February 4, 1886. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
85 
each other kindly), were only two in number; and though now about ten 
years old, they show no indications of setting for flower. But while they 
have both the glabrous foliage of the seed-bearer, and even the ochreous 
tint underneath, they differ in having pyriform instead of its lanceolate 
leaves. But though in these particulars they depart from the normal 
state of R. caucasicum, they have not one feature of R. Edgworthii, the 
male parent. The other case is where I crossed the same R. Edgworihii 
on R. Jenkinsii. Here the seedlings, again only two in number, resembled 
the mother, except in having again the pyriform foliage, in which, be it 
observed, it is a departure from both parents, both having lanceolate 
leaves, those of R. Jenkinsii being acutely so. The hybrid in this latter 
case is budded for flower ; but the flowers of both parents are white, and 
both sweet-scented, and among the largest of the genus, though the 
scent, texture, and forms of the flowers are different; so that I look for 
surer tests in the coming flowers, though these may be more perplexing 
too than any that yet appears. It is proper to observe that I take the 
utmost precaution in all my crossing operations to prevent miscarriage 
in any possible way. 
“ While treating of my difficulties with this R. Edgworthii, one of the 
most peculiarly constituted as it is one of the most peculiarly featured of 
all the Rhododendron tribe, having its rugose leaves densely pubescent on 
the upper while it is perfectly shaggy with tomentum on the under side, 
every stem being clothed with the same tomentum, I have another most 
Fig. 15.—Rhododendron formosum. 
singular peculiarity to note in regard to it—namely, that while it will 
cross other species, it will take on a cross from none,—that is to say, 
while it has been repeatedly made the male, it has never with me, though 
I have tried it often, nor with any other that I have heard of, submitted 
to become the female parent. I have crossed it repeatedly on R. ciliatum, 
one of the minor forms, too, of Dr. Hooker’s Himalayan species. It has 
been crossed, too, on R. formosum in this neighbourhood, I believe, in 
the Stanwell Nursery ; but I could never get it to take on any cross 
whatever. R. Nuttalli behaved with me in the same manner ; it would 
cross, but not be crossed; hut I did not persevere with it as I did with 
R. Edgworthii. Now I do not assert absoluely that R. Edgworthii, in 
the numerous tribe of which it is a member, may not be hybridised with 
some other of its kindred, but I could never get it to reciprocate a cross. 
And this remarkable circumstance of non-reciprocity has perplexed and 
defied me in innumerable instances throughout my long experience in 
these pursuits. It occurred to me that the pollen of larger forms might 
be of larger grains, and so might not pass through the necessarily small 
ducts of the styles of smaller species: yet R. ciliatum, a tiny species of 
1 foot high, was crossed freely by R. Edgworthii, as I have just noticed, 
a species of 6 feet high. I even crossed this latter species on a pure 
Indian Azalea, though, by pulling the seed-pod before it was ripe, I raised 
no seeds of this latter cross.” 
An extensive progeny was also obtained by crossing R. Nuttallii with 
a hybrid obtained from R. formosum and R. Dalhousianum, amongst 
which were some seedlings of great merit. 
“ vocabulary of abuse.” I cannot allow even “ D , Deal," to employ 
a phrase, attribute its authorship to another, and found thereon a charge 
of something more than discourtesy against me, however worthy his 
object may have been in doing so. I have heard “D., Beal," described 
as a “facetious man,” and I have no objection to his indulging in a 
little fun at my expense in a reasonable way. More anon.—A Thinker. 
BO WOOD MUSCAT GRAPE. 
I WAS much interested in Mr. Thomson’s remarks respecting this 
Grape (page 48), as it refreshed my recollection of the pen and ink war 
he refers to, which I well remember, and as the Editor invites the opinion 
of other experienced readers 1 for one have pleasure in relating mine. 
