152 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ August 19, 1839. 
steam, whatever they like to call it, since I can peifect the crop, as I am 
fully persuaded the roots have all they require. 
They do admit rising damp or moisture is a cause of skin cracking, 
and when formerly I watered Madresfield Court in the usual way, knowing 
the great danger < f atmospheric moisture, the watering was only supplied 
on suitable occasions, such as a bright morning with a little wind if pos¬ 
sible ; even then, though I generally kept the door open, I could not stop 
the cracking. I have Madresfield Couit Vines with thirty bunches each, 
and though we do not get the berries quite so large as some I have seen, 
the colour and flavour will be all that are required. We have had a series 
of cold, wet, sunless days and nights—to-day I see the thermometer stands 
at 55°—then we have an hour’s hot sun or less, then cold again. I noted 
a change of 10° in an hour to-day ; just what favours cracking. 
Several persons have called to see me lately, and they acknowledge they 
like my treat ment and think I am on the right tack ; one a lord’s gardener, 
whose employer thinks Madresfield Court the only black Grape grown 
wortheating, wishes he had a crop to equal it. Another gardener holding 
this position to a more exalted personage, only as late as Tuesday, on 
seeing my crop stated he intends trying what he can do with it, and this 
sfter discarding it on account of cracking.— Stephen Castle, West 
Lynn. 
In replying to my note upon this question, Mr. S. Castle does not 
dispute what I therein stated in my opinion was the cause of the berries 
oracking. He is evidently a firm believer that water at the root is the 
chief cause, although he cites two other things which have something to 
do with it—namely, no fire heat, and a Etiff soil. The first is in con¬ 
nection with my case, and I may here remark that I do not quite under¬ 
stand him. Whether he means the absence of fire heat was the cause, 
or the putting it on again ; perhaps he will make himself clear upon this 
point. What led me to give the reason I did was because nothing serious 
happened until the rain came and the moisture gathered densely upon 
the glass (although the house was ventilated), which is not so when the 
outside atmosphere is dry and clear. It may be that the lower tempe¬ 
rature which accompanied the rain had something to do with it. Since 
writing my last note I am more fully convinced that water at the roots 
will not do any harm, and until experience teaches me differently I shall 
not be sparing with it.—R. M. 
ORCHID NOMENCLATURE—WHAT IS KEW ABOUT ? 
“An Orchid Grower” points out effectively on page 108 both the 
unscientific and unsystematic manner in which names are attached to new 
Orchids by introducers of them, this happy-go-lucky method, for it cannot 
be called anything else, being acknowledged by the Floral Committee of 
the Royal Horticultural Society, of which Mr. G. F. Wilson is, I think, 
the chairman. The most practical and sensible suggestion that, so far as 
I know, has yet been made for avoiding confusion in the nomenclature of 
plants is that made by your correspondent in the article referred to— 
namely, that “ all introduced plants have Latin names, and all those raised 
in Britain, whether seedlings or sport 0 , have popular names, except hybrids 
between recognised species, which should, where possible, have titles indi¬ 
cating their parentage.” There is a natural and intelligible distinction 
in those divisions, and a distinct method of nomenclature would be appro¬ 
priate. As a rule popular names are given to varieties of florists’ flowers 
with the name of the raiser appended in parentheses ; but this cannot well 
be done in the case of a newly introduced Orchid, because the possessor of 
it is not the raiser ; yet it seems desirable that his name should be identified 
with it, as in the case of OdontoglosBum vexillarium Hollingtoni and Onci- 
dium stelligerum Ernesti, which names appear to be stamped with the seal 
of the Floral Committee, while Mr. Southgate and Mr. Hill’s names were 
refused recognition in the latinised form in connection with their Orchids 
that were certificated. Such a loose method of procedure is indefensible, 
for if the Committee were right in refusing to latinise two of the names 
they were wrong in admitting the others, but in my opinion they did not 
show the best of judgment in their refusal. 
The more I reflect on the subject of the nomenclature of plants the 
more I am impressed with the conviction that Kew does not take the 
position it ought to occupy in this matter. There, if anywhere on the 
face of the earth, ought to be the capacity for issuing descriptions and 
determining the names of plants that would be accepted as authoritative ; 
but this is not so, for it seems necessary t > send new Orchids to a foreign 
professor for this purpose. The author,ties of our great national garden 
appear to be content to follow rather than to lead on the subject of 
Orchids. This cannot be for lack of resources, for not only is upwards 
of £20,000 of public money granted for the support of the establishment, 
including the payment of adequate salaries for skilled supervisors and 
assistants, but, if I recollect rightly, a special grant was made some years 
ago for the purchase of Dr. Lindley’s Orchid Herbarium. That was 
obtained for a public purpose, but it seems difficult to perceive that its 
acquisition has been of marked public advantage. Dr. L ndley t :ok a 
decided lead in the Orchid world, and Kew having obtained his material 
resources, ought to have continued his woik. I am not writing in a mere 
grumbling spirit, nor with a desire to reflect in the least harshly on the 
■’cientifie staff of the Royal Gardens, every member of which is a stranger 
to me ; and I am quite willing to believe with “ F. L. S.” that Mr. Dyer 
is “ earnestly desirous of popularising the establishment.” He has a 
wide field fcef re him, and it is desirable that Kew should have the 
Eympathetic support and enjoy the confidence of the grtat horticultural 
community. We live in times when a full return is expected from the 
outliy in all public departments. The national expenditure has become 
so enormous that it may be expected the time is not far distant when a 
searching inquiry will be made into all departments of the State, and 
disbursements will be balanced against results. A great economical 
“ wave ” will pass over the land one of these days, and retrenchment will 
become fashionable. Kew, let us hope, will be in a position to endure 
investigation, and will have won a host of supporters for the maintenance 
of the splendid establishment. 
