March 14,1389. J 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
219 
master, a beautiful Potato, very little diseased, but too wet and close to 
send to table, fair cropper. I should be glad if some gardeners would 
name two or three early and second early varieties, also one or two late 
ones, which they have found to do well in cold, wet districts.—G. Hilton, 
Smithills Hall Gardens, Lancashire. 
FUCHSIA SPLENDENS AND F. COCCINEA. 
Readers of the Journal, myself in particular, are indebted to 
the Rev. George Henslow for his contribution, appearing on 
page 201 of your last issue, relating to the above. On my part it 
is mainly to express thanks to him for the same that I am writing. 
Mr. Henslow probably did not anticipate one immediate effect 
produced by the- perusal of his interesting botanical references to 
records of these highly interesting plants; one, perhaps, that 
presents itself in an aggravating form to many who feast on the 
pages of the gardening press. In my own case I do not hesitate 
to confide in your readers and make open confession to them, that 
in respect to having access to the library of someone interested, 
I am surprised how suddenly the final command of the decalogue 
may be broken. 
Having some of the early volumes of the “ Botanical Magazine,” 
in No. 3 of which, on page 97, F. magellanica, Lamarclc, is figured 
as F. coccinea. On referring to them I was reminded that they 
■did not include the first three volumes, but the gilt characters of 
vol. iv , although considerably dulled by age, then displayed them¬ 
selves in a bold and tantalising way that hitherto I had failed to 
notice. . 
In sending a brief note on the two Fuchsias to the Journal, it did 
not occur to me that by citing the habitat accredited to F. coccinea 
in Loudon’s “ Hortus Britannicus ” the question of its identity 
would arise. I am, however, glad that it has, and shall be more 
especially so if it be the means, in anyway, of creating additional 
interest in these plants—a desire that alone prompted my first note. 
I may mention that the one I had in my mind when writing was 
the F. coccinea of Aiton, which I saw for the first time some years 
ago cultivated in a flower pot which, during the summer months, 
had been placed out of doors, where it had flowered profusely, and 
the season was then advanced sufficiently for some of the foliage 
to attain the brilliant crimson hue that under such conditions it is 
known to acquire.—S. P. E. S. 
JUDGING FRUIT AT HORTICULTURAL SHOWS. 
Mr. McIndoe clearly goes to the root of the vexed question of 
Melon judging when he states, “ If some people cannot discern the good 
■qualities of such fruit without cutting them, then indeed they have 
much to learn in Melon culture.” At horticultural shows nearly all 
fruit judges are gardeners, so must be Melon growers, and as practical 
men well versed in the subject under notice. That being so they ought 
to be able to tell something of the quality of a Melon without applying 
the tasting test. Let us suppose a eardener has a dozen Melons ripe in 
the fruit room and his employer desires the best one to be sent for 
dinner, imagine his or her astonishment if the gardener said, “ I must 
first cut them all ancl see which is the best.” No, that will not do ; this 
tasting business, as Mr. McIndoe predicts, will sooner or later be aban¬ 
doned at all first-class exhibitions. If growers oE Melons can judge at 
home which is the best without cutting them, there can be no reason 
why they should not do likewise when they undertake to judge publicly 
at an exhibition.— W. H. 
PLANTING UNDER TREES. 
Like Mr. Nash, page 39,1 do not agree with Mr. Muir as to common 
Laurels not being satisfactory for planting under trees. My experience 
is that they are much the best to employ for the purpose when properly 
treated, but to procuie plants from a nursery such as are often obtained 
3 and 4 feet high, with a single stem half tbe length, minus leaves, 
failure then is almost sure to take place in procuring a low dense 
growth such as is required to make the best effect. My objection to 
Butcher’s Broom is that it grows too slowly. The trees we have here to 
plant under are Beech, Lime, Elm, Chestnut, Scotch Fir, Yews, and 
Larch. Our object was to produce a dense undergrowth, which formerly 
consisted of large overgrown Laurels, which had become bare at the 
bottom, Yews as much as 10 feet high, and common Hollies the same, 
the latter particularly healthy, as they are here in every position in 
which they are planted. The same may be said of the Yew, the soil, 
heavy and retentive, overlaying chalk, seeming to just suit these two 
shrubs. The Laurels were cut down to within a few inches of the soil 
in some instances where a low growth was required, in others where a 
taller growth was aimed at the Laurels were pruned accordingly. Most 
■of the Yews and Hollies were removed, as the undergrowth w r as intended 
to consist entirely of Laurels in some cases. The vacant places were 
filled with new plants which had been prepared especially for the pur¬ 
pose by closely pruning the shoots annually until thick spreading 
bushes were obtained. Care was taken to place a margin of the best 
plants on the outside, good sized holes were dug for each amongst the 
coots of the large trees, thoroughly breaking up the bottom at least 
1 foot deeper than the roots of the plants would be. Some partly 
decomposed cow and horse manure was added to each, mixing with the 
soil about the roots some vegetable refuse, old potting soil, or similar 
material was placed, treading the whole firmly down. Afterwards a 
heavy mulching of manure partly fresh was placed about them toward 
the end of October, which remained there the following summer, being 
of much service, and in the autumn following the manure was a mass 
of fibrous roots. The plants have an annual pruning in December, 
cutting to whatever height is required, in some eases 2 feet, and others 
4 feet high. Although the common variety of Laurel is good, in our 
opinion it is superseded by the Caucasian variety, which is deeper 
in colour than the common, and is more easily kept down, as it has 
a natural tendency to branch freely. Aucubas we find do not grow 
freely enough to recommend, neither do they preserve their colour well. 
Box grows too spindly to be of much service. If anyone will treat the 
shrubs in the manner described they will have no cause to regret the 
use of common Laurels under trees.—E. Molyneux. 
DAFFODIL ARD RIGH OR IRISH KING. 
Mr. Hartland of Cork, in the early part of the year, sent us some 
cut blooms of this fine variety. It belongs to the spurius type of 
FIG. 33.— DAFFODIL ARD RIGH. 
Haworth, and has been for centuries naturalised in various parts of Ire¬ 
land, particularly in the county Cork. We have been getting vast con¬ 
signments of Daffodils from all parts of Europe to England for the last 
half dozen years. The Pyrenees have been hunted over by various 
collectors, and such fine varieties as Narcissus pallidus prascox, N. 
variiformis, the small white Trumpet Daffodil, said to be moschatus (?), 
have been re-introduced in great quantity, and we must not forget Mr. 
George Maw’s N. bicolor, named at first N. bicolor minor, but afterwards 
changed in order to create confusion to N. nobilis. There is a plant 
figured in Redoute’s beautiful work simply under the name N. pseudo- 
Narcissus, which figure is before us, and it has been but haphazard 
guesswork to match Mr. Maw’s plant with this illustration ; indeed, 
the first work for our Daffodil men should be to overhaul their 
judgment, and put the matter of variiformis (Parkinson) and Mr. Maw’s 
bicolor into order, so that future generations may say the men of the 
nineteenth century made footprints and landmarks to work from. But 
strange with all this research among lost Daffodils, we have not as yet 
arrived at any conc'usion as to how this Irish King Daffodil (fig. 33) 
