570 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ December 29, 1887. 
in the case of the Buttercup the colour would come from the Astoria. 
But the constitution of the Buttercup is entirely different from that of 
the old Astoria, the latter beiDg rather a weak grower, and it is difficult 
to tell whence the constitution of the Buttercup came. We are now 
striving to get a good rose colour with Grace Wilder as the male parent, 
and the Edwardsii as the female parent. Some little time will have to 
elapse before the result of this effort is developed. We have a very 
good orange colour, which was produced by fertilising the Buttercup 
with the Century, the result being a very bright or deep orange. I 
might add a word in regard to the growing of the seed, or producing it 
after the fertilisation. It is this : About two days after the flower has 
been fertilised, if a union has been formed, the petals being to curl. 
We then cut the petals off to the top of the calyx. That is necessary, 
as otherwise the seed will be likely to mould, as we generally grow the 
seed in the greenhouse altogether in the spring months. We find Feb¬ 
ruary the better time for fertilising the Carnation. As soon as the 
seed has become ripe we plant it at once before it becomes dry. I have 
known Carnation seed to come up and develope in three days. It is 
necessary to be very careful of the little seedlings after they have 
developed their second leaf, else they will damp off at the top of the 
ground. We then pot th°m in small pots, grow them for about a 
month, and set them out in the open ground. 
Mr. W. Hughes, of Hillsdale, Mich., inquired as to the modus 
operandi of the crossing of the male and female plants. 
Mr. John Thorpe of Queens, N.Y. (being deputed by the Chair to 
reply), said : All seedlings are the result of sexual intercourse, as you 
know ; and unless the conditions of the female plant are such as to 
enable it to receive the pollen from the male, you will not have any 
seed. The mechanical application is simply the transferring of the 
pollen of the male to the stigma of the female plant. It is one of those 
things which it is difficult to describe, but which may be readily under¬ 
stood. 
Hon. C. C. Cole of Des Moines, Iowa.—I did not understand Mr. 
Bennett’s statement of how the fertilisation on the petals by insects 
could be prevented. He said it was easily done, and stated the process 
of preventing it, but I did not understand his statement, 
Mr. Henry Bennett of England.—Perhaps I had better say a word 
or two further on the point with regard to the prevention of insect 
interference. I really took my ideas from Sir John Lubbock and 
Charles Darwin. They both say that the colours of the petals of 
flowers constitute the attraction for insects which are bent on extracting 
the farina or honey from flowers. After operating on the flowers by 
taking the petals away, you need have no fear of any interference from 
the insect kingdom. That is the result that I have found. Three have 
been many experiments tried by Sir John Lubbock with bees on 
coloured paper. The bees are more attracted by the colours than by 
the honey or anything you put on the flowers. So that if you take the 
colours away you remove the attraction. I, myself, have done this; 
and my whole experience has proved the efficacy of the remedy. I have 
never detected the insect fertilisation on a flower on which I have 
operated, and I do not believe it will be detected in any case after such 
an operation. 
Mr. L. B. Pierce of Talmage, 0.—Will the seed mature just as 
well ? 
Mr. Bennett.—Yes ; it will. Most flowers are bi-sexual, and these 
are more difficult to treat than those which are of either sex. If 
you want variations the way is to take out the bearing organs before 
they burst. If you get seed from that part of the flower after that, you 
are certain to have a new variety, whether it is interfered with 
manually or by the insect kingdom. In view of the great demand that 
exists for distinct varieties, it is almost impossible, in our day, to keep 
pace with the times if we wait for variations in the natural way. 
(Applause.) 
PLANT NAMES. 
[A paper read at a meeting o! the “Chiswick GardeDero' Mutual Improvement Asso¬ 
ciation.” on December 2l6t, 1887. By F. W.Burbidge, F.L.3., M.R.I.A.. Curator Trin, 
Coll. Botanical Gardens, Dublin; formerly of tbe K.H,8. Gardens, Chiawick; and 
also of the Royal Gardens, Ke w.] 
[( Continued from page 545.') 
