March 1, 1854. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
IGl 
also, not depending on sight alone. Birds may appear to rely more 
upon sight, but many of the insect-eaters show themselves clever 
in detecting caterpillars hidden within rolled-up leaves, and they 
will pull chrysalids out of cocoons in which they are encased. Some 
very showy caterpillars, such as those of the shark moths, do not 
attract birds, nor does the yellow and black species that strips our 
Gooseberries, excepting the cuckoo, which is said to devour them ; 
it has recently been stated the sparrow does, too, but the evidence 
is doubtful. 
Still, the common sparrow is an extensive eater of insects, 
caterpillars amongst them. This is allowed even by its enemies, 
and as bearing upon the protectiveness of mimicry in insects we 
note the fact that most years the bird probably clears off numbers 
of the butterfly caterpillars which damage our Cabbages and allied 
plants. The more troublesome of the two familiar species is 
Pieris Rapae, a feeder not only upon vegetables but various garden 
flowers, and the caterpillar is easily overlooked by anyone not 
an entomologist. Its green and yellow tints are inconspicuous, 
and it reposes with the body pressed against a leaf ; but its 
resemblance to a part of the plant does not prevent a sparrow 
from detecting it, though the bird may find speedier the large 
P. Brassicae, which has the bluish-green skin decorated with 
black. In two groups of small butterflies we have singular 
examples of mimicry. The caterpillars of the hairstreaks much 
resemble woodlice, and those of several blues are like small shells ; 
but these are not seen in gardens, so we have not made sufficient 
observations on them to know whether they escape birds by their 
odd aspect. Passing to the moths, those of the Sphinx tribe have 
taken their former name from the habit they have of reposing 
with the hind segments firmly fixed on a twig and the front seg¬ 
ments raised in the air. Amongst some of the Bombyx tribe, such 
as the puss moth, a like habit prevails. These caterpillars have 
many of them bright colours ; sometimes they are conspicuously 
striped, and I doubt whether their seeming rigidity would deceive 
a hungry bird. One of them, nearly full grown, would furnish a 
good meal. That of the Privet species, common upon our hedges, 
if not for fear of birds, for some reason feeds chiefly at early 
morn and dusk, retiring by day to the interior of the bush. The 
caterpillar of the death’s head, again, hides by day under the 
earth, and a similar mode of concealment is pursued by others of 
the tribe, which suggests that they too are liable to be devoured 
occasionally. But I fancy, as a rule, birds prefer moderate sized 
caterpillars to big ones, and the latter, with very few excep¬ 
tions, are not the cause of harm to garden plants or shrubs, 
their food being elsewhere ; it is the small species that give us 
such trouble. 
Amongst the geometer moths there are a number of the cater¬ 
pillars that closely resemble twigs, not merely in colour, but from 
having bodies angled or adorned by little protuberances. One that 
is a feeder upon Honeysuckle, several fruit trees, and the Elder, is 
the brownish-yellow caterpillar of the swallowtail moth, a very 
abundant species; but it also eats low-growing plants like the 
Forget-me-not, where its twig-like aspect is no protection from 
starlings and other birds that seek insects near or upon the earth. 
The caterpillars of the Thorn moths are often brown and humped, 
which makes them deceptive when at rest, and many geometers are 
fond of raising themselves straight in the air, holding on by the 
last pair of claspers ; even if touched they will remain rigid, which 
suggests that it is a mimetic attitude. Some of them, however, 
have colours which attract the eye, and it seems probable that a 
hungry bird would soon discover they were not inanimate objects. 
But birds, why, we know not, pass by conspicuous caterpillars, 
such as, for example, that of the brindled beauty moth, which 
is purplish-brown, red and yellow, abundant enough about our 
London squares upon the Lime and several other trees, but none 
of the birds appear to notice it, nor do they meddle with the 
showy caterpillar of the mottled umber moth, a dweller upon 
various shrubs. 
In gardens occurs the dull grey caterpillar of the willow beauty 
moth, which closely resembles a fading leaf of Rose or Plum, upon 
which it frequently feeds. The caterpillars of the emeralds are 
green like the moths, their colour closely approaching that of the 
foliage they consume, and some ot the lichen-eating caterpillars 
vary in tintRo correspond, as it is assumed, with the appearance 
of their food. Many grey or brown caterpillars select for their 
day’s repose a place on a tree-trunk or bough, much of their own 
colour, where they draw themselves flat, ascending to the twigs 
after sunset. Amongst the fat-bodied moths that have caterpillars 
destructive to the stems or crowns of herbaceous plants we notice 
in several species a colour of the body which approaches that of 
the food, though the insect may hide by day, descending atnongst 
the roots. On the whole, I do not think that caterpillar mimicry 
or disguise affords them much protection from birds, but they 
often escape by dropping suddenly frow a thread if danger is near. 
