April 29, 1886. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAOE GARDENER. 
341 
in this section. It seems Btrange that so distinct a Daffodil has never 
been figured in any English work. 
The last section, Moschatus, or tho White Daffodil, is very interesting. 
The only form of it we yet know for certain in its own home was redis¬ 
covered about six years ago by Mr. E. N. Buxton on the Spanish slope 
of the Pyrenees whilst chamois hunting, about G000 feet above the sea 
level, near Mount Perdu. It was in May, and at that elevation the 
flowers were just out. Mr. Buxton at once laid down his rifle, and sup¬ 
plied himself with roots of this new prize, which were the first wild ones 
brought to England in recent times. Since then this habitat has become 
known to French collectors, and many thousands of bulbs have been 
imported thence to England. It has always been supposed that other 
and larger forms of this section are to be found wild in Spain, but we do 
not know for cerlain that any have yet been found, and we want trust¬ 
worthy information on this point. A character of this section is that 
the separation of the perianth divisions is marked by a conspicuous line 
continued nearly to the bottom of the tube. This completes my short 
notice of the principal known wild forms, but the list of known wild 
forms will constantly increase, and is growing from year to year. A very 
distinct variety was sent to me by Mr. Alfred Tait from Portugal early in 
last month, but not in sufficiently good condition to describe its character. 
Another remarkable form of Daffodil was sent by the same gentleman 
with perianth divisions reflexed so as to meet in a point, and with no 
tube. It is thought to be identical with the N. cyclamineus adopted by 
Haworth from old authors who figured it. If not a hybrid, it seems to 
demand a species to itself, for it can hardly find a place amongst 
N. Pseudo-Narcissus. 
I have followed Mr. Baker in adopting Haworth’s names, though I 
feel all the while that sevral of them are misapplied. It seems incon¬ 
sistent to adopt an author’s names when the characters given by that 
author to the plants he describes under those names are manifestly at 
variance with the characters of the plants to which we apply them. For 
instance, Haworth’s N. minor was a flower with imbricated perianth 
•divisions, whilst we now apply it to a flower of which a distinctive mark 
is its free perianth divisions, and the same inconsistency applies to 
N. minimus. Again, the N. nanus of Haworth was a pale sulphur- 
coloured Daffodil with leaves half an inch wide. Our N. nanus is a full 
yellow, with leaves narrower than those of minor. I am at a loss to 
know what variety Haworth intended by the name rugilobus, which he 
classes under the section Pseudo-Narcissus ; but it is now transferred to 
one belonging evidently to the bicolor section, and identical, so far as 
I can judge, with lorifolius. The same uncertainty attends several others 
of the names of Haworth in their recent application. 
We now pass on to speak of N. Pseudo-Narcissus as a cultivated plant, 
and of the changes and improvements which have taken place or may be 
expected to take place in its development under cultivation. Some of 
the finest forms, as Emperor, Empress, Horsfieldi, are believed to be 
varieties of cultivation, because they are not known to have been found 
wild, and the names of the growers are known ; but whether they were 
produced by artificial crossing or by careful selection of seed from the 
finest flowers, and from seedlings raised under the most favourable con¬ 
ditions, we have not certain information, though the latter supposition is 
•more probable. In a species in which so many and distinct natural 
varieties exist it seems not unreasonable to expect that there would be a 
strong natural tendency in the seed to produce varieties, but there is not 
sufficient evidence to support this belief. Oa the other hand, the more 
we become acquainted with large beds of wild Daffodils growing away 
.from the influence of other varieties, the more we are led to the conclu¬ 
sion that like produces like in Daffodils as in other plants. We find, for 
instance, that the Daffodils of the north of Portugal form a set of varie¬ 
ties distinct from those of the Pyrenees, whilst the Maritime Alps and 
North Italy have special forms which retain their distinct characters. 
We must not dogmatise on these matters, but let us consider the case of 
Ihe Tenby Daffodil, which ripens seed and grows from it more freely than 
any variety I know. It covers several acres in South Wales, where 
it has grown for many generations; yet it continues remarkably con¬ 
stant to form, and varieties are hardly ever observed. Many similar 
instances might be mentioned. In gardens, on the other hand, 
where many varieties are in flower together, when we consider the 
.readiness with which some distinct species of Narcissus produce hybrids, 
we may infer that Pseudo-Narcissus will readily cross with varieties of 
the same species, and we reasonably expect spontaneous varieties from 
seed. 
Few of us have patience to raise successive generations of Daffodil 
from Beed, keeping them carefully labelled for all the years—probably 
six at least—until they flower. So the history of new varieties raised in 
gardens is seldom known. It is more easy, however, to notice and record 
changes where no raising from seed takes place, changes which are 
produced by continued cultivation under favourable conditions of soil and 
climate. These conditions seem particularly favourable in many parts of 
Ireland, and I will give examples in illustration. I am indebted to Mr. 
