January 20,1887. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
41 
the shop and commanded a very ready sale. In many other struc¬ 
tures, mostly under stages, of stoves, and intermediate houses, large 
quantities of Yictoria roots were placed for succession and were 
brought forward by the 100 for market. These roots were placed 
close together, and often without any covering gave excellent 
returns. The watering from the plants, which were mostly in small 
pots crowded on the wide stages, supplied the moisture, so that no 
labour, except gathering the Rhubarb and taking them in and out, 
was expended. In vineries, Pine pits, Gardenia structures, or any 
other space with a few vacant lights did duty for Rhubarb forcing, 
and in the extensive manure yards (where great quantities of 
stable manure was carted from the West-end mews) was a receptacle 
for Rhubarb roots. A frame placed over them, where they were 
merely pushed close together, and a covering of manure thrown 
over, soon started the dormant crowns. To say which did 
best under such rough and ready treatment was almost an 
impossibility, but the earliest and deepest red in colour realised 
the most remunerative prices, but all was good. After the forcing 
was over the roots were carted back to the fields, where well-prepared 
ground was ready to receive them. Many were reduced, and when 
all were planted a good mulching was given and Lettuce or some 
other quick-growing crop planted between the rows, enough space 
being left clear of the litter for the early summer crops. The 
same roots were not generally forced the following year. 
That great establishment was long since cleared away and no 
trace of the acres of glass now remains, and though I was a boy 
when employed there, every contrivance to raise supplies (for 
Co vent Garden) of the great variety of esculents and flowers 
remain as distinctly on my memory now as then, and none more 
than the vast quantity of Rhubarb forced, such as would give 
abundance to hundreds of private establishments.—M. Temple, 
Carronhouse. 
THE BEST ROSES. 
Before the critics swoop down upon me will you allow me to 
correct a very great omission which has occurred in Mr. B. R. Cant’s 
paper in the “ Rosarian’s Year Book.” How it occurred I cannot say. 
1 cannot blame the printer, and so must bear the burden, and cry 
Peccavi. The following ten Roses were omitted from the list 2, 
Edouard Morren ; 5, Francois Michelon ; 3, Louis Van Houtte ; 3, 
Marie Rady ; 5, Marie Baumann ; 3, Merveille de Lyon ; 1, Hippolyte 
Flandrin ; 1, Madame Hippolyte Jamain ; 5, Marquise de Castellane ; 
4, Innocente Pirola. The figures before each denote the number of 
times they were shown by Mr. Cant in the five collections which gained 
the champion trophy in the five years in which he won it. As I say, 1 
cannot account for the omission of these names, and it was not dis¬ 
covered until after the book was printed.—D., Deal. 
DEGENERATION OF THE CHAMPION POTATO. 
“ The Champion,” or Scottish Champion, has been a blessing to 
Ireland for several years past. When first introduced the growth was 
prodigious—stalks 6 and 7 feet high, in not particularly rich soils, 
and produce almost in proportion. During the partial distress in 
several parts of the country in 1881 hardly any other variety would 
be accepted by the authorities, but it was afterwards freely asserted 
that contractors imposed worthless or worn-out varieties instead on the 
ignorant. This gave this variety somewhat of a worse name than it 
deserved ; but this year I am sorry to say, as a grower and close observer 
myself, and acquainted directly or indirectly with most of the island, 
the Champion has almost hopelessly degenerated. The crop in the 
majority of cases would not pay for the labour and manure, and I shall 
not plant it again, though only imported direct from Forfar, N.B., the 
year previous. 
I shall only now make a few references to two questions, but in 
answering I hope some of your correspondents will amplify them. 1, 
Why did the Champion degenerate so rapidly ? and 2, What variety do 
your readers propose for a general field crop to take its place ? In 
asking the views of others I am free to give my own. 1, I presume the 
“ degeneration ” referred to will not be questioned. Assuming this, I 
think it has been very much owing to its precocity in this respect. It is 
not an early variety, nor even a second early one ; yet I know no other, 
not even the well-known Ashleaf or “ Eight Weeks,” that commenced 
growth so 60 on. Even to-day I have some pits out in the field, and 
when the boulders of frozen clay are removed there are stalks several 
inches long. Indoors it is not quite so bad, but the result generally is 
that the first buds are always rubbed away, and it is only the second or 
third growths (much less robust than the first) that growers can depend 
on for the crop. I can understand an American variety raised in a 
different climate, and not ripening sufficiently here, degenerating, but 
this explanation will not suffice here, as this variety was raised in Great 
Britain. 2, As to the best successor or substitute. I like Cosmopolitan, 
but it is too early, and Magnum Bonum is not fit to use for general 
purposes until after March. Reading Hero has not come up during the 
past two years to expectations, but I will try it again. Beauty of Hebron 
is a fine cropper but too early, like Cosmopolitan. Scottish Queen I 
must tryiagain before deciding this year.—W. J. Murphy, Clonmel. 
