January 31, 181)5. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
101 
In the list of twelve decorative varieties sent by me to Mr. Molyneux, 
and which appears in the Journal of Horticulture, January 24th, I 
gave it a vote, the only one it appears to have received.— 
J. Doughty, Cranhrook. 
A Critique. 
There is no doubt that the elections of the Chrysanthemum for all 
purposes is a step in the right direction, to enable one to choose what to 
grow out of the number of varieties we now have, especially when plants 
are limited to small numbers. 
If these elections are to be continued it is hoped that it will be possible 
to increase the number of decorative varieties to thirty-six, twelve is not 
sufficient to cover the flowering season, and to divide these into three 
sections, taking Madame Desgrange, James Salter, and Lady Selborne, 
in the first section ; Source d’Or, Mons. Astorg, and Cullingfordi, in 
the second ; Meg Merrilies, Ralph Brocklebank, Grandiflora, and Mrs. 
Cannell in the last. My idea of decorative Chrysanthemums is that 
they should be a decided colour, good constitution, carry their heads 
erect, and be free flowering, whether for furnishing or cut flowers. When 
discussing this subject in a company of gardeners it was generally 
admitted that the incurved and Anemones did not find favour, nothing 
but the Japanese would please the ladies. 
Looking down the list Mrs. G. Bundle is admitted to the charmed 
circle of twelve. Soeur Melanie, Avalanche, and James Salter just miss 
places, three of the best for decorative purposes, while others could be 
mentioned equally as useful. Mrs. C. Harman Payne, Moonlight, Mrs. 
Dixon, Stanstead White, Stanstead Surprise, Barbara, Nonpareil, 
Princess of Teck, Jardin des Plantes, Chevalier Domage, Thorpe, jun., 
Fleur de Marie, Nelly Rainford, the Christines, and several others in 
the lists sent in, are not good decorative varieties. If a certain variety 
is liked there is nothing else to do but to grow it. 
My motive for writing this critique is to point out to those who 
kindly sent in their votes that other varieties might be substituted 
with advantage to persons who are forming collections or in search of 
new sorts.—F. G. 
GREYIA SUTHERLAND!. 
Though this plant has been considered chiefly interesting to botanists 
it is by no means devoid of horticultural merit, for the bright red 
flowers are produced in dense terminal clusters, and have a rich appear¬ 
ance. (See woodcut, fig. 17). In this country specimens, which are 
not very numerous, seldom exceed a few feet in height, but in its native 
habitats, the rocks at Port Natal, it is said to attain the dimensions of 
a small tree, which when in flower has a very brilliant appearance. 
The leaves are somewhat fleshy and crenated at the margin. Some are 
quite smooth, and others densely pubescent, a peculiarity that has been 
repeatedly noted by several observers. It blooms early in the year. 
PEELING AND CLEANING VINES. 
As has been so graphically described by Mr. Taylor, extreme cases of 
insect attacks on Vines require extreme methods of eradication. As all 
Grape growers are aware, both red spider and mealy bug are serious 
pests to deal with in the routine of culture of the Vine, and in obstinate 
cases desperate measures have to be undertaken if the foe is to be 
successfully combated. But to carry out the practice of peeling away 
the bark of Vines year after year as a safeguard against insect attacks 
is, besides being an unnecessary proceeding, not in my opinion likely to 
add either to the general health or longevity of the Vines. 
During the past nine years I have not had a particle of bark removed 
from the Vines under my charge, although during earlier years both red 
spider and thrips were very much in evidence. Of these latter not any 
has been seen for the past seven years, but of red spider we have had a 
little occasionally, according to the season. The hot and dry season of 
1893 brought the worst attack of late years, but last season none was 
seen, in fact I never saw Vines clearer from this pest. 
My practice is to give the rods two thorough washings with warm 
soapy water, following immediately before the bark is dry with another 
washing, this time using a decoction of Gishurst compound. These 
washings cannot be too thorough, in fact the bark should be saturated. 
For this work of washing we use new painters’ brushes. It is of little 
use if red spider has been in evidence to use half worn out brushes, or 
w'orse still those home-made toys of matting so often seen. By using 
brushes in good condition, if there is the “will” behind the brush, the 
wash can be thoroughly worked in, especially about the old spurs. If 
the above practice of washing annually is carried out, whether red 
spider is present or not, I do not think other details of culture being 
carefully carried out that red spider will prove very troublesome. 
Attacks of spider are very often aggravated by faulty ventilation as 
much as anything. I have been in vineries, and could see at a glance 
by the appearance of the foliage that the structure was not properly 
ventilated. On feeling the foliage it has been quite hot, and just in 
the right condition for inviting an attack of spider.—A. Young. 
I THINK I have used the tar mixture as freely as most men have, but 
not with very satisfactory results. However, “ D, R.” (page 55) will 
find the following formula (Austin) quite safe. Take some stiff clay 
and work up with water to the consistency of cream, 4 quarts ; then add 
three-quarters of a pint of coal tar and mix well. Paint the rods alone 
but not the eyes. After careful scraping and the application of the tar 
mixture, on careful examination “ D. R.” may perhaps find on bright 
sunny days the pests taking their walks abroad, and he will be justified 
in resorting to drastic methods of destruction.—W. PoTTS, 
I HAVE read with great interest the various opinions expressed in the 
Journal of Horticulture on the peeling of Vines, and wish to express 
mine on the subject. By what I understand peeling Vines is taking 
off all the bark that can be torn or scraped away, for the purpose of 
facilitating the destruction of insects. The dead tissue formed on 
the stems of Vines and other trees is certainly not without its use. Its 
purpose is to protect them from external injury, and probably also from 
sudden changes of temperature, as the dried tissue is a bad conductor of 
heat. Vines grown under glass may not need protection against injury 
or sudden changes of temperature, and in this case there can be little or 
no detrimental effect to them, although the vital tissues are deprived of 
the natural protection. Yet neither can there be any- direct benefit to 
the Vines from such an unnatural operation, but there may be indirectly 
benefit in their being more easily kept clear of insect pests. 
Mr. Taylor (page 55) attributes his light crop of Grapes in 1894 to 
the scraping of his Vines the previous year. He may be right, but it 
is to be noted that he also tells us that previous to his cleaning the 
Vines many of the leaves were rendered useless, owing to severe havoc 
by red spider. Was not that alone sufficient to cause the crop to be 
lighter this past year than usual ? I am at a loss to understand why 
Vines should have a tendency to flag after being deprived of their dead 
bark, Surelv this has little to do with transpiration and absorption of 
water. The*direct rays of the sun on the stems might to a slight 
extent cause evaporation from them, but is not the loss infinitesimal, 
especially when the stems are painted with clay ?—B. S, 
I CANNOT refrain from saying a few words in the present dis¬ 
cussion, Like other questions, the dressing of Vines has two sides—a 
right and a wrong one. The right one Mr. Craven has evidently 
pursued in his case, but I cannot agree with Mr. Crf.ven when he says 
