278 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ September 29, 1892. 
Oncidium INCTJRVUM. 
This beautiful Mexican Orchid was exhibited in good form by- 
Messrs Pitcher & Manda of Hextable on September 6th at the 
Drill Hill. Few Orchids are more easily grown than this, as a cool 
house will suit it the whole year round. The pseudo-bulbs are 
ovate and ribbed, the leaves stiff and bright green. The panicled 
racemes are 2 to 4 feet long, bearing hundreds of small flowers ; 
the sepals and petals are wavy, and banded with white and purple, 
while the roundish lip is pure white. The plants grow freely, and 
should be potted firmly in peat and sphagnum. A well-grown 
plant in a 24-sized pot will bear six to ten racemes, which bend 
gracefully, and greatly enhance the beauty of the Orchid house in 
autumn and winter.—C. K. 
Cypripedium Parisiii. 
Several plants of this interesting Ladies’ Slipper were ex¬ 
hibited at the Drill Hall, Westminster, on September 20th. It is a 
native of Moulmein, aud should be grown in the East Indian house in 
fibrous peat and loam, with a little chopped sphagnum. The plant 
was originally discovered by the Rev. C. Parish in 1859, but ic was 
not until 1868 that living plants were first introduced. Messrs. 
Low & Co., Clapton, have the honour of being the first to import 
it al’ve. The leaves are distichous, leathery, and bright green. 
The flower scapes, which bear from three to six flowers, are slightly 
arched by the weight of the blooms. The dorsal sepal is greenish 
yellow, the lower one smaller, but the same colour. The petals 
are drooping and much twisted, 4 to 5 inches long ; the basal half 
green, the upper half purplish ; the lip deep green, stained with 
purple.—C. K. 
Restrepia dentata. 
A very distinct little species which has flowered in the 
Gla-nevin Botanic Garden on several occasions, and been sent to 
K>-w for determination. It has a very marked peculiarity in the 
presence of a pair of slender, stipule-like teeth on the petals, one on 
either side, about the middle of the lanceolate basal portion, and 
these are decurrent below their free apex. The dorsal sepal and 
petals are semi-transparent white with three purple lines, the 
decurrent teeth of the latter being yellow. The lateral sepals are 
dull yellow, nerved with brownish purple below, and the lip 
brownish purple with the falcate side lobes deep yellow. Mr. 
Moore is unable to state its native country, though in all 
probability it comes from some part of the Andes. — (“ Kew 
Bulletin.”) 
Aspasia Barclayi. 
A small species sent to Ivew for determination by W. L. 
Barclay, Esq., The Briars, Reigate, in July, 1891. It is allied to 
A. Prinoipissa, Rchb. /., and A. psittacina, Rchb. f., though its 
flowers are much smaller and otherwise different. The sepals and 
petals are of a very pale yellowish green with broad transverse 
light olive-green bands, and the lip white with some nearly 
confluent light purple markings in front of and beside the keels, 
and a pair of small yellow markings at the extreme base. In 
addition to the two central keels there are three or four obscure 
radiating ones on either side at the extreme base of the lip. Its 
habitat is not recorded.—(“ Kew Bulletin.”) 
JUDGING- HERBACEOUS FLOWERS. 
As one who has for many years, long before the taste for 
them had b-en so developed as it happily is now, cultivated as 
far an his limited space would allow this most attractive and 
useful class of plants, and who has done his best to encourage this 
taste, and for that reason probably has been called upon to 
adjudicate upon them at many of our shows, the discussion 
originated by my friend the Rev. Lionel Garnett has had a 
peculiar interest for me, and I can give my testimony to the many 
difficulties that surround the subject. As your correspondent has 
appealed for opinions on it, I willingly add my mite to those which 
have already been given. 
And first as to the question, What is an herbaceous plant ? I 
rememh. r the advice given to me by that master of logic, Arch¬ 
bishop Whateley, Avoid definitions. The wisdom of that is shown in 
this v«iy subject, tot I have not seen any definition of them that 
would not exclude some class or other amongst them. Some have 
said that they are plants which die down and come up again in the 
spring, but there are many of our most beautiful plants which 
remain above ground all the year. There are again others who think 
it ought not to inc ude the Lilies or any other bulbous plants but 
while an exact definition might exclude these it would imply, I 
think, a great loss to our stands of herbaceous plants, of which they 
oftentimes form a very striking feature. There are many of our 
plants wnich are only biennials, but which are truly herbaceous, 
though not herbaceous perennials, and it would be a great pity to 
exclude them from the stands. Is there, then, no limit to be 
placed on the plants which are to be set up ? Yes, I think that all 
shrubby or hard wooded plants should be excluded. Hydrangeas or 
shrubby Spireas for example ought not to be admissible; one might 
as soon, I think, put up a bunch of single Roses. 