What gives undeniable protection to many species is a clothing of 
hairs or spines, which act as a deterrent to most birds. Another 
noticeable fact is that the webs formed by gregarious caterpillars 
answer the purpose of a safeguard. I particularly noticed last 
summer, in gardens swarming with nests of the small ermine moth, 
the numerous birds around did not take any notice of them. Birds 
do not seem to interfere in the usual way with the winter moth 
caterpillars when they have spread their threads on the trees, 
though they hunt them eagerly enough soon after they are 
hatched, while living in the early buds of fruit trees, and open too 
many buds by mistake.— Entomologist. 
EXHIBITING HARDY FLOWERS. 
During the months of December, 1892, and January, 1893, 
there appeared in the pages of the Journal of Horticulture several 
letters on this subject, and when I wrote to certain experts for 
their lists of the best herbaceous perennials for exhibition, I also 
asked for their opinions as to the most effective manner of staging 
the flowers, also as to the “ wording ” or the terms to be laid down 
in the schedules. The question of the size of the tubes was also 
brought forward. There was a general complaint that very many 
stands of these flowers as exhibited at the provincial shows were 
wanting in graceful arrangement, and so crowded or “lumped” 
together that the natural habit of the plant was completely hidden, 
while foliage was not only a minor consideration, but altogether 
disregarded. Again, it was stated by others that if you are to 
exhibit spikes of these flowers showing its natural habit of growth, 
then the general effect of the stand will be bare and thin, and the 
tout ensemble of the staging wanting in colour and massiveness. 
Your correspondents, Mr. S. Arnott, “ Y. B. A. Z.,” and “A. D.” 
advocated 2-inch tubes, as against a 1-inch advocated by another 
correspondent. 
I will gather up briefly the result of my inquiries without 
mentioning any names, but my correspondents are at the “top of 
the tree” among exhibitors of herbaceous perennials. 
One of them writes : “ A schedule ought to be worded against 
size, as I often find immense bunches with poor variety, lacking 
colour and rarity, receiving a higher award than a stand of smaller 
bunches, but having greater variety, colour, and quality. Twelve 
bunches should not be allowed more than 3 feet by 4 feet; thirty- 
six not more than 4 feet by 12 feet. Bulbous plants should be 
admissible.” 
Another writes: “ With bunches of hardy perennials and 
hulbous-rooted plants, distinct, I would allow more than one variety 
of such flowers as Delphiniums and Irises. These are mostly so 
distinct, and a very pale sky-blue Delphinium, for instance, 
gains beauty when contrasted with a deep violet blue one placed at 
a distance in the same stand, and shows people what a fine range 
of colours there is in suchlike classes of plants. As regards the 
size of the bunches, to reduce these down to what a 1-inch tube 
would hold would be to destroy the effect they have in a show 
compared with the massive effect such as our firm stage. We 
spread the flowers out by wedging in moss so that the individual 
blooms stand out well. The largest bunches do not always win, 
for last year at three shows at least we were successful against 
bunches nearly double the size of our owm so far as regards the 
number of flowers. If you reduce the tube to 1 inch nobody would 
care to look at them except, perhaps, the half a dozen enthusiasts. 
Managers of shows must be considered in this matter.” 
There seems to be a general concensus of opinion that the 
schedule might be worded as follows :— 
For 12 bunches, 
2 
„ 18 
H 
., 24 
ty 
4 
„ 3G 
>1 
f> 
„ 48 
8 
iatinct varieties only admissible of any one kind 
Of course, if the exhibitor puts six varieties of Lilies, Del¬ 
phiniums, and Irises in a thirty-six stand, the judges, all otter 
things being equal, would give the higher award to the stand with 
the greater number of kinds. But this is not likely to occur. 
Those who can show thirty-sixes and forty-eights would not spoil 
their stands in this way, but they might improve th;m by having, 
say, two Lilies, two Delphiniuirs, or two Gladioli. 
It appears to me that the chief error to avoid in the wording 
of the schedules is that which confuses “ variety ” with “kind.” 
Ao regards the size of the bunch, taste in arrangement and general 
effect is now so generally cultivated and has so marvellously been 
improved of late years as to have already influenced old-fashioned 
judges, while the younger generation of judges and gardeners, 
having naturally profited by the graceful arrangements of flowers 
