August 24,1882. ] JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 171 
for a prize, and the trench is not quite filled when the Peas are 
sown and covered. Provision is thus made for applying liquid 
manure quickly and in large quantity as may be needed. Thin 
sowing is practised, as saving seed, which is costly, and the seed 
so saved pays for the manure that is used to make the rows so 
vigorous and the crop so fine. 
The varieties grown freely by this cottager this year are Tele¬ 
graph, Telephone, Culverwell’s Giant Marrow, Stratagem, and 
Pride of the Market. A correspondent on page 153 last week 
gave the preference to the last-named variety over Stratagem ; 
the cottager is exactly of the same opinion. He regards both as 
very good, but says Pride of the Market is a “ better bearer and 
better eater.” As to Telegraph and Telephone, the former he 
esteems the most productive and generally useful “for such folk 
as me,” but the latter is the sweeter, and thinks it will “ make 
a good parson’s Pea ; ” but he says “ Culverwell’s Giant is the 
biggest of all,” and he shall grow “ a lot of it.” Considering it is 
such a new Pea he has “ a lot ” already, and as he has tried it and 
found it “ first-rate ” when cooked, he says he shall “ go in ” for 
a lot more, and he knows he can sell every seed at a “ long figure.” 
Certainly the crop was a splendid one, the row 7 feet high being 
laden with huge well-filled pods, some containing thirteen peas. 
Here, then, we have a farm labourer purchasing Peas at prices 
that well-to-do people fear to give, or they cannot indulge in “ such 
extravagance but when a man gets, as this man easily will do, 
much more than 100 per cent, for his outlay, growing new and 
dear Peas indicates good judgment and commendable prudence, 
for those new Peas are decidedly the most profitable crop in this 
working man’s garden. It is not enough, however, to buy the 
Peas, sow them without special care, and leave them to take their 
chance. They must, as the man says, “ be forced—make a show 
and a noise to cause a sensation, then everybody who sees them 
wants a pint.” Perhaps this little record of facts may be sug¬ 
gestive to some readers of the Journal who have a prejudice 
against, or think they cannot afford to purchase “new Peas.”— 
A Traveller. * 
THE COLOURS OF FLOWERS. 
On pages 105 and 106 you notice Mr. Grant Allen’s views on 
the colours of flowers. It seems to me that there are many phe¬ 
nomena which militate against his conclusions, and which should 
be explained before these can be accepted. Mr. Grant Allen’s 
theory is that all flowers were in their earliest form yellow ; then 
some of them became white, after that a few of them grew to be 
red or purple, and finally a comparatively small number acquired 
various shades of lilac, mauve, violet, or blue. I understand his 
arguments to be, 1, That yellow and white flowers are the com¬ 
monest and blue the rarest. 2, That stamens are commonly 
yellow ; that petals are modified stamens ; therefore that petals 
were yellow until some circumstance arose to change them. 
3, That the smallest, simplest, and most regular flowers are yellow 
or white ; and that as flowers advance in complexity to irregular 
petals, to a united corolla, and lastly to an irregular united corolla, 
the red and blue shades become more frequent. 4, That colours 
change is by no means uncommon, and that it is always—(I am 
commenting on the article in the January Cornhill; I see that 
your quotation is “ in almost all known cases,” so perhaps this is 
somewhat modified)—in the same direction, from yellow or white, 
through pink, orange, or red, to purple or blue. 5, That the 
colours of flowers are liable to sport back to those of their ancestors, 
and hence white specimens are common in the red, and red, 
white, or purple in the normally blue kinds. 
Now to take these in order. The first may be admitted ; it is, 
however, no proof that the blue flowers have passed through other 
stages. The second is perhaps Mr. Grant Allen’s strongest argu¬ 
ment. It is, however, merely a reasoning from the probable. 
Many botanists, indeed, suppose petals to be modifications of the 
leaves, not of the stamens at all ; and in the very instances 
adduced to prove the contrary—the staminodes of the white Water 
Lily, the rays of the Mesembryanthemum, the extra petals of the 
double Rose, the petaloid filaments of the Star of Bethlehem— 
the modified organs take from the very first the colour of the 
outer row of petals. Was a case ever known of a double flower in 
which the extra petals retained the colour of the stamens instead 
of adopting that of the corolla ? 
