54 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ July in, 1883. 
brief time, it is sufficiently cheap to be catalogued in continental trade 
lists, and it will soon appear in those published in this country. 
The plants exhibited at Westminster were certificated, and Messrs. 
Veitch stated that it was a native of Central Asia, whence it appears 
seed was sent to Russia and Germany, and it was received in England 
through Max Leichtlin of Baden. It is a perennial, and said to be 
quite hardy, the plants grown by Messrs. Veitch being the first to flower 
in this country. The flowers are somewhat suggestive of Campanula 
macrostyla, the corolla shallow, 5 or 0 inches across, with seven or eight 
roundish lobes. The colour in the specimens shown was a soft mauve 
with slightly darker veins, but we believe that when described in the 
“ Garten flora ” last year the colour was referred to as “dark blue.” 
Probably it will vary from seed in the same way that other allied plants 
do. The stems are strong, 4 or 5 feet high, with oblong leaves arranged 
in whorls of four or more, and the flowers are borne either singly or in 
terminal racemes. It is unquestionably a noble and handsome plant, 
and as there is little doubt that it will prove as hardy as it is claimed 
to be, it may be expected to become a favourite in gardens. 
ARTIFICIAL MANURES. 
I CAN readily understand Mr. Coombe’s disappointment after reading 
my recent contribution to the above subject. This he has by some 
ingenious means persuaded himself has been brought about by my 
sudden opposition to the use of “ properly proportioned combinations.” 
Now, I consider my opposition to the use of these fancy mixtures, as 
advocated by my too scientific friend, is by no means hidden—on the 
contrary, has been consistent throughout this discussion. Is it not 
possible that the enthusiasm of my opponent has been slightly checked 
by the arguments I have brought forward, and the hard facts that I have 
opposed to his pet theory 1 This view of the case is materially strengthened 
by the cautious way in which he has evaded many of my arguments, 
and, with one exception, he has refrained from replying to any of those 
in my last article. It has suited him better to take a hasty survey of 
the discussion, with the result that his fertile imagination has enabled 
him to conjure up a host of modes, practices, or systems championed by 
me at various stages of this discussion, whereas I have advocated but 
one—that of changing the food supplied to plants, according to the 
various stages of growth that they pass through and the changing 
circumstances by which they are surrounded. As I am by no means 
anxious to evade any portion of the arguments contained in his contri¬ 
butions, but I am rather glad to have so good an opportunity of con¬ 
fronting some of his erratic statements and impracticable theories, I 
think it my duty to take each paragraph as it stands, supply his 
omissions, and endeavour to find out where my opponent discovers the 
subtle distinctions he draws when enumerating the many systems he 
contends I have advocated. 
The first is defined by my enlightened opponent as the “haphazard ” 
one ; the next, the “ semi-artificial system,” taking its name, we are 
told, from the faulty artificial manure being supplemented by natural 
liquid and solid manures. Now, the “ haphazard system ” may be con¬ 
sidered a myth, as I have previously shown that the system of giving 
plants such changes of food as are known to produce good results cannot 
be a haphazard one. The “ semi-artificial system ” is rightly named, as 
it is the practice of giving plants the various changes of food advocated 
throughout, and not put forward after his first criticism, as Mr. Coombe 
asserts. In my original article I advised the use of artificial manures to 
be supplemented by the use of natural liquid manure. I still do so, not 
only as a matter of utility, but of economy also, as it should be the aim 
of all cultivators to turn to account the food contained in soil and in 
the natural manures at their disposal. As to calling up the names of 
successful cultivators to bolster up my cause, I ask Mr. Coombe what 
more effectual bolstering up could be given than by showing that the 
greatest horticultural achievements of modern times have been pro¬ 
duced by the system he vigorously condemns ? Surely he will admit 
that, no matter by what names successful practices are called, they will 
be generally accepted as the correct ones. 
By some philosophical mode of reasoning, hitherto unexplained, my 
opponent next sees the “ fad ” and “ experimental systems ” unfolded. 
Now, if he can see the slightest difference between these two and the 
“ semi-artificial system,” I venture to assert his sagacity is more acute 
than that of the majority of readers. It all amounts to giving plants the 
changes of food I have advocated. But to show Mr. Coombe that he had 
not all the science on his side, I brought to his notice a few facts, which 
showed the system was compatible with theory in its best form, and 
while upholding the great usefulness of scientific knowledge in the 
manufacture and use of manures, showing that these “ nicely propor¬ 
tioned combinations ” are not necessary in practice provided the really 
important elements are present. The exact quantities of these can only 
be determined accurately by analysing all soils used, and that is, I think 
my opponent will admit, quite out of the question at present, if in the 
future sufficient scientific knowledge be acquired, and the means pro¬ 
vided for gardeners to j erform this operation, it would be rather a 
cumbersome and expensive system to reduce to practice, except for 
growing specialities on a large scale, and then comes the question. After 
all this scientific knowledge, would the results produced be as enthusiasts 
fancy ? Would they pay their way t This I am willing to leave an open 
question. 
