December 22, 1892. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
547 
ends some definite rules may be adopted for showing and judging 
hardy flowers to the satisfaction of all concerned. 
I most gladly agree with the Editor that we drop the technical 
terms “ herbaceous ” and “perennial,” and thank him for suggest¬ 
ing the broader term “ hardy border flowers.” We might even go 
^ / t9 P ^ ar ^ er > an( 4 drop the word “ border,” and reduce it to 
“ hardy flowers.” As the Editor observes, it has the merit of 
simplicity, and has a good old-fashioned ring with it. Disposing 
thus of “ herbaceous ” and “ perennial,” we should not be exposed 
to the vexatious “ disputes and wrangles ” that have, unhappily, 
more than once disturbed our peace and destroyed our pleasure at 
an exhibition. The term “ hardy flowers ” would, of course, 
require the proviso respecting annuals and shrubs. 
With regard to the question of hardiness, raised by “ B.” 
(amateur), I have little or nothing to say beyond this—that in my 
somewhat lengthened experience it has scarcely ever seriously 
cropped up. The only flowers that I have had any trouble with 
on that score are Liliums Browni, Harrisi, and auratum ; and 
though they are hardy, and can be successfully grown in the open 
in most parts of England, the judges in each case decided against 
them, and I hold the decided opinion that they were in each case 
grown in pots inside. It was with a remembrance of these 
instances that I asked if flowers grown indoors should be allowed 
to have points over those grown in the open. The best way out 
of the difficulty is, I think, to adopt “ B.’s ” suggestion, and 
exclude hardy plants grown in a house, for though a hungry 
pot-hunting exhibitor (if there be such a person) might stage 
examples grown indoors, he would not be likely to introduce the 
best that could be produced, and they might not often turn the 
verdict in his favour. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, 
I venture to say, the exhibits would be honestly produced out 
of doors. 
The Rev. F. Page-Roberts says he would not allow full points 
for the varieties of one kind in a small collection. Well, I 
candidly confess if the stands were in other particulars equal I, too, 
should be inclined to withhold points, and yet I can see a proba¬ 
bility of extra colour being gained by using two of one kind, that 
might recover the lost “ points.” In any case I should not suggest 
sh owing distinct kinds, and for this reason many of the most 
popular groups of hardy flowers differ in every important particular, 
in form, habit, colour, time of flowering, &c., that equal skill is 
required to creditably stage two varieties of one kind as two of 
dissimilar kinds. We have in Liliums a diversity of form, colour, 
and habit, likewise in Gladioli, Campanulas, Papavers, Irises, 
Spiraeas and Lychnises, and these are only a few examples of the 
many that might be cited. In view of this does it not appear that 
distinct varieties, rather than distinct kinds, would be acceptable to 
the large body of exhibitors ? What objection can there be to 
Delphiniums Minerve (double), Belladonna (single), and nudicaule 
(bulbous) appearing upon one stand ? 
I am glad your correspondent “ Y. B. A. Z,” recognises the 
desirability of restricting in some manner the size of the bunches, 
though I scarcely think the method he suggests likely to afford 
the best results. There are so many beautiful hardy flowers that 
would make no show whatever if the bunches were restricted to 
five stems each. At the same time, I, too, would rather see, say, 
a fine spike of Phlox by itself than the same spike crowded until 
it loses its individuality in a mass. I still think that to stipulate 
the size of the tubes would be the most likely method of bringing 
exhibitors on to a level footing. “ Y. B. A. Z.” must not be 
carried away with the idea that a shilling or two of expense will 
deter any enthusiastic exhibitor from staging his products in the 
most suitable manner. Zinc or tin tubes of sufficient size could be 
purchased in almost any village or town at from Is. to 2s. per 
dozen. There is another method that suggests itself as likely to 
restrict the dimensions of the bunches— i.e., to allow collections of 
a given number of varieties a given space, but would this not in 
many cases tend to crowding, and thus destroy every characteristic 
of the examples staged ? 
I do not know what I may add to the foregoing. I should be 
glad if Mr. J. A. Williams’ suggestion could be acted upon at once 
and a society or committee formed to frame rules and regulations 
for our future guidance. Will Mr. Williams take the initiative ? 
Will he, in the interests of “ hardy flowers,” “ call ” together 
those he mentions in his notes, and have the formation of a society 
discussed ? The Editor, I feel certain, would offer us every 
facility, by reporting meetings and publishing our notes, and 
many lovers of “ hardy flowers ” would most gladly assist once a 
society was formed. 
Meanwhile, may I ask how the following wording for schedules 
would answer ? 
- For twelve bunches of hardy flowers (grown in the open), 
distinct varieties (shrubs and annuals excluded), bunches to 
be staged in tubes or glasses not exceeding 1 inch in diameter.— 
E. R. Shanks. 
[May we suggest that the word “ kinds ” be substituted for 
“ varieties ” in a class for twelve bunches ; and in a class for 
twenty-four that two distinct varieties of a kind be admissible ? 