Mr. Grant Allen shows, no doubt, that many irregular flowers 
are coloured blue ; and he quotes the Composites, the Labiates, 
the Snapdragons, and the Orchids as the most profoundly modified 
of all existing flowers, and also those in which blue and purple 
flowers are commonest; but if the doctrine of regular procession 
be true, it seems to me that blue, the colour of the fourth stage, 
should prevail here, not purple and blue, the third and fourth 
taken together. Now, if we were asked in what families blue 
colour is most prevalent, I think we should mention the Flaxes, 
in which the petals are regular and separate ; the Violets and 
Spiderworts, in which they are irregular and separate ; the Bell¬ 
flowers, Gentians, Nemophilas, and Borages, in which they are 
regular and combined. Perhaps we might add Labiates, though 
the blues of the order seem to be decidedly outnumbered by the 
purples. But of Mr. Grant Allen’s other types blue is by no 
means a common colour in the Snapdragon family. The Speed¬ 
wells are our only native examples ; and in the Orchids, the most 
remarkably developed of all flowers, I believe that a really blue 
colour is unknown. There remain the Composites, among which, 
considering the vast number of species, the small number of blue 
flowers is very remarkable ; while such as there are belong chiefly, 
as the Succory, Endive, and foreign Lettuces, to the Dandelion 
group, which Mr. Grant Allen considers the least advanced in 
the order, and which is certainly characterised by the enormous 
majority of yellow flowers. It must be a puzzle for the theory to 
account for the small number of intermediates between the yellows 
and the blues. 
As to colour change, Mr. Grant Allen quotes one instance—a 
Forget-me-not—of passage from pale yellow through pink to blue. 
I doubt if he could name a second, and even here the white stage 
is omitted. Changes from white or pale pink to crimson are no 
doubt frequent. Quisqualis indica might have been added to the 
list, and the Rose which we call Archduke Charles. But there 
certainly are many instances of change in the reverse direction. 
Brunsfelsia americana changes from pure white to primrose. I 
believe that Solandra grandiflora does much the same. Mr. Grant 
Allen himself describes a Wallflower which has a white stage 
before the citron yellow. Again, Ipomaea rubro-coerulea fades 
from azure blue to reddish ; an arboreous Solanum, I believe 
S. macranthum, is violet the first day, pale lilac the second, and 
silver white the third, while the changes of Franciscea are in the 
same direction. 1 should draw the inference that white and blue 
flowers often change, yellow and red scarcely ever, and that the 
cause is in all probability merely chemical and quite unconnected 
with heredity. 
Lastly, the sports quoted by Mr. Grant Allen are admitted ; 
but who ever heard of those flowers sporting back to yellow ? It 
appears to me that this alone is almost conclusive against blue 
and purple flowers having passed through a yellow stage as well 
as a white one.— William Waterfield. 
THE BEST" MANURE. 
I make no pretence to a knowledge of chemistry, and there¬ 
fore cannot say whether Professor Voelcker (see page 121) is 
right or wrong in his analysis of earth-closet manure, but I am 
prepared to say, and to prove if necessary, that the estimate he 
places on it, supposing him to be.correctly quoted by “Inquirer,” 
is far too low, and that most fruits, vegetables, and flowers can 
be grown by its aid alone quite as satisfactorily as they can be 
produced by any other fertdiser, either natural or artificial. I 
have often wondered why the earth-closet system has not been 
adopted to a greater extent. It seems that we have now the key 
to the mystery, and that the chemists are responsible for it. 
I do not deny the valuable aid which chemistry has rendered to 
agriculture and horticulture, but it would be madness on our part, 
when a certain manure has proved practically to be of the greatest 
possible value, to throw it aside simply becaut-e a professor, 
however eminent, cannot find the fertilising ingredients in it. 
“Inquirer” seems to have an idea that chemists are infallible, 
and that we are bound to take as proven everything they tell us. 
I hope the chemists themselves do not think so, and, indeed, I 
know they cannot, for every now and then there are startling 
discoveries which in a great measure upset their former theories, 
and must have the effect of forcing them sometimes to reconsider 
what have been supposed to be facts. That chemistry has a 
bright future before it I am certain, but what is wanted is original 
research by persons unfettered with old notions. That there are 
such in the field, and that we are on the eve of great discoveries, 
m.ay be gathered from one or two papers which have appeared 
in this Journal of late, and with which I have been much inter¬ 
ested, notably the review on the “Report of the Sussex Associa¬ 
tion for the Improvement of Agriculture, ’ which was published 
in the number for August 3rd. 
I would humbly suggest to Professor Voelcker, or any other 
chemist who may be disposed to analyse soil from an earth closet, 
that he obtains his sample elsewhere than from a prison or work- 
house, for possibly the diet and exercise enjoyed by the inmates 
of such institutions are not such as are best calculated to produce 
the most fertilising material. It may appear presumptuous, but 
I altogether object to the statement attributed to Dr. Voelcker 
