r 30 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ July 14, 1887. 
of a splendid house of Grapes, the greater part of the bunches of 
which had been completely scorched from this cause alone. Air 
was neglected in a very bright day, and then a sudden rush admitted. 
He aptly said—if the house had been shaded, plenty of moisture 
thrown about on paths, stages, &c., and then only a very little air 
given, when the house began to cool, the mischief would have been 
avoided. As a preventive remedy for all cases, and especially 
applicable to gentlemen who are absent from home during the day, 
and cannot depend thoroughly upon shading, nothing is so effectual 
as never taking the whole of the air away, night or day ; or, if for 
the sake of heat, it is removed at night, to be sure to give air at the 
back of the pit or house early in the morning. The heat of the 
house, from the power of the sun, thus increases gradually ; there 
is no sudden accumulation of scalding vapour, and the strong con¬ 
stitution, from the low temperature at night, enables the plant to 
regale itself in a temperature at mid-day without any shade, which 
would be destructive to one coddled up in a high temperature at 
night, or with air given at breakfast time, after the sun had been 
playing on the glass for hours. 
This early or continuous air-giving, is, therefore, to a great 
extent, a substitute for all the bother and litter of shading. We 
thus, likewise, in most cases, place the plants in the circumstances 
they would realise in their natural climates. This is a matter of 
importance to all who follow gardening in large towns. The night 
and morning air is ever the freest from sooty exhalations. The 
more given then, the less will be required during the day. Instead 
of a difference of some 5° or 10° between the temperature of night 
and day, many of the plants we cultivate, enjoy, in their natural 
wilds, a difference of 30° or 40°. 
I fully acted on this principle when I gardened in London many 
years ago. Even then I could do no great things with Pelargoniums, 
Epacris, &c., without shading from very bright sun, and a very free 
application from the syringe at all times, just saving the bloom as 
much as possible. But I found little difficulty, except my com¬ 
parative ignorance, with any plants requiring heat—such as stove 
plants, Cucumbers, Melons, Pines, Vines, &c. ; and these had 
seldom shading, except during sudden changes from dull to bright 
weather. During early spring, even in bright days, the air was not 
vastly increased, because it brought so much soot with it, but addi¬ 
tional moisture was given to the atmosphere, and air was either left 
on all night, or given early in the morning. After shutting up 
early in an afternoon, I have often given a little air to the tops of 
all my sashes at bedtime, and increased that but little during the 
day, until the atmosphere of summer came. In a vinery, for 
instance, it was no uncommon thing to have a difference of 40° 
between the house at midnight, or an hour or two after, and the 
same house, with a bright sun, in March or April, at noon—the 
temperature ranging from 50° to 55° in the one case, and from 
85° to 95° in the other. The fertility and luxuriance proved the 
treatment to be right. Such a difference taking place suddenly 
would have been ruinous with such a small amount of air and no 
shading : the air at night, or early in the morning, caused the 
temperature to increase gradually. The expanding and assimilating 
powers acted, therefore, in unison. No little money was also saved 
in fuel and shading-cloths. 
These remarks will meet the case of several recent inquiries- 
In most towns of moderate extent any plants may be cultivated in 
summer, unless there are pestiferous fumes emitted from some 
neighbouring manufactory. But in the centre of such Babylons 
as London, or even of Manchester, Glasgow, &c., a vast deal of 
labour in washing, &e., will be requisite to keep during the year 
the denizens of the greenhouse. No one likes to cut away their 
own standing ground, and yet honesty compels me to say, that the 
plants that mostly come under my department of labour cannot be 
maintained in vigorous health, in such circumstances, without a 
great amount of care and labour, and hardly even then. The thick 
smoky fogs in winter, unless great care is taken in watering, will 
fill the stems with watery juices, the precursors of hosts of insects. 
If you open the sashes the plants will get a saline sooty incrustation. 
If you keep them shut, and shade in a bright day, the plants 
become weakly and drawn. Your chief remedies are—thin bunt¬ 
ing, a fine gauze wire over the air apertures, to help to sift out the 
soot, and a free application of the sponge and syringe to the foliage. 
Where this labour is deemed too much, with the exception of 
Pelargoniums, Fuchsias, succulents, and a few others, which remain 
at rest during the winter, it will be the most satisfactory to have 
the place fresh furnished, or partly so, every spring. 
This last mode, however, would lessen the pleasure of having 
plants of one’s own growing. For these there are two classes of 
plants peculiarly applicable. The first of these are hardy plants, 
chiefly of an herbaceous character, and requiring in winter similar 
protection as that afforded to alpines—namely, protection such as 
a covering of snow would render, which is well imitated by thick 
glass cases on the top of a house even, and, in severe weather, the 
benefit of a tarpaulin. For months during the cold season, no further 
care would be necessary than a little air in fine weather, to keep 
the atmosphere sweet, and prevent moulding and damping. If the 
pots are plunged, little of the water-can will be required from 
November to March. After that period more air would have to 
be given, and then, in April and May, the whole lot may be turned 
out of doors, unless there are a few very delicate and rare. T he 
other class would suit those who can afford all the paraphernalia of 
a well-arranged plant stove. 