Barr for calling my attention to the remarkable development in size and 
vigour which takes place in the Botanic Gardens at Dublin in the case of 
the variety of Daffodil called maximus. The size of this variety in those 
gardens is such that Mr. Barr for long believed.it to be a distinct and 
gigantic and early-flowering variety. When, however, it is planted in 
England side by side with Maximus from Holland, and under the same 
conditions, the contrast Ihe first year is very conspicuous. After a few 
years the two gradually assimilate themselves, until no difference can be 
seen. Another variety common in Iiish gardens, and to some extent 
naturalised in Ireland, is named Princeps. As grown in Ireland this is 
perhaps the largest of all Daffodils. It comas to us from there in several 
sizes, as Princeps maximus, Princeps miaor, and so on. I can hardly say 
whether these differences are maintained in any gardens in England, but 
I can assert that after two or three years all the varieties of Princeps be¬ 
come so degenerate in Cheshire as to produce flowers hardly larger than 
those of the wild type of Pseudo-Narcissus. I may mention, too, the fine 
Daffodil called spurius, which has, I believe, recently been found wild 
by Mr. Engleheart in Italy. Spurius is a very old variety in the Dutch 
bulb farms, and comes thence to England bearing flowers of one size. It is 
now known that this variety is common in Ireland both as a naturalised 
and as a garden plant, and in more than one size, some resembling the 
Dutch plant in every particular except size, but being much larger. This 
may be due to the favourable conditions in Ireland for its growth. I have 
cultivated the large form for six years, and it still maintains its majority ; 
but whether is will it time reduce its dimensions to the Dutch size time 
will show. 
I will further add that it is useless to compare the merits of or to 
attempt to identify Daffodils until they have been grown together under 
the same conditions for a year or two. When this has been done we want 
continuous observations and careful notes of them through a series of years 
to see what changes soil and climate make in the same variety, in colour, 
size, habit, and form, especially noting the recurving of the corona to see 
whether this character ia quite constant or due to climate or soil in any 
degree. 
Again, we cannot be sure until we have tried them for at least two 
years what varieties are best suited to the special conditions of our own 
gardens. Daffodils, according to their variety, have their likes and dis¬ 
likes. Most of them prefer rich rather sandy loam, retentive, but well 
drained, and on the cold stiff subsoil of my garden in Cheshire nearly all 
do better on raised beds. The moschatus section alone seem to like 
lighter soil of a peaty character. N. minor and N. minimus seem rather 
delicate and dislike wet ; their flowers, which are dangerously near the 
ground, are much relished by slugs, and require, where such vermin 
abound, to be protected by peiforated zinc collars or by a dressing of 
powdered tobacco—a valuable preventive. Several Daffodils are, compara¬ 
tively speaking, failures in my garden. I have already mentioned Prin¬ 
ceps. The major of trade produces few flowers and the foliage looks 
unhealthy. Maximus increases slowly, and is liable to be attacked by an 
obscure disease, which rots the base of the ball and prevents the formation 
of fresh roots. The Italian Telamonius looks healthy, but does not flower 
freely. The most floriferous of the larger kinds in my garden is spurius, 
whilst Pseudo-Narcissus, the type, said to degenerate and die out in some 
garden*, flowers and flourishes extremely well. So do Horsfieldi and 
Emperor. I have mentioned these instances to show that Daffodils re¬ 
quire to be proved in each garden and selected accordingly. 
AT WHAT DEPTH OUGHT DAFFODILS IS GABDEN3 TO BE PLANTED ? 
The answer depends partly on the variety to be planted, partly on the 
character of the soil and the subsoil; but let everyone who can make 
patient experiments and carefully record his observations on this point. 
My own experience is generally in favour of deep planting, especially in 
raised beds where the drainage is good. Such Daffodils as th< se called 
minor and nanus should, of course, not be planted more than half as deep 
as Horsfieldi and Emperor. In deep well-drained soils I plant from 1 to 
6 inches deep in the case of the smallest kinds to a foot in the largest. 
When Daffodils that have been dug up wild are sent to us in leaf it is 
easy to see at what depth they have grown ; and r.ot only have I taken 
notice of this, but have inquired of those who have dug up Daffodils much 
abroad in their native homes. These accounts agree in telling of huge 
Daffodils with flowers as large as Emperor, which, after long and 
laborious digging, the finder was obliged to relinquish because they grew 
so deep. Some very fine Daffodils just received from Italy, where they 
grow wild, reported to resemble maximus in appearance, have grown at a 
depth varying from 12 to 18 inches; and my friend Mr. Engleheart men¬ 
tioned others still larger, none of which he succeeded in digging up. Mr. 
Tait sent me the leaf and flower of a lorifolius found near Oporto, being 
as large as those of Emperor, the bulb of which was deep beyond his reach. 
On the other hand, a number of minor sent last week from the South 
of France had grown at an average depth of 3 inches. The Boil was rocky, 
and a large proportion of Oak-leaf mould was mixed with it on the sur¬ 
face. We must not, therefore, try to make our rules for depth too abso¬ 
lute. I need not point out that deep planting enables the gardener to 
cultivate other plants over them in summer, which may be done without 
any damage to the bulb, provided that the growth of the leaves is not 
interfered with, and the soil sufficiently enriched by a top-dressing. 
Daffodils do far better on a border facing, in autumn, a south 
than with a north aspect. The doubling of Daffodils is a subject to which 
I have long paid special attention, though on several points connected 
with it my mind is by no means made up. It is certain that N. Pseudo- 
Narcissus doubles into a variety of forms, two of which may be particularly 
noticed. (1) The form in which the corona remains entire, and the 
doubling is confined to the inside of it; this we call the semi-double form. 
(2) The form in which the corona is split in f o six segments and spread 
open. This we call, for distinction, Rose-double. I have quite satisfied 
myself, by long observation, that these forms are not constant, but are 
often interchanged from year to year, depending upon conditions of soil 
and cultivation. About this time last ytar nearly 100 d uble typical 
Pseudo-Narcissus were sent to me, which were dug up wild when in flower. 
All of these were semi-double ; but this year nearly all which have flowered 
at all have become Rose-double. In the southern oounties of England and 
Walts the type Pseudo-Narcissus is often found double, growing mixed up 
