March 8,1894 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
187 
competed with any twelve taken out of the larger classes. Big 
battalions do count for a good deal, but care and attention will often¬ 
times overmatch them. I have known several exhibitors who have 
launched out into larger contests and coveted greater triumphs, but 
who have never shown so well as they did when they had only a few 
hundred plants to deal with and were able to devote more attention to 
individual blooms, the shading and watering being more exact and 
careful than can be the case where a larger number of plants are grown ; 
so that I think on the whole there will be a fair field and no favour, 
—D., Beal. 
GALVANISED WIRE FOR FRUIT TREES. 
In reply to the inquiry of “ D. J. H.” (page 164) I beg to say that 
all trellises made of galvanised wire, and to which it is intended to train 
trees of the Peach, Nectarine, Cherry, Vine, or any other plant, in¬ 
cluding Melons, Tomatoes, and Cucumbers, should be given three or 
four coats of good white or stone-coloured paint before the shoots and 
branches are allowed to come in contact with the wires, otherwise 
injury to the shoots may result therefrom. Early last week I wired one 
of my Peach walls out of doors, putting the wires (galvanised) 6 inches 
apart along the wall, and gave them four coats of stone-coloured paint 
before tying the trees thereto. Thus treated no harm can result from 
the fact of the growths coming in contact with the wires, due allowance 
being made in the ties for the development of the individual shoots and 
branches.—H. W. Ward, 
In reply to “ D. J. H.,” page 164, I have many times seeii Peach and 
Nectarine trees badly injured, and large branches nearly killed by 
coming in contact with galvanised wire, both in heated and unheated 
houses and on the open walls. About ten years ago I had to take 
charge of two large new unheated houses of Peaches and Nectarines 
mixed, which had been planted the previous winter. It was in the 
autumn when I went, and on looking over the trees, which, through 
being planted in new and large borders had grown very rankly, I found 
many of the young branches gumming badly. This could not have 
been caused by frost as it was the summer growth, but through the 
shoots not having room to swell outwards, and so had grown over the 
wires, which, as “ D, J. H.” says had seemed to burn them ; but he does 
not say if they were tied or pressing against the wires. 
I have seen them gum on painted trellises, but not so badly, and 
have always thought there must be something in the galvanised wire, 
especially when new, that was very hurtful to any tree or plant pressing 
against it. It is always a good plan when tying trees at any time of the 
year to allow them ample room to grow ; and when large branches have 
to be tied firmly to keep them in position, to place a shred of cloth 
between the growth and the wire. With the smaller branches, after 
giving the matting or string a twist round the wire, give it another 
double twist before tying, so that the last will be between the branch 
and the wire ; this, if not tied too tightly, will prevent bruising or 
gumming. I should say “ the little balls hanging like drops of frozen 
water ” is the gum or sap from the wounds. 
What it is in or on the galvanised wire that causes the “ burns” I do 
not know, so should be glad if someone could inform me ; but I think 
all such wire when new, if possible, should be painted.—A Single- 
handed Gardener. 
Whether the action of galvanised wire when coming in contact with 
the branches of fruit trees is different under glass, as compared to its effect 
on trees growing against the open wall, I know not. I only remember 
one case of injury occurring through contact, and that was to the 
flower stem of an Amaryllis growing beside the wire in a Cucumber 
house. Where the stem pressed against the wire an injurious mark was 
found ; directly the plant was moved the decay, which had previously 
set in, ceased. All the wires in our fruit houses are painted, but those 
upon the walls outside are not, and I have never been able to trace a 
gummed or decaying branch to the presence of galvanised wire. Especi¬ 
ally are the Peach and Nectarine trees free from injury, therefore I 
cannot think ill effects can accrue from its use, certainly not out of 
doors. It is, however, a safe plan to give the wires inside a coat of 
white paint ; no risk is then run of injury—first to the bark, and after¬ 
wards to the branch itself.—E. M. 
[Galvanised wire varies in character, and it is more liable to injure 
growth in the atmosphere near large towns than in the purer air of 
country districts.] 
EXHIBITING HARDY FLOWERS. 
Mr. Williams’ contribution (page 161) on this subject shows how 
difficult it is to arrive at a satisfactory wording that shall render classes 
for hardy flowers free from all doubt or difficulty. It is satisfactory to find 
that 2-inch tubes are generally acceptable—that is, something that may 
help to ensure uniformity in the dimensions of the bunches shown, as 
no doubt every exhibitor would pretty well fill his tube with stems. If 
in so doing he preferred to crowd them unduly, his bunch would suffer 
in consequence ; that, however, would be his lookout. A wise exhibitor 
would prefer to arrange more thinly, so that each spike or truss of flowers 
be shown to the best advantage. I venture to hold that the proposal to 
allow so many varieties of one kind in classes—such as four in twenty- 
four, six in thirty-six, or eight in forty-eight—are too many, and 
would lead to the introduction of certain fewer showy flowers rather 
than a liberal selection of varied kinds. Even in forty-eight surely 
four bunches of any kind, let the sorts be ever so distinct, is enough 
otherwise we may see Phloxes, Lilies, Sunflowers, Gladioli, and 
Delphiniums dominating all other kinds. Mr. Williams’ suggestion, 
that an exhibitor might overdo varieties to his own humiliation, shows 
that he perceives the suggested scale of varieties of any one kind 
admissible in a class to be rather too liberal. The difficulty that 
“ hardy flowers ” would include Roses and flowering shrubs is not yet 
overcome. Were “ hardy flowers, excluding Roses and shrubs,” 
employed it would do what I should like to see—admit hardy biennials. 
