July B, 1994. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
3 
relations of gases and fluids, the vesicular structure of plants, and 
the laws which govern the passage of fluids and the substances and 
gases held in solution through the cell walls.” Fancy that ; when 
all that was wanted was so simple, and the existence of which was 
so easy of proof, that weeds when hoed up died on a sunny day. 
I think Mr. Raillem should “go at” this Kew man: but still 
might perhaps be good enough to say what object he had in view 
in seeking information bear.ng, as the matter stands, on what 
really amounts to a revolution of our system of manuring the 
soil for the sustenance of crops. True, he did not say so much, 
or perhaps mean it ; but that is what it comes to, or my name is 
not— Naillem. _ 
Mr. Raillem writes in such a loose way, that I am not 
surprised that “ Naillem ” with myself, and probably other 
readers, cannot understand exactly what he means. On page 512 
he says, “What he wants to know was whether it is doubted 
that the rising moisture does bring up plant food ? ” On page 445 
he says, “ What he wants to know is—(1) Is it doubted that 
moisture is always rising through the ground? (2) Can such 
moisture carry up with it the soluble elements of manure ? ” But 
on page 388, his original communication, he puts forth quite a 
different question. There his anxiety is to know, “Is it generally 
understood that plants only imbibe moisture as it is being evapo¬ 
rated ? ” I think every reader of the Journal of Horticulture will 
see that Mr. Raillem’s original question differs considerably from 
those in his later communications. 
I prefer to deal with his original question. There he puts 
forth a theory, beginning with a statement told to him, he says, 
by a good scientific authority (probably on the 1st April), that 
“ the roots of plants cannot assimilate water.” This, I take it, is 
the foundation of .his whole theory ; and if I can prove, as I think I 
have already done, that nothing but water will hold and convey 
the food into the plants, and if I can further prove that the roots 
of plants do and can assimilate water through their roots, I am 
under the impression I demolish Mr. Raillem’s theory altogether, 
just as I should demolish a house by suddenly removing the 
foundations. 
In my former replies to Mr. Raillem I pointed out it was a 
scientific fact that vapour either in the air or in the soil could not 
contain any plant food whatever. This should, I think, convince 
any reasonable person that plants cannot live or thrive on vapour or 
anything conveyed to them by vapour. 
I will endeavour now to demonstrate to Mr. Raillem and his 
scientific authority that the roots of plants can assimilate water. 
A plant in a pot shall be allowed to go unwatered for a few days. 
Result—the leaves wilt and droop and the whole plant dries up. If this 
plant be plunged in water, so that the water covers the soil entirely, 
thereby excluding the air from the roots, what is the result ? 
Every gardener knows. The plant in a few hours will absorb and 
drink in through the roots enough water to plump up its leaves 
and stems, and restore it to a state of health. How does Mr. 
Raillem make his vapour theory fit this ?—D. Gilmour. 
I HAVE read with pleasure time after time “ A. D.’s ” practical 
expositions on gardening matters, but it is amusing to note the 
sceptical tone of the intensely praccical man who dubs natural 
phenomena by the high sounding jingle of scientific theories, 
and declines to believe they have any bearing on his practice 
except you can prove it to him by ocular demonstration. It would 
be absurd on my part to poise as a scientific authority, but being 
imbued with the belief that our scientific thinkers are also intensely 
practical in their work and conclusions, that their theories are 
proven by inference supported by facts, and as such carry greater 
weight with thinking men than do the conclusions of simply 
practical men based on superficial knowledge, practical as it may 
be, because without some knowledge of cause and effect how can 
a sound judgment be formed ? Therefore, I see no reason why 
scientific or more exact truth cannot be reconciled to practical 
ends without making a bogey of it. “ Naillem’s ” letter on this 
subject lays the onus of proof upon those who have taken the 
other view of the question, whilst he gives credit to “ A. D. ” 
as the only one who has given a practical turn to the discussion ; 
yet “ A. D.,” practical as he may be, made some suggestive state¬ 
ments which, under certain conditions, would convey unsound 
and consequently impractical ideas to those who place implicit 
confidence in his practical knowledge and teachirg. 
