432 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ November 11, 1880. 
may be removed with advantage, and the present is the time 
for transplanting them.— William Taylor. 
SARRACENIAS. 
It has often seemed strange to me that Sarracenias are not 
more popular. Perhaps some may say that they are difficult to 
manage, others again may say that they are not sufficiently 
showy, but to these excuses I answer that they are both 
showy and easily cultivated. Some of the species have been 
introduced to our gardens upwards of a hundred years, and yet 
how seldom do we meet with them, except in botanic gardens 
and a few establishments where large collections of plants are 
grown. A few years ago there were only about half a dozen 
species in cultivation, but now in addition some line hybrids 
have been obtained by Messrs. Veitch & Sons of Chelsea. The 
great outcry at the present day is for new plants and Orchids ; 
but if some of the new plants that are sent out annually were 
nearly as attractive as some of the Sarracenias we should not have 
room to complain. I have been a close observer at the great 
metropolitan exhibitions for this last few years, and have come 
to the conclusion that few new plants of really sterling merit 
have been sent out. If Sarracenias were an introduction of the 
present times instead of the past I am sure they would find favour 
with many plant-cultivators, for when well grown they are really 
ornamental. 
Perhaps a few words on their cultivation will not be out of 
place to some of the readers of your Journal who may wish to give 
them a trial. I find that Sarracenias are very accommodating, 
not at all particular as to the house in which they grow. I grow 
mine through the summer in a light airy greenhouse well venti¬ 
lated top and bottom, and in winter I place them in the coolest 
end of the stove. This is merely for my own convenience, for it 
is not absolutely necessary that they should be in heat in winter, 
as I have known some growers allow their plants to be exposed 
to frost for a considerable time. I have tried two or three com¬ 
posts for them, but what they like best is good fibry peat, chopped 
sphagnum, broken charcoal or potsherds, and plenty of silver 
sand. Some prefer potting their plants in autumn, others in 
spring. I prefer potting in spring before they make their spring 
pitchers. The pots should be washed and be filled about a quarter 
full with good drainage, or if large a little more drainage will be 
all the better ; over this place a thin layer of moss, and then the 
potting proceeds. The crown or rhizome should be slightly 
elevated above the level of the pot, the plants being potted rather 
firmly, leaving sufficient space at the top for a good top-dressing 
of green sphagnum. After the plants have become sufficiently 
large pans are the most suitable to grow them in. In their 
native habitat Sarracenias are found growing in boggy or marshy 
ground, consequently they require a good amount, of water both 
in summer and winter; in fact, they should never be allowed to 
become dry. The plants when growing should occupy a position 
near the glass and be fully exposed to the sun, for if shaded the 
colouring of the pitchers is not nearly so bright. It is very 
necessary to guard against the flies, for these intruders are very 
fond of the secretion produced by the pitchers when in a young 
state. If the flies are allowed to become entrapped in the pitchers 
in any quantity decomposition soon takes place, and causes the 
base of the pitcher to decay. I find that placing a small piece 
of cotton wool in the top of each pitcher, sufficiently far down 
to be unobserved, answers the purpose admirably. 
The following are amongst the most useful and showy forms :— 
S. Drummondi. —This is one of the best species grown. The 
pitchers are quite erect, and from 14 to 2 feet high, of a bright 
green colour, the upper part being beautifully variegated with 
red, green, and white. 
8. Drummondi alba. —Another handsome form, differing very 
little from the typical species, except in the colouring at the top of 
the pitchers ; instead of being variegated, as in the last-named, it is 
nearly pure white. 
S. Drummondi rubra. —This is very handsome, the pitchers 
being beautifully variegated with crimson. 
>$. fiava and vars. ornata and picta. —These are all attractive 
forms, especially S. fiava ornata, which produces pitchers of an 
enormous size, and remarkable for its bold and clear venation, 
which is of a dark purplish red. The flowers are large and 
handsome. 
S. atrosa/nguinea. —A strikingly beautiful variety. The pitchers 
are long and narrow, and of a greenish colour; the lid is heart- 
shaped, the lower part green, and the upper part blood red with 
a satiny hue. 
/S'. purpurea. —A good old species, quite hardy, and producing 
cup-shaped pitchers about 6 or 8 inches long, and, as the name 
implies, are of a bright purple colour. 
