December 24, 1885. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
565 
able amount of decayed vegetable matter (no doubt the remains 
of ages of Ferns which grew and died away in quick succession) 
must have existed to support the massive roots of these primeval 
giants. Still, if we compare our present productions of bogs 
and marshes with our existing varieties of higher birth or 
elevation, the comparison is certainly in striking contrast with 
those of their progenitors. 
I will now refer to the modern history of Ferns—that is, such 
as we are able to relate, for I can assure you that until very 
recently, say the last century, the information to be obtained has 
been very limited. The ancient Greeks make reference to Ferns, 
and, I believe, are the first writers who notice them, and then 
only as medicinal herbs. The only distinction which was then 
noticed, or which was believed by them really to exist, was the 
“Male and Female ” Fern. Whether the Filix-mas and Filix- 
foemina of our authors were the two referred to by these ancient 
writers I cannot positively say, but I have no doubt that we owe 
our present popular names to those worthies. 
It was not until the latter part of the sixteenth century that 
Ferns began to attract special notice. At all events, some attempt 
at classification was made, and although the discovery of their 
organs of production was not made manifest until the end of the 
eighteenth century (which discovery has since then given rise to 
a correct adjustment of their various classes), yet to these early 
authors, Ray, Gerard, Parker, Lyte, and others we owe the first 
not unsuccessful attempt to remove the confusion which sur¬ 
rounded them. 
The first seedlings of which we have any record were raised 
in the year 1789 by Lindsay of Jamaica and by Fox of Norwich. 
This is rather a singular coincidence, that about the same period 
though in countries so far distant two persons should have suc¬ 
ceeded in making the discovery, and of inaugurating the ultimate 
success in the art of propagation. I should occupy too much time 
by entering into a detailed statement of the history of each of our 
separate species It will be quite sufficient to remai’k that the 
popularity to which graceful plants has reached during the pre¬ 
sent century is ample evidence of their deserving merits. You 
find them everywhere—in every conservatory, in every aquarium, 
in refreshment rooms, in workshops, adorning the halls and 
entrances to public buildings, places of amusement, and, last 
but not least, lending a charm to tasteful designs and casements 
of the cottager’s window. 
(To be continued.) 
JUDGING FRUIT. 
There are, as has been already observed, two or three points in con¬ 
nection with this subject which are fairly open to discussion. 1st, Should 
all Apples or Pears be ripe when exhibited ? When ripeness is not speci¬ 
fied is it desirable that judges in Pear and Apple classes should make 
it a prominent point in giving their decisions ? Grapes, Peaches, Melons, 
and all fruits which attain their highest state of perfection only when 
allowed to remain on the tree or plant till ripe should, for obvious reasons, 
be perfectly ripe when placed on the exhibition table ; but in respect to 
Pears, Apples, and all similar fruits which do not, as a rule, ripen on the 
tree, “ ripeness ” should not, unless specified in the schedule, be made 
an element in judging them, otherwise our autumn exhibitions of these 
special fruits would soon become poor indeed from the exclusion of the 
later and most valuable varieties, while probably the inferior kinds would 
gain all the prizes, because exhibitions cannot be conveniently held at a 
later period of the year, and shows would thus lose considerable interest, 
because many valuable varieties would scarcely ever appear on the exhi¬ 
bition table at all. 
In respect to uniformity in collections of Pears and Apples I would 
approve and by all means obtain as much uniformity as possible in the 
fruits which compose each separate dish, but I would carry the rule no 
further, lest by so doing collections should be injured by excluding the 
choicest because possibly the smallest varieties. I would rather judge 
each dish on its own merits, having special regard for fine examples of the 
choicest varieties, whether small or large kinds, instead of looking for 
uniformity over the whole collection. 
Some objections have been raised as to the propriety of committees 
granting extra, or, it may be, consolation prizes when, in their opinion, the 
judges have not given correct decisions. It would assuredly prove in¬ 
jurious and probably destructive to horticultural shows if such a course 
was frequently or erroneously adopted ; but granted a mistake has been 
made, and judges, like other men, are but fallible, hence the mistakes 
which do sometimes, though happily not often, occur, not only by judges 
in horticulture, but also in agriculture and also by judges of men. This 
being so, would it be right or even wise to allow the error to remain un¬ 
rectified, and so permit the worthy to go unrewarded or the innocent to 
suffer ? or would it be just and more wise to endeavour to make amends 
to the meritorious or the innocent ? If so, by whom ? Which is the 
proper court of appeal ? and who the fittest arbitrators ? The judges 
themselves cannot with propriety reverse their own decisions, nor would 
it conduce to the generally good and kindly feeling which happily exist s 
amongst gardeners if others were engaged then and there to condemn o 
confirm the awards, and to postpone or refer the decisions to a future 
tribunal as in Courts of law, would, for obvious reasons, be unfair and 
impracticable. Under these circumstances I cannot help thinking that 
the fittest arbitrators are those gentlemen who form the committee. They 
can at once, without allowing time to change the circumstances, adopt 
such means as will in their opinion best rectify the error. 
