February 21,18S9. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
157 
size, quality, and purity of colour are obtained at a height of 3 feet, and 
even less. One other quality this variety possesses is that not a single 
stake is needed to support the plant at any period of its growth ; even 
when the blooms are expanded the peduncles are so stout that the 
blooms are kept upright. All that is needed in the way of support is a 
piece of bast tied from one branch to the other after the first break is 
made ; this will prevent the stems l; slipping out ” at the junction. This 
and other sorts I will name recently introduced do not require a “ back- 
load of fishing rods” to support them. One stake to each plant, and 
this not more than three-quarter inch in diameter at the base, is ample. 
If bamboo stakes are used they need not be so thick as the size given. 
Any one need not be higher than 5 feet, this is when the plants are 
treated in the manner usually adopted for cultivating the plants on the 
large bloom principle, not topping them at all. If the largest blooms 
are not the object in culture, but more in numbers for decorative pur¬ 
poses either in the conservatory, or in a cut state, or the cutting down 
method, then the sorts named need not be more than half the height in 
many instances, which would be low enough for any purpose. 
Of Japanese varieties the following are dwarf growing naturally in 
addition to Avalanche, Mrs. Falconer Jameson, Val d’Andorre, L’Ador- 
able, Edwin Molyneux, Florence Percy, Mrs. Bullock, M. Freeman, 
Gloriosum, Mr. Ralph Brocklebank, Mdme. J. Laing, Etoile de Lyon, 
Mrs. Lewis Castle, Miss Cannell, Mary and Sarah Owen. I am given to 
understand that many of the new varieties likely to be introduced 
during the coming season are also of a dwarf habit. New varieties in 
the incurved section do not arrive in anything but small numbers. 
Many of these also are of dwarf growth. Lord Everslev, for instance, a 
pure white sport from Princess Teck, and one of the best for late 
flowering, does not grow in a natural manner higher than 4 feet as a 
rule. Last year I saw in one place several hundred plants of this 
variety not more than 1 foot high in September. Charles Gibson, Mrs. 
Norman Davis, both sports from the same family, are also dwarf, while 
another recent introduction in this section, Perle Prdcieuse, is even 
shorter still. On the whole we have reason to be pleased with the 
results obtained in the introduction of new sorts of a dwarf habit during 
the last two or three years as compared to many of the 10 feet sorts of 
an earlier date.—E. Molyneux. 
UNFORCED YAXLEY RHUBARB. 
I HAD word brought in to-day (February 14th) that a sufficient 
quantity of my own dwarf Rhubarb might be gathered for a tart. St. 
Valentine’s Day is generally about the time when I expect this early 
spring delicacy. Accordingly I went ipto my garden and superintended 
the gathering of a good-sized basketful. A few particulars may interest 
your readers. When the stems were laid on the dresser they were found 
to measure from to 5£ inches long to the bottom of the leaf. The 
circumference was found to be from 2 to 3 inches round the thickest 
part of the stem. After the little quantity had been prepared for the 
oven by the removal of the leaves, &c., I saw that in the scales it weighed 
1 lb. 4 ozs. I should like to know if any unforced Rhubarb grown this 
year in England has anywhere been offered for sale?— William H. 
Sewell, Yaxley Vicarage , Suffolk. 
YELLOW-BERRIED IVY. 
I did not give on page 46 H. baccata lutea, but H. baccifera lutea. 
There are two varieties of this Ivy, the climbing and the tree form. 
The name I gave would in all probability refer to the former, but 
was intended to refer to the latter. It is given as H. baccifera lutea 
in both forms in the shrub list of Messrs. R. Smith & Co., Worcester 
(see pages 11 and 32). Messrs. Dicksons, Chester, on page 27 of 
their list give the true form as II. arborescens baccifera lutea, and 
the climbing form, page 50, the same as I gave on page 46. I have 
obtained specimens in order to see if the varieties specified are the 
same, and 1 pass them on to the Editor without comment for comparison. 
I think the name given for the tree form by Messrs. Dicksons is the more 
appropriate one. The small slips of the tree form will bear out what 1 
said in reference to the berry-l>earing qualities of this Ivy. I intended 
at least to specify that the tree form berried freely, which it does at 
Chester, Worcester, and other places. I know nothing about the climb¬ 
ing form in this respect, but I am of opinion with age it would also 
produce berries freely enough. If the tree form has been raised, which 
I should say is the case, by propagating the flowering wood of the 
climbing form, I do not know why it should not bear berries ; yet the 
mere propagation of these shoots may account for the tree form berry¬ 
ing, and not the others. Any variety of Ivy will assume the tree form 
if propagated from flowering shoots after the plants have once assumed 
that character. I may be permitted to inform Mr. Divers that I have 
not this particular Ivy, but was asked to get it a year or two ago, on 
account of its berry-bearing qualities.—A City Gardener. 
