■September 19, 1889. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
239 
P;eony-flowered ; blooms large, but often rough and rather droop¬ 
ing. Plants 15 to 18 inches high. 
Pompon Asters. —Blooms of medium size, neat, and close ; the 
•outer florets flat, the inner quilled. Plants compact, branching, 
liabit free ; height 12 to 15 inches. 
Bouquet Asters. —Blooms of medium size, 2 to 2j inches in 
diameter. Plants small, compact, 6 to 7 inches high ; free. 
Shakespeare Asters. —Blooms small, early. Plants dwarf, 4 to 
>■6 inches high. 
Honeycomb Alters. —Blooms large, flat ; florets tubular at the 
base, but flat at the top. Plants of medium growth. 
Needle or Hedgehog Asters. —Blooms large, flat ; florets tubular 
and close pointed. Plants of medium growth, 15 to 18 inches ; free. 
Quilled Asters. —Blooms drooping, somewhat globular, even, 
•and regular, 2 to 3 inches in diameter. Central florets regularly 
•quilled, with an even five-lobed limb ; outer florets flat. Plants 
'talh straggling, 2 to 24 feet high. Late. Useful for cutting. 
Tn 1888 a trial of Asters was undertaken at Chiswick, when 
Messrs. Benary, Yilmorin, Dobbie & Co., and others contributed 
=seed. The varieties were grouped under seventeen classes, includ- 
ing most of the preceding with a few others. The very distinct 
^variety Comet was grown on this occasion ; it is one of the Chrys- 
:anthemum-flowered type, with flat florets, white edged with rose. 
Under some of the preceding most of the new varieties now grown 
can be readily grouped, but at the trial this season a few fresh types 
'have been introduced. Some of the best of these are as follows :— 
Imbricated Pompons , with regularly formed blooms, the florets 
•imbricated, dwarf, and compact, not exceeding 12 inches in height; 
the colours varied, rich, and distinct. New Liliput. —Blooms of 
good shape, quilled, some with light guard florets, and rose centre ; 
•others with crimson centre or white ; plants dwarf, 9 to 12 inches 
high, free, and useful for pot culture. Victoria Needle. —Blooms 
closely quilled, the tubular florets narrow, even, forming a fine 
semi-globular head, crimson, and purple shades good. Cocardeau 
•or Crown. —This is not a new type, but an excellent strain was 
grown, the blooms variously coloured with white centres. Height 
20 inches. Dwarf Pyramidal. —Blooms varied in colour, of good 
shape, compact, free, and even in habit; 12 inches high. It may 
be added that some of the very dwarf varieties are most unsatis¬ 
factory, usually irregular in habit, and with blooms of little 
■substance. The best blooms are produced by the tall or medium 
height varieties, and for cutting purposes these are useful. The 
se-called bouquet Asters are not so good as the others, the blooms 
coming in a bunched form, and losing their individual characters. 
Host of the strains are offered by seedsmen in distinct colours, but 
the mixed strains are now so carefully selected and so reliable that 
all the best shades are obtained from a packet of mixed seed. 
In the culture of China Asters the most important point is to 
•ensure having sturdy plants for placing out of doors, as weaklings 
wall never give satisfactory returns The seed is often sown in heat; 
at one time this was the general practice, but a better plan is to sow 
the seed in pans of light soil, and place these in cold frames about 
the first or second week in April. Mr. Betteridge used to sow the 
•seed in drills in cold frames, subsequently pricking out the young 
plants a foot apart in similar frames. The seedlings are usually 
large enough for transferring to other frames or beds in a fortnight 
or three weeks from sowing, and they can be transferred to the beds 
•out of doors as soon as they have made good progress and the 
weather is favourable. They require a rich well-dug soil and 
frequent supplies of water in dry weather ; but in their early 
•stages when under glass care must be exercised in watering, as in 
common with many other plants they are very liable to damp off in 
a young state. In the beds a foot to 18 inches between the plants 
=3nd rows is sufficient, the small-growing sorts requiring less space. 
Exhibitors usually shade their blooms with some light material, 
and thin them to about half a dozen to each plant. For pot3 plants 
•can be grown in the same way, lifting and transferring them to pots 
•early in September, as if well shaded and watered they suffer but 
'little if care be taken to preserve the roots. These plants are 
•useful in conservatories and greenhouses during October, and often 
.indeed until the November-flowering Chrysanthemums are at their 
•best when Asters are no longer required. — L. Castle. 
TREATMENT OF SOILS AND MANURES. 
As Mr. Bishop’s second article, page 173, on the above subject 
is'more confused, if possible, than the first, many of the sentences 
being unintelligible, I shall limit myself to a reply to his last 
communication, page 229. I am sorry to have offended him by 
quoting an old Latin adage, which certainly does not directly refer 
to manures or cultivation, but nevertheless gives, metaphorically, 
very good advice to anyone, however skilled he may be in his own 
business, who attempts to advise others on subjects as to which he 
is unable to measure his own ignorance. I translate the adage for 
the benefit of Mr. Bishop, “ Let not the cobbler go beyond his 
last. 
