July 14, 1892. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
29 
“ others will follow s and then we shall soon get into the same state of 
sameness.” All I have to say is this, keep striking out afresh, and the 
more that is done the more openings will be before us. 
(To be continued.) 
NXH EMUMS 
- 
Chrysanthemum Nomenclature—The John Lambert Test 
Case. 
Perhaps I was not quite so ignorant as might be supposed about 
the Alverstoke case cited by Mr. Lambert. I thought he had better 
bring it out himself, and he has done so at last, evidently with some 
reluctance. I could wish for nothing better than this as a “ test case” 
for determining the distinctness or otherwise of the variety John 
Lambert. 
Here are the facts. Emily Dale Improved and John Lambert were 
staged as distinct varieties by Mr. Agate. The stand was disqualified 
because it contained them. Who were the Judges ? Men, I venture 
to say, at least as competent as Mr. Lambert is, and naturally less 
prejudiced—namely, Mr. C. Orchard and Mr. J. Wills. 
Mr. Agate, like the acute exhibitor he is, took advantage of a 
technical point. The judging, he pointed out, had to be conducted 
according to the N.C.S. catalogue of 1889, which was compiled before 
the supposed “ new ” varieties were sent out. He therefore asked the 
Committee for the prize, and the Judges were requested to award it to 
“ avoid unpleasantness.” The executive were told that they must do 
that on their own responsibility, as they (the Judges) regarded the two 
alleged varieties as identical. 
Mr. Agate writes :—“ I got the prize, but have never staged them 
both since on the same board.” 
Did Mr. Lambert know the whole facts of this solitary case, and 
therefore hesitate to bring it forward ? He has done so, however, and 
burst the bubble effectively, thus aiding me in the only object I had in 
writing—a wish “ to avoid confusion in nomenclature.” 
Mr. Lambert in a former issue asked why I took blooms to Chiswick 
from the plants grown from cuttings which he sent me instead of those 
from my own Golden Queens or Emily Dales. I should have thought 
the reason was obvious—because they were just as good as mine, and I 
wanted the opinions of the best growers and judges on them. These I 
obtained before staging, and they were unanimous against John Lambert 
being admitted as distinct. 
In conclusion, Mr. Editor, I enclose for your inspection a letter 
received from Mr. Agate, and from which I have quoted in the present 
communication.—E. Molyneux. 
[Our correspondent has quoted accurately, and unless Mr. Lambert 
can give references to other cases where the varieties which he claims to 
be distinct have been staged together, and admitted by judges as dis¬ 
similar, this controversy must cease or be postponed till November.] 
LOAM versus TURF. 
Do we not, as gardeners, use the word loam in a wrong manner, I mean 
more particularly as applied to potting soil ? It has struck me that we 
do. What the general body of gardeners mean by it is the turf which 
is cut at various depths and used as the staple article in potting the bulk 
of plants. Now loam, according to the correct definition, is something 
different to this. It is a mixture of sand and clay, styled light or heavy, 
according to the excess of either of these ingredients ; therefore, to be 
correctly called loam, both sand and clay must be present. I hardly 
think they are so sufficiently to justify the term employed in all potting 
soil, at any rate. What we, as gardeners, mean by loam is turf cut 
from a pasture, roadside, or the “ downs,” varying in thickness accord¬ 
ing to the rooting depth of the grass. In the majority, I may almost 
say all, instances sand and clay do not exist in the turf as thus cut for 
potting purposes. It is not possible, because there is simply a mass of 
fibrous matter, particularly in that which is considered the best for the 
purpose. If what I here advance is correct we ought to adopt a new 
name; for instance, decayed turf would be more appropriate and 
accurate than loam. Turf, either decayed or green, constitutes the 
major portion of potting soils for the bulk of plants other than those of 
a hard wooded character, and it varies in quality so much that special 
means have to be employed to lender it fit for meeting the wants of 
the plants for which we use it. Thus it may be of interest to pen a 
few remarks on the subject of preparing soil for potting, although 
reference has been made to it in previous issues of the Journal. 
Turf taken from the downs is generally the least fertile, owing 
mainly to the subsoil being usually chalk, and that so close to the 
surface as to render the soil which overlies it exceedingly poor, and also 
from the fact that such grass land—if it can be properly termed such— 
hardly ever obtains any manure. For fifty years the same downs have 
been covered with grass, which contains a good depth of fibre, but as 
poor as it possibly can be. Turf of this kind is often employed for 
potting purposes, and as it possesses nothing but fibre, how to make it 
more productive is the point I have in view. It is useless to wait until 
employing it for potting before we enrich it, as then there is scare ly 
time enough for the plants to assimilate the food from it which it ought 
to contain. The best method of dealing with turf of this kind is to cut 
it about 1,] inch thick, make it into a stack about three months before 
requiring it for use, and between each layer of turf spread a thin coating 
of cowdung. Failing this, sprinkle finely ground bones, or what is 
perhaps better, pure dissolved bones, not those sold as compound bones. 
