—-——-1 
February 22, 1883.] JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 151 
further the production of thrips and red spider no doubt the 
object would have been accomplished. 
With regard to the kind of structure I would recommend 
for the cultivation of commonly-grown plants, I can only 
repeat that “ the most useful plant structures will be found to 
be low flat buildings 12 or 13 feet in width, with a central 
path and two side beds on benches." Anyone who has had 
experience with structures of a low pitch of roof for plant¬ 
growing as against those that are more or less steep in the 
pitch, will agree that the low-angled form is the best in all 
ways. Here are details of a structure in course of erection 
here now, and intended for the production of Tea Roses during 
the winter months. At the same time the number of plants 
which would fail to succeed in such a house are very few 
indeed, while Melons, Cucumbers, and Tomatoes would do 
equally well. It is partially sunk beneath the ground level, 
and in some other ways has been slightly modified to suit its 
environments. Its outside width is 12 feet 9 inches ; the side 
walls are of 9-inch brickwork up to 28 inches below the eaves ; 
at that height a 4^-inch wall is carried up 15 inches, the 
remaining 13 inches being made up of ventilators and necessary 
fittings, the ventilators themselves being made of boards. The 
roof is supported on 2-inch tee iron rafters placed 7 feet apart; 
those are batted into stones built into the side walls. At 
2 feet from the ridge on each side of the roof the rafters are 
tied together with pieces of 2-inch tee iron, to which they are 
secured with bolt and nut. The outer ends of the end cross- 
leces are batted into the end gables, which are of 9-inch 
rickwork. In addition to tying the rafters together, these 
crosspieces also act as supports to the roof in an immediate 
manner, each “ astragal " being screwed to them at the point 
of intersection. Rigidity is secured by supporting each rafter 
on each side with a bar of 1-inch tubular iron secured at one 
end to a stone at the side of the pathway wall, at the other 
being bolted to the rafter it supports. The roof is formed of 
a continuous sash on each side, the top side of the two sashes 
meet and form the ridge. These are 4 inches wide by 2 inches 
thick. The bottom plate of each sash is 4£ inches by H inch. 
The astragals are each 2 inches deep by 1^ inch wide, every 
sixth one being 2 inches square. This lies on the iron rafter, to 
which it is secured with screw nails. The glass is in squares 
of 19 by 13 inches, bedded in putty, and each held down by 
two triangular pieces of zinc. A clear space of three-sixteenths 
of an inch is left between the lowermost pane and the sill on 
which it rests : this allows much condensed water to escape 
outwards. No ventilation is supplied from the ridge. The 
inside of the structure is furnished with a central pathway 
27 inches wide, the floor being about 7 feet from the ridge. 
Its sides are formed of 4^-inch walls 3 feet high, these with 
the side walls forming a bed 4 feet wide for staging purposes. 
Heating is effected by three rows of 4-inch piping round the 
sides of the house, the uppermost pipe being about level with 
the bottom of the ventilators. A tank to hold 250 gallons of 
water s constructed at one corner by making one of its ends 
out of a portion of the gable, one of its side out of a portion 
of the outside wall, the other side being a portion of one of 
the pathway walls, the second end being built across the bed 
for that purpose. The bottom is lined with bricks, and the 
entire inside of the tank covered with cement an inch in thick¬ 
ness. The doorway is at one end of the building. Coal ashes 
level with the lowermost pipe form the bed on which plants 
are to be staged. The angle of the roof is 16°. All the 
material employed, with the exception of the woodwork, is 
practically indestructible. 
Modifications in the internal arrangements of this pit would 
make it suitable for growing greenhouse plants, for cool 
Orchids, for decorative Ferns, and other purposes. We are 
constantly seeing comparatively expensive structures attached 
to villa residences, which, instead of being a saving to their 
owners, are on the contrary a continual expense to keep fur¬ 
nished with fresh plants. The writer of the articles on 
“ A Suburban Garden " seems to have learnt the difference 
between a house built for “ show " and one built to produce 
flowers. The remarks on this subject in these articles are 
worthy the attention of gardeners as well as amateurs. 
