6 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ July 6, 1893. 
vf &3 held caught these flowers just in their prime, and I very much 
doubt whether at the Crystal Palace or elsewhere we shall see during 
the present season such a collection of Teas and Noisettes brought 
together. 
The peculiarities of the season brought about some curious results, 
There has always been a keen competition between the growers of Tea 
Roses in East Anglia and the West of England. During the two last 
years victory has remained with the latter, but this year the course of 
things has been changed. It is true that Dr. Budd of Bath was suc¬ 
cessful, but of our two champions, Mr. Alex. Hill Gray and thei Rev. 
F. R. Burnside, we might well say “ How the mighty have fallen ! ” 
Knowing well as I do the warm situation in which Mr. Gray grows his 
plants I was quite prepared to find that in this season he had suffered 
from the long drought and the invasions of thrips and other attendant 
calamities. I cannot quite as well understand Mr. Burnside’s position, 
because last week he earried everything before him at York. I am 
told that his flowers there were of a very first-rate character, but I 
wa* sorry to hear him say that he doubted very much whether he should 
be able to put in an appearance at the Crystal Palace. But the East 
Anglian Rose growers were this year very much to the front. In the 
nurserymen’s class all the principal prizes fell to the Colchester 
growers, Messrs. B. R. Cant, Frank Cant, and Prior & Son. It is 
6rue that at the trial of East Anglian parsons the Revs. H. A. Berners, 
F. Page Roberts did not put in an appearance, but the Rev. Foster 
Melliar exhibited in a form we have never seen before. His box of 
twelve was I think the most perfect one in the Show, and his bloom of 
Souvenir d’Elise which gained the N.R.S.’s silver medal as the best 
bloom in the Show, was a splendid flower. I have seen larger blooms of 
the variety, but never one in which the perfection of form and colour 
were more strikingly developed. 
Another satisfactory feature of the Exhibition was the keen com¬ 
petition that took place in many of the amateur classes. There had 
been times when there were hardly stands suflBcient for the prizes 
offered, and when the question arose whether some of those to which 
they were awarded were really worthy of it; but in the case of this 
Exhibition nothing of the kind occurred, for in many of the classes 
from seven to fourteen stands were shown ; and although not very 
pleasant to those who were left out in the cold, it was more agreeable to 
those who won to know that they had had a hard fight for it. On some 
former occasions, too, a large proportion of the blooms had been either 
from walls or from houses, but I doubt very much whether there were 
any shown at this Exhibition that were not from the open ground, 
hence it more answered the wishes and expectations of the Society, 
which never intended that it should be a show for Teas and Noisettes 
under glass. Although the general character of the flowers was that 
which I have endeavoured to describe, one of great excellence, there were 
few blooms that stood out pre-eminently grand. There were some fine 
blooms of Comtesse de Nadaillac and Souvenir de Th6r^se Levet in Mr. 
Poster-Melliar’s stand, very bright, though a colour, I think, out of place 
aTuongst the delicate and refined Teas. One of the most remarkable 
Wooma in the Exhibition was one of that fine Rose of old Margottin’s, 
Boule d’Or, shown in Mr. Budd’s stand of Bath, one nearly equally good 
being in Mr. Foster-Melliar’s stand. Marie Van Houtte was exhibited 
in many stands in excellent form, having that beautiful yellowish ground 
with pink on the edge which is really its true character. Mr. Grahame 
of Croydon had also some excellent blooms, and it is pleasant to find 
that both he and Mr. Foster-Melliar, who have done so much to instruct 
rosarians by their writings, have shown that they can carry into 
successful practice theories they have advocated. 
It is hardly necessary to say that in the stands from Colchester in 
the nurserymen’s class there were a number of very superior blooms ; 
indeed, as I stood by the experienced amateurs who judged in this class 
1 was struck by the high number of points given to each stand. Nor 
can I omit a word of praise to the beautiful dozen of Mar6chal Niel 
exhibited in this division. It is a somewhat curious thing that 
although the Society offers very good prizes for a decorative arrange¬ 
ment of Teas and Noisettes in basket, vase, epergne, or indeed anything 
suitable, we never seem to be able to get beyond three competitors. 
The competition is confined to ladies, and the Committee had hoped 
that there would have been a larger number of them to enter the lists. 
The three competitors is this instance were Mrs. Orpen of Colchester, 
Miss Bloxam, and Mrs. Mawley, to whom the prizes were awarded 
in the order named. Mrs. Orpen’s was a delightful arrangement in 
which apricot colour predominated. Miss Bloxam had a very neatly 
arranged basket, the foliage of which mainly consisted of the leaves 
of Rosa rubrifolia, the dark colour of which afforded a good contrast. 
Mrs. Mawley’s arrangement was very pretty, and the Roses in it were 
excellent in quality.—D., Beal. 
CANKER IN FRUIT TREES. 
The following cutting from the “ Revue Horticole ” may be interesting 
to your readers :—“ It is now known that the cause of canker in fruit 
trees is a microscopic fungus named Nectria ditispima, which rapidly 
©xteuds its ravages, but which can be effectively brought under control. 
For this purpose the cankered parts should be cut away and dressed 
with a pruning knife, after whieh a mixture of the bouillie bordelaise 
containing 3 per cent, of sulphate of copper and 6 per cent, of lime 
should be applied to the affected parts with a paint brush. This appli- 
aation may be repeated once or twice in the course of the summer.” 
