520 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND GOllAGE GARDENER. 
[ December 10, 1885. 
Here at first they may be backward, but in the end, and especially during 
tot weather, they swell up splendidly. When once the grubs have found 
their way into a few rows it is very little use in trying to get them exter¬ 
minated. They bore up through the plants from the bottom, and any¬ 
thing which would kill them there would also kill the plants. Prevention 
in this case is better than cure, and now is the time to deal with preventive 
measures. 
The Onion ground for next year should be cleared at once, dressed, and 
dug over. The best of all dressings we can use is gas lime. We spread 
about an ordinary wheelbarrow load to every 20 square yards, and then 
dig it in, and after this the soil will remain quite free from all insects for 
the next twelve months. When gas lime cannot be procured soot should 
be substituted at the same rate, and, failing this, a sprinkling of salt 
will answer the purpose very well. The manure which is used before 
sowing time is also freely mixed with soot or salt, and when these inex¬ 
pensive precautions are taken before sowing there need be no anxiety 
about the crop. If all the Onions in cultivation were grown together 
and classified by some impartial hand I do not think the numbers of 
distinct sorts would exceed half a dozen. The old forms, such as James’s 
Keeping and Bedford Champion are quite distinct. — A Kitchen 
Gardener. 
SNOWDROPS (galanthus). 
Haying liad occasion recently to put my hardy bulbs in 
order, these charming harbingers of spring came in for the 
attention they richly merit. I am particularly fond of Snow¬ 
drops, and thought a few notes upon them as a family would be 
welcome. The majority of amateurs are not aware of the 
number of different varieties there are in cultivation; albeit, 
some of them are very scarce. I suppose there are only three 
species, but the common one, Galanthus nivalis, varies con¬ 
siderably. There are several well-marked forms. I well re¬ 
member what a rich collection of these varieties the late Rev. 
Harper Crewe got together and cherished, some of which, I fear, 
are lost, but the majority passed into the hands of E. G. Loder, 
Esq. of Weedon, where they will be well cared for. In that ex¬ 
cellent work. Gill's ‘ Dictionary of Gardening,” there are four 
figured, but there is a slight confusion in the nomenclature; the 
one named G Elwesii is G. nivalis virescens, and vice versa, 
which form is extremely scarce and pretty, and I am glad to see 
it figured in that work. There is another named reflexus, which 
I have never seen.in a living state, although I possess a reflexed 
form of G. Elwesii, but do not consider it desirable on account 
of the narrowness of the segments. Mr. Baker arranges Gr 
Imperati and Redoutei under G. nivalis, but I am inclined to 
think that it is sufficiently distinct for separation. The foliage 
is very broad, and it is very strong-growing and much later in 
bloom, but this latter character may not stand for much when 
the variability of nivalis in respect to flowering is considered; 
for there is one variety, which is very early in the year, and Mr. 
Harper Crewe used to have one named octobrensis, which 
bloomed in October and November, thus vieing with the winter 
Croci. 
Happily all the best of the Snowdi’ops are now reasonable in 
price. I have seen them offei’ed at a low figure in most lists 
this season, so that all lovers of them should become acquainted 
with at least five distinct kinds—viz., nivalis, Imperati, Elwesii, 
plicatus, and Redoutei. As they are all equally easy of cultivation, 
line clumps may be made in the garden or on the rockery, or 
even accommodated in 6 inch or 7 inch pots, and used for the 
embellishment of a cool house, for which purpose they are 
charmingly suited. One item it is desirable to bear in mind when 
planting or potting, is their fondness for a little well-decayed 
manure; this improves them very much. G. Elwesii in par- 
ucular developes much larger blossoms when treated to manure, 
and the size of this species improves greatly as it gets established, 
and it well deserves the title of “ Giant Snowdrop ” when in its 
best state. For floral decoration it should quite eclipse the 
common kind, as the flowers are much larger, of such a charming 
term, and with more substance in the segments, and I would 
strongly advise private growers who esteem a buttonhole of 
tenowdrops to plant it freely at once, as it is quite time it, and, 
indeed, all the kinds, were planted. 
The common form being offered so cheaply is largely used 
for massing and naturalising, as the price of all the others, ex¬ 
cept lUwesu prevents their being used so lavishly. I notice that 
imported bulbs of the latter are now offered by good houses at a 
o\v price by the thousand; and here let me caution purchasers 
against expecting too much from these bulbs the first season, for 
the flowers will certainly be small, and by the second or third 
season they will improve much, especially if some manure is 
given when planting. The following notes upon the different 
kinds will show their distinctive characteristics. 