As to fruit houses, what Mr. Warhurst states regarding 
the pitch of Peach houses as determined by the majority of 
gardeners, is surely incorrect. “ A steep pitch of 50° to GO 0 " 
might be recommended in the case of “ wall-cases," but for a 
Peach house proper either 12 or 18 feet in width I can hardly 
imagine to be the fact. A pitch of 35° I would consider a 
fair one, 40° at the outside. As to the height of fronts, we 
have a new Peach house here with a G-foot front, specially 
built so ; it allows for the back wall being covered with trees, 
and a trellis in front as well, while there is space in the centre 
for plant-growing. For ordinary purposes, however, a front of i 
4 feet would be more suitable. As to the height of back walls, j 
they would be a serious item were roofs of 60° angle a 1 
necessity. In practice, however, such an angle is not required, ; 
indeed would be otherwise than beneficial were houses thus 
constructed. I may, however, point out a system, the best 
example of which may be seen at Drumlanrig, whereby walls 
may be heightened cheaply. This object is gained by placing 
the top ventilators, not on the top of the house, but between 
the ridge and the wall when that happens to be too low for 
the size of house to be constructed. 
Flat-roofed houses have this disadvantage compared with 
those of a steep pitch—the former in damp weather do not 
throw water off the roof so thoroughly as do the latter, which 
is against the lasting qualities of the erection. They have, 
however, the compensating advantages of being stronger, 
requiring less material in their construction, and are con¬ 
sequently cheaper, and suit plants better than those of a steep 
pitch. The examples given by Mr. Warhurst would lead us to 
believe that there is a prevailing ignorance amongst gardeners 
concerning a part of their daily work which reflects on us as a 
class in a very uncomplimentary manner. This is a question 
particularly worthy the attention of young men, who, as a 
rule, have advantages during the period before they obtain 
head places of obtaining a fair knowledge of the best kinds of 
structures for different kinds of plants.—R. P. B. 
THE CHRYSANTHEMUM ELECTION. 
As a lover of the Chrysanthemum accept my best thanks for 
the very spirited manner in which you have carried through the 
election of the incurved varieties. Such things are not under¬ 
taken without great cost and labour, but I think it worth all the 
trouble, for it settles a long-disputed point. I must confess I was 
surprised in looking through the returns at the result of the 
election. 
Queen of England I should have thought good enough to have 
headed the poll, and two others that are in the second twelve good 
enough for the first, but the majority of electors think differently, 
and I consider the selection excellent. I hope we shall next have 
an election of the Japanese varieties, for I think the returns of 
these will be more interesting than the incurved. Being, com- j 
paratively speaking, new compared with the incurved, it is often 
very perplexing to those who intend growing a few to obtain a 
reliable list of the best, as writers seldom recommend the same 
varieties. I shall be very happy to assist.— C. Waring, Prince's 
Park, Liverpool. _ 
I WAS extremely pleased to see the very satisfactory result of 
the Chrysanthemum election. It cannot fail to be of much service [ 
to all interested, and still more to those who are seeking infor¬ 
mation relative to this deservedly popular flower. I notice, i 
however, that Beverley and White Beverley are registered as two 
varieties, whereas they are the same. I elected White Beverley 
in the second twelve as “ Beverley,” which I believe is the original 
name. If we add the votes accorded to Beverley (10) to those of 
White Beverley (21) it will place this fine variety in the first 
twenty-four, a position it well deserves. I am also of opinion 
that the compaiatively large number of first-class votes accorded 
to Mr. Howe were similarly intended for John Salter, which 
would also result in placing that well-known variety iD a more 
prominent position.—A. R. Cox, Elm Hall, Wavertree, Liverpool. 
I BEG to draw your attention to the result of the polling for 
the best forty-eight Chrysanthemums. White Beverley stands at 
No. 30 on the list, with eight first-class votes and thirteen second- 
class votes—total twenty-one. Beverley stands at No. 47 on the 
list, with ten second-class votes. As an old grower I do not know 
any difference between White Beverley and Beverley as usually 
called. If identical, which I believe them to be, the ten second- 