I am not so much mystified as my adversary seems to imagine about 
the “ chemical compounds ” in themselves, but I am in total darkness as 
to how he would put his vague theories into practice, and I would suggest 
that in some future contribution Mr. Coombe will favour us with more 
definite information on that point. It cannot fail to be both interesting 
and instructive. When contemplating this subject in all its intricate 
bearings, I am led to think of my opponent, during the busy spring 
months, when the numerous occupants of greenhouses and plant stoves 
require potting, compounding his soils according to the p.p.c. system for 
potting the various plants that differ so widely in the elements of which 
they are composed. I can picture him measuring out, in the minutest 
proportions, the various earths, alkalies, acids, and salts, and mixing the 
ingredients into numerous heaps in readiness for the special subjects to 
be dealt with. After this troublesome part of the task is completed I 
venture to assert that the scene of these operations would present a 
spectacle hitherto unknown to the horticultural world. The plants are 
duly potted into this precious compound, and all goes on right for a 
time, but a suspicion gradually dawns upon the mind of my opponent 
that they are not making the progress they should do after so satis¬ 
factory a start on scientific principles ; this puzzles him not a little, as 
he knows that he gave each the proper amount of potash, acids, 
phosphates, and ammoniacal and nitrogenous manures. Not being able 
to analyse the natural ingredients used, he was obliged to resort to the 
haphazard practice of either guessing at the amount of certain necessary 
elements the soils contained without the addition of other natural or 
artificial substances, or add a properly proportioned combination of the 
elements needed for the plants’ support in an artificial state, without 
any regard for the quantities already in the soil. This must, of course, 
throw the combination altogether out of its proper proportion. But 
we will be charitable enough to suppose the disarrangement thus brought 
about was not enough in itself to produce very unsatisfactory effect 
upon the growth of the plants, yet still they do not progress so well as 
they should do. Being possessed of a laudable determination to find out 
some cogent reason why this is so Mr. Coombe has samples of his soils 
analysed, and in many cases he finds them altogether deficient in nitro¬ 
genous manures, although he gave them a properly proportioned quantity 
in the first instance ; but, unfortunately, he had overlooked the fact 
that in giving plants artificial manures in a soluble form he places the 
whole quantity at their disposal, so that they could assimilate an 
unlimited quantity so long as it remained within their reach. Under 
these conditions the development of plant is regulated by the quantity 
of phosphoric acid, potash, &c., taken up daily, and also by the amount 
of warmth, light, and moisture brought to bear upon them. Now the 
case is quite different when the soil contains a sufficient quantity of 
nitrogen in an organic and insoluble form. From this store of nitrogen 
the soil prepares a little nitric acid daily, and regularly feeds the plant 
with a small quantity of soluble nitrogen. 
This accounts for their behaviour under the circumstances above 
given. The soluble nitrogen being rapidly exhausted, and no further supply 
was within reach, hence the slow and unsatisfactory progress of the 
plants. It also shows clearly that the proper course to pursue is to- 
combine certain parts of plant food together, and administer nitro¬ 
genous manures at various stages of their growth, according to the 
changing circumstances of each particular season, and when the sound 
practical judgment and didactic faculty of the cultivator shall show him 
they stand in need of it. And I maintain that by these means the 
highest results are obtainable from the resources at our command. It is 
on these lines that I consider scientific knowledge will lead to future 
advancement rather than aiming at such nicely proportioned combina¬ 
tions. The subject must be treated on broad lines rather than in petty 
adjustments. Pay particular attention to the important elements by 
which the growth of plants are built up until it can be clearly shown 
that these theories are necessary, and also that they can be reduced to a 
practical system, having advantages over those already practised. Now 
my opponent has advanced no argument whatever against my previous 
statement that while certain elements are absorbed by the soil, and only 
given up again in small quantities, while others remain freely moveable, 
and a residue not quickly taken up by the plant would be wasted. This 
in itself is sufficient to show the advantages of supplying manures in the 
way I have advocated. Neither has he challenged the statement that it 
is as yet quite unknown why a given crop sometimes takes up a much 
larger per-centage of soluble substances put into the soil. 
All these interesting facts will well repay the careful consideration of 
Mr. Coombe before he can claim to be acting on lines so superior to those 
that have produced results which as yet scientific knowledge cannot 
surpass. In his enthusiasm he has also overlooked another trifling fact 
which I brought before him when stating in my last article that I failed 
to find a single instance in which he had taken into consideration the 
various stages of growth that plants pass through. This is to be 
regretted, as a study of chemistry, spasmodical or otherwise, shows how 
important the point is. 
Returning to the lime question, my thanks are due to your corre¬ 
spondent for reminding me I have not yet cleared up the point in 
reference to its action on soils in regard to the idea of its causing 
moisture to be retained iri land that it had been applied to with the 
object of renovating its fertility. This is no new idea, but has been 
taken advantage of by cultivators forgrass, and in “ Parke’s Chemistry” 
the following explanation is given :—“ When quicklime is spread upon 
land it destroys its causticity, the organisation of all animal and 
