424 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
May SI, 13?4. 
carried about 800 blooms. On that occasion it was awarded a first- 
class certificate and a silver medal, but this year, according to a 
contemporary, “ the Orchid Committee unanimously recommended 
that a gold medal should be awarded for such progressive good 
culture.” Whether this statement is correct I am not prepared to 
say, but no record of it appears in the printed official list of awards. 
Was it inadvertently omitted ? On referring to the list whilst 
writing this paragraph I find no mention of an award being made 
for Baron Schroder’s beautiful collection, other than certificates 
and awards of merit for individual plants. 
• With reference to the collection brought by Messrs. F. Sander 
and Co., of course no one could be disappointed. Like the other 
groups this one made a beautiful effect, and comprised numerous 
choice kinds. Apart from such novelties as the white and green 
Cypripedium callosum Sanderae, the new hybrid Phaius Owenianus, 
both of which were exhibited for the first time, there were others 
that attracted attention. Among these must be placed the superb 
specimen of Oncidium ampliatum majus that stood out like a beacon. 
This plant was of huge proportions, and bore, it is said, upwards of 
5000 blooms. The flowers were, considering the large number, of 
a good size and rich in colour. From the same source came 
Cattleya Mossise Imperialis, one of the gracdest forms in cultiva¬ 
tion, and worthy of the first-class certificate awarded for it. The 
lip of this bloom was very large and richly coloured, being about 
2 inches broad, and bright purplish crimson. Laelio-Cattleya 
Aylingi shown by the St. Albans firm was also admired, the same 
applying to Cattleya Mendeli picta, a charming form with fine 
sepals, petals, and lip. 
A visitor to the Exhibition called my attention to the group of 
Orchids sent by A. H. Smee, Esq., The Grange, Wallington. If 
less imposing than some of the larger collections this contribution 
was very effective, and credit is due to Mr. G. W. Cummins, under 
whose supervision the plants were grown and staged. The many 
choice forms of Cattleya Mossise and Mendeli which Mr. Smee 
possesses were here brought to the fore, and arranged with other 
Orchids made a charming display. C. Mossise Venus, with its 
large flowers, each characterised by a richly coloured lip and 
throat, created quite a sensation amongst a small group of sightseers 
who were at one time crowded round this collection. The 
beautiful C. Mossise, Smee’s variety, was also greatly admired, the 
flowers being exceedingly handsome. A similar remark might be 
applied to C. Mendeli, Alfred Smee, as well as to others not 
necessary to enumerate here. It may be interesting to repeat 
what has been recorded in these pages that the majority of 
Mr. Smee’s cool Orchids are placed on trellises over running water 
outdoors during the summer. In such positions Masdevallias, 
Odontoglossums and numerous others of a similar nature flourish 
amazingly. _ 
Before closing these erratic notes I would like to suggest that 
a change in the arrangement of the exhibits be made at the Temple 
Show next year. If the authorities could see their way to accom¬ 
plish this their efforts would undoubtedly be appreciated by the 
numerous visitors. When one finds certain groups in precisely the 
same places year after year matters commence to grow monotonous, 
and this state of affairs it is advisable to avoid in such a popular 
Exhibition as that now held annually in the Temple Gardens. 
With very few exceptions the Orchid exhibitors this year occupied 
precisely tbe same sites as they did in 1893. Is it not possible to 
also vary the method of staging ? Circular or semi-circular groups 
tastefully arranged would be much more effective than long rows 
of crowded collections on tables. Notwithstanding these defects 
the Temple Orchids, I may repeat, made “ a grand display.”— 
Si’ECIALIST. 
THE NUTRITION OF ROOTS. 
It would take an abler pen than mine to explain or define all 
the physiological facts bearing upon this subject, such I do not 
attempt. Dr. Maxwell Masters, F.R.S., in his “ Life History of 
Plants,” says “ That the root proper is an organ of absorption, 
feeding roots, as most gardeners appropriately term them, and that 
the essential office of a root is to take up from the soil, or air, or 
water in which it is growing, sufficient liquid to supply the require¬ 
ments of the plant, to effect the necessary solution of inert or 
insoluble matter, and provide for the loss occasioned by evapora¬ 
tion. Solid matters, however fine, cannot be absorbed by the 
root. What then is absorbed ? The answer to this question is 
water. But how does the water become transferred from the soil 
into the root ? That it does so is beyond question ; it is apparent 
CO everyone, and everyone acts on the belief. When it comes to 
the question how the transfer is effected, then common observation 
fails to supply an answer, and we must avail ourselves of the aid of 
the scientist. From him we learn by what simple, yet none the 
less wondrous, means the matter is accomplished. The water 
having an affinity for the cell - membrane, wets it, soaks its 
constituent particles, elbows them out of the way, if the metaphor 
may be allowed, and so makes its way through and between them 
till it gains the interior of the cell, and there diffuses itself amid 
the denser particles of the fluids within. Water, then, is essential 
to plants, and to secure an adequate supply of it is the main office 
of the root.” 
