November 5, 1801. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
391 
results with great precision. I have more than once heard Dr. Voelcker 
bear testimony to this, and something more than negative evidence seems 
requisite for sustaining the allegation. In referring to sulphate and 
copper and lime dressings generally, I clearly stated they had in “ some 
cases proved beneficial.” I had seen this in Mr. Chancellor’s experi¬ 
mental plots, and this gentleman kindly promised to send me some 
particulars in due time. The sulphate of iron was not efficacious with 
him, nor was the powder ; and the sulphate of copper was undoubtedly 
the reverse of efficacious with the great bulk of Messrs. Sutton’s varieties. 
To suggest otherwise would be hashing of a most contemptible 
character, for it would amount to a subversion of facts. 
These were apparent enough at Reading without the figures. I 
venture to say that the gentlemen who examined the crops really did 
know the good from the inferior yields when they saw them on the 
ground, and it is a little unfortunate that Mr. Whitehead Cousins was 
not able to attend, and point out to the visitors on the spot the cause of 
the disparity. If it is true, as he says, “ a mistake in the preparation 
or application ” of the mixture “ affected the result,” the records are 
obviously worthless. 
Mr. Whitehead Cousins states he is “ extremely anxious to learn 
where I discovered that there is any particular term for the fungoid 
attack to be the most dangerous,” adding he would like to forward the 
particulars to the U.S. Agricultural Department. The information is 
not wanted for our own Agricultural Department, but the American. 
Why is this ? I should be sorry to presume that either of the Boards 
were in need of particulars on the subject, as it would be a reflection on 
their capacity. Mr. Galloway requires none of my aid in respect to 
fungoid attacks and prevention. He sends me his masterly reports, 
which have many times formed the basis of articles in this Journal. 
This, however, does not answer the question of discovery of the disease 
term. Not myself alone, but numbers of men, who have evidently had 
longer experience in Potato culture than has your correspondent, know 
very well the term of greatest danger, and 1 do not hesitate saying that 
in the absence of this knowledge much time and material must be wasted 
if Bouillie or any other applications come into anything like general use, 
because it or they will often be applied when not in the least required. 
Well-trained and observant gardeners know well the conditions and 
state of growth that predispose to the fungoid attacks on plants, Vines, 
&c., under glass, and can, if they wish, incite, or with proper means 
prevent, those attacks. Potatoes grown in a frame divided in two parts 
have been free from disease in one part, attacked in the other, the 
variety and the soil being identical, but the character of the growth 
made to differ through changed conditions artificially produced. Similar 
conditions provided in a natural way are followed by similar results. 
If Mr. Whitehead Cousins had been working among Potatoes 
from 1845, taking careful notes of observation for more than forty 
years, and making experiments for testing various theories during that 
time in a district in which Potatoes are a staple crop, he would scarcely 
have asked a question of such a rudimentary character. It would be 
difficult to make the subject clear to him on paper, but easy enough to 
point out among growing crops in fields or gardens. He will find it out 
if he continue his experiments, the record of which is interesting, and 
the knowledge so gained will be of great advantage and save “ broth.” 
His dictum that varied conditions should form tbe basis for con¬ 
ducting experiments with exactitude, and tabulating results with 
accuracy is somewhat novel. A number of varieties of Potatoes grown 
in the same soil, same climate, and the same way, is a fair way for com¬ 
parison ; and if in the course of time something is discovered that acts 
beneficially under all circumstances so much the better, but initial 
experiments must be based on as near as possible identical concrete 
conditions, or variations in results would be ascribed to differing causes. 
At Reading they can only be accorrnted for by alleged mistakes. 
Mr. Whitehead Cousins is to be congratulated more on his assiduity 
in the experimental work in which he is engaged than on the 
appropriateness of his references. He ought to have known that “all ” 
writers are not mere hashers up of what they can get of the work of 
others, and if he is a Potato dealer, as I am informed he is, his suggestive 
allusion to “ fancy prices,” would, to say the least, have been as well 
omitted. Prices, high or low, have no bearing on the case. Perhaps he 
knows that crops of Potatoes varying from 10 to 14 tons (Ware) per 
acre have been secured this year without “ broth,” and I think he knows 
one grower at least who has produced them. On the contrary, it is 
probable that disease ravages might have been materially restricted by 
the application of remedies properly applied and repeated as necessary 
at the right time. Yet there can be no doubt whatever that the raising 
of varieties, substantially of a disease-resisting nature, has been of 
enormous value to both growers and consumers. 
In some cases sulphate of copper, both in liquid and powder form, 
has been of distinct service applied to Tomatoes, but in other cases there 
have been practically no results. If its failure is the outcome of 
blunders, let those be sought for and pointed out in the interests of all 
who are interested in the subject. It is easy to make mistakes both in 
working and writing.] 
ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
October 27th. 
Scientific Committee. —D. Morris, Esq., in the chair. Present : 
Dr. Hugo Muller, Professor A. H. Church, Rev. W. Wilks, Dr. F. Oliver, 
Mr. McLachlan, Mr. F. D. Michael, and Dr. Masters. 