This, it will be seen, bears out Mr. Abbey’s remarks on page 115 of the 
Journal of Horticulture, February 9th of this year.— One Interested. 
Whatever may be the cause of canker in fruit trees, there certainly is 
a great deal more of it when a severe winter follows a cold wet summer. Is 
it because the sap is frozen and bursts the cells, causing a rupture through 
which the sap comes, forming a gummy substance ? When a dozen trees 
of one sort are planted, and only one is cankered, may not that one be 
rooted deeper, or in some way have more moisture at the root, causing it 
to grow later, and consequently get the sap frozen in it while the others 
escape ? Has anyone noticed whether those varieties most subject to 
canker are naturally later in finishing their growths ? 
On February 16th, 1892, we had 38° of frost here, which killed 
many branches of fruit and other trees ; and as we had mild weather 
previous, which caused the sap to move, may I ask if the cause of death 
would be frozen sap ? These are only thoughts from observations of 
canker after severe winters, and are not proven facts of canker from 
that cause.—B. L. J., Leicester. _ 
The above is such an important matter that in a paper that treats on 
pomology so fully as the Journal of Horticulture no apology is needed 
to introduce the subject. I have not the pleasure of the personal 
acquaintance of Mr. Abbey, but I have reason to think that his theory 
of the cause is the right one, and that the remedy for the cure is 
a good one which was fully detailed by Mr. Abbey in the Journal of 
Horticulture early in the present year. I purchased the necessary 
ingredients at a chemist’s in our nearest market town, and mixed it 
according to the directions given, and applied it to seventy standard 
Apple trees which have been planted, some ten and others fourteen 
years, thirty-four pyramid Pear trees, and twenty-four espalier Apple 
trees, mostly of about twenty years’ growth. 
What caused my anxiety with regard to canker was this. Some of 
the first planted Apple trees (standards) were very healthy, with 
fine heads ; but in the autumn and winter of 1892 I noticed several 
trees badly attacked with canker, notably Cox’s Orange Pippin and 
Warner’s King ; and among the Pears Glou Morgeau and Seckle. 
I applied the remedy, and I am pleased to say that the trees are already 
healthier. Canker seems to be arrested, and the trees are carrying a 
fine crop of fruit. I shall have to prop many of the Apples and Pears, 
and the trees that were dressed with the canker mixture were not nearly 
so much affected with caterpillars as those trees left undressed. We 
have a new orchard containing several hundred trees, and I hope to 
dress the trees in the same manner next year. 
Why I think Mr. Abbey’s theory of fungus being the cause of canker, 
and being propagated by spores carried by the wind, insects, or other 
means of infection, is this. In the early spring of 1891 I purchased 
some new maiden Apple trees, thinking to form them into espaliers. I 
procured them from a good source. Among them was a plant of the 
new Apple Bismarck. They were clean, healthy little trees on the 
Paradise stock. For want of other space I was obliged to plant this 
particular tree of Bismarck near to a tree of Old Hawthornden which 
was affected with canker, and in the autumn of 1892 I noticed one of 
the branches on the small tree of Bismarck was cankered, which I have 
enclosed for your inspection. Now, in this case the soil was good, the 
roots near the surface, and the ground had been specially dressed with 
supposed antidotes to canker and its cause in the soil.— R. Maher, 
T/ie Gardens, Yattendon Coiirt, Nevohury. 
NIGHT-BLOOMING CEREUS. 
Mr. Mark B. F. Major is, I think, mistaken in supposing Cereus 
Macdonaldim to be the plant which was lost a number of years ago in 
his late father’s interesting collection. If he will refer back to the 
Journal for June 12th, 1884, page 464, he will find a paragraph on the 
same flowering at Cromwell House under the care of the late Mr. W. 
Wright. The bloom when expanded measured 14 inches across. On the 
following week, June 19th, page 492, the plant is mentioned again. 
The variety referred to is the result of a cross between C. grandiflorus 
and C. speciosissimus. It was a remarkably fine healthy plant, trailing 
with other night-bloomers over a large wire arch figured in the Journal 
for May 22nd, 1884. I have had the pleasure of seeing it in flower on 
more than one occasion since then. It was raised by Mr. Kenny, 
gardener to Viscount Maynard, Easton Lodge, Dunmow.—G. W. 
Cummins. 
Mr. Major’s very clear description of some varieties of this Cactus 
enables me to determine with more confidence that my free-flowering 
variety is Cereus grandiflorus. Will you once more extend the courtesy 
of your columns to me to ask any grower of this Cereus what is the 
greatest number of blooms he has had on any one evening on one plant? 
Mr. Major says, “ We seldom had more than one, and I think never 
more than two out on the same plant at one time.” This, as far as it 
goes, seems to bear out my idea that nine fully expanded blooms of 
Cereus grandiflorus on one plant on the same evening may be a very 
unusual, as it certainly is a very magnificent display.— Richard J. 
Hilton. 
[It is recorded in the Journal of Horticulture, page 422, May 29th, 
1884, on the authority of Mr. Siddal of Chester, that a large specimen 
of Cereus grandiflorus in a house at Pendyffryn, Wales, has had from 
sixty to eighty flowers open at one time.] 