That cut flowers and foliage when placed in water absorb 
fluid is indisputable, but the process of absorption by the roots, 
and that of detached portions of a plant other than the root, is 
altogether different, according to the statement of Dr. Masters. 
The former is carried out by the process of capillarity, hence it is 
always better to detach portions of a plant with a sharp knife it 
they are to be placed in water, so that the end of the stem may 
not be ragged, otherwise the process would be interrupted. 
The remarks by “ A. D.” (page 409) on top-dressing is rather 
a hard nut for the botanist to crack. If the vapour theory is 
right, then those of us are wrong who believe in putting manure 
over and not under the roots of our fruit trees, and the propriety 
of most things in this world are gauged by results. I should 
certainly like to hear the “ theory ” expounded. The idea, as I 
read it, is certainly new to me, but I am always willing to learn. 
—Hedley Warren. 
“A. D.’s” comments (page 408) on “ W. R. Raillem’s ” absorption 
by vapour theory are mainly sound argument, yet two of his points 
are misleading. He assumes that parasitical and epiphytal roots 
do chiefly feed on aerial moisture ; to include parasitical plant roots 
under this head is a mistake. It is well known that they obtain 
their food (except the carbon) directly from the “host” plant. 
Again, the term spongiole is now a misnomer, and the theory of 
absorption by spongioles is definitely exploded. The so-called 
spongioles are the cellular structure of the root cap, which has an 
entirely different function to the absorption of food, viz , the 
protection from injury of the tender growing point of the root. 
The food enters the plant through the extremely delicate root 
hairs, situated immediately behind the root cap. These root 
hairs are in fact vital plant cells containing active protoplasm, 
having a very thin membranous covering of cellulose. 
The functional activity of the protoplasmic cell contents 
produces an acid sap which keeps the membranous covering in a 
saturated condition, with the result that the root hairs coming in 
contact with the insoluble plant food it is by chemical action of the 
acid rendered soluble. At this stage the physical law of osmosis is 
set up, so that either Mr. Raillem has failed to grasp the exact 
process or his botanical authority is at fault, and would stand a 
poor chance before the South Kensington science examiners when 
he describes the process as “ mechanical decomposition.” 
The question of plant food and how it is assimilated is too vast 
a subject to be gone into through a short note like the present one ; 
but if “ D. B.” (page 410) had studied the comprehensive articles 
which have appeared from time to time in the Journal of Horti¬ 
culture he would be able to distinguish between tbe organic and 
inorganic food of plants, and would see the inappropriateness of 
talking about the roots of his Lobelias devouring the small bones 
which he had placed at the bottom of the pots.—T. G. W. 
It appears to me to be absolutely impossible that plants could 
live and thrive on vapour. Vapour will not hold the slightest im¬ 
purity. If it did, how could distilled water— i.e., water chemically 
pure, be obtained ? Let the experiment be tried. Take a bucket 
of particularly strong liquid manure, stand it in the sun, and place 
a sheet of glass over it. In due time water will be condensed on 
the inner surface of the glass, but it will be pure water from 
Nature’s own distillery, and perfectly free from plant food of any 
kind.— D. Gilmour. 
THE TEMPLE SHOW. 
Whilst the grand Exhibition held on the Thames Embankment 
last week showed in a marked degree the wealth of plants, especially 
of flowering material, that can be found in this country for the 
making of a great Show, it also indicated the comparative incapacity 
of English people to furnish what is to be regarded as a truly 
artistic and picturesque display. I say comparative, because as 
compared with the very charming exhibitions furnished so often 
on the Continent, ours do seem—indeed, are—stiff and formal ; 
but whilst oar Continental friends can accomplish so much artis¬ 
tic illy, it is to be granted that in their employment of the 
material sent by various exhibitors they have a free hand, such as 