[We do not observe any material difference in the specimens sent.] 
EVENING NOTES. 
A correspondent, page 94, sends some evening notes which he 
says might be suggestive. What they suggest to me is, Why do not 
more readers of the Journal, young as well as old, jot down notes on 
whatever comes under their notice during the week ? Perhaps ODe 
reason is they think a little note would benefit no one ; but often a hint 
conveyed in this manner may be of considerable service. Some time 
ago a correspondent, page 258, last volume, came forward and published 
the results of experiments he had tried with Eucharis. Then several 
others quite willingly followed to confirm what he said, but up to that 
time all were silent. Now the ilea respecting notes in spare moments 
has been recorded let us hope that they will become familiar in the 
pages of our Journal. Young readers and old also will not only help 
others but improve themselves.— Journeyman. 
SAXIFRAGA LONGIFOLIA. 
In the concluding words of Mr. Leonard respecting the above, 
further information is requested, though it is not clear whether only 
“structural or scientific botanists” are invited to pass an opinion in the 
matter. Without, however, possessing either of these distinctions, I 
venture to give your correspondent an experience of my own in refer¬ 
ence to the inquiry whether some of the distinctions referred to are 
specific. I do not think they are, and for this reason. In the summer 
of 1881 a friend of mine sent me a great variety of select alpines, 
collected by himself when on a tour, the above being represented by 
some fine rosettes, as usual, with but little root attached. Two of these, 
however, promised with care to make flowering plants, though I wa3 
not particularly anxious to bring this about, but an accident occurring 
to one of them, left me the remaining plant, a handsome rosette of 
long, linear, and much-reflexed leaves. I had always regarded this as 
8. longifolia vera, as it never produced an offset, said by some to be 
characteristic of the true plant. Some time after this I gave the plant 
in question to my friend Mr. Latham of the Birmingham Botanical 
Gardens, who flowered it and saved the seed, and raised some seed¬ 
lings from it. I am now in possession of two very distinct forms, both 
emanating from the same source, neither of them in the least like 
the original. One very much resembles what I believe Messrs. Back¬ 
house regard as the true plant; this has stiff leaves horizontally dis¬ 
posed. and are slightly spathuiate near the extremities, and is composed 
of one entire rosette of leaves. The other has very long, narrow, slender 
foliage, much reflexed, and having a cluster of offsets into the bargain.. 
Some of these 1 detached last autumn, as I prefer to build up entire 
rosettes, these being the most handsome, to my thinking at least. It. 
should be mentioned that no other plant flowered at the same time 
as the one here named, and when looking over the batch of seedlings 
last summer, some of which are now fair sized plants, several appear 
quite distinct ; in fact, had I not been aware of their antecedents, it 
would have been difficult to regard them as the result of one plant. 
Collected plants vary considerably, but this is not to be wondered at, 
seeing they flower and seed together ad libitum. There may be specific 
distinctions of this plant certainly ; if so, they are anything but common. 
—E. Jenkins. 
THE CUCKOO. 
In those charming notes on the cuckoo by Mr. Harrison Weir, pub¬ 
lished in the Journal of February 14th, I venture to think some of the 
prettiest lines of all, and which make well of his theory, are omitted. 
I mean those of the late Matthew Arnold. 
So, some tempestuous mom in early June, 
When the year’s primal burst of bloom is o'er, 
Before the Roses and the longest day, 
When garden walks, and all the grassy flowers 
With blossoms red and white of fallen May 
And Chestnut flowers are showD, 
So have I heard the cuckoo’s parting cry 
From the wet fields, through the vext garden treep, 
Come with the volleying rain and tossing breeze ; 
The bloom is gone, and with the bloom go I ! 
****** 
He hearkens not, light comer, he is flown. 
What matters it ? Next year he will return, 
And we shall hear him in the sweet spring day, 
With whitening hedges, and uncrumpling Fern, 
And Bluebells trembling by the forest ways, 
And scent of hay new mown. 
—A. C. 
FRUIT GROWING—PRACTICE versus THEORY. 
We have been requested to publish the following letter which the 
writer thereof communicated to the South-Eastern. Gazette, which 
circulates largely in the fruit-growing districts of Kent 
“ I notice that in a recent issue of your journal you have, under the- 
above title, a leader in which reference is made to a recent article on 
the subject in the Nineteenth Century, and you rightly express your 
doubts as to the profits named therein. 
“ It is a pity that such misleading statements are published, as many 
may be induced to invest their money in hope of getting good profits, 
only to lose it if they are inexperienced in fruit-growing. In the 
article referred to Mr. Morgan makes the extraordinary statement that 
Apple trees in the third year from planting will yield 4s. a tree, or £60 
an acre, if planted 300 to the acre, which is too thick for trees to remain. 