G. Elwesi (Elwes’s Giant Snowdrop).—Truly the finest of 
all the Snowdrops; the outer divisions are large, more rounded 
than in any of the others, the outline of the flower being more 
globular; inner divisions marked deep green at the base. This 
is always a distinguishing feature, whatever are the other vary¬ 
ing characters of the flower. The flower stems grow 9 inches 
high when strong; leaves broader than those of the common 
variety, very glaucous. It is equally as early in bloom, some¬ 
times appearing before it. Native of Asia Minor (“ Botanical 
Magazine,” t. 6166). 
0 Imperati (the Italian Snowdrop)—This is undoubtedly 
a very large form of nivalis, but it is later in flowering. The 
buds are large and fusiform, quite distinct from any other; the 
outer divisions are long, much narrowed at the base, clear white; 
the inner divisions are rather deeply notched at the top, with the 
characteristic green blotches beneath. It is a native of Italy, 
and can be obtained at a very reasonable rate. 
G. nivalis (the common Snowdrop).—This and its double 
form are too well known to need any further mention, but the 
following kinds are scarce, and somevery rare indeed—Virescens 
has the inner divisions almost entirely covered with green, and 
a few stride of the same colour on the outer divisions; Shay- 
lockii is very similar, but the flowers are longer; lutescens 
has a decided yellowish tinge upon the inner segments and at the 
base of the outer ones, and is very pretty; Melvillei is a large 
form sent out some years since by Messrs. Veitcli & Sons of 
Chelsea, somewhat resembling Imperati, but distinct from it; 
cocyrensis has a small flower appearing very early in January, 
sometimes at Christmas ; it is, however, very scarce, I have only 
met with it once. Several others might be enumerated, but they 
are not to be had for love nor money. 
G. plicatus (the Crimean Snowdrop).-—The flowers of this 
species resemble those of G. nivalis, except that they are rather 
larger and borne on much taller stalks, but the leaves are quite 
distinct, having a distinct fold on each side, hence the specific 
name plicatus (folded) ; it is rather uncommon, and never appears 
to be imported in very large quantities, but it is most desirable 
(“Botanical Magazine,” t. 2162). 
G. Redoutei (Redoute’s Snowdrop).—Syn. G. nivalis lati- 
folius. The foliage of this is bright green and very broad, much 
longer than any, and it is the tallest grower. It much resembles 
some of the Snowflakes, and is quite a departure from all the 
others ; the flowers are rather thin in substance, but extremely 
pretty, well meriting a place in all collections.—R. 
JUDGING PEARS AND GRAPES AT THE BATH SHOW. 
I believe I am justified in stating—indeed, I claim the right to do so 
—that your reporter was an exhibitor, but whether a disappointed one or 
not I cannot say—in the fruit classes, in which, as already stated, I 
assisted in making the awards. I mention this fact so that your readers 
may the better understand our relative positions at the Show in question, 
and therefore be the better able to arrive at a correct estimate of what 
has been said by both parties on the subject. And had your reporter 
given his name your readers would see that I was as competent to give an 
opinion on fruit or any other garden produce as he is, notwithstanding his 
assertions (by implication, p. 490) to the contrary. Your reporter says, 
“Not only did I express an honest opinion (which I may remind him 
dees not necessarily mean a correct one), but it was also the opinion of 
many practical gardeners, all known to both Mr. Ward and myself, and 
whose names I could give, that errors of judgment occurred, more especially 
in the Pear classes.” Your reporter having made this statement for the 
purpose of supporting his own remarks, I think it is a pity that he Bhould 
have considered it part of his duty to withhold the names of the “ many 
practical gardeners ” who were of the same opinion as himself, because 
had he furnished your readers with the names of these gentlemen they 
would then be able to estimate the “value ” of their opinion. 
Your reporter repeats that, “ in his opinion, Mr. Taylor’s Grapes 
ought to have been first; ” and I repeat, as one of the Judges who made 
the awards, that they and all the other exhibits in the fruit and vegetable 
classes were placed in their proper positions, and that the awards were 
not made in a haphazard sort of way, but strictly, and with great care, in 
accordance with the points of merit which guide competent Judges like 
the gentlemen whose names I mentioned at p. 465 as being two of the 
most able and successful growers, exhibitors, and judges of fruit in the 
country, and, I may add, with whose awards I have always been satisfied 
whenever they have judged my own exhibits. When acting in a similar 
capacity myself I always endeavour, as I did at Bath conjointly with a 
brother gardener, to be guided by their standard of excellence and to make 
the awards to the most meritorious exhibits by judging them according to 
their individual and collective points of merit. Hence my using the 
names of Messrs. Coleman and Wildsmith in connection with this 
subject. But I certainly decline to accept the opinion of your reporter 
as being correct until he has shown me by practical results and consistent 
statements a capacity to express a sound, practical, and unbiassed opinion 
on a matter of such importance to horticultural societies, exhibitors, and 
judges alike. Your reporter finding no just grounds of defence of his 
l criticism of the awards, misquotes me when he says that “ the second- 
