466 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND C011AGE GARDENER. 
[ November 2G, 1885. 
what favoured, as his bunches of Alicante, though very fine, were not well 
coloured. Mr. W. Taylor was again second with the same variety, small 
in bunch, but beautifully finished, and that Mr. Chedzey was third with 
fine bunches of Alicante, which ‘ many ’ seemed to think should have 
been first.” As one of the Judges who made the awards in the fruit 
classes I cannot allow this statement to pass unnoticed, although I would, 
for obvious reasons, prefer not being called upon to justify our decisions. 
Mr. Nash’s bunches were very fine, compact, and even, but slightly 
deficient in colour in the lower part of the individual bunches. On the 
other hand, Mr. Taylor’s bunches were, as stated, smaller—considerably 
smaller—less compact, being gappy, and better coloured, but slightly 
rubbed. Hence their being placed second instead of first, which position 
they would have occupied had the bunches been more compact irrespec¬ 
tive of size, or of the fact of their having been rubbed. In short, the 
point or two which Mr. Taylor’s gained over Mr. Nash’s bunches in colour 
they more than cost in size and symmetrical appearance ; and what Mr. 
Chedzey’s bunches gamed over Mr. Nash’s bunches in size they more than 
lost in their “ dirty ” and somewhat loose appearance, as well as want of 
colour. Yet these are the bunches which your reporter says were “ fine ” 
and should have been first, a position which, curiously enough, he had 
already hinted ought to have been accorded to the second-prize stand. It 
may be interesting to note that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Nash occupied the 
same positions wiih ihe same Grapes at Bristol the following week, the 
awards being made by such noted fruit-growers as Mr. Austin of Witley 
Court, and Mr. Bethel of Ashton Court. 
Now for the “ Pear question.” In reference to the awards in the Pear 
classes your reporter says that the “ Judges followed the •' rather unusual,’ 
course of awarding the prizes to the generally evenest in appearance, all 
being fit for table ; ” adding, “ As a consequence that much the finest 
collection, staged by Mr. Bannister, was passed.” The fact is, the col¬ 
lection referred to consisted of six dishes of six fruits each, the fruits on 
three dishes, including good examples of Pitmaston Duchess, were large, 
while those on the other three, including one of unripe Easter Beurib, 
were considerably less, presenting, I may tay, by way of illustrating the 
effect thus produced, as well as my meaning, the appearance that a stand 
of six Chrysanthemum blooms consisting of three large-flowered varieties 
and three Pompons would produce. Your Chrysanthemum-growing 
leaders know perfectly well that such a stand if placed in competition 
against several other stands of a like number of even-sized blooms of a 
size between the two varieties indicated would, in consequence of the 
want of uniformity in the collection of bloomy be also “ passed,” yet this 
practical standard is what your reporter terms “ the rather unusual course 
to follow ” in connection with ripeness, quality, and finish of exhibits. 
Our awards throughout the fruit classes were qui'e consistent with this 
u standard of excellence ” with which we started. In the collection of six 
varieties of Pear class each fruit in the prize lots was ripe, the fruits being 
even and of good quality, and the collective dishes of fruit uniform in 
point of size. 
In conclusion, I venture to say that if such admittedly clever and 
successful fruit-grower ) and exhibitors, and therefore excellent judges, as 
Messrs. Coleman and Wildsmith had rejudged the two classes in question, or, 
indeed, all the fruit classes at the recent B ith Show, they would not have 
disturbed the awards which were made by my colleague and myself. I 
am extremely sorry to be obliged in defence of my own reputation as a 
fruit-grower and judge to point out in public the defects of any 
gardener’s exhibits. But, on behalf of my coadjutor and myself, I could 
not allow such statement, made with the best intentions no doubt, to pass 
unnoticed. Persmaily, I am always pleased and prepared, if needs be, to 
give a reason for whatever I do, and do not in the least mind being called 
upon t) justify any awaids which I make conjointly with a brother 
gardener. This, however, is not the case here ; it is only an unintentional 
accusation of ‘‘favour” and want of judgment in those who [made their 
awards conscientiously to the most meritorious exhibits.—H. W. Ward, 
'Longford Castle. 
THE PRIMULAS. 
C Continued from page 420.) 
P. Forsteri, Stein. — An interesting hybrid between P. super 
minima X hirsuta, Stein. When apparently old plants were first 
introduced from its native habitat, it appeared nothing more than a 
strong P. minima, but with a little over two years’cultivation the 
leaves have attained four times their original size. In shape and 
toothing the leaves are those of minima, with the addition of hairs, 
which it takes from the other parent. Flowers rose-coloured, hand¬ 
some, and freely produced. Our plants have a western exposure in 
rich leafy soil mixed with limestone ; they are robust and more 
than ordinarily healthy. It flowers in April and May. Native of 
Pad as tor in the G-schnitz Valley, Central Tyrol, where it was found 
by M. Obrist. 
P. Gobelii, Keener , which Professor Kernel- himself considers 
simply P. Auricula X viscosa, while M. Stein in his catalogue of 
cultivated Primulas writes it P. super-Auricula X viscosa. In the 
latter view we concur, as P. Auricula clearly predominates in the 
specimens now before us, which have just been imported from 
their native habitat, and maybe taken as fairly representative of 
the wild type. In reference to the above species Prof. Kerner 
says, “ On account of the close relation between P. daonensis, Leyb.. 
and P. v files a, Jacq., it is quite natural that the hybrids raised 
from these two species should resemble each other very much. 