One may safely say that plant names are well-nigh coveal with 
human speech, and further that the earliest of plant names were in 
reality short descriptions, rather than the terse binominals adopted 
since the days of Linnaeus. Thus the common “paper white” or 
Narcissus papyraceus of to-day, was figured in 1612 in the great 
“ Hortus Eystettensis ” as “ Narcissus orientalis polyanthus minor totus 
albus,” that is to say, “ The Eastern Narcissus, having many flowers on 
a stalk,” these being small in size, and altogether white in colour. I 
take this plant as an example partly because I think I know more of 
Narcissus than of any other flowers, and so feel myself to be on safe 
ground, but I also allude to N. papyraceus because this season, for the 
first time, the bulk dealers and nurserymen are offering as “ new ” a 
large flowered form of the “ Paper White Narcissus ” for forcing pur¬ 
poses, and, singular to relate, this large-flowered kind is also figured by 
Besler, in the aforesaid “Hortus Eystettensis,” under the name of 
“Narcissus orientalis medius totus albus polyanthus,” so that instead 
of this plant being new, it is figured in 1612—that is, four years before 
the death of Shakespeare. But for the beginning of plant names we 
must go back to a much earlier period. The great Indo-Chinese region, 
although rich in legendary traditions, yields us very few ancient records 
of plant names that can be absolutely fixed to the species of to-day, and 
the same is true in a lesser degree of that great centre of learning and 
luxury—the Egypt of four or five thousand years ago. But we do 
know something of the plants cultivated by the Egyptians, such as the 
Onions, Garlic, and Cucumbers for food, and the Nelumbium, the rosy 
and blue Water Lilies for beauty and religious rites and ceremonies, not 
forgetting the Papyrus (Paper Kush), on which as paper perhaps the 
earliest of Egyptian written (as opposed to stamped or incised) records 
were inscribed. Now, in relation to plant names, this Paper Reed or 
Papyrus is very important, since two of the most interesting words in 
our language have derived their origin from the names long ago applied 
to this plant. The word “ paper ” is simply a shortened corruption of 
Papyrus itself, but the Greeks knew the Papyrus of Egypt or its products 
as “ Byblos ” whence we have derived our name “ Bible,” meaning a 
written document (as a papyrus scroll or book), and now almost sacred 
in its usage for that oldest and best of all books, the Scriptures—as bound 
together in one volume. I need scarcely ask you to remember that the 
chronology which has for years been adopted—that makes the world 
only about 6000 years old—is now believed to be very much short of 
the real truth; but, of course, the real distance of time since the 
beginning is now unknown, and perhaps unknowable. It is sacred 
history which informs us of the reviling of Moses (b.c. 1500) by the 
Israelites when they asked him in their wanderings in the desert, “ Who 
shall give us flesh to eat ? We remember the fish which we did eat in 
Egypt freely, the Cucumbers and the Melons, the Leeks, the Onions, 
and the Garlic.” Now Herodotus, the celebrated Greek traveller and 
historian, who lived B.C. 484-406—that is to say, about one thousand 
years later than Moses—corroborates the sacred story and tells us that 
it was Cheops who built the great pyramid in twenty years, for his own 
tomb, with one hundred thousand men, and that it was he who degraded 
the Israelites to servile labour—and Herodotus is also particular to 
inform us that the “ Radishes, Onions, and Garlic ” eaten by the 
builders cost no less a sum than one thousand six hundred talents 
(Greek talent of silver—£243 15s.). 
Perhaps the earliest of written plant names occur in the Hebrew 
version of the Scriptures, the first being, “ And God said, Let the earth 
bring forth grass,” See. (Genesis i., 5, 11). Noah’s having planted a 
vineyard after the flood, and that he drank to excess of its produce, is 
another example, setting aside the well-known Garden of Eden, in which 
the first gardener, Adam, was installed and employed. You will observe 
that even before the fall he was to labour to dress and keep that garden 
even in his innocence and new-found life and joy. The first of all 
plants mentioned in the Bible is the Vine, -but “ Saifron ” (Crocus 
sativus) is mentioned in the “ Song of Solomon ” nearly a thousand 
years before Christ. But the transcribers from the Hebrew into Greek 
and Latin, as also the English translators, have not always agreed as to 
what was really intended by the earlier scribes. We may for example 
take the well-known passage, “ I am the Rose of Sharon, and the Lily of 
the Valleys.” Now, to-day in gardens the “Rose of Sharon” is 
Hypericum calycinum, and the “ Lily of the Valley ” is Convallaria 
majalis ; but it is pretty certain that neither of these plants was 
intended, neither being natives of Palestine. The Hebrew word trans¬ 
lated “Rose” is “ Chabatsteleth,” and the best of etymologists tell us 
that some bulbous plant is evidently by it intended. The Targum has 
“Narcissus,” the Vulgate or Latin version “ flos campi ” (flower of the 
field), while “ Sharon ” also may be translated as field or plain. Now 
amongst bulbous plants “ Crocus,” “ Colchicum,” “ Anemone,” and 
“ Sternbergia,” have been suggested, but Canon Tristram, of Durham, 
and other learned authorities, lean towards some Eastern form of 
Narcissus Tazetta having been the flower intended in the Hebrew 
version. Even Pliny, who was born twenty-three years only after 
Christ, and so was ten years old at the time of the Crucifixion, tells 
us that “ Narcissus is a sort of Lily with a white flower and a 
purple cup,” and in the botanical work of many centuries later we 
find Tulips mentioned under their older title of Lilio-Narcissus. As a 
fact botanical names were in an ever changing state of chaos until the 
days of Rauwolf, and of the great past master Linnaeus, who decreed 
that a plant should possess two names only, a generic or family name, 
say Brown or Smith, and a specific or surname like Tom or Frederick 
William. At the same epoch began that Mede or Persian-like law that 
a plant once named and figured or described, should always retain that 
name unless it had been previously applied to another species. In the 
early days of botany, long after Linnmus even, posts were slow and 
erratic, and other communication between the leading botanists was so 
incomplete, that it often happened that the same species were named 
two or three times over by different people, in different, or even in the 
same country. Hence that array of synonyms which prove confusing to 
the uninitiated. 
We must now retrace our steps a little, and remembering that the 
Hebrew scribes were certainly among the first to mention plants in 
writing, we must also remember that the papyri or paper literature of 
Egypt was in the main destroyed at Alexandria. But there are stone 
carvings in Egypt supposed to be nearly 6000 years old, which repre¬ 
sents plants, and in the museum at Cairo (I believe also at Kew and the 
British Museum) are actual flowers taken from mummies known to be 
at the least 3000 to 4000 years old. 
Herodotus tells us of two kinds of Lotus growing in the Nile—viz., 
the Water Lilies, the Poppy-like heads and fleshy roots of which were 
eaten by the Egyptians, and he also alludes to the Nelumbium, and 
firmly establishes its identity with the Nelumbia of to-day by saying its 
fruit resembles a wasp’s nest. But in the tomb of Phtah-hotep, a high 
