544 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ December 18, 1884. 
house as quickly as possible with smoke, limiting the density only 
according to the nature of the plants it contains. Now, I believe it 
can be clearly proved that it is not the quantity of smoke which kills 
either insects or plants. No amount of smoke from good material will 
injure the most tender Fern if the operation is properly carried out. 
On the other hand, plants may be very much injured when a small 
quantity of smoke only is produced. 1 think I understand the sub¬ 
ject sufficiently for all practical purposes, but I am not able to 
describe it in a scientific manner. However, I will do my best to 
make my impressions understood. 
It is not the smoke which kills at all, but something which is 
liberated during the process of combustion, possibly nicotine, and the 
slower in reason combustion goes on the more potent are its effects. 
When combustion is rapid a twofold evil is committed—the nicotine, 
oil, or whatever the active principle may be, is consumed without 
reaching the insects, and the fumes being driven off at a great heat 
injure the plants. 
A good fumigator is quite as essential as good material to use in 
it. One made the sha})e of a saucepan but rather deeper answers 
perfectly ; lO inches deep and 8 inches across is quite as large as it 
ought to be for the;largest house ; rather use two such than one of 
very large dimensions. Three or four quarter-inch draught holes are 
made near the bottom, and a flat loose lid should have half a dozen 
smaller apertures. It is very important to have this lid. 
Charcoal may be used as recommended, but it is more convenient 
to get a bright red hot coal from the stokehole ; one piece less than 
the size of a hen's egg is ample. This is placed in the middle of the 
bottom of the pan, a handful of narrow strips of tobacco cloth laid 
over before it is carried into the house, and then begin putting a 
suflicient quantity in, which experience onlj^ can teach ; no further 
attention is necessary. It may be one, two, or three hours burning out 
if it is left to itsdf. No damping is practised, but flaming with the 
limited draught I allow is unknown. 
If the operation has been properly performed the lid and a good 
portion of the sides of the pan on the following morning will look 
and feel as if they had been fresh tarred. If this appearance is 
absent we may be sure that combustion has been too rapid, and plants 
will probably suffer more than insects. The white fly which infests 
lomatoes is killed by a very little smoke, but of course the eggs are 
not touched by it. 1 do not know whether anj'^ naturalist has studied 
this insect, but I am of opinion that the female is wingless, and it as 
well as the eggs will be found on the leaves.—W m. Taylor. 
THE MOST POPULAR APPLE. 
In the list of 120 varieties of Apples selected the greatest number of 
times by 130 exhibitors at the National Apple Congress, reprinted in the 
last number of the Journal of Borticulture from the official report of 
the Congress, an interesting fact appears to have escaped observation. 
It is recorded that the most popular Apple is Lord Suffield (a culinary 
variety), It having obtained 101 marks of a possible 130. King of the 
Pippins is placed second, or the leading position in the dessert class, with 
^8 marks, this being only five poin+s in advance of the third favourite 
(another culinary variety)—namely, Dumelow’s Seedling or Wellington. 
On referrmg to the report, it will be seen that either Lord Suffield or 
King of the Pippins should be displaced in favour of the fine Oxfordshire 
Apple raised by one Kerapster of Woodstock, and now generally known 
as Blenheim Orange or B'enheim Pippin. It is not difficult to conjecture 
the reason why this variety obtained 52 marks as a dessert variety and an 
additional 63 as a culinary sort, and it may be worth while to point out 
what Its position in the poll actually is. The majority of exhibitors 
choose *0 a culinary Apple, and this brings it into competition 
with Lord Suffield, or the one so far described as the popular Apple that 
obtained 101 marks. Now, granting it should take its place in the second 
section, the 63 marks should be supplemented by the 52 marks that it 
obtained in that of the first. This would place it in the premier position 
with a ma^jority of 14 marks over Lord Suffield ; or if, on the other hand 
considered as a dessert variety, it would surpass King of the Pippins by a 
majority of 17 inarks. In either class it would be at the head of the 
poll with orily 15 marks below the greatest possible total, and occupy 
■either as a dessert or a culinary kind the pontion of first fayourite or the 
most popular Apple.—S. P. E. S. 
ROSES AND LEGITIMATE MANIPULATION. 
According to the reply sent to the Leek Rose Society, or rather the 
letter to the horticultural papers from the Honorary Secretaries of the 
National Rose Society, it is probable that some regulations will be issued 
by the latter Society as to what amount of manipulation or trimming — 
and no word expresses the performance better—the Rose may he subjected 
to without running the risk of disqualification. Possibly, then, some 
ventilation of the subject may be advisable. 
It must come, and that most naturally to eyery loyer of flowers in 
watching the steps that Nature takes in the deyelopment of a bloom to 
perceiye that certain of these processes may be retarded or precipitated 
by very slight manipulation ; indeed, in its strict sense this latter word 
is scarcely applicable, as without any touching of the hand a well-directed 
breath may unfold a bloom that but for the process would have remained 
in statu quo for hours. In the Rose tribe this condition is far more 
marked in the Tea varieties. I recollect on one occasion at a small 
exhibition seeing a class of single specimens in which the Judges, net 
being special Rose-growers, hesitated a long time over the awards. 
