884 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ October 30, 1890. 
botanical studies. Removing to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, 
under Mr. McNab, he conducted himself with so much satisfaction to 
the authorities that he was honoured with an associateship. In 1847 
Mr. Laing was appointed manager of the Onchan Nursery in the Isle of 
Man ; thence he went to Chester, and took charge of the indoor depart¬ 
ment at Messrs. F. & A. Dickson’s nursery. Remaining there for a short 
time he was engaged by the Earl of Rosslyn, as gardener at Dysart 
House, Fife, where he gained much fame as a cultivator. In 18G0 Mr. 
Laing joined the firm of Downie & Laird, and proceeded to London to 
establish the nursery at Stanstead Park, Forest Hill. The firm was dis¬ 
solved in 1875, as regards the London branch. Mr. Laing then took the 
business himself, subsequently admitted a partner, and until a year or 
two since, Messrs. Laing & Co. was the business title. A change was, 
however, effected recently, and the business is now confined to Mr. John 
Laing and his two sons, Mr. J. A. Laing and Mr. J. IT. Laing. Mr. Laing 
dates his experience as a Chrysanthemum grower from 1849, and for 
some years he was a most successful competitor at Edinburgh. In late 
years he has obtained numerous valuable seedling Chrysanthemums.— 
( Extract , with portrait , from Mr. Lewis Castle's “ Chrysanthemum 
Annual'") _ 
Mr. R. Parker (Impney).—When Mr. Parker first came to the 
front as an exhibitor of Chrysanthemums and the winner of chief prizes 
in good competition his success created a feeling of wonder as to 
whether he would be able to maintain the position he so quickly won. 
He has done so, one of his latest achievements being the winning of 
the greatest prize ever offered for Chrysanthemums, and this in one of 
the closest and keenest of contests—namely, the forty-eight bloom class 
at Birmingham in 1889. The achievement is the more noteworthy since 
it was the fourth consecutive year in which he won the chief prize in 
the great midland city, and always against first-class competitors. Also 
in three consecutive years he won three cups at Sheffield, including 
the “National” for seventy-two blooms. That record of success alone 
entitles him to the distinction of being presented to our readers as “ a 
man of the time ; ” therefore we reproduce his portrait which we had 
previously engraved._ 
CHRYSANTHEMUM BLOOMS DAMPING—CAUSE AND 
PREVENTION. 
I have pleasure in complying with the request from Leicester to 
contribute a “ short paper on damping ” for the purpose of eliciting dis¬ 
cussion at a meeting of friends there—friends of myself and of the flower 
we think worthy of our solicitous care in cultivation and preservation. 
As almost, if not every theory that has been advanced on the sub¬ 
ject in question has been contradicted on some grounds, and it may be 
good grounds, as based on experience, I shall take a stand on what I 
think is a firm foundation, and challenge opposition to the following 
proposition—namely, that the cause of the evil—the premature decay of 
the blooms of Chrysanthemums known as damping—is either in the soil 
or the atmosphere, or both. A denial may be given to that proposition, 
but I shall be very much surprised if its falsity can be sustained. Though 
I know from evidence of the most convincing kind that the initial cause 
of hundreds of blooms decaying, even before their development, was in 
the soil, I suspect in the overwhelming majority of cases the origin of 
the evil has been above ground, not within it, while in not a few 
instances a combination of accidents or mistakes above ground and 
below has culminated in disaster. 
I think it will be well to first get to the iroot—not of the question 
perhaps, but to the roots of the plants—in a search for the operating 
causes of the unwelcome visitation of mouldiness and decay that ruins 
so many blooms, and work upwards. In nine cases out of ten, when 
cause of the mischief is in the soil it is traceable, I believe, to the ex¬ 
cessive application of ammoniacal manures. Several instances of 
damping arising from this practice has come under my notice, and 
one especially proved the case conclusively. An earnest youDg mao, 
with the best intentions, was caught watering the plants in a large 
house with a solution of sulphate of ammonia. On ascertaining its 
strength it was found he was using the salt nearly at the rate of 2 ozs. 
to the gallon of water. He was told to stop forthwith, and not to give 
the remaining plants any stimulant whatever. The overfed plants were 
ruined, and the expanding flowers rotted on the stems, while those on 
the plants that were not “ assisted ” were as fresh and bright as blooms 
could be, all in the same house. On examining the roots of the former 
they resembled shag tobacco, and most of them were dead, while those of 
the latter were fresh and active. Obviously the crippled roots could not 
imbibe nutriment for the support of the plants, and drooping of the 
leaves with shrinking of the florets naturally occurred, followed by 
decay. But, it may be asked, why did they not shrivel without decay¬ 
ing ? They might have done, perhaps, if the atmosphere of the house 
was as dry as a desert, but it was not, though it was not too damp 
to injure blooms that had due nourishment from active roots with 
moisture passing freely from healthy leaves in the important natural 
process of transpiration. In this case the sap was kept pure ; in the 
other it of necessity became first stagnant, then putrescent, and the 
inevitable fungus, or mould, took possession. Clearly the damp in the 
house was not the initial, but only the secondary cause of the collapse, 
and the real origin of the evil was undoubtedly in the soil. 
