103 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ August 5,18S6. 
others. Ju<-t as the colouring stage arrives I bore two holes with a 
bradawl below the bunch, and I have never had cause to complain, 
for they carry about twelve good bunches of good flavour and colour. The 
only feeding I use at all stages is cowhouse drainage, with one good 
dressing of dissolved bones once a year. I leave a little ventilation all 
night, with fire heat on dull days and cold nights.—W. Moseley. 
This is by no means a new subject to the readers of the Journal, but 
notes are invited upon the subject, and being a sufferer, I beg to lay my 
case before your readers. In a vinery under my charge Madresfield 
Court occupies one end. For eleven days previous to July 12th we had 
no fire, the weather being very hot. On Saturday the 10 h the weather 
changed, and next day in the evening rain fell heavily in this neighbour¬ 
hood, and on Monday the 12th, on going into the vinery in the morning 
I found a considerable per-centage of the berries cracked. The fire was 
lighted early and the injured berries removed, and not one has cracked 
since. The reason I give is this, that the outside atmosphere being so 
highly charged with moisture, and no fire heat in the vinery to help it, 
the moisture could not get away, although there was ventilation at the 
back and front. I think “ S. C.” attributes the cause in his case to a 
great extent to the heavy rain on the Vine border the day before, which 
was not the case with me, as the borders and roots are inside. I think it 
will take a great deal more water at the roots to crack the berries than 
many people think it does, and “ 3. C.,” in the latter part of his note, 
speaks of two of the finest bunches being cracked with the damp and 
steam gathering on them, which bears out the fact that the presence of 
staguant moisture in the house is the cause of it. Being interested in the 
matter I have tried the water at the root experiment since the above dates 
by soaking that end of the border in which Madresfield Court is growing 
with water three days in succession, over and above the general watering 
of the whole of the borders, but I have had no cracked berries since. 
This seems to me to support the endosmosic theory, which was so keenly 
argued in these pages more than a year since.—R. M. 
ORCHID NOMENCLATURE. 
11 A Botanist’s ” letter (page 85) in reply to my note is not quite satis¬ 
factory, and farther explanation is required. In the first place he says, 
“ The use of a Laiiu name constructed as this (Oncidium macranthum 
Southgatei) was 1 would imply that the plant had been duly named, re¬ 
gistered, and described or figured by competent authority.” Will “A 
Botanist kindly state where he obtains this rule ? I have always under¬ 
stood that the botanist’s name or the abbreviation of that attached to the 
name of the plant was the indication that it had been “ duly named, re- 
gistered, and described or figured by competent authority,” and the idea 
that the form of the name itself shows this is new to me. But admitting 
this as a rule, why was 0dontoglossum vexillarium Hollingtoni recog¬ 
nised ? for although the plant was not certificated yet a vote of thanks 
was awarded for i', and that can only be regarded as an official recogni¬ 
tion. There seems to be a peculiar inconsistency there. If Southgatei 
was wrong^why was Hollingtoni passed 1 Again, at the following meeting, 
on July 27th an Orchid was certificated named Oncidium stelligerum 
firnesii. V hy was that name passed had the plant been described by 
competent authority ?” If “ A Botanist ” can answer these questions 
satisfactorily he will place the action of the Committee in a more 
favourable light than it is at present, and greatly oblige those who, like 
myself, merely wish to see a consistent method of some kind adopted. 
There can be no reason why naming Orchids should not be conducted 
in the same manner as that of other plants, and if the Latin form 
for unauthorised names is objectionable when applied to an Orchid it 
should be equally so when given to a plant of garden origin, yet the Floral 
Committee awarded a first-class certificate at their recent meeting for 
Matricaria inodora grandiflora pDna, a seedling variety of a common 
plant and refused to certificate Cattleya gigas Hilli in that form, but 
transformed it into Hill’s variety, although it was an introduced wild 
variety. Why was not the Matricaria termed Ware’s variety ? 
I have no desire to criticise the Committee, but it is evident to many 
persons that in acting without any rules to guide them they are likely to 
lancet the nomenclature of plants still more cumbrous and confusing than 
it is at present. The isolated action of two or three members of the Com- 
iniUee is insufficient. If they wish to introduce changes it soould be done 
in a te.nlar manner, and the first step to be taken is to form a few simple 
lul'is, andas a small contribution towards that allow me to suggest that 
all introduced plants should have Latin names, and all those raised in 
Britain, whether seedlings or sports, have popular names, except hybrids 
•l) i! ween recognised species, which should, where possible, have titles in- 
Licitmg their parentage.— An Orchid Grower. 