Amongst the exhibitors themselves there was little hesitation in aw arding 
first position to a grand bloom of Marie Van Houtte, taking for second 
a very pretty but scarcely open bloom of Catherine Mermet. The Judges 
felt disposed to award the premier honours to a Marbchal Niel, very 
large, but decidedly past its best; however, they ultimately awarded 
first to Marie Van Houtte, and second to Mardchal Niel. Commenting 
on the decision to a nurseryman subsequently, the latter took up the 
bloom of Catherine Mermet, and turning to the exhibitor, a young 
aspirant, said, “ If you had done this,” and he blew into the bloom, 
which immediately expanded, “ your chances would have been far 
greater.” There was not the slightest doubt that the puff had been like 
the touch of the magician’s wand, and had disclosed beauties unseen 
before. 
Again, a bloom in opening gets one petal tied or stuck down, and a 
drop of moisture is equal to effecting this sometimes—the bloom, unless 
this petal be eased from its position, will be more or less deformed. Here, 
again, a puff or a small paperknife passed between the fastened petals 
releases the imprisoned portion of the bloom, and allows its expansion. 
Even the most punctilious would allow that either of these positions is 
honest and fair. 
Tying up blooms to prevent too rapid expansion, or to assist blooms 
to bear the shakings of carriage and transit, is another form of inter¬ 
ference with a flower, which, provided it be removed before judging is 
commenced, cannot be considered unfair. At the same time I am not 
prepared to say that it is always a success. Not a few flowers appear to 
resent tbe treatment, and having been interfered with in development 
manifest a disposition that even the “ move on ” of Policeman X would 
fail to alter ; whilst others, again, released from their bondage rapidly 
pass into the eye-opening stage so fatal to success. All these points have 
to be calculated, and experience on them has to be learnt, and most often 
through failure, but it cannot, I think, be maintained that there is in 
them anything dishonest or illegitimate. 
The addition of foliage to a Rose is now considered by many a suffi¬ 
cient cause for disqualification ; but although added foliage may be a 
disqualification, supports of various kinds from sticks to wire are passed 
over. The latter, however, does not pretend to be any meddling with the 
bloom itself, and many Roses would discard all such assistance. Some 
Roses of peculiar habit are feeble in the flower stalk, notably the prima 
donna in the last general election, Marie Baumann, whilst many blooms 
of Marechal Niel have also a pendant habit, which makes it often difficult 
to place these Roses in a tube so that they will retain the desired position. 
It would be sometimes possible to accomplish this by stuffing the hole 
with moss, but as in the hurry of this performance a stray leaf may be 
included and appear as “added foliage,” the exhibitor may thus very 
unintentionally run the risk of disqualification. Such aids as stick or 
wire supports are not alterations or additions to the bloom itself, and 
seem to me much in the same category as the paper or card adornments 
of Asters, Picotees, and other flowers staged for exhibition. Or, again, 
how rarely is a plant exhibited as a specimen plant without numberless 
sticks and supports; all these have been used to bring the plant into a 
certain form of growth, and so far I have never heard anyone object to 
these additions—they serve to show the beauties of the plant in the best 
possible light. So with the wire or stick, without interfering with the 
bloom itself they place its beauties in a favourable position, and such aids 
I apprehend must always be considered legitimate. 
Let us get on a step further. Is the removal of one or more damaged 
petals (generally on the outer part of the bloom) a reason for disqualifica¬ 
tion ? I recollect once talking to a nurseryman when I had been defeated 
in a'single-specimen class. He remarked, “Your Triomphe is a very 
pretty Rose, but if you had removed these two petals (soiled) you would 
have had a better chance.” As this removal of petals is a matter most 
difficult to detect, and also possible to be naturally simulated in some 
blooms, I do not fancy this will become a cause of disqualification. It 
will have to be left to the conscience of each exh bitor, and doubtless 
some w'ill reason that as it is perfectly legitimate to pick off a dead or 
damaged leaf from a specimen plant, there can he no harm in removing a 
petal from a bloom. Each exhibitor must decide this knotty point for 
him or herself. Personally I have no hesitation in saying that were I 
judging I should be disposed to favour the bloom shown as cut from the 
plant. Having now glanced at legitimate or possibly legal manipulation, 
I may hereafter venture on the ground beyond tbe legitimate limit. I 
should much like to see the whole subject well discussed.—Y. B. A. Z. 
[The rules prepared by the National Rose Society, and adopted at the 
annual meeting on Thursday last, appear in another page, and it is scarcely 
necessary to add that our correspondent had not seen these when writing 
his remarks.] 
GRAPE MUSCAT HAMBURGH. 
The remarks on the above Grape by Mr. Iggulden some lime since 
are interesting, proving how widely the same variety varies in different 
soils. My experience of the variety in question is not of very long 
duration, for previous to my taking charge here seven years since I had 