Let ns now come directly to the point at issue. To state that 
moisture passes upwards when the surface soil is dryer than the 
soil below is simply quoting the natural law of capillarity, but to 
suggest that it does so in the form of vaporous moisture is rather 
far fetched. Before this can take place the temperature of tl e 
lower soil must be higher than that at the surface during the growing 
season. Speaking broadly, this is not the case, and less likely is it 
to be so during the hot dry weather cited by Mr. Raillem 
(page 388). Mr. Gilmour’s illustration re vapour was therefore an 
apt one bearing directly on the query. Does moisture in the form 
of vapour pa sing upwards carry with it manurial elements? It 
has already been shown how the insoluble food is rendered soluble. 
There need be neither mystery, science, nor running off the rails on 
the question of soluble food. As a matter of course, moisture in 
its normal condition passing through soil, whether rising by 
capillarity or sinking by gravity, must carry with it some 
proportion of the soluble plant food present. The quantity of 
moisture and the proportion of soluble food presented to the plant 
or crop is a question of degree dependant on circumstances. 
An indispensable condition to growth is “ turgidity of the 
cells, ’ but during hot sunshine and a dry atmosphere transpiration 
may be in excess of a limited supply at the roots ; the plant then 
becomes flaccid, growth is checked, and if the loss by transpiration 
is not checked, as it is usually by moister conditions of the 
atmosphere during the night, the plant must eventually die. 
Possibly these remarks will explain why the weeds grew, but yet 
slowly, over the gravel path under circumstances of great difficulty. 
DISEASE IN CARNATIONS. 
I HAVE seen many complaints lately of the prevalence of that 
most detestable fungus Uromyces carophyllinus. As I am a large 
grower of Carnations and have suffered severely from its presence 
among my plants, perhaps you will allow me to say a few words on 
the subject. In the first place let me say that I think we are 
unnecessarily alarmed about it. I have seen correspondents 
advised to burn their entire stock. 
No doubt the remedy would prove efficacious for the moment, 
and, until a new stock has been procured, probably the disease, 
which appears to be ubiquitous, would then break out again, and— 
well, we need not pursue that subject. No ! the disease is with us, 
and, unless it is made a matter of combined effort, is probably 
“come to stay.” We shall do well to accept it, and study how to 
minimise its ill effects. 
Its presence is detected by the appearance of a small dark 
“boil” on the leaf, which penetrates its entire thickness, and 
shows on both back and front. This boil bursts across, discharging 
an infinite number of chocolate or coffee coloured spores, which 
under the microscope appear like little transparent jujubes. These 
are carried about by draughts of air, and spread the disease with 
terrible rapidity, but the essential condition of its progress is a 
warm, dry atmosphere. These spores are, like the pollen of 
flowers, practically bereft of their powers of reproduction when 
they are damp and “ cloggy ; ” and my experience is that so long 
as frequent syringing is adopted the disease spreads but slowly 
if at all, and is not at that time of any serious importance. 
In support of what I say I would urge the fact that out of doors 
the disease is harmless, comparatively at least with “spot” and 
other cognate inflictions. I come across occasional evidence of it, 
but it does not spread, even to any extent, upon the plant that 
may be found affected. I should be glad to hear if any of your 
readers have been ever seriously troubled with it out of doors. 
But there comes a time when the flowers expand, the syringe can 
no longer be freely used, and then we have ample evidence of 
what the disease can do. Happy is the man who has taken 
precautions against it throughout the spring. 
My system is to syringe frequently during all the spring 
months, going constantly over the plants and picking off and burn¬ 
ing every leaf affected. The main point is to detect it in its 
incipient stage before the “ boil ” has burst and the spores have 
been released. The syringing is, I think, rendered more efficacious 
if a very weak solution of blue copperas (sulphate of copper) is 
used in the process. This in no way injures the foliage if employed 
in sufficient dilution ; it is, however, better to use it in the 
evening, as it is apt to scorch the leaves a little if a hot sun comes 
upon them when wet. I thus minimised the sources of contagion 
before being compelled to stop the syringing, and have continued 
to pick off ail affected leaves whenever time has permitted. As 
soon as the bloom is over—I am speaking now of Malmaisons— 
the plants will be turned out of the house and layered in the open 
air, the processes of leaf-picking and syringing being persistently 
followed up. I shall be greatly disappointed if by the time the 
layers are taken up— i.e , in September, I do not find the plants 
entirely free from the disease. Condy’s fluid I have found very 
efficacious in checking the growth of this fungus, though it does 
not extirpate it ; indeed, up to the present time I have found 
nothing that will. It has no evil effect on the leaves, nor upon the 
roots of the plants, which were watered experimentally with a 
strongish solution of it. On the leaves it has been used “neat” 