The word “ herbaceous ” rather applies to plants that are not evergreen, 
and therefore strictly read—Pinks and Carnations are excluded. It is 
a term best omitted, especially that bulbs, many of which are not 
perennials, but annuals, are admitted. Hardy border flowers when 
well grown are such beautiful objects that we may well desire to see 
them universally exhibited.—A. D. 
With every desire to support Mr. Williams (page 161) in his efforts, 
I did not respond to his request in the Journal that growers of 
herbaceous plants should send to the office lists of those they considered 
the most suitable for exhibition from the end of June onwards. For 
one thing the margin of time was too wide, and for another the varieties 
of soil and climate make a list suitable for one garden quite unsuitable 
for another. My opinion is quite confirmed by the list Mr. Williams 
has compiled with so much labour, and by the difficulty I felt in 
responding to an application from an esteemed private correspondent 
who desired a similar list for a specified season for his own garden, 
which I had seen. I was glad to furnish this list, but I hope the result 
is more satisfactory to my friend than it was to myself. Your corre¬ 
spondent will, I trust, not think me too critical in the remarks I make 
upon the list given. 
Several very desirable plants are omitted, and in some cases more 
recent varieties, which would undoubtedly count several points, are left 
out. In the first category one might name a considerable number of 
plants, but two or three will suffice by way of example. We have no 
mention of Eryngiura alpinum, Rudbeckia (Echinacea) purpurea, the 
Heleniums, Bocconia cordata, or Platycodon Mariesi. Theu Coreopsis 
lanceolata might be omitted, so as to include the superior variety 
monstrosa. The words within brackets after “ Delphiniums (especially 
Belladonna) ” might be omitted, as several of the newer English and 
French varieties are of superior form and of equally good colour. The 
variety of Heuchera sanguinea named splendens should be substituted 
for the type, and, unless for the “blue” colour, which is sometimes 
useful in giving variety to a stand, Scabiosa caucasica alba might be 
substituted for the type as being of more recent introduction. Then is 
not Lychnis chalcedonica fl.-pl. intended, and not the single form ? 
Unless varieties of Gladiolus gandavensis, G. purpureo-auratus, or G. 
Saundersi are expressly excluded by the schedule, they would give a 
much better effect, and are quite as easily grown as G. Colvillei and The 
Bride. While Potentillas and Delphiniums are included. Phloxes find 
no place. Some of the plants named are also such as are not to be 
recommended for every garden. Thus the variety of Achillea ptarmica 
named The Pearl is not so hardy as the ordinary form. Campanula 
persicifolia alba grandiflora, although certainly finer than the type, is 
not a good grower in many gardens, and C. persicifolia alba fl.-pl. would 
be a good “ stand by ” in addition to it. Gaillardias, too, are not hardy 
enough to recommend to everyone. But one might go on ad infinitum at 
this thankless task, and I should recommend those desirous of exhibiting 
to study the names of the flowers given in the Journal as in the prize 
stands at the various shows, to study the plants themselves, and to keep 
themselves well posted up in the new introductions, which are certain 
to tell in a close competition. 
The suggestion as to limiting the size of stands would certainly be 
convenient for the managers of the shows, but this would not put a 
stop to the errors of judges causing the grievance complained of by one 
correspondent, who often finds “ 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.” The 
second correspondent whose letter is quoted seems to be cjuite satisfied 
on this head. If the judge knows his work it is of very little conse¬ 
quence whether the number of varieties in a stand is limited or not, as 
too many varieties of one flower would certainly tell against the 
exhibit. 
The Editorial note on the meaning of “ hardy flowers ” leads me to 
remark that I do not think we can improve on last year’s proposed 
definition—“Hardy border flowers, shrubs, and annuals excluded.” 
Although we may agree to differ on some of these points, this discussion 
can do no harm, but good, and thanks are due to your correspondent 
for ventilating the subject. Cephalonia alpina in the list on page 152 
is doubtless a printer’s error for Cephalaria alpina.—S. Arnott. 
Yes, Mr. Editor, as you remarked (page 162) in last week’s Journal, 
Roses may be included among the “hardy flowers,” and there are at many 
provincial shows classes in which Roses, Carnations, and Fuchsias are 
admitted ; but surely any fairly intelligent committee, if they wished 
to exclude such flowers, would word their schedule, “ hardy flowers, to 
include only herbaceous and bulbous kinds.”—J. A. W. 
[The fact is that intelligent committees have not done what i 
suggested, and exhibitors have been left to do the best they could 
under the circumstances. Roses have often been seen in stands of 
“ hardy herbaceous plants,” and some stands have been disqualified, but 
not all, according to the idiosyncracies of the judges.] 