The same characters which distinguish P. villosa from P. daonensis 
also distinguish P. Gobelii from P. Portae — P. Auricula x daon¬ 
ensis. The leaves of P. daonensis are cuneate, and the abrupt apex 
set with large teeth of equal length, while the leaves of P. villosa 
are spatulate, obovate, their round apex set with teeth, the middle 
one of which is much longer than the rest. This character of the 
leaf of P. villosa is distinctly recognisable in those of P. Gobelii, 
and which seems to be the only real likeness to that parent. It is, 
however, a first-rate garden plant, and the ease with which it may 
be established on the rockery will soon make it a general favourite. 
The flowers are of a brownish violet, not unlike some of the garden' 
Auriculas, handsome and freely produced in early spring. It is 
found growing along with its parents on Steiermark. 
P. glutinosa, Wulf. —A Primrose that taxes the ingenuity of 
most cultivators to flower in a satisfactory manner. It grows fairly 
well and appears quite healthy, but it will often go for two or 
three years without showing a single flower. We grow it in an 
almost perpendicular position between granite and in a soil com¬ 
posed of finely chopped live sphagnum, small pieces of charcoal, 
peat, leaf soil, and plenty of sharp sand. It should be planted so 
as to receive only the morning sun, and during the growing season 
it should be plentifully supplied with water ; indeed too much can 
hardly be given. Care must, however, he taken that the drainage 
is quite free, as it quickly resents stagnant moisture in however 
small a degree. The plant grows about 4 or 6 inches in height. 
The leaves are obovate, glutinous to the touch, and finely serrated 
for about half their length down on both sides, and thickly covered 
with tiny glands. Flowers generally in pairs, almost sessile, with 
bracts much longer than the calyx ; sepals blunt, and “sticky” 
like the leaves. The flowers when fully open are about an inch in 
diameter, deep lilac, often verging to violet. It flowered with us in 
April and May, and is a native of the glacial region of the Austrian 
granitic Alps, where it is found at elevations of 9 to 10,000 feet. 
It is well figured in Reichenbach’s “ Flora Germanica.” 
P. gracilis. Stein. —This is given as a cross between P. cortu- 
soides X Sieboldii, Stein, and which means a cross between P. cor- 
tusoides and P. cortusoides var. amoena, Stein using the name 
Sieboldii, Morr ., as being the older. It is a well-known plant, being 
cultivated in English gardens as P. cortusoides var. intermedia, and 
although differing little from the type it may find a place for 
variety’s sake where slight forms are noticed. 
P. grandis, Trauttr .—For this Stein has coined the new sec¬ 
tional name of Fredinskya in honour of the introducer M. Fredinsky 
of the St. Petersburg Botanic Garden, and he remarks that were 
it not for the similar inflorescence to be seen in P. penduliflora and 
P. Palinuri it could be called a distinct genus, and for the credit 
of Primulas generally it is almost a pity it was not called something 
else. It is a robust grower, indeed even more so than denticulata 
and its forms, the leaves attaining enormous proportions, broadly 
ovate, with an irregularly notched and finely serrated margin. The 
scapes attain a good height, and carry an abundance of flowers, 
rose-coloured and curiously formed, but so small in comparison to 
the strength of the plants as to be disappointing and altogether 
unworthy a place in any collection unless as a botanical curiosity. 
Where grown it is best always to plant it out in the open, as it 
rarely flowers in pots. It flowers with us in May and June. It is 
a native of the western Caucasian Mountains at elevations of from 
6000 to 9500 feet above sea level, and was figured in Regel’s “ Gar- 
tenflora ” a few years ago. 
P. Heydei, Walt. —This belongs to a set of very dwarf creeping 
or stoloniferous Primroses, natives of the Himalayas, and to which 
belong P. reptans, Hk.fl. ; P. sapphirina, Hk. fl. and Th. ; P. sol- 
danelloides, W atl. ; P. muscoides, 11 k. fl., and others, all of which 
are of the same dwarf nature, only two or three being in cultivation 
at the present time. P. Heydei is a very distinct Primrose, form¬ 
ing little dense tufts, from which short leafy stoloniferous branches 
are emitted, and which soon take root, forming plants all round the 
parent, much as is shown in Saxifraga flagellaris and in Semper- 
vivums. The leaves are small, sparingly mealy beneath, lanceolate 
in outline, abruptly and coarsely toothed. Flower scapes stoutish, 
carrying from five to over a dozen pale lilac flowers, each about 
half an inch in diameter, collected in a loose capitate head, also 
mealy, as are also the bracts at the base. In winter the leaves die 
down, leaving little buds, which must not be disturbed during their 
resting season, a little loose sand being a good protection. It seems 
most partial to soft sandstone, to which the tiny roots cling with 
a remarkable tenacity. It flowers about June. Native habitat 
Western Thibet, at altitudes of from 12,000 to 14,000 feet above 
sea level, also in Taglang. It requires a shady position. , . 
P. Huteri, Kerner, = P. Floerkeana X glutinosa,. qnd also 
from P. salisburgensis X glutinosa, Kerner. —A very interesting 
hybrid, and differing but little from P. glutinosa. A few' ot' fhe 