Moreover, are not the judges paid for their services by the committee, 
and so, for the time being, are they not virtually the servants of the com¬ 
mittee ? He, being master, is not the committee morally and legally 
justified in correcting any mistakes which, in its opinion, have been com¬ 
mitted by its seivants ? and what is equally certain and most desirable is 
that the committee can best do this with the least possible degree of 
irritation to all parties concerned. Discretion and discrimination are 
most essential qualities in such cases, and fortunately the gentlemen who 
form horticultural committees may fairly claim their proportionate share 
of them.—T. Challis. 
NEW ORCHIDS OF 1885. 
Some reference was made last week to the number of Orchids certifi¬ 
cated this year, and it might be reasonably expected that amongst so 
many there would be a good proportion of beautiful novelties. This is 
the case, but, at the same time, owing to the number of improved varie¬ 
ties of older types shown, there are not many of what might be termed 
startling distinctness. We cannot expect such surprises as Yanda 
Sanderiana every year, for the native haunts of Orchids both in temperate 
and tropical regions have been so thoroughly explored that it is only by 
a lucky chance collectors now discover a species exceptionally distinct 
from those in cultivation. No doubt Professor Reichenbach could tell us 
of many grand Orchids that have yet to be introduced, but the principal 
efforts of importers now seem to be to obtain shiploads of particular 
species that are in much demand. This process has been/ carried on for 
several years, and will have the effect of exterminating some forms in 
their home countries, and when the supply becomes exhausted the prices 
here will rise proportionately, as has already been experienced in several 
cases. There is, however, another matter to be considered, and that is 
the awakening of some of the native Governments to the value of the 
enormous quantities of plants annually taken from their shores, and the 
result is that some have imposed a heavy tax on all Orchids shipped from 
their ports. This will, if generally practised, undoubtedly have a greater 
deterring effect upon the wholesale importers than anything else. Of 
course we must fully recognise the enterprise of firms who employ so 
many collectors and invest such large sums in the speculation ; but the 
question is whether they do not gain a temporary benefit at the cost of a 
permanent injury to themselves and the trade generally. 
There is one mode of increasing the diversity of Orchids which does 
not appear likely to be carried to an undue extent, and that is the raising 
of hybrids and fine varieties of well-known species. It is therefore satis¬ 
factory to notice the increased attention being paid to the subject. Nearly 
all the largest and most beautiful genera have yielded crosses, though a 
few, as the Odontoglossums, still prove too much for the skill of hybridists, 
and others, as the Masdevallias, have as yet given but poor returns in 
that respect. The genus Cypripedium has been the most prolific. The 
Dendrobium, Oattleya, Lselia, Aerides, Calanthe, Phaius, and Zygope- 
talum have all afforded some examples of artificial crossing ; while of 
the Phalmnopsis and Odontoglossum forms have been introduced that may 
be safely regarded as probable natural hybrids. It is strange that in 
such a large and varied genus as the Oncidium no crosses should have 
been obtained, though it might be supposed that there is a good field for 
experiment. Several handsome hybrids have been brought into public 
notice this year, and to these a few words may now be devoted. 
Hybrid Calanthes .—Toree charming Calanthes have been honoured 
with certificates this year, and all are hybrids, an important addition to 
the six previously obtained. Two of these novelties—C. Alexanderi and 
C. Cooksoni—were shown by their raiser, Norman C. Cookson, Esq., Wylam- 
on-Tyne, who has also secured several other crosses in the same genu3. 
C. Alexanderi is the result of a cross between C. Yeitchi and C. vestita 
rubro-oculata, and is chiefly remarkable for the pleasing contrast presented 
by the two lower white sepals with rich crimson colour of the other por¬ 
tion of the flower, the plant resembling C. Veitchi in its vigorous habit 
of growth and flowering. C. Cooksoni is of similar parentage, but 
C. vestita luteo-oculata was employed instead of rubro-oculata, with the 
result that a hybrid was secured wiih large pure white flowers, having a 
slight yellow centre and resembling C. Veitchi in the characters pre¬ 
viously mentioned. Both are beautiful Orchids, and growers would 
gladly welcome more of the same type. 
In the Burford Lodge collection Sir Trevor Lawrence has tried several 
experiments with Calanthes, and has succeeded in raising several improved 
forms, but much the best of these that have yet been shown is C. por- 
phyrea, which resulted from a cross between Limatodes labro*a and 
Calanthe vestita rubro-oculata, a similar origin to that of C. Sandhurst- 
iana, except that L. rosea was employed in this case. C. porphyrea is, 
however, quite distinct from the latter, the flowers more resembling the 
Limatodes in form, of a fine rosy crimson hue, the lip slightly cupped and 
spurred, lighter in the centre, and dotted with dark crimson. It is a 
beautiful Orchid, and though the flowers are not large, the brilliant colour 
amply compensates for any deficiency in that respect. It may be worth 
mentioning that the other hybrid Calanthes previously raised are as 
follows—C. Dominii, from C. Masuca and C. furcata ; C. Veitchi. from 
C. vsstita and Limatodes rosea ; C. bella, from C. Turneri and C. Yeitchi; 
C' lentiginosa, from Limatodes labrosa and C. Yeitchi ; C. Sandhurstiana, 