As to what ought to be shown on a stand it seems to me 
that a few things should be clearly defined. In the first place it 
should be distinctly stated that all plants should be grown in the 
open air. It is not sufficient to say that they are hardy. I 
remember once seeing Lilium auratum shown at Manchester at 
the end of May. Now of course it is hardy; but the bloom 
exhibited must have been from a plant grown under glass, and 
this is not what is meant by a hardy plant. Many plants, too, 
are hardy in one part of England which are not in another, and 
therefore many might be surprised to find what are called hardy 
in a district with which they are unacquainted. I think then 
that it should be distinctly stated that all cut flowers in this class 
must be from the open air. It is different with Alpines. These 
are often grown in pots or pans ; but as they are only shown at a 
few early shows it is unnecessary to say much upon them ; they 
are never shown as cut flowers. 
If I had my way I should always exclude all florists’ flowers 
(as people now call them), from a stand—I mean such flowers 
as Phloxes, Pentstemons, and perhaps Delphiniums—and would 
certainly where a prize is offered for these in a separate class, 
but then I think it ought to be mentioned in the schedule. I 
have seen the same thing frequently done in the case of stove and 
greenhouse plants, from collections of which Fuchsias and other 
plants for which separate classes were provided were excluded. 
Where, however, they are admitted I am of opinion that only one 
bunch of any of them should be put up, and on this bunch it would 
not be necessary that they should all be of one variety ; for that 
would entail the necessity of the exhibitor growing a large number 
of two or three varieties instead of a general collection. Moreover, 
the exhibit itself would- be prettier by the number of varieties 
shown. I have personally a great objection to the Phlox as an 
exhibition flower ; it very soon shows signs of flagging, and, if the 
dav be hot, presents an unlovely appearance. My idea of a perfect 
collection of herbaceous plants would be that of one confined to 
species. However, I fear that this is not likely to find favour at 
present, and therefore I must be content with laying it down as a 
rule that where prizes are given for any flower in the schedule that 
flower should be excluded from the herbaceous stand, and that 
there should be only one bunch of such florists’ flowers as are 
admissible. 
With regard to Lilies, I think the case is entirely different. The 
different groups into which they are now divided present such 
totally different form and colouring that I do not think anv limit 
should be put to them. Take, for example, auratum, Hirrisi, 
dalmaticum, and any of the so-called Tiger Lilies ; the pardalinum 
group, or the commoner forms of tigrinum. What can be more 
different? and how much they enhance the beauty of a stand. 
If I would exclude any—but this i9 simply a personal matter—it 
would be auratum, on account of its very heavy perfume. Where 
many of its grand flowers are shown the place becomes (to me) 
intolerable ; but, of course, this would not entitle it to exclusion. 
I should nut object to see in a stand of twenty-four varieties of 
herbaceous plants as many as half a dozen of Lilies, and then they 
should be as nearly distinct from one another as from any other 
flower in the collection. 
Having thus indicated what I think ought to be and what 
ought not to be included in a stand, I now come to the very 
difficult question of judging them, and what is the determining 
point. Some say effect, and others the quality of the flowers. 
By quality I do not mean rarity, for this, I think, ought not to 
be taken mto account ; but by quality I mean the individual 
excellence of the fl >wers shown. 
As to effect, there are two ways of viewing this ; the production 
of a great mass of flower and its corresponding colour, or an 
arrangement which shows more the character of the plant without 
producing the same blaze of colour. This is one of those questions 
in which the idea in the mind of the judge must have a determining 
effect ; it is so in other things. I have a neighbour who has been 
for many years an exhibitor of coloured Dorkings, and sometimes 
when I have asked him after a show how he got on, he has replied, 
“ Oh ! I knew I had no chance ; old T- was judge, and he 
prefers so-and-so in the birds, and I do not go in for that.” When 
one sees the gorgeous stands of bunches of herbaceous flowers shown 
by Mr. Burrell, there can be no question of their effect, even 
though some would say the bunches are like mops, and probably if 
the collection did not get first prize nine persons out of ten would 
say the judgment was bad ; at the same time there is much more to 
be learned by the cultivator from a collection where the flowers are 
