78 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ January 26, 1893. 
answer, near here (Crawley) there are many acres of land that were 
planted by a Mr. Poupard, a nurssrymin then near London. They were 
planted from surplus stock in, or about 1820, and there are a few very old 
men who helped to do it as boys, and among the trees are many Blen¬ 
heim Pippins that were in full bearing “ long, long’’before Mr. Fenn 
cut the grafts he speaks of. I remember the orchards being old forty 
years ago, and have a tree that I grafted about 1855 from a full grown 
fruiting tree growing at another place close by. Here are the trees and 
here are the men who planted them. 
I rather think this work of Kempster must have been an eff jrt of 
his to gain “ fame ; ” else how comes it that well grown standard trees 
from a p’entiful stock in a nursery (surplus and unsaleable) could have 
been planted near here in 1820, as they were ? It seems more reasonable 
to believe that someone brought the first grafts or seeds of the variety 
from Blenheim in Germany at the time or soon after the famous victory 
by the Duke of Marlborough there in 1701, and named it Blenheim in 
commemoration of the event and place from whence it came. This 
would be reasonable, because locomotion was not so rapid then as later 
on, and it would take nearly 100 years for things to get about in those 
days ; it takes some time now to establish a new variety—some years— 
and if the variety was first propagated soon after the famous victory in 
1701, then there would be time for Mr. Poupard to get overstocked at 
about the beginning of this century, as was the case. 
There are many vicissitudes that might occur to give Kempster a 
chance to say he raised the tree. All I can truly say for certainty is 
that these things I have stated are solid facts. These Blenheim trees 
were old before Mr. Fenn cut his grafts at Woodstock.—B. Wells, 
F.E.H.S. 
Stock Variability. 
The note by “A Yorkshireman,” on page 36, in your issue of 
January 12th, commenting on a previous paragraph therein referred to, 
is very interesting, and suggests to my mind a matter I have not noticed 
correspondence on. In all trade lists trees are generally offered worked 
on the Paradise, Doucin, or Crab stocks. Writers to the horticultural 
papers give their experience and the nature of their stocks, soils, and 
sometimes situation and locality, and how best their trees succeed, 
often with the very opposite results—some finding that a variety will 
succeed with them on one stock, while another finds it no good, or later 
and slower in growth and bearing. Now, do not many obtain their trees 
from different sources and worked on free stocks, while they may be 
on stocks raised from pips, or in the case of dwarfing stock, as Paradise, 
raised from seed, which flowers may have been fertilised from neighbour¬ 
ing trees ? Would not this account for many variable results when the 
selected varieties have been grafted or budded on to them f seeing the 
varying influences in trees and plants of different nature by the influence 
of stock and scion often causing sporting, bud variation, and from which 
fixations have been secured. Why, then, should there not be some such 
even hereditary influences in fruit tree stocks in their nature as to soil, 
adaptability, and bearing condition ? There are several kinds of Paradise 
stocks, and 1 have seen imported ones making a miserable existence on 
a stiffish soil, not even growing fit to be worked upon. Several of our 
leading firms have made selections of different stocks with broad leaves, 
and keep them true by layering. Have any authenticated experiments 
been made of selecting similar varieties of pips from fruit grown on 
trees worked on the various known stocks, and with what marked 
results on different soils ? Any information on this point would be 
interesting.—T. W. W. 
CYCLAMENS AND CINERARIAS AT READING. 
In speaking recently of Primula progress in Messrs. Sutton and 
Sons’ Nursery incidental reference was made to the Cyclamens and 
Cinerarias. So fine are the strains of both, and so admirably are the 
plants grown, that they merit more than a passing allusion. Cyclamens 
are grown in thousands, in fact they are almost as great a feature as 
the Primulas, and in general excellence they are certainly not inferior. 
The varieties of the Giant strain are all beautiful selections, uniting free 
blooming with flowers of great size. Giant White, for example, is the 
model of what a Cyclamen should be. Its flowers are of large pro¬ 
portions and considerable substance, while they are of the purest white. 
These qualities are allied with a compact habit and foliage of marked 
beauty. Another splendid variety is that known as Giant Crimson and 
White, it has all the qualities of the other, differing only in the crimson 
base to the large white flowers. Giant Rose, Giant Crimson, and Giant 
Purple vary in colour alone, they have the same qualities of large size 
and perfect habit as the others. 
Perhaps the most remarkable variety for free-blooming qualities is 
Butterfly. It is pure white, and clothes itself with flowers. In habit, 
too, it is unexcelled. Vulcan is the richest in colour, being a fine 
purplish red, and it is so telling in hue as to deserve special attention. 
Quite a new break of colour has been secured in Salmon Queen, which is 
bright salmon pink with mulberry base. It stands out perfectly distinct 
from all the others, and is beautiful under artificial light. It has short, 
broad, substantial petals. The plant is very compact in growth and a 
free bloomer. There can be very little doubt that this variety will 
become popular. It is a pleasure to note the magnificent condition of 
all the plants. They are very finely grown, and in the most robust 
health. 
The Cinerarias are equally noteworthy both for quality and 
culture. So far as vigour and substance of leaf are concerned the 
plants are like healthy field Cabbages, the foliage being broad 
.-tout, and leathery. Many of the plants are 2^ to 3 feet across. 