Thl suggestion on page G5 that the Kew authorities must be locked 
j. 1 ' 8< ? me enlightenment on the subject of describing and naming 
Oichids is an admirable one, and I hope it will receive the attention it 
deserves in the pioper quarters. No establishment in the world could 
have greater facilities for determining Orchids as well as other plants, for 
not only is there an herbarium of wonderlul extent, but there are also 
living collections of plants to aid them, and in the case of the Orchids 
these might be readily extended if necessary. As a public department 
supported by the country, horticulturists have a right to expect some 
assistance, and the Director, Mr. Dyer, is so earnestly desirous of popu¬ 
larising the esta' I shmeut, and lias already introduced so mauy improve¬ 
ments that we may confidently expect that something will be done in the 
dtrec'i m indicated by ” Taxpayer.”‘j 
The concluding suggestion that the work of the Gardens should be 
issued as periodical reports to be published in all the horticultuial papers 
is very important, for if this scheme were carried out it would do more to 
popularise the place and bring its work before the public than has yet 
been adopted. The fact is, we hear too little of what transpires in our 
national garden, and except the fragmentary notes occasional visitors 
send to the papers, and the annual reports which appear in such an 
erratic manner, we learn nothing of the interesting and imoortant work 
performed both in the gardens and the herbarium. The official staff mast 
include some able men who could contribute to a monthly report much 
that presumably they, as public servants, are not permitted to send for 
publication in any one paper, and which, in consequence, is lost to 
British horticulturists and botanists.—F. L. S. 
IVY-LEAVED PELARGONIUM, ROBERT OWEN. 
Mr. Robert Owen, the Floral Nursery, Maidenhead, has been success¬ 
ful in raising several varieties of this much-improved and highly attrac¬ 
tive section of Pelargoniums, hut the one figured (fig. 15) he regards as his 
masterpiece. The truss sent was certainly very fin \ the flowers large, full* 
without being crowded, rich salmon pink in colour, with a faint suffusion 
of violet. Mr. Owen describes the habit of the plant as dwarf, free, and 
erect-flowering, and he anticipates it will make a fine specimen plant for 
exhibition, as well as be valuable in a small s ate for d corative pur¬ 
poses. The size and form of the flowers are accurately represented in the 
engraving. 
THOUGHTS ON CURRENT TOPICS. 
' It has been difficult to find anything to think about in the Journal of 
late except Roses. I am as great an admirer of these flowers as is the 
most ardent rosarian, but almost got tired of co'umu after column of the 
same kind of literary fare. A feast, however, so rich, cann *t last tor long. 
It seems just to last long enough for everybody to be satofiid, and by 
this time I cannot help thinking that exhibitors, judges, and reporters 
must be glad that the term is about over, for whit is pleasure to the 
many means hard work to the few whose duty it is to a,tend a crowd of 
shows over a wide field in a little time. 
By the way, I perceive the judges have been in a dilemma at one 
show, and it seems the only way of escape w is to divide a £10 prize 
offered for the best s’and into two prizes of equal valu“, and grant them 
to two stands considered of equal merit. Toe late Mr. Charles Turner 
used to say there never were two stands containing an equal number of 
any kind of flowers staged exactly equal in value, but that there was a 
point between them somewhere, and only required to !e sought for to be 
found. I strongly suspect the great florist was right. When competition 
is close some judges have a disposition to “make things pleasant ” by 
awarding equal prizes. That is an easy way out of a difficulty. It is 
not suggested that the judges in the show alluded to acted on that 
principle. By no means. If there was no stipulation as to number of 
blooms, but that all stands, whether of six, twelve, or twenty-four, were 
eligible for competition, the difficulty of awarding the prize justly must 
have been nearly or quite insurmountable, for it is obviously easier to 
stage twelve superior flowers than twice that number, yet the aggregate 
merit of the larger stand may be equal to the slightly superior blooms in 
the smaller. 
If the framers of schedules of shows, not of Rose shows alone, when 
determining on classes and apportioning prizes were to ask themselves on 
what principle the awards are to be made there would not be so many 
“ judges’ puzzles ” as there are. Schedules cannot be too well considered 
nor classes too clearly defined. When stipulations are clear and all the 
exhibitors placed on an equal footing as to the number of flowers or 
dishes in a class competent judges can do justice, and are not driven to 
resort to a compromising policy which is satisfactory to no one except, 
possibly, to some lucky individual who is granted a piize to which he is 
scarcely entitled, and that is not exactly the object for which shows are 
instituted. 
Though I have had about enough of Roses lately I cannot very well 
get away from them, or at least from Mr. Gilmour’s article on page 59. 
There is a freshness about it that is quite enjoyable. It is neither of the 
dry conventional type on the one hand that is read by six lines at once, 
nor overladen with flummery on the other that makes one feel it is a pity 
the writer did not turn his “ talents ” in another direction, but is free and 
readable, because a narration of experience of mistakes ma'ie and 
reedfied, difficulties encountered and overcome. It is at once entertaining 
and bristles with suggestive hints from end to end. Tne persevering 
author seems to have succeeded in growing aphis-proof Roses, as he n w 
neither requires “ brushes or anything else ” for clearing off insects. Is 
that because the growths are so strong that the little pest can make no 
impre-sion on them ? I ask this question seriously and believe it to be 
a valid one. 
" But the best hint in the paper is that on a limitation of varieties to 
those that succeed the best on a given so 1, and of tnese growing many. 
That is the surest way to take a garden full of hands ime blooms and to 
