290 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ April 15, 1886. 
its damp layers, accompanied probably by one or more varieties of the 
millipede. Dried leaves or fragments of bark have contributed their quota 
of earwigs, many small and in that stage when, as I believe, their food is 
of a mixed character, but still liable to develops until they are mischievous. 
The brownish bristly grub of the St. Mark’s fly (Ribis Marci) is a common 
lurker in manure, and an especial foe to the roots of the Strawberry, 
but it also attacks many ornamental species in flower beds. That almost 
omnivorous weevil, Otiorhynchus sulcatus, which feeds nearly all the 
winter, generally finds enough in a manure heap to sustain its life, and 
completes the larval growth in spring upon whatever plants it can reach in 
borders. Roots of grass or Clover that may have got amongst the manure 
will add some wireworms, should they not be otherwise introduced. 
Another beetle grub that may be secreted in manure is that of the garden 
chafer or bracken clocks (Phylloperthahorticola), which follows the habits 
of the cockchafer, though fortunately less destructive. Of fly grubs many 
lie dormant in manure, such as that of the Cabbage fly, the Onion fly, and 
the Carrot fly, and occasionally, should it be dry, for these pests have no 
liking for damp, there may be found a winter party of some of the root- 
haunting aphides ready to propagate during the first mild weather of 
spring. The process of baking is not applicable to manure, but such a 
compound as described should be treated, ere using, with gaslime, then 
exposed to the air for awhile, or with common lime or salt; soapsuds 
added will kill many, but not all species.— Entomologist. 
CULTURE OF THE NEAPOLITAN VIOLET. 
As our system of growing this lovely Violet is somewhat diffe¬ 
rent from that which is generally pursued, we venture to give a 
brief outline of the method we have found to answer well. 
We select a piece of ground upon a south border sheltered on 
the north side by a wall 10 feet high. The ground is made rich by 
adding a good deal of decayed manure and chopped turves, a slight 
dusting of soot being thrown over the ground when the plants are 
put in. As soon as the plants have flowered they are pulled to 
pieces, the strongest single crowns are selected for planting. We 
put the plants into the ground about 12 or 14 inches apart, a good 
watering is given, and a temporai’y shade is erected until the plants 
have got fairly under way. In sunny weather they are syringed 
once or twice every day in the earlier stages of their growth ; 
during the summer a mulching of horse droppings is given, and the 
plants kept free from runners. At the end of September, instead 
of lifting the plants and transferring them to frames, we allow 
them to remain in their summer quarters, simply putting a board 
about 10 inches deep around them, upon which the lights are placed. 
Abundance of air is given on all favourable occasions. By having 
them so low, and the glass so near the ground level, they are very 
easily protected in severe weather ; mats placed singly over the 
glass, and a few inches of rough litter spread over the top and 
around the sides is quite sufficient to keep out any severe frost. 
Our limited experience with De Parme and the new white 
Neapolitan enables us to speak highly of both varieties. The 
former is darker in colour, stronger in habit, and blooms earlier 
than the old Neapolitan. The white variety grows stronger than 
the Neapolitan, with large blooms somewhat similar in form to the 
beautiful variety Marie Louise.— Joseph Oliver, Eslington Park 
Gardens. 
[We have seen no finer Violets this year than have been sent to 
us by our correspondent as grown in the simple manner described.] 
SCIENCE IN HORTICULTURE. 
In your issue of April 1st, “ Young Practicalist ” is, to use a common 
phrase, “ running the foreign horticulturist down.” I agree with him in 
some points, but in others I cannot. “ Young Practicalist ’’ tells us he has 
had the misfortune to work with foreigners, and he admits that, as a rule, 
they are better educated than Britishers in the way of sketching flowers, 
drawing plans, botany, &c., but when it comes to the practical part of 
the profession, “Young Practicalist” thinks that our foreign friends are 
only fit to be classed with beginners. “Young Practicalist” perhaps 
forgdts that if any young British gardener, after working at his profession 
in England or Scotland from six to eight years, was then to go over to 
France or Germany, he would find himself farther back, both in practical 
and theoretical knowledge, than his fellow workmen. “ Young Practi¬ 
calist” seems to think that, as a rule, the British gardener does not 
require a knowledge of botany or chemistry, to be able to draw plants, 
sketch flowers, and to know a little Latin ; and I will admit that it is not, 
as a rule, required of us from our employers, but at the same time it is 
very useful with practical knowledge as well. I think that some of us 
young B.itish gardeners would find ourselves more to the front if we had 
a little more “ theoretical knowledge,” as “Young Practicalist ” terms it, 
and we might devote a little more of our spare time to books and study, 
also taking more interest in our work, both in working hours and after. 
An hour or so devoted to study after our work is over for the day would 
never injure our health nor overtax our brains, although perhaps it might 
have to be a case of self-denial in something else less beneficial. A man 
can always be studying when he is at his work, no matter what he is doing. 