It is difficult to discuss a question with Mr. Bishop because he 
repudiates all authorities, and sets his own experience against that 
of the scientific world. Although I have cultivated plants for 
about sixty years, during fifty of which I used only stable manure, 
yet I think it possible that others who have made the study of 
plants and their food the business of their life may have something 
to teach me, and acknowledge their authority, consider myself quite 
justified in quoting them even when they are antagonistic to one so 
experienced as Mr. Bishop. 
Mr. Bishop denies that carbonic acid and carbon dioxide are 
the same, and asserts that the formula of the former is ILCOg, 
and of the latter C0 2 . He must be a phenomenal genius if he 
evolved out of his own experience the formula H 2 CO 3 for carbonic 
acid ; but as this is scarcely credible I must assume that in this case 
he condescended to consult some books on chemistry. It was 
resasonable to believe, as he was addressing gardeners “ who were 
not scientific,” that he would use terms according to their popular 
acceptation. “ Chambers’ Encyclopaedia,” a popular authority, 
states that carbonic acid is a substance occurring free as a gas in 
the atmosphere, &c., with the formula C0 2 , and nothing whatever 
of the hypothetical carbonic acid with the formula H 2 CO 3 , while 
Watts in the “ Dictionary of Chemistry,” a scientific authority, 
states, “ Two oxides of carbon are known, the protoxide CO and 
the dioxide C0 2 , commonly called carbonic acid but in another 
paragraph, that water in which gaseous carbonic anhydride (C0 2 ) 
is dissolved possesses acid properties, from which it may be inferred 
that it contains an acid of the composition H 2 CO 3 , but this ac d 
cannot be isolated, and as a definite compound cannot be said to 
be known. Mr. Bishop must have very minutely searched the 
authorities, notwithstanding his want of faith in them, to have 
discovered this mysterious H 2 CO,i, which very few have heard of, 
and no one has caught. I must have others to decide which or 
the two, Sachs or Mr. Bishop, is the more trustworthy authority as 
to the source of carbon in plants. If the latter had known any¬ 
thing of the law of the diffusion of gases, familiar to every tyro 
in chemistry, he would not have committed himself to the nonsense 
of asserting that by the wise provision of Nature the carbon 
dioxide falls to the ground because of its greater weight. If it were 
so animal life could not exist on the surface of the earth, as the 
stratum of air then would consist mainly or entirely of carbonic 
acid. I recommend to him the very simple test of filling two 
jars with carbon dioxide and air respectively, and then superimposing 
mouth to mouth, the jar containing the air upon that filled with 
carbon dioxide, he will find that in a short time the heavier gas in 
the lower vessel ascends and displaces the lighter air in the upper 
vessel, while the lighter air descends into the lower vessel until the 
two gases are evenly distributed in both. 
Mr. Bishop states it to be pure assumption on my part “ to 
suppose that carbon is taken into the plant in this form (what form ?) 
and thrown off without being utilised.” The sentence is unintelli¬ 
gible, and certainly does not express anything written by me. I 
suppose he refers to my quotation from Sachs ; if so, the assumption 
is not mine, and, further, he misreads Sachs, who states that “ the 
enormous quantity of carbon, about half of the whole substance of 
the dried plant, is derived from the carbon dioxide of the air.” 
Where have I stated that the carbon was “thrown off without 
being utilised ?” What more real utilisation could there be than for 
the assimilation of the carbon by the plant ? As the whole of the 
carbon of the plant was accounted for by Sachs, the “ other half ” 
exists only in the imagination of Mr. Bishop. I pointed out the 
absence in Mr. Bishop’s original communication of phosphorus 
from “ his four principal elements necessary for plant growth,” he 
now informs us that “ he had stated six organic elements to which 
phosphorus belongs,” from which it may be observed that in his 
opinion phosphorus, carbon, nitrogen, sulphur, oxygen, and 
hydrogen are organic elements. What does he mean by this term ? 
An organic element is something unknown to me ; perhaps he will 
enlighten my ignorance, which supposed the usual division of the 
elements to be into metallic and non-metallic, or into metals and 
metalloids. 
I have again to complain of Mr. Bishop’s misquotation. I did 
not say that “ hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent on 
phosphorus when nothing is spent on potassium, magnesium, 
calcium, and iron for manure.” The latter half of the sentence 
should read “ comparatively little on magnesium and iron.” It 
would have been absurd to say that nothing was spent on potassium 
when very large sums are annually expended on kainit, potassic 
sulphate, chloride, and nitrate, &c. 
Mr. Bishop denies that he said stable manure was very un¬ 
certain. His actual words are, “ There is ten times more nitrogen 