S. variolaris. —This is well worth growing, and should be in 
every collection. The pitchers are peculiarly hooded, growing 
between 1 and 2 feet long, and beautifully mottled. 
8. psitlacina.— Quite distinct from any of the former in habit 
of growth. Instead of growing erect it produces its pitchers hori¬ 
zontally or spreading ; the pitchers are light green with crimson 
veining, and are curiously hooked at the end, much resembling a 
parrot’s bill. 
S. rubra. —Also well worth growing if only for its flowers, which 
are blood red and deliciously fragrant like Violets. The pitchers 
in this species are not so showy as in many of the others, from a 
horticultural point of view, but where a collection is grown it 
well deserves a place. 
(S'. Chclsoni. —A beautiful hybrid of Messrs. Veitch’s raising. 
It is much in the way of S. purpurea, which is one of the parents. 
The pitchers grow erect, of great substance, and very wide at the 
mouth, the colour being a bright red.—W. K. 
OXFORD BOTANIC GARDENS.—No. 1. 
Few strangers visit the city of Oxford without carrying away 
many pleasant memories of its antiquities, curiosities, and at¬ 
tractions generally. These are, of course, differently viewed and 
appreciated according to the particular taste of the individual, 
but to all they are interesting, varying only in degree. The his¬ 
torian, the antiquarian, the architect, the student of literature, 
and the casual visitor who merely wishes to see all that is note¬ 
worthy or admirable, find abundance that is instructive and 
entertaining. The numerous colleges, all invested with interest 
of no ordinary degree ; the stirring history associated with so 
many spots ; the literary wealth and curiosities of the Bodleian 
Library, and the contents of the various museums, especially 
Tradescant’s collection, provide attractions which are excelled 
in few English cities of the same extent. Much has been and 
could still be written in praise of Oxford generally, but the above 
passing reference will suffice at present. I intend confining my 
remarks to what will probably most concern the readers of the 
Journal—namely, the Botanic Garden. 
In that rare but useful work, Johnson’s “ History of English 
Gardening,” occurs a passage which, as it directly bears upon our 
subject, may not be inappropriately introduced. After comment¬ 
ing upon the fact that previous to the reign of Queen Elizabeth 
horticulture had been regarded as little more than a mechanical 
art, the author continues as follows :—“ Botany previous to this 
period was almost unknown as a science, and it must be acknow¬ 
ledged that botanjr is a chief part of the only foundation upon 
which an enlightened practice of horticulture can be raised. In 
this reign England was enriched with the first regular establish¬ 
ment for the scientific cultivation of plants in the Physic Garden 
of Gerarde (1567).” More than half a century after that—namely, 
in 1632, the Oxford Botanic Garden was founded ; and though it 
cannot claim to be the first established, it is the oldest botanic 
garden at present existing in Great Britain, nearly two centuries 
and a half having elapsed since its foundation. A brief glance at 
the history of the garden during that period may not be devoid of 
interest, for many men of considerable eminence have been con¬ 
nected with it either in the capacity of professor or curator. The 
founder was Henry Danvers, Earl of Danby, who enclosed five 
acres of land on the banks of the Cherwell, near St. Mary Mag¬ 
dalen’s College. He had several glass houses erected for plants 
from tropical and temperate regions, a residence also being pro¬ 
vided for the curator. In his will the Earl of Danby bequeathed a 
rectory in Yorkshire, the funds arising from which he intended to 
be applied to the maintenance of the garden in suitable condition, 
and to provide a salary for a professor, but the latter idea was 
not carried out for some years, as the income derived from the 
estate proved insufficient for the purpose. The first curator 
selected was, I believe, John Tradescant, but he did not accept 
the appointment, which was consequently obtained by a German 
named Jacob Bobart. This man appears to have assiduously 
endeavoured to increase the number of distinct plants grown in 
the garden, and if the catalogue he published in 1648 is reliable he 
must have succeeded very creditably. Sixteen hundred species or 
supposed species were cultivated at that time—no inconsiderable 
collection for the middle of the seventeenth century. Ten years 
subsequently another edition of this work was issued under the 
joint editorship of the Bobarts father and son, Dr. Stephens, and 
Mr. William Browne. A copy of this I have now before me, 
and it is remarkable chiefly for the fact that many synonyms 
are given with references to Gerarde’s and Parkinson’s works 
where the plants named are described ; the common names are 