Primula Mould. —Mr. Massee reported upon a specimen submitted 
to him for examination from Mr. Wolley Dod. The mould in question 
is Ramularia primulas. It has occurred in various parts of Europe, but 
is believed not to have been previously recorded from Great Britain. 
Water Plant. —The capsules sent by Mr. Barr from Constantinople 
were ascertained to be those of Iris pseudacorus. 
Pear Spot. —Mr. Hinds sent a Pear with irregular depressions on the- 
surface, corresponding to a black patch of decay within, and probably 
of fungus origiD. The condition is familiar to Pear growers in the case 
of certain varieties, but little is known of the inducing causes. It was 
referred to the mycologists at Kew for further examination and report. 
Wallflowers with Clubbed Roots. — Specimens were exhibited in 
which the roots presented a similar appearance to that of “ clubbing ” 
in Cabbages. It was suggested that the condition was due to the 
presence of a Myxomvcetous fungus rather than to insect agency. The 
specimens were accordingly sent to Mr. Lister for report. 
Hunting Spider. —Rev. 0. P. Cambridge reported on a spider received 
from the Royal Botanic Garden, Kew, on more than one occasion, and 
called by Mr. Cambridge Salticus citus, though possibly identical with 
Hasarius Adansoni of Sauvigny. It is a native of Amboina and other 
parts of the tropics. The Kew example is an adult male ; the female is 
stouter and of a dull brown hue. The species is partially naturalised in 
the hothouses at Kew, and is interesting from its agile habits. 
Fog Investigation. —Dr. Francis Oliver announced that he was work¬ 
ing with the Manchester Committee, and to whom a moiety of the 
Government grant had been made over. In or about London six 
stations were established where definite quantities of air were collected 
and analysed. 
Miscellaneous Exhibits. —Dr. Masters showed a cone of Abies Web- 
biana imperfectly branched at an early stage of its existence, so that 
the apex of the cone was two-lobed, and the whole cone more or less 
twisted on its own axis from the check to growth experienced by the- 
union of the two branches. The same gentleman showed specimens of 
Heuchera sp., in which not only were leaf buds formed at the apex of 
tbe leafstalks, but also along the sides of the withered flower stalks* 
An examination of the vascular cords of the leafstalk showed that 
whilst throughout the greater part of their length they were three in 
number, one central and two lateral, at the apex of the stalk they 
formed a perfect ring as in a true stem. 
Notes on Some of the Newer Roses. 
It has been a very bad season for testing or giving a definite opinion 
upon any of the newer Roses, as many of our old established favourites 
failed to show their best characteristics. Even Marie Baumann,, 
generally considered to be one of the most reliable of all H.P.’s, has 
this year grievously failed to reach its usual standard with me, and any 
new Rose which has not come up to our expectations ought, therefore, 
to be allowed at least another season before it is finally condemned. 
Hybrid Perpetuals. 
Augustine Guinoisseau (Guinoisseau, 1889) is fairly spoken of as a 
white La France. It is not quite white, but sufficiently so to prevent 
its giving the La France impression at first view. In this it differs- 
much from the two other new forms of La France—Duchess of Albany 
(W. Paul, 1888) and Duchess of Leeds (Mack, 188S). These are both 
darker than the type, and cannot, I think, be considered improvements 
upon it, for those who grow La France for show know that the lovely 
silvery sparkle of a perfect specimen constitutes its chief charm. One 
would recognise at once the two darker forms as being related to the 
type, but less bright, and Duchess of Leeds is also a weaker grower. 
Augustine Guinoisseau will certainly not supersede the original, as we 
have many nearly white Roses, but only one La France ; in every other 
respect, however, it has the good qualities of the type, and seems well 
worthy of culture. 
Edouard Ilerve (E. Verdier, 1884) is not a new Rose, but I mention 
it here because, though it is well spoken of by those who know it well, it 
will not do at all with me. The eight or ten plants I have grow capitally, 
but the blooms are about as poor “ as they make ’em,” and I will have 
no more of it. 
Germaine Caillot (Pernet, 1887) is a Rose of which I have a high 
opinion. It cannot be called free flowering, as it is a thoroughly dwarf 
grower, but with robust and stout stems. The petals have a lovely sheen 
in fine weather, but it is a hopeless sort in such seasons a,s the past one. 
It does not like being covered over, and will not stand rain, so 1891 had 
to do without it. I quite expect to see it shown finely when (if ever) a 
dry Rose season at last arrives. 
Gloire de Lyonnaise (Guillot, 1884) is a Rose which was going to be 
a yellow H.P. After a year or two we heard a bad account of it, and 
when I had' two or three plants I put them in an out-of-the-way place, 
with no manure and little care. Here, however, they have made better 
plants, and given finer and better flowers, every year. I have had one or 
two lovely blooms, quite fit for show if they would “ stand,” which they 
