August 23,1894. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
169 
difference between what was implied in each case. As it is not so, 
I must tell Mr. Gilmour that free hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen 
may, and will be found ; also that ammonia, carbon dioxide, and 
other elements may be found passing off as a vapour, and would be 
found in most rain which would be returning it again to the soil. 
Is this clear ? 
Those solids deposited upon the surface may be sodium, chloride, 
nitrate of lime, carbonate and sulphates of lime, and magnesia, 
nitrate of soda, nitrate of potash, oxides of iron, and other com¬ 
pounds. There can be no mistake about this ; how then can I be 
at sea ? If I am, then it must be safe in the lifeboat to rescue 
Mr. Gilmour. 
In paragraph 5 I did not intend to insult anyone, and much less 
Mr. Gilmour. Yet it is quite evident that I should have mentioned 
a great deal more that I did not mean on purpose that what I meant 
should not have been perverted. 
As regards paragraph 6, what I meant by rarefied water was a 
certain quantity which could be held in a bucket in its normal 
condition which at a very high temperature, would fill a much 
greater capacity ; and still further, when completely converted 
into vapour, in an invisible form, the space occupied would be 
vast. This vapour would still retain its compound nature— i.e , 
that of two parts of hydrogen and one of oxygen, and be capable 
of dissolving other gaseous compounds and elements and holding 
them in that condition. 
I will tell Mr. Gilmour further that the expansion of water is 
very much like the expansion of that of soap bubbles under 
different circumstances. In a high temperature this expansion will 
go on until the water is completely converted into steam or vapour ; 
up to this condition it will be liquid. The rarefied water present 
in the soil will exist in every condition between its normal state 
and that of vapour, and will be capable of dissolving mineral, 
animal, and vegetable matter and holding it in solution for the 
benefit of plants, which can imbibe this saturated solution and 
appropriate matter required to support and build up its structure. 
Where Mr. Gilmour speaks of capillary attraction carrying up 
rarefied water, that is correct. As the liquid becomes rarefied 
capillary attraction would facilitate its progress to the surface ; but 
water completely converted into vapour in the soil would ascend by 
its lightness or rarefication—it would follow the laws applied to 
diffusion of gases. So there is no occasion to find any other method, 
and I might tell Mr. Gilmour what I ought to have said was “rare¬ 
fied water and water brought to the surface by capillary attraction 
would deposit its solid impurities upon or close to the surface.” 
Relative to paragraph 7, the straightforward facts of the 
case, as set forth by Mr. Gilmour, are practically correct ; yet will 
he confirm that water existing 2 feet or 1 foot down in the soil 
will be brought to the surface by capillary attraction, retaining 
its temperature and capacity that it existed at previous to its move¬ 
ment ? If so he must tell someone that tale who is ignorant of the 
matter. Unless he can prove that it is so I must confirm what I 
said is true. I did not wish to set any conundrum for Mr. Gilmour 
to unfold. What I should have said in my manuscript was, “ My 
impression has always been that the roots being cooler than the 
soil, and cooler than the air, the roots condense the moisture or 
watery vapour into water, and assimilate it with any food that 
may be in solution.” 
In the concluding remarks Mr. Gilmour asks me if I believe 
that rarefied water contains all the elements of plant food. Yes, 
I say that rarefied water as existing in the soil is capable of holding 
in solution all the elements of plant food, whether in a gaseous or 
liquid condition, and is capable of dissolving solid organic and 
inorganic compounds much more readily than water at its normal 
temperature. I do not think, as I know better than that, that 
vapour contains all the elements of plant food. I have stated in 
the fore part of this article, and have repeated it in various forms, 
the vast difference between the two conditions. I consider that 
Mr. Gilmour has perverted a great deal of my two articles on 
purpose to start an argument to knock down. With the exception 
of the two omissions the two articles were correct, and nothing was 
said but what was meant, neither did I wish it to convey what was 
not said. 
About the analysis of condensed water or moisture it is too 
ridiculous. Being able to analyse either vapour, moisture, water, 
air, plant food, soils, in fact all compounds and elements, and 
well knowing the subject, I presumed to show Mr. Gilmour where 
he was wrong, and the facts of the case. I think there is no 
advantage by trying to prove anything that is not capable of being 
confirmed and believed. I shall be very pleased to continue this 
controversy if something is to be learnt or taught. I am writing 
under disadvantages, being in Great Yarmouth for two or three 
weeks, and if Mr. Gilmour replies he must not expect me to answer 
him till I return from my holiday.— Geo. A. Bishop, WigMiokh 
Manor Gardens. 
