some of them measuring 18 inches long and half 
as thick as a man’s wrist, and this in four months from time of 
sowing. 
Many people are under the impression that Rhubarb can only 
be increased in the usual way by division of the roots. Let me 
advise all who may read this, and who have not a good stock of 
this useful plant, to procure a packet of seed of each of the early and 
late sort and sow them at once in a warm corner of their garden, 
leaving the young plants in the bed until spring, when they should 
be taken up as soon as growth commences and planted in well- 
manured soil, where they are intended to permanently remain. 
By sowing now instead of in spring you steal a march on time, 
and your plants will be much stronger and better.—D. Thomas. 
FAIRY ROSE THE PET. 
This is a charming Rose with its small lovely white flowers, 
which are produced in a large truss on the top of each shoot. Its 
habit is dwarf, and, best of all, it is a most continuous bloomer. 
This miniature Rose cannot fail to become a general favourite 
with ladies, and gardeners too who do not ignore and condemn 
all that are not suitable for exhibition. I do not doubt when 
once grown it will soon become highly appreciated and popular. 
For room decoration in small vases it is a great acquisition, and 
the most suitable Rose for that purpose I have yet seen. Capital 
plants can be grown in I or 5-inch pots ; in fact it would almost be 
lost in a much larger size. Its shoots do not extend more than 
from 7 to 9 inches before they flower. It grows freely and does 
well treated in every respect similar to other Roses in pots, but 
should have a little more leaf soil in the compost than is necessary 
for Hybrid PerpetuaU. Cuttings strike readily, and no better 
system can be adopted than that recommended by Mr. Wm. 
Taylor in this Journal. It also appears to do well when grafted 
on the seedling Briar.— Rose-Geowee. 
SINGLE y. DOUBLE FLOWERS. 
When I wrote the paper bearing on the subject named above, I 
had a definite object in view; hut 1 fear I have failed to convey my 
meaning. I have never said, and yet every one of my critics infers, 
that I hate double or cultivated flowers. I never yet proposed the 
banishment of a single garden flower; yet Mr. Shirley Hibbevd in 
his lecture on the Carnation goes out of his way to say that it has 
been proposed to abolish them all. It is certain, either that that 
gentleman has not read my paper or has done me injustice in mis¬ 
representing me. Others have honestly differed from me, or rather 
from what they have fancied my ideas to be. Indeed, I do not 
know hut that some of them are prepared to go further than I am. 
The idea that I have condemned double flowers in toto is a mis¬ 
taken one. I have said, and I hold, that single flowers are, as a 
whole, more beautiful than double ones. Those who have joined 
issue with me have admitted that certain double forms are not so 
beautiful as the single kinds. For instance, there is a wonderful 
unanimity of opinion about Petunias and Fuchsias, and that 
opinion is that the singles are best. It is the same with Pyrethrums 
and Campanulas. Indeed the kinds which the champions of double 
flowers declare to be better than single flowers are comparatively 
few, while there are hosts of generally admired single flowers. 
This is exactly my position, and it is, after all, theirs; for our 
differing is much more seeming than real. 
I treated the matter generally, as was only possible in one or two 
short papers. There are few rules without exception, and I never 
for a moment intended that my rule should be considered absolute. 
I never did consider single Stocks equal to double ones, nor the 
finer forms of double Camellias to be inferior to single. I protested 
against the undue exaltation of double flowers, but at the same time 
cultivate and admire double flowers as well as single. I said that 
double Hollyhocks were neither so effective nor so beautiful as 
Foxgloves ; and it seems that I have been understood to say that 
double Hollyhocks are neither beautiful nor effective ! And so on. 
But Mr. Brotherston puts some questions which had better, 
perhaps, be answered. Speaking of Hollyhocks, he uses the 
following words—“ Why should we examine everything closely?” 