(To be continued.) 
DESCRIPTIONS OF AURICULAS. 
In our issue of the 9th ult. (page 459) an esteemed correspondent, the 
Rev. F. I). Hoiner, suggested the publication in this Journal of the Rev. 
George Jeans’ vivid and concise descriptions of Auriculas twenty-five 
years ago, and kindly offered to lend the volumes of “ Gossip of the 
Garden ” containing them for the purpose. Other correspondents 
having expressed a similar desire, and Mr. Horner obligingly furnishing 
references to Mr. Jeans’ notes, we find the volumes in which they lie 
entombed in our library, and have pleasure in acting in compliance with 
the desires of old and new growers of the Auricula. 
We print in slightly abridged form Mr. Jeans’ introduction to his 
descriptions as follows :— 
I have a disadvantage as an Auricula grower as compared with the 
Lancashire patrons of the flow'd', that so far as I know 1 stand alone in 
my county as yet, though there are some springing up around me from 
whose collections I may some day glean instruction and pleasure. At 
present I am obliged to swell my list to an inconvenient number, and 
consequently to increase my labour and expense proportionally, in order 
to compare varieties and estimate excellencies. Even now I have above 
100 sorts, from which I cannot discard many ; and several that were here¬ 
tofore weeded or lost must be replaced, as wtll as new ones added. But 
owing to this I find myself gradually acquiring a better knowledge of 
the peculiarities both of the flower generally and of each variety in par¬ 
ticular. No two people probably altogether agree in taste. It is dis¬ 
cernment I am speaking of ; and with reference to that, the disad¬ 
vantage I allude to is of service to me as a means of improvement. I 
have been called to account by several writers, nor can I expect to be 
always right ; but as f have advanced nothing but what has passed 
under my own eye in the actual culture of each variety, and with a 
pretty large assortment too under my care, I am sure that I have made 
no mistake in the facts from which the conclusions were drawn, for 
locality makes a considerable change in many flowers ; but this I 
know that my descriptions were taken from the close observation 
of not one day or two, corrected from time to time as changes took 
place, or as my eye became more familiar with them. And I have com¬ 
menced a series of short descriptions of all I possess, which are at your 
service if you think them worth printing. The form resembles that 
adopted by botanists, to give in order a short account of each point of 
difference whereby the subject differs from other kindred subjects. 
I never had, nor have I elsewhere seen, such a bloom as I had this 
year (1860). And as some sorts that do not commonly rank particularly 
high rose to the first degree of excellence I will subjoin a list, in the 
order of their superiority, of those out of which in each class my selec¬ 
tion for exhibition would have been made. 
GREEN EDGED. 
1, Headly’s Conductor. 
2, Olliver’s Lidy Ann Wilbraham. 
3, Smith’s Lycurgus. 
4, L'ghtbody’s Star of Bethlehem. 
5, Dickson’s Matilda. 
6, Hudson’s Apollo. 
GREY EDGED. 
1, Chapman’s Maria. 
2, Maclean’s Unique. 
3, Wilmer’s Squire Chilman. 
4, Waterhouse’s Conqueror of 
Europe. 
5, Lancashire. 
6, Grime-’ Piivateer. 
7, Lightbody’s Sir C. Napier. 
WHITE EDGED. 
1, Heap’s Smiling Beauty. 
2, Taylor’s Glory. 
3, Taylor’s Favourite. 
4, Taylor’s Incomparable. 
5, Hughes’ Pillar of Beauty. 
0, Popplewell's Conqueror. 
SELFS. 
1, Martin’s Mrs. Sturrock. 
2, Sims’Vulcan. 
3, Spalding’s Blackbird. 
4, Faulkner’s nannibal. 
C, Lightbodv’s Mtteor Flag. 
6, Martin’s Eclipse. 
7, Smith’s Mis. Smith. 
These, as may well be supposed, are not all the sorts that were fit 
for the exhibition table, nor could I at any one time have shown all 
these together as one lot. What I mean is that they were the best of 
the year, and in that order of excellence. Those which stand first re¬ 
spectively in each class were such as to justify a little of our proverbial 
enthusiasm. 
GREEN EDGED. 
Ashton's Prince of Wales .—A moderate second-rate flower. Pip 
slightly undersized, flat, starry ; edge impure, otherwise good ; colour 
chestnut, narrow, angular; paste medium quality, fair breadth, angular; 
eye somewhat full, orange ; anthers even with surface ; fair trusser ; 
foliage abundant, light green, serrated. 
Beetton's Apollo .—A good second-rate flower while it lasts, but both 
in foliage and bloom it is flimsy (mouse-eared) though of good constitu¬ 
tion. Pip circular but angular, flat ; edge pure, vivid grass green ; colour 