But someone may jump up and say, or say without jumping up, 
“ That does not fit my case at all. My plants had no liquid manure, 
yet the blooms damped, and those were the worst that got the driest at 
the roots.” With a considerable fluctuation of temperature and much 
moisture in the atmosphere that is exactly what might be expected to 
occur. The florets of the plants which accidentally became too dry at 
the roots would shrink, though the shrinkage might not be visible, and 
these would, on that account, be the first to “ go.” As the strength of a 
chain is determined by its weakest link, so is the resisting power of 
Chrysanthemum blooms to adverse influences determined by the weakest 
florets, and I suspect no one wdl venture to say that those which shrink 
through any cause are then the strongest. 
We are steadily working upwards, and I will now ask you to leave 
the earth for a few moments and follow me into the air. We may 
possibly all get up in a balloon together, but neeer mind so long as we 
come safely down again. 
1 am inclined to believe that where one Chrysanthemum bloom 
is ruined by damp through an accident to the roots of the plants, that 
ten are destroyed through atmospherical influences, such as extreme 
fluctuations of temperature and the condensation and precipitation of 
moisture on the flowers. It is not the moisture in the air in the form 
of vapour that causes damping, but that which changes to water by cold 
and falls on the blooms, or in other words the blooms will not “ damp,” so 
much in a moist plant stove in which a somewhat high, and especially an 
equable temperature, is maintained as they will in a greenhouse where the 
heat rises to above 70° by the sun in the daytime, and falls to, perhaps 
below, 40° at night. This is what sometimes occurs when the days are 
bright and the nights clear and frosty. The sun makes the blooms 
tender in the day, and when they become cold at night far more mois¬ 
ture condenses on them than if they were warmer. This is not a ques¬ 
tion of opinion but a matter of fact—the simple operation of a law of 
Nature, as evidenced in the formation of dew. Chrysanthemum blooms 
suffer under the conditions indicated ; but, fortunately, if the injury can¬ 
not be prevented in all cases it can be minimised in many. A gauze¬ 
like blind or close net spread over the glass to break the sun’s rays in 
the daytime will do something, but a thicker blind to prevent the 
radiation of heat at night will do more in preserving the blooms. This 
is because they do not become so cold, and it is a fact that the 
colder they become the damper they get, and the warmer they are 
the drier they remain, under similar hygrometrical conditions. It is not 
suggested that a higher temperature should be maintained than is good 
for the plants. That is not in the least necessary, but it is most 
desirable that an extreme range should, as far as possible, be prevented. 
I am positive that numbers of Chrysanthemum blooms have been 
spoiled by want of a reasonable amount of fire heat at night; and I 
will add in the daytime also when the temperature ranges abnormally 
low, as it does sometimes when there is a term of frost, rain, and sleet, 
a chilling wind and little sun. 
It is under these conditions—a term of very cold days and nights, 
with now and then a sudden rise in temperature, or what is called a 
muggy or murky day, with more or less of mist or fog, that the blooms 
“ go off ” so rapidly. They have become cold—too cold—and the 
moisture in the warmer, and perhaps saturated atmosphere, condenses 
on them like a heavy fall of dew, and that is what it really is, and 
they in turn become saturated. Those the nearest the glass are the 
first to fail; those of the same variety and of the same age several feet 
below them being the last to suffer. At a critical period in the life of 
the blooms several may, under certain conditions, go off in a night, and 
those are the most likely to do so that have been generously fed with 
nitrogenous manures. 
When are the falls of dew the heaviest ? When the nights are the 
clearest and there is moisture in the atmosphere. That is because 
radiation is the greatest, cooling the surfaces of plants and blooms, 
and the moisture coming into contact with them is deposited—changed 
from vapour to the liquid form. When are dews absent ? When the 
say is overcast, the clouds not only preventing the radiation of heat 
from the earth and its vegetation, but often radiating it from the atmo¬ 
sphere instead. Dew then cannot form, because the surfaces of plants 
are not cold enough for the precipitation of moisture that is floating 
above them. When a screen or blind, instead of clouds, intercepts 
the passage of radiant heat from Chrysanthemums that are not too 
cold under glass there can be no deposition of moisture on them. 
What even a slight screen does in arresting radiation has been deter¬ 
mined by experiment. A thermometer on grass exposed to the clear 
sky fell to 35°, another with a cambric handkerchief thrown over it 
ceased falling at 42°. An instrument against an exposed wall registered 
38° ; another near it, but with a piece of gauze stretched across 2 or 
3 inches from it, registered 43° as a minimum. These facts are sug¬ 
gestive, and point unmistakeably to the desirability of maintaining, as 
nearly as is practicable, a moderate and equable temperature by the 
combined agency of fire heat (when needed), light screens on cloudless 
days, and thicker blinds on clear nights, when stars innumerable glitter 
in the firmament. 
Oh, but that is all theory, some stern practicali3t may say, who only 
believes in what he calls facts. If he will test the theory by practice, 
as I have tested it, he will have the facts ; and he can do this in a very 
simple way. If he has a number of plants of any variety prone to 
“ damp,” that he wishes to retard, let some of the plants remain with 
their blooms not far from a glass roof on clear cold nights, after bright 
sunny days, when the temperature falls from, say, 70° or higher to 40° 
or lower, and others in a room, and see which keeps the best. He will 
find those in the room will, even if it is not a particularly dry one, because 
the temperature is much more uniform—cooler in the day, as little 
influenced by the sun, and warmer at night, inasmuch as there is little 
radiation. There may, and often is, a variation of temperature in one 