The answer is that beautiful, really beautiful, flowers must be 
examined closely in order to realise how beautiful they are ; and 
when such a question is asked, the interrogator himself has no 
great admiration for his favourites. Again, “ Thougjh Hollyhocks 
are not particularly beautiful under close inspection, then ‘let 
distance lend enchantment to the view.’ ” Mr. Brotherston’s 
defence of double Hollyhocks is such as might be made of a flower 
garden, the beds of which were filled with paper Roses and milliner- 
made foliage. If any fault could be found of such a flower garden 
on close inspection, why, “ let distance lend enchantment to the 
view! ” 
Mr. Brotherston asks if I would expel “Mule Pinks, double 
Pinks, laced Pinks, Picotees, Clove Carnations, and florists’ Carna¬ 
tions from gardens.” No. There are not many flowers that I 
would expel from gardens, and those named are among my special 
favourites. Then he gives another list of double flowers, and asks 
if I would place the double forms in the background and substitute 
the single forms. As far as regards double Primulas and Azaleas 
I certainly would place them in the background, for they are, 1 
think, inferior to the single forms. 
In the last paragraph but one of your correspondent’s communi¬ 
cation he criticises the bouquet, the composition of which lately 
formed the burden of a few remarks. In that paper I endeavoured 
to show that a charming bouquet might be culled from any hedge- 
side, and because your correspondent can produce a better by 
searching the whole world over for flowers to compose one, he 
imagines ho has made out a case against me. He thinks the sub¬ 
stitution of “cultivated” flowers for “wild” ones has proved 
wildings to be worthless. It is not often a critic so effectually 
defeats himself as Mr. Brotherston has done in this case, for he has 
triumphantly proved exactly the opposite of what he intended. 
What is a cultivated and what a wild flower ? Is an unaltered wild 
flower less a wild flower because it grows in a pot or under artificial 
conditions ? If so, then the mere fact that most wild flowers have 
been cultivated some time or other, places even them under the 
category of “ cultivated” plants. But all will agree with me that 
all flowers that are in the state that Nature presented them, and are 
unaltered from Nature, are wild flowers. Certainly Eucharis is 
better than Horsegowan, and Pancratium than Woodruff, Odonto- 
glossum better than Gueldres Rose, Epidendrum vitellinum better 
than Dandelion, and Aquilegia chrysantha better than the little 
Lotus or Lady’s Bedstraw, but all are alike wild flowers, with this 
difference—the whole world has been ransacked to furnish the one, 
a few square yards of a hedgeside have furnished the other. Before 
Eucharis can be enjoyed stoves have to be built, and Orchid houses 
to grow Odontoglossum, to say nothing of the collectors needed to 
obtain the plants, the ships to convey them home, and the expense 
necessary for their cultivation. The others may he had for the 
collecting at the side of any country road in summer-time, and they 
are not so very much less beautiful; perhaps what they want in 
colouring may he made up in gracefulness, and that to a cultivated 
taste is even better than mere gaudiness, though we do not mean our 
readers to understand that we regard the Orchids named as gaudy, 
or the others either. I grow most of the plants named by Mr. 
Brotherston, and am critical enough to select forms of Odonto¬ 
glossum possibly on the same lines as he would. I do not regard 
all wild flowers equal, as, I am assured, he will not regard all culti¬ 
vated ones; hut, when I escape to the glens and the hillsides I 
never fail to experience a pleasure ever fresh, though I also take 
great delight in our cultivated plants. My object has all along 
been to direct attention to the wealth of beauty which is “born to 
blush unseen, and waste its sweetness on the desert air.” Far be 
it from me to limit the improvement of flowers, and farther still to 
throw cold water on the cultivation of the many gems, brought 
from far, at how much cost! My observations have been mis¬ 
understood ; but if I succeed in showing to even a few how they 
without gardeners, hothouses, gardens even, may nevertheless 
indulge their love for flowers, my purpose will be served.— 
Single-handed. 
Roses feom Cuttings. —Having taken some Rose cuttings 
according to the directions given in the first article of July 21st 