In making up the stack give it a gentle slope towards the middle 
to admit of the whole heap being well soaked with liquid manure 
occasionally, which enriches the turf much more than is generally 
supposed. 
Turf which is inclined to be heavy coming from soils inclining t© 
clay should have slightly different treatment. Instead of employing 
cow manure substitute horse droppings, and add also wood ashes, which 
greatly improves heavy soils. Dissolved bones are good for this kind of 
turf, also adding to its fertility considerably. I consider that it is a 
mistake to cut and stack turf, say one year before required for potting. 
Much of that which is considered essential to success—the fibrous part— 
becomes too much decayed to be of any real service before the roots of 
the plants it is intended to benefit have an opportunity to take pos¬ 
session of it thoroughly. In my opinion all the time necessary is that 
which allows for the decay of the grass after being stacked to prevent 
its growth when in the pots or where employed.—E. 
FORTUITOUS AND DEFINITE VARIATION. 
I have never been able to perceive satisfactorily to my own mind 
the distinction between definite and fortuitous variation. For the pur¬ 
poses of this discussion, I will assume that we all mean by definite 
variations those that come in such a regular order as excite no surprise 
to see, while fortuitous variations are those so unusual and unexpected 
that they seem to be influenced by some force less regular in its 
operation. 
In my nearly half a century of studies among living plants, I 
have been brought face to face with what under my definition I 
should consider fortuitous variations. In English literature numerous 
instances are recorded of Nectarines pushing out from the branches of 
Peach trees. There can be no reason for supposing that anything m 
the “conditions of environment” in an English climate could operate 
on one Peach branch more than another ; but could that be granted, 
we find the same event occurring in many parts of the Americas, 
continent, where the conditions are so numerously varying. Purple¬ 
leaved varieties, cut-leaved varieties, entire-leaved forms of cut-leaved 
species, weeping varieties—the numberless forms as distinct as species, 
which we find in nurserymen’s catalogues—spring fortuitously in the 
seed beds of nurserymen, among thousands of plants with the definite 
characters, with no intermediate connecting links, nor under any 
pressure from environment that anyone can conceive. 
And just in the same manner do striking variations suddenly appear 
by bud-variation as by seeds. The curled-leaved Weeping Willow 
suddenly assumed this character on a tree of the ordinary kind ; the Red 
Sweet Potato is also a bud-variation from the ordinary White variety ; 
the double-flowered Tuberose is believed to have originated by bud- 
variation ; most of the many beautiful forms of Bouvardia cultivated 
by florists have had a similar origin. Numbers of popular florists’ 
flowers have been propagated from branches that have been cut from 
plants on which they had taken their sudden and remarkable departure 
from the normal forms. This is especially the case with Roses, a 
number of those in general cultivation having originated in this way- 
These departures are not merely relative to colour ; but habit and 
foliage change as completely as if they were distinct forms raised from 
seed. Some of a dwarf weak habit, like the Tea Rose Devoniensis, will 
send out a branch of great vigour and distinct appearance, which it 
retains so definitely afterward that many thousands are propagated 
annually and sold for cultivation by florists. 
It will be noted that in these cases of striking variation by single 
branches taking a departure from other branches, the origin must be 
from a single cell. And we must look even beyond the cell to the 
original protoplasm, and believe that the special character of all subse¬ 
quent growth is an essential part of its Characteristics. We can associate 
nothing that enters into the conception of fortuity with facts like these. 
Accidental as these sudden and striking variations appear to the popular 
mind, science would seem to look to some definite arrangement of 
organised protoplasm as the only force capable of bringing about the 
results. 
I have thus briefly outlined what I regard as salient facts favouiing 
the theories of both definite and fortuitous variation. To my mind, it 
would be unjust to science to ignore the existence of either one of these 
forces. We have not yet the remotest conception how they operate on 
the protoplasm forming the definite cell. They may eventually be found 
to be but varied manifestations of the same power. But while we are 
arguing on the separate nature of these two forces, it seems to me we 
have to concede considerable power to both, with by far the larger 
influence, at least to my mind, tojdefinite variation. —THOMAS MEEHAN 
State Botanist, Pennsylvania. 