PEAT FOR ORCHIDS. 
I have always regarded peat that contains large quantities of the 
rhizomes of bracken as rather wasteful, and to entail in addition consi¬ 
derable labour in pulling it to pieces to remove them. There can be no 
question about the lasting properties of the fibre in these turves, for it 
is certainly more durable and lasts in good condition longer than the 
finer light fibre that is formed by grasses. I observe that it is recom¬ 
mended not to pull these sods to pieces to remove the rhizomes, but to 
cut the turves, leaving portions of the bracken in. This is a question 
of great importance, and I should much like to see the opinion of exten¬ 
sive Orchid growers on this matter. I have visited several Orchid¬ 
growing establishments, but do not remember ever observing peat being 
used with these rhizomes left in it. For my own part, when turning 
out Orchids and other plants, I have frequently noticed when it has 
been left in—sometimes only very small pieces—that a small fungus 
has been growing upon it, and in some instances it has spread through 
a good portion of the soil surrounding it. Only last year, when potting 
some Cattleyas, the soil about the roots of one plant was full of fungus, 
and I could find no trace of anything likely to cause it, only a few 
strong roots of bracken that had been placed in with lumps of peat 
when potting the plants two years previously. The opinion of others 
on this point will be both interesting and instructive.— Wm. Bardney. 
CALANTHES. 
According- to the notes which have appeared in the Journal recently 
failures in Calanthe culture seem to be getting more prevalent, and I 
think your Sheffield correspondent has done good service in bring¬ 
ing the subject forward that it may be ventilated, and perhaps 
the cause found and a remedy applied. It seems it is not only in 
gardens about Sheffield where failures have occurred, but in other 
places. “ W. K. W.” tells us that in some gardens in that neighbour¬ 
hood they were a great success this season. I do not think that locality 
has much to do with it. A few years ago I witnessed a complete failure 
with a batch of well-grown pseudo-bulbs in a garden in this neighbour¬ 
hood, and where the gardener had a reputation for growing them well. 
Whether it is a disease or not I cannot say, but I cannot help thinking 
that- the primary cause of the failure is due to an excess of water 
during, the latter period of growth. The black spot appeared on the 
pseudo-bulbs on two plants out of a number that I have grown this 
season. Just about the time they finished swelling, as soon as it was 
detected, water was withheld, and very little was given after. The re¬ 
sult was that they produced their flower-spikes in due time. Had I 
given them water enough to have kept the soil moist, my belief is that 
the spot would have spread. 
It is not, perhaps, generally known that Calanthes will grow and do 
well in a soil consisting of little else but loam. The soil generally 
used is a mixture of peat, loam, and cow manure, which I have used 
myself previous to this season. Having an idea that they had a liking 
for loam I decided to pot them in it, which I did, selecting the fibrous 
part, adding a little silver sand, a few small pieces of charcoal, with a 
little coarse wood ashes. The loam was of first-rate quality. During 
the growing season I used a little fish potash manure two or three times 
mixed with the water. The result was fine pseudo-bulbs and very fine 
spikes of flowers. It is necessary to exercise great care in watering 
when they are potted in such soil, as it retains the moisture 
longer than a more porous compost. Having rather a large number of 
C. vestita 1 have found the sprays extremely useful for cutting, and 
when associated with scarlet flowers they are very pretty in the vases. 
I have enclosed three spikes simply to show their vigour and the number 
of flowers they bore when grown in the above-mentioned soil. I cannot 
agree with the suggestion of Mr. F. Debnam (page 586, vol. xiii.) respect¬ 
ing the want of air at the roots, or failure would have been inevitable 
with me this season, as mine were potted firmly and in heavy sod. Was 
it not more likely that those in pots had more water than those in 
baskets, or rather retained it longer, and thereby caused failure in 
one case and success in the other?—R. M., Western County. 
[The spikes sent measured respectively 3 feet 8 inches, 2 feet 
II inches, and 2 feet 7 inches in length ; were extremely vigorous 
samples with large flowers, and had evidently liked the treatment 
accorded them.] 
In answer to your correspondent, Mr. F. Debham, concerning his 
smallest pseudo-bulbs of Calanthes in pots refusing to develope their 
flowers under similar treatment to those grown in baskets, I cannot 
accept his explanation of the failure as arising from the want of a free 
circulation amongst the roots, by their being confined to the inside of 
pots. We find it necessary to treat Calanthes as terrestrial Orchids 
both in baskets and pots, and if pots are utilised a suitable compost will 
counterbalance their confinement. Having experienced the unfortunate 
results, my opinion leads me to think it is chiefly owing to excessive dry¬ 
ness at their roots during development. I have seen the two methods 