Mr. Bishop (page 100) in his endeavour to show that water— 
or as he puts it, oxide of hydrogen—exists in an intermediate state 
between water and vapour, submits several statements, none of 
which help him in the slightest. He says, “ If a piece of sugar is 
saturated with water the latter would still be in a liquid form.” 
Yes it would, and the former too, the whole would form syrup. 
Then he says, “ If a few drops of water are dropped upon a large 
piece of sugar and get diffused the drops of water will be water no 
longer.” Will they not indeed ? I rather think if Mr. Bishop 
will place the sugar under the microscope he will be able to see the 
drops of water quite distinctly. 
In his last paragraph Mr. Bishop is good enough to make a 
statement for my information. Well, I am not above receiving 
information from anybody, not even from Mr. Bishop. An old 
proverb tells us not to look a gift horse in the mouth ; but really 
when Mr. Bishop commences by saying that water—I beg his 
pardon, oxide of hydrogen—exists in a state between water and 
vapour one naturally expects to have some proof advanced. After 
carefully reading and re-reading the whole paragraph I can see no 
proof and no argument in it. The water in the kettle simply 
changes from water to vapour, but it appears there are bubbles. 
I am afraid Mr. Bishop’s theory will turn out to be a bubble. This 
babble theory (this is for the information of the readers of the 
Journal of Horticidture') is put forward by Ganot in his book on 
natural philosophy. He supposes that visible steam is composed 
of hollow globules of water. Deschanel, an opposition authority, 
says that it is not so ; but that the globules are homogenous, 
that is of the same consistency throughout, in other words water. 
But suppose we admit that steam from a kettle consists of 
bubbles, how does this assist Mr. Bishop ? What is a bubble ? I 
do not suppose Mr. Bishop can make any more of it than that it is 
air surrounded with a film of water. If the vapour from the kettle 
could be kept at the same high temperature at which it issues from 
the spout the moisture in it would remain invisible; directly it 
cools the moisture is condensed and becomes steam, which is simply 
watery vapour. Clouds and Scotch mist are produced on similar 
lines ; that is to say, warm air takes up and holds in an invisible 
form more moisture than it can retain in that form when the 
temperature lowers. If this natural operation takes place high up 
in the air a cloud is the result, when close to the ground it is 
termed a Scotch mist. But they are both the same, nothing but 
watery vapour.—D. Gilmour. 
DRAWING FOR GARDENERS. 
The articles by “A Worker” (page 121) and Mr. W. Bell 
(page 146) referring to “ Drawing for Gardeners ” are so full of 
interest that I am prompted to send you a few lines upon the 
subject. That drawing as a part of a gardener’s education is a 
necessity I can demonstrate from exp rience. During last winter 
some alterations were being done in the gardens under my charge, 
and among other things the removal of an old brick flue from a 
range of houses by which they had been heated, and putting in hot- 
water pipes, formed one of the improvements. My employer was 
negotiating with a firm of hot-water engiu'ers for the supply of 
pipes and boiler, but not fixing them. He came to me and said he 
had received a letter from them stating that they wished to see a plan 
of the houses and all particulars; they would then be able to see 
what piping was required, and could send an estimate. He added, 
“I want you to draw a plan showing the position of the pipes, 
giving exact measurements and all particulars.” This was rather 
hard on one who never had a lesson in drawing, but I was 
determined to do my best. The houses varied in size, and the 
pipes were to be arranged so that each structure could be heated 
by itself, or all of them together, so I commenced to work and did 
the plan, and though not an elaborate one, it answered the purpose. 
During the alterations my employer was confined to his room by 
illness, and I received a message from him to the effect that he 
wished to see a sketch showing the position of the boiler when 
fixed. Here again my self-taught drawing had to be put into 
practice. I could give other instances where I have been asked to 
do similar things as a part of my duty, but I think this is sufficient 
to show that drawing is a necessity as part of a gardener’s training. 
The rising generation will not feel so much handicapped as some of 
us are at present. Thanks to legislation the school rules have been 
revised, and the children of to-day are receiving a more varied 
education than they did a few years ago. My boys, though quite 
young, can tell me more about drawing than ever I heard of the 
whole of the time I went to school. • j- 
I do not wish for one moment to reflect any discredit on arcbi- 
tects, but Mr. Bell goes to the point when he says there are few 
who understand the requirepients of plant houses. An architect 
was instructed to prepare a plan for a new conservatory here in 