With the significance of the terms “ kinds ” and “ varieties,” as 
fnlly recognised in flowers as is the case with fruits, as it ought to 
be, misunderstandings would be reduced to a minimum. In a 
class for “ twelve dishes of fruit, distinct varieties,” an exhibitor 
would be within the terms if he staged four distinct varieties of 
Apples, Pears, and Peaches ; and in a class of “ twelve distinct 
varieties of hardy flowers ” th9 terms would similarly admit four 
distinct varieties of Carnations, Delphiniums, and Gladioli (or any 
other flowers). “Kind” is the popular equivalent for “ genu 3 ,” 
and for purposes of simplification species may well count as varieties 
in exhibiting. With the amendment proposed we think our corre¬ 
spondent’s samp'e class would be the best up to date. What do 
others say, including Mr. Shanks ?] 
TILLANDSIA CARINATA. 
A BEAUTIFUL object at present in flower in the stove is this charm¬ 
ing Tillandsia, or, as it is called, Yriesia brachystachys. It was intro¬ 
duced from South Brazil in 1866, and it seems a pity that it is not more 
generally grown. The flowers rise to a height of 5 or 6 inches, are 
borne on slender stems, and are nearly fan-shaped, the upper portion 
being of a pale yellow, and the base deep scarlet, and appearing as if 
they had been varnished. Of their lasting properties one cannot speak 
too highly, for we have them in flower for two or three months—in fact, 
it seems as if the flowers could scarcely fade. Pretty as they are when 
dotted amongst the stove plants, they are equally so for house decoration, 
the colour of the flowers showing up admirably by gaslight. 
As regards its culture it is not at all fastidious as to what compost is 
used. Propagation is easily effected by suckers at nearly any time of 
the year, but I prefer February or March, as then the plants get a 
favourable season of growth. The compost we use is composed of three 
parts good fibry loam, making the remaining part up of old mortar, leaf 
mould, and coarse sand. If the pots are well drained, and as soon as the 
plants get established, they will stand sunshine, heat, and moisture with 
impunity, and during the summer there need be no fear of syringing the 
plants. In the winter time they can be kept much drier, and this is o^e 
important point where a large number of plants are used for decorative 
purposes. It is astonishing what a pretty effect plants in 4 or 5-inch 
pots and carrying four or six flowers have owing to their rich colour¬ 
ing.—R. P. R. 
THE TITS AND THEIR HABITS. 
Although, unfortunately, I have not the Journal of Horticulture, 
of the 1st inst. to refer to in reply to correspondents individually, who 
kindly replied to my inquiries respecting the reference made to blue tits 
and the.r bud-destroying and bee-killing tendencies, I must thank 
them for their courtesy in stating their views, none the less because we 
do not all agree, and it appears are not likely to. I was pleased to learn 
from Mr. Harrison Weir that the blue tit feeds on Thistle seeds. I have 
very frequently seen the marsh tit busy on Thistles, scattering the 
feathery down to the autumn winds, but cannot call to mind any 
instance of noticing either of the other species. 
The question arises in my mind, Do birds vary in their habits in 
different localities ? No one, I imagine, has a better chance to watch 
them than I have, as I encourage them to build and roost in the most 
unnatural and grotesque positions imaginable for the amusement and 
instruction of the young friends who come to see the birds and their 
nests at “ The Wren’s Nest” in summer ; and at evening parties in the 
winter I have frequently shown Master Tommy enjoying a nighi’s 
lodgings in an old boot, a tin teapot, a Tomato tin, or other amusing 
situation. They have their faults in pecking fruits, and it is very 
annoying sometimes to find the best specimens spoiled for keeping, but 
they are generally fit for use, and if too many are injured for present 
requirements Apples might be evaporated, and Pears bottled, as recently 
explained in the Journal (page 481), so that the actual waste is not 
worth naming. 
Parus major is very destructive to Peas in the pod, and I have no 
hesitation in saying that I have felt obliged to trap or shoot many in this 
respect, as also sparrows, hawfinches, and jays, or I should have had 
none left for table. Parus major, commonly known locally as “ Tom 
Collier,” is also particularly fond of bees, but I have never been able to 
discover one killing my bees. I have watched them picking up the 
cramped, practically dead bees from the snow and from the cold ground, 
carry them off to a tree or to a clod, place them under their feet, and 
pull the bees asunder and take out some small portion from the 
abdomen, and discard all else ; but the “ blue tit,” Parus minor, the 
species referred to, I have never seen once attempt to molest my bees. 
A little incident may be worth recording respecting a disputed point 
on their fruit-bud destroying propensity. I was at Evesham some years 
ago at a conference of fruit growers, when the same question arose, 1 
contending they were taking pests from the buds, and others that they 
were attacking the buds for food. Of course no decision could be 
arrived at, and mere contradiction was useless to prove the point 
AVhen at home I concluded to watch my opportunity and shoot one or 
