120 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ August 10, 1893. 
Epidendrum PUMILUM. 
A pretty little species allied to E, Endresi, Rchh.f. (apparently 
the nearest ally which has yet appeared, but very different in the 
shape of its leaves and colour of its flowers. It was imported by 
Messrs. F. Sander & Co. of St. Albans, with whom it flowered in 
January, 1890. Early in the present year it was also received for 
determination from Mr. F. W. Moore, Glasnevin Botanic Garden. 
The sepals and petals are light greenish yellow, also the lip, with 
the exception of the orange-yellow callus. The column is very 
pale green below, nearly white above. As in E. Endresi, the sheaths 
of the leaves are covered with small brown warts. 
THE VIOLA. 
This beautiful flower, the culture of which has of late years received 
a remarkable stimulus from the writings of Mr. Dean of Birmingham, 
Mr. Cuthbertson of Rothesay, Mr. McLeod of Chingford, and others, 
may perhaps be accounted by many of my readers, who do not know it* 
value, a minor consideration when compared with other and more 
ambitious flowers, and yet it is possible that the Viola may have 
attributes of the greatest importance which they do not possess. It has 
not the glowing splendour of the imperial Lily or the queenly Rose, yet 
in its own exquisite department of Nature it reigns supreme. The 
period during which it graces our gardens is considerably longer than 
that which is glorified by any other flower. It blooms upon the grave 
of the Snowdrop and Ifepatica ; it is a charming contemporary of the 
vernal Daffodil ; it sees the Aquilegia, after a brief yet delightful term 
of beauty, consigned to decay ; it is not unnoticed in its unobtrusive 
sweetness, when the Musk Carnations break and swell. Of all of these 
floral magnates it is the lowly companion, and it survives them all. 
I hope my enthusiasm has not carried me away, but in the special 
direction of durability can as much be asserted of any other flower ? 
Hybrid Perpetuals and Tea-scented Roses have two seasons, but each of 
these is sufficiently short in duration, and on the wffiole I greatly com¬ 
miserate those writers who can write only on the Rose, that most 
evanescent of flowers. I have Roses such as the Reynolds Hole, which, 
though immensely eulogised by rosarians, can stand effectually neither 
sunlight nor rain. The former, if ordinarily powerful, annihilates their 
complexion ; after a single shower of the latter, by which the Viola is 
greatly revived, they are found in a condition of putridity—a saddening 
revelation, which during the last extraordinary summer, and especially 
within the last three weeks, has often come to me. The flowers which, 
in my experience, most heroically withstand and survive the elements I 
have indicated are the Sweet Pea, the Aquilegia, the Lily, the Viola, 
and the Tropseolum. I have no desire, while thus emphasising the 
durability of our humbler garden treasures, to under-estimate thereby 
the value of the Rose. It is indeed, when perfect, a work of indescrib¬ 
able beauty, but its glory is like that of the rainbow or the sunset—it is 
marvellously short lived. It was Montgomery, that florist among poets, 
who sang :— 
“ The Rose is but a summer’s reign; 
The Daisy never dies.” 
Almost as much might expressively be said of the Viola, for there are 
few indeed of the “ Daughters of the Year ” to whom its aspect is 
unknown. 
I presume that every successful cultivator of this charming flower 
has his special favourites, and I am free to confess that my own are 
Violetta, a lo'^ly miniature rayless Viola, with the fragrance of the 
sweet-scented^ violet; the Countess of Wharncliffe, which is white satin 
alike to the vision and to the touch, perhaps the most cherished of my 
floral possessions ; Bridesmaid, the White Duchess, H. M. Stanley, the 
Lemon Queen, the Countess of Kintore, and the uniquely complexioned 
Duchess of Fife. I have no desire to dogmatise upon so delicate a 
theme; I know there are no confines to the vast domains of taste, 
that prejudice is often so mysterious in it* origin as to be perfectly 
unaccountable, save upon the principle of the law of variation ; yet of 
this I am assured, that by reason of their faultless form and delicate 
perfume the varieties I have enumerated should be included in every 
collection that is worthy of the name. I have little doubt that such 
veritable gems as Violetta and the Countess of Wharncliffe find favour 
with that veteran midland cultivator Mr. Wm. Dean, who has probably 
done more than any living man to raise the Viola into that eminence of 
popularity which, through his powerful exertions and its own inherent 
virtues, it presently commands, 
I have spoken of its manifold invaluable characteristics ; I leave it 
to the specialists whose names I have recorded to describe its cultivation, 
—David R. Williamson. 
MIGNONETTE. 
In the onward march of flowers towards perfection Mignonette has 
not been forgotten. Many improved forms have been raised, but it 
would be too much to affirm that the ordinary cultivator has given to 
these the justice they deserve. Therefore, before I write a word of 
praise about the improved sorts, I shall draw attention to the negligent 
way in which Mignonette is cultivated. The ordinary growler commences 
wrong in sowing the seed much too thickly. The result is thin stems, 
small foliage, and poor heads of flower, with a short season of blooming. 
Ike tiuth IS this sweet flower yields a return for the slightest amount of 
care devoted to it, consequently it has been culturally greatly neglected. 
I have some growing in a bed of Narcissi the ground being hard through 
want of digging, yet these plants are producing large spikes of bloom. 