<* F. L. S.” refers to a subject on which I suspect there is a rather 
strong undercurrent of discontent—namely, the inadequate manner in 
which the work done at Kew is presented to the public. If the heads of 
departments were to prepare records of what is being done and what has 
been accomplished such an aggregation of information would be at hand 
that would form, say, quarterly reports of great value, and these being of 
a practical and scientific character would if sold at a cheap rate be readily 
purchased, and the cost of production would be defrayed ; and, further, 
the editors of horticultural journals would be sure to make such extracts 
from the repoits as would be of interest to their readers, and Kew 
would then be in direct touch with practically all the botanists and horti¬ 
culturists in the kingdom. The officials as public servants, paid and 
pensioned by the State, certainly ought not to be permitted to sell their 
services over again and tarn the resources of the establishment to their 
personal advantage, and if any such practice should become general it 
would afford parliamentary financial reformers an excellent opportunity 
for distinguishing themselves as “ guardians of the nation’s purse.” The 
strength of Kew rests in its popularity, and the visible evidence of its use¬ 
fulness to the inhabitants of Great Britain who contribute to its support 
and provide means for its efficiency. It appears to have lagged behind 
on the Orchid question ; and generally, it may be said with “ F. L. 8., 
that we “ hear too little of what transpires in our national garden.’ 
A Taxpayer. 
THOUGHTS ON CURRENT TOPICS. 
Mr “versatile” friend, Mr. Abbey, promises to keep me pretty well 
employed—or he would do if I dissected his sentences as laboriously as 
he dissects mine. His claim to attention as a lecturer on fruit trees and 
blossom-bud formation rests, he tells us, on practising for twenty years at 
an altitude of 500 feet above the sea, and another twenty years’ plodding 
on low ground. Geographically speaking, it must bo admitted he has 
had a fair share of ups and downs in his vocation, and it is perhaps only 
natural for him to think that I can have had no such experience. Yet 
not very long ago I was doing a little gardening at an altitude of 700 feet, 
and have also “ plodded” about 6 feet below the tidal level of the ocean. 
Toat may possibly seem a rather peculiar posi'ion to work in, but the 
land was draiued, and grows splendid fruit—drained, let me say, by 
pumping thousands ot tons of water from hundreds of acres of land by 
steam power, and conveying it away in canals raised high above the 
general level of the ground. Mr. Abbey, therefore, does not stand quite 
alone in combating trifling difficulties and gaining experience under 
diverse circumstances. This is a little preamble, just to put myself on a 
level with him, to a few thoughts on his very remarkable article on 
page 110. 
After completing the perusal of that great production with the 
attention it deserved my comment was expressed in two words, “ Truly 
Napoleonic.” My analyst is evidently a believer in big battalions, hence 
he combats my few paragraphs on page 11 with, at a rough estimate, 
1000 words. I have not counted them, but I believe anyone who may 
have time to do so will find they approach if they do not txceed that 
number. It is do joke to have a force like that hurled against one, but 
in this case it is consoling to find that more than half of them are con¬ 
firmatory of my views as expressed on the page quoted, the lesser number 
antagonistic. It is a pleasure to me to agree with very much that Mr. 
Abbey writes, but there is generally something of mine from which he 
dissents. In consideration, then, of the information I have derived from 
his teachings I must endeavour to teach him a little lesson in turn, for it 
is evident his education on the formation of fruit buds is not “ finished.” 
It is very agreeable to observe that my ponderous opponent leaves the 
literary arena in the best of temper, enabling me to enter it in a similar 
frame of mind. Let us hope the spectacle will not be lost on fiery young 
disputants. In literary controversy the man who loses his temper in nine 
times out of ten loses his case. 
The subject at issue is the formation of fruit buds and ripe versus 
unripe wtoi, and a very important twin subject it is. In my former notes 
I alluied to a matter on which I suggested Mr. Abbey lacked experience. 
“ Experience of what ? ” he asks. Experience of that in which he con¬ 
fesses his inexperience, I answer. He has informed us he never knew an 
instance of fruit buds changing after the leaves fall. I recorded an ex¬ 
periment, (arefully conducted, for testing that matter, and this showed 
that even he had something to learn. He retorts that I did not operate 
on the trees myself; but what avails that 1 Neither of us invented the 
system of heating garden struc ures by hot water, but the fact of its 
operation remains the same. But if I did not “ operate” on those parti¬ 
cular trees, it is not within Mr. Abbey’s knowledge that I have not 
opera ed on others to the same end. I think he ought to remember that 
fact. He has recorded a verdict on another matter, on negative evidence 
solely, and I shall have no difficulty in proving that verdict wrong. But 
to resume. He affects to surmise that I missed a year in recording that 
the trees replanted in November blossomed more profusely the following 