This in itself would not be enough, but there is high quality in the 
flowers too, the individual blooms being large, substantial, well-rounded, 
and the petals evenly folded. Both the self and the belted flowers are 
superb. Three varieties are grown under name—Sutton’s White, Blue, 
and Red-edged, all being beautiful selections, but there is a very large 
range of colour besides, these being blended and sold as Sutton’s Superb 
Mixed. In vigour of growth and size of truss the plants leave nothing 
to be desired, while the fact that these qualities are united with flowers 
well up to the florists’ standard completes the merit of the strain.— 
A Caller. 
EXPERIMENTS WITH PLANTS IN LARGE AND 
SMALL POTS. 
I HAVE been somewhat interested in noting the behaviour of various 
plants cultivated in pots of different sizes, more especially Carnations 
and Chrysanthemums. I am able to send you a few examples of the 
latter, and I trust you will not make fun of them, accustomed as you 
are to gigantic specimens. The plants are cultivated for general deco¬ 
rative purposes and affording flowers f^r cutting. Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are 
examples of Avalanche from plants grown respectively in 6, 7, and 9-inch 
pots. No. 1 is one of fourteen, the others are members of a somewhat 
larger family. The best blooms I had of this variety were cut at 
Christmas, and these were produced on a plant grown in an 8-inch pot. 
No. 4 is Peter the Great from an 11-inch pot, thirty-six to forty blooms on 
each plant. No. 5 is Source d’Or from a 10-inch pot, two dozen to each 
plant. No. 6 is L’Ebouriff^e, 6-inch pot, eight blooms. No. 7, Guernsey 
Nugget, in a 9-inch pot, thirty-six blooms. No. 8, Mjns. Astorg from 
a 10-inch pot, two dozen blooms. 
The remark I have to make about these is that most varieties are 
unsuitable for cultivating in small pots, though an 8-inch is quite large 
enough for Avalanche. There is a loss both in size and in the number 
of flowers borne when the plants are grown in smaller pots. L’Ebouriff^e, 
Etoile de Lyon, and Mrs. F. Jameson are examples of others which 
succeed better in rather a small pot than in a large one. Mary Anderson 
is very suitable for small pots, a 7-inch pot giving one floriferous plant 
and the blooms of good size ; but in the case of the useful cutting 
varieties, including those of which examples are sent, I find it pays to 
grow them in pots 9, 10, and 11 inches in diameter. The growth is, of 
course, somewhat taller, but a much larger number of equally good 
flowers are secured in much less space and with no more labour. 
However, I think pots 11 inches in diameter are quite large enough, 
and in this size three good young plants can be placed at the time 
of the last potting. Three young plants grown together in 7-inch 
pots make floriferous bushes when transferred to 10-inch pots. 
With regard to Carnations, I have flowered plants in pots of from 
5 to 8 inches in diameter. The first named size is too small. A plant 
does fairly well in a 6-inch pot, and that is all. This year I am 
cultivating a number in 7-inch pots, as this size seems to suit very well. 
Three plants in a large pot succeed much better than if each were 
flowered individually in a pot of a smaller size. The same effects were 
very noticeable in the case of Fuchsias, 5-inch pots giving less desirable 
results with plants of the same age and variety in 7 and even 6-inch 
pots. The time the plants continue ini flower are affected very 
markedly in favour of the plants grown in the larger sized pots. In 
the case of Begonias this feature is also particularly noticeable. With 
Zonal Pelargoniums the improvement^ is most conspicuous in the 
increased size of truss and pip. 
Crotons, Ficus elastica, and Draemnas, as examples of foliage plants, 
do not grow so rapidly or attain the stature in 5-inch that they do in 
6-iach pots. The latter is a very good size, as along with a sufficient 
development of the plants there is no difficulty in utilising them in 
furnishing, either in groups or in small vases.—A Scotchman. 
[Fancy a Scotchman fearing we shall “make fun’’ of his flowers I 
No, we take them seriously. The examples of Avalanche Chrys¬ 
anthemum show the same relative differences in the size of stem, 
foliage, and bloom as the pots do in which the plants were grown. The 
other varieties are fresh and bright, the blooms being large enough for 
decorative purposes. Many persons would be glad to have plenty and 
i to spare of such flowers at this season of the year.] 
i 
THE CLIMATE OF COLORADO. 
The annual meeting of the Royal Meteorological Society was held 
on Wednesday evening, the 18th inst.. Dr. C. Theodore Williams 
(President) in the chair. After the report had been read, and the 
officers and Council for the ensuing year had been elected, the President 
delivered an address on “The High Altitudes of Colorado’and their 
Climates,” which was illustrated by a number of lantern slides. 
Dr. Williams first noticed the geography of the plateaux of these 
regions, culminating step ’oy step in the heights of the Rocky Mountains, 
and described the lofty peaks, the great parks, the rugged and grand 
canons, and the rolling prairie, dividing them into four classes of eleva 
tions between 5000 and 14,500 feet above sea level. He then dwelt on 
the meteorology of each of these divisions, giving the rainfall and 
relative humidity, and accounting for its very small percentage by the 
moisture being condensed on the mountain ranges of the Sierras lying to 
the west of the Rockies ; also noticing the amount of sunshine and of 