Mignonette succeeds well on dry soil. We have a long border which 
is always dry, unless when rain is falling, and Mignonette thrives well 
in this border ; but it revels in a light rich open soil. In this, if given 
room, it grows and spreads with great rapidity. The plants should be at 
least 18 inches asunder, unless in the case of a dwarf sort, such as 
Tom Thumb which may be grown at a foot apart. Another point of 
importance is to see that no seeds are allowed to form and remain on the 
plants. Personally, I have no difficulty in this direction, as the plants 
are cut so hard and so often for their flowers ; but where the flowers 
are not required it is worth while to remove all those spikes which get to 
the seeding stage. 
For many years past we have had a choice of good varieties, and 
that being so, it is as well to grow these. Those I am this year 
growing are Cloth of Gold, Machet, Garraway’s White, Crimson King, 
Tom Thumb, and Queen Victoria. All these are worth growing, a good 
selection being the three first named,—B. 
CANKER IN FRUIT TREES. 
In reply to “ H. P.” (page 105) 1 have the pleasure to say that the 
fungus I intended and referred to as producing scaly canker on Pear 
trees was as stated—Cladosporium dendriticum, Wallr., var. pyrinum. 
Actinonema cratmgi is merely a form of C. dendriticum, which it is not 
usual to refer to when treating generally of the species. Besides, I was 
under the impression that the variety of the species found on Cratmgus, 
especially the leaves of C. Pyracantha, was C, dendriticum orbiculatum. 
It is so given by the Rev. M. J. Berkeley in his “Outlines of British 
Fungology,” and differs from the species as found on Apple trees, also 
from that found on Pear trees. 
Dothiora pyrenophora, Fr., belongs, as “ H. P.” is no doubt aware, to 
the order Sphasronemei, and produces another form of canker on twigs 
of Apple and Pear. Another species, D. sphseroides, Fr,, does the same 
on Ash twigs, and of both the fungus causing canker in its most 
malignant form—viz., Nectria ditissima—is not slow to avail itself. 
Cladosporium dendriticum belongs to the order Dematiei, in which 
the threads are free, rarely collected into stipitiform bundles, yet 
corticated and carbonised as also frequently are the spores. These in 
Cladosporium spring from the sides or terminally, and are short at first, 
finally uniseptate. Does “ H. P.” mean to imply that Dothiora pyreno¬ 
phora and Cladosporium dendriticum are synonymous 1 D. pyrenophora 
spores are pedicellate, obovate, and simple. 
Allow me to thank “ H. P.” for his interesting and (to me) instruc¬ 
tive communication, and to say that I have not found Nectria ditissima 
on the roots of Apple trees, but the fungus has been found on those of 
Ash trees, which, however, are often exposed. The worst form of root 
canker (so called) that I have acquaintance with is that produced by 
American blight on Apple trees, and there is an allied species which 
infests the roots of Beech trees, and renders the stems almost white in 
some cases. Can any correspondent give the correct name and history of 
this species ? I have an impression that it attacks the Crab, and if so it 
will attack Apple trees. If it be the same species that infests Crabs, as 
that which is found on Beech tree roots, it would make sad havoc in an 
orchard if once established in the trees. Perhaps “ Entomologist ” will 
enlighten us upon this point. 
In making researches into the diseases of Larch which died off by 
the hundred acres when nearly large enough for pit props, for which 
purpose the Larch was grown, I found a number of fungi on the roots. 
These, however, were mostly stages of Agaricus melleus, namely Rhizo- 
morpha fragilis and R. subcorticalis, the mycelium of which lives 
between the wood and the bark, and this species may occasionally be 
found on Apple-tree roots. The mischief to the Larch had manifestly 
been caused by Peziza Willkommi or calycina, which acts much in the 
same way as Nectria ditissima on Apple trees. Of course, a number of 
fungi will live on dead roots, but I have not found any on the live roots 
which has produced canker. Nectria cinnabarina will grow on almost 
any kind of detached exposed root, preceded by Tubercularia vulgaris, 
but neither occurs on living tissue, and if canker occurs at the roots 
it is generally in consequence of some damage or leaving portions of 
broken or detached roots in planting or root-pruning, 
I am extremely obliged to “ H. P.” for his excellent factor in connection 
with canker:—“ I have often found roots of trees, the top growth of which 
is badly cankered, perfectly free from canker,” That completely settles 
the soil theorists, and Mr. Tendered in particular, whose valued com¬ 
munications have clenched all my arguments, and I am sorry that he 
thinks I hare quoted his letter unfairly. If this is meant to apply to the 
facts, which I certainly did not question, I tender my best apologies. 
But that is not the point, for it was not the facts but the deductions 
Mr, Tendered drew from them that were and are still questioned, and it 
is quite clear Mr. Tendered could have saved immensely by first finding 
out the cause before proceeding to apply remedies. Anything short of 
that is mere quackery. There is nothing like resource, and it is 
remarkable that Mr. Tendered should reserve the fact of his having cut 
all the cankered parts away of some trees. Of this he said nothing in 
his previous letter, and I decline now to entertain it as evidence, for 
keeping back essential facts is fatal to any case. Nevertheless, the 
Laurel hedge is put forward as proof that gum on Laurels arises from the 
soil, yet those on the bank have some dead boughs, or as Mr, Tendered 
puts it, “scarcely a dead bough,” therefore they are not canker 