I do not mean to say that a young gardener should be always at work 
and study, quite the reverse, for I am a strong advocate of that old 
saying, “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy;” but I cannot 
agree with “Young Practicalist” that if a young man is fond of books 
and study he loses his liking for work, and thinks himself too good for tho 
practical part of his profession, and in so doing loses the character of 
being an “ active, industrious man.”— C. COLLINS, Horvick Gardens. 
Permit me as a young gardener of “ the period ” to have a voice in 
the question which has lately been having consideration in your columns. 
Most readers would be apt to suppose, if they were to accept the ideas of 
“Young Practicalist,” that our continental contemporaries are useless 
men, as he says “ they are only fit to work with beginners.” That may 
be true so far, but it most certainly is not true in the sense he gives it. 
If his opinions are honest, his experience must have been limited. I have 
worked with Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, Austrian, French, and 
Germans—I do not know if your correspondent can say so much—and I 
must say that the majority of them are quite the reverse of novices at 
practice. It is cer ainly quite correct that most of them have had some 
academical education, indeed, some I have personally known who have 
had a university education. Among my acquaintances I have met with 
the sons of men holding high positions in their own country. As a rule 
gardening is considered a high-class profession on the continent; indeed, 
a great per-centage of the foreign gardeners to be met with have worked 
in some of the continental nurseries, and it is well known that many of 
the new varieties of flowers, fruits, and vegetables have their origin on the 
continent besides. What “ Young Practicalist ” says about the pay of 
British gardeners is right, and I also agree with what he says in reference 
to science and art as related to prxctice ; indeed, to a certain ex'ent his 
remarks are indisputable, the chief use of science being to teach us the 
reason why. Without science our practice is all rule of thumb. I certainly 
consider that if gardeners are to keep up their reputation some kind of 
elementary scientific knowledge is indispensable. What would “Young 
Practicalist” say, for instance, about the late “ Single-handed,” whose 
articles in the Journal, I think, were ample testimony of the utility of 
chemistry ? Gardeners, indeed, often outgrow their profession by taking 
up a science or art, and I could name more than one old or young 
gardener who are now earning a better livelihood by that means. It has 
been proposed to add horticulture to the series of subjects of the 
Science and Art Department. If such an able authority as Mr. Buck- 
master were to take the subject in hand, there surely would be few 
objections in the way. I found my opinions on what the so-called practical 
men put so much faith in—namely, results. I had the great good fortune 
to have the opportunity of attending classes connected with the Science 
and Art Department the first season I was a gardener, and I must say 
that any gardener who has to do with cropping a kitchen garden will find 
the principles of agriculture, as far as the analysis of soils and manures, 
<fcc., go, to be as useful in the garden as the farm. I would ask “ Young 
Practicalist ” how would the superintendents of our various botanic gardens 
at home and the British colonies get on without some knowledge of 
botany. I hope I have made my ideas intelligible ; there are two sides 
to every question, and this is no exception to the rule.— R. W. M. 
In reference to the remarks of “ Young Practicalist ” in your issue 
of April 1st, page 250, on the above heading, I feel obliged to take 
exception to some of his statements. It is not my intention to deal with 
the subject in extenso, but to point out what is incorrect and unjust in 
the second paragraph. 
He says, “ It has been my misfortune to work with foreigners.” This 
last word, and the pronouns referring to it, should have been in the 
singular ; because, his experience has been with only one foreigner, a 
young Frenchman from the National School of Horticulture at Versailles, 
who does not, as “Young Practicalist” “presumes,” call himself a 
“ picked foreign gardener.” He is one who, after a three-years course in 
this school, is given a subvention of £50 by his government to spend a 
year in some establishment at home or abroad, to improve himself in 
those matters which will eventually be of most use to him. This grant, 
with his wages, makes him the best paid man among those with whom he 
works. Therefore the “poser ” quoted by “ Young Practicalist ” does not 
apply to him. 
Then follows the question, “ How comes it that the head gardener at 
one of the most noted places in France will not employ young men from 
the National School of Horticulture at Versailles ?” This I challenge; 
indeed, I know it to be untrue. 
Why I take up the matter is, I annually take a student from this 
school, each of whom has been a pleasure and a credit to me. The young 
Frenchman with me now feels most keenly the injustice of the remarks of 
“ Young Practicalist,” but cannot so well defend himself in a language 
foreign to him. Again, as an hon. member of this School of Horticulture, 
I feel bound to defend it against any unjust imputations as far as lies in 
my power. 
I feel sure if “ Young Practicalist” had known more of the National 
School of Horticulture at Versailles he would not have written of it in 
the way he has.— A Lover of Fair Play. 
LTME FOR VINE BORDERS. 
I have read Mr. Bardney’s article again on page 104, also his reply 
on page 189, and think his remarks are liable to be misconstrued. Mr. 
Bardney seems surprised that I should use lime, but I have only written 
against what I consider the abuse of it. 
Your correspondent says Vines cannot be grown well if bones are 