When I took charge of these gardens I found a house recently planted 
with Vines, and among several others were Muscat of Alexandria and 
Bowood Muscat. The latter I had then no knowledge of, but for a good 
reason it soon became a favourite of mine by its being a frequent first 
prizewinner. These Vines, which are now things of the past, were early 
forced every year, and I never could succeed in getting a perfectly set 
bunch of Muscats except from Bowood, which is one of its always 
superior qualities. This is not certainly its only distinctive feature. As 
compared with Muscat of Alexandria, the latter is long both in bunch 
and berry ; whereas the Bowood bunches are shorter, heavily shouldered, 
and the berries more egg-shaped than Pear- 
shaped. In regard to colour, and flavour the two 
are equal, but the primary difference is the free- 
setting quality of Bowood. I have no doubt the 
cause of so many believing in the identity of the 
two sorts is that the true variety is little known. 
I have, like Mr. Thomson, bought what had 
been called Bowood, but not true. 
I observe, among other remarks of Mr. Thom¬ 
son’s, he considers Gros Marec very inferior in 
all respects to Gr< s Colman except in colour, 
which I thoroughly agree with, and would 
further say that in my opinion it is the worst 
flavoured Grape I know, and should never be 
awarded a prize except for colour. Gros 
Colman, when ripened thoroughly blaek, which 
can only be accomplished by a long season and 
plenty of heat, is in my opinion the best late 
Grape we have, though I admit it cannot be 
kept good so long as Lady Downe’s, and I shall 
be much mistaken if in a few years Gros Colman 
will have become one of the most extensively 
grown Grapes in cultivation.— Richard West- 
COTT, Baby Bardens . 
As you invite the opinion of experienced men 
as to the identity or otherwise of the above- 
named Vine with the Muscat of Alexandria I 
gladly offer the following. 
I well remember the Bowood Muscat Grape 
being figured in the “ Florist,” and as I was 
at that time about to plant a vinery with the 
object of having late Grapes, I wished to give 
the preference in greater part to Muscats. I felt 
interested in getting variety if such was to be 
obtained, and acted upon that idea. About the same time, too, the late Mr. 
Pontey of Plymouth gave an account of a Muscat growing in the gardens 
at Tehidy Park in Cornwall, which he named Muscat Passique as be ng 
distinct and well worthy of recognition. His description was as eulogistic 
as that of the Bowood which was then so prominently be'ore the public. 
I had a friend who volunteered to get for me the Tehidy variety. I 
had access also to a good old Vine of the Muscat of Alexandria, so I care¬ 
fully reared plants of the two above named, and the Bowood I obtained 
direct from the late Mr. Turner of Slough. Now, as he was a gentleman 
of the highest honour, and, moreover, associated with Mr. Spencer of 
Bowood as joint editor of the “ Florist,” it seems impossible to suppose 
I could have had the Bowood from a better source. The three varieties 
so called were planted side by side, and have grown so to this day with¬ 
out my ever being able to detect the slightest difference. 
Many of the readers of the Journal will doubtless remember a fruit 
catalogue issued antecedent to the above date, and compiled by Mr. 
Thompson of the Royal Horticultural Society’s Gardens, which was a very 
reliable guide to fruits of all kinds, and in it a prominent feature was 
that all the best known, whether among Apples, Peaches, Vines, or any 
other fruits were shown to have many aliases or sym nyms, and I appre¬ 
hend the good old Muscat of Alexandria was as well worthy as any to be 
thus represented ; hence, a sufficient reason if the fruit tree succeeded in 
a better manner than ordinary either by culture or situation, men were 
induced to believe in all sincerity that they had a superior variety, and a 
name to distinguish it from o hers was given to it. In that way I think a 
bona fides was given to mark its excellence, and those vho accepted this 
theory were assured that a really good thing was secured to them, and 
from which they could not possibly sutler disappointment.—J. Enstone. 
“ D., Beal," and O'Connell. —Permit me to say, in answer to a 
curious paragraph on page 27, that I will show in an early issue 
that “ D., Beal" is entirely inaccurate in his quotation from O'Connell, 
and that the term "individual” cannot be legitimately included in the 
FERN8. 
I have read the whole of Mr. Newaham's lecture on Ferns published 
in your columns, and I consider that some of the statements it contains 
