558 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
December 20, 1894. 
sort?, some of them producing as many as fourteen spikes. All 
the Orchids are ably grown and cared for by Mr. Beale, the head 
gardener.— Geo. Burrows. 
Carnivorous Pl.ants in the Orchid House. 
Considering how readily carnivorous plants adapt themselves 
to the same cultural treatment as Orchids, one need not apologise 
for advancing their claims to be thus grown —en famille. Apart 
from the charm and interest the various Nepenthes add to a 
tropical house, their utility as insect trappers is worthy of considera¬ 
tion, especially in those cases where aerial Orchid roots abound, 
forming a tempting bonne bouche to the mauranding cockroach. 
It may be remarked by some that the power of a Nepenthes in this 
direction is very limited, as it may appear more by accident than 
design that the victim meets his doom. This was my idea when 
in charge of an East Indian house containing some well-pitchered 
plants of N. Rafflesiana dispersed amongst the Orchids. Here, 
with the ofEensive insect in strong force, an occasional catch was 
noted, but in this instance fell short of expectation. 
Recent observations and different results obtained with a few 
plants of N. Mastersiana have prompted these few remarks ; also 
an inquiry as to whether some varieties more than others do not 
possess an attractive force—odour or what not—acting as a lure. 
It would not, I think, be a difficult question to answer with those 
having a collection of varieties and noting results, taking for 
granted that sufficient of the small game abound. Whatever it 
may be with other kinds, N. Mastersiana is certainly worthy of 
mention, and leads me to suspect that the secretive fluid in the 
pitchers is more than usually grateful to the olfactory organs of a 
cockroach ; anyway, they go in, and they come not out. Nor is it 
that we are overrun with the beasties—in fact, seldom see them 
until safely trapped in the pitchers. In forming a collection of 
high temperature Orchids, the merits of the Nepenthes family in 
general, and those members of it in particular possessed of superior 
powers (if such is the case), should not be overlooked. Nepenthes 
The Rajah, head and noblest of the tribe, refuses to live under 
other than the cool treatment, but by its rarity will fall into the 
hands of but few gardeners of this generation. This is to be 
regretted, for a natural pitcher holding a quart of water would 
surely be novel, perhaps good to have. 
From an utility point of view the claims of carnivorous plants 
suited to the temperature of a cool Orchid house cannot be so 
strongly advanced ; yet, in this section are to be found some of 
the most beautiful and interesting of the genus. DionEea muscipula 
stands out pre-eminently in its rat-trap like formation and wonder¬ 
ful automatic mechanism. This, with the beautiful New Holland 
Cephalotus follicularis, enjoy the protection afforded by a tilted 
bell-glass. The hardy Sarracenias—Sidesaddle plants of the North 
American bogs—are, too, worthy of a place among the Odonto- 
glossums, all but rivalling the Orchids in their quaintness of bloom. 
Broseras, the refined and elegant Sundews, should be included, and 
if observed through a magnifying lens the way they secure their 
prey by folding in the glandular hairs to the struggling fly, is, to say 
the least, interesting. Persons well acquainted with them seldom 
tire in observing the ways of these wonders of the vegetable 
kingdom. Some useful, many beautiful, all curious, are conclusions 
to be adduced from our point of view. From a cockroach point 
of view, doubtless matters are slightly different.—E. K., Dublin. 
CARNATION DISEASES. 
“ T. S., Ilenlurij HillR states (page 420), “ I have for some 
time past had an idea that if we could add something to the soil 
or water that the plants could take up without injury, say some 
compound containing sulphur (dissolved bone or sulphate of iron, 
for example), the juices of the plant might be rendered obnoxious 
to the mycelium ” of the fungi. This is a very important and far- 
reaching subject, nothing less than embracing the whole of vegetable 
pathology, and is the exact ground taken up by your able corre¬ 
spondents, “D., Deal," Messrs. W. Bardney, H. Dunkin, anJ other 
cultivators. That these know how to grow Carnations without the 
diseases your correspondent alludes to is manifest from their 
writings, but in presence of the parasites they tacitly admit defeat. 
Nevertheless they cling to their preconceived ideas that parasites 
are a consequence and not cause. With this I am not going to 
differ, for the reason that both in nature and in culture plants 
vary considerably in their immunity from attacks by parasitic 
fungi ; but I wish it to be distinctly understood that no system of 
culture whatever can render vegetable, any more than animal life, 
disease-proof, for all are liable to parasitism, to which they must 
sooner or later succumb. True, it is a question of food, all being 
dependent on one another for subsistence and continuance, hence 
the “stamping out” system is the most drastic and certain of all 
remedies. If, however, diseases cannot be exorcised by cultural 
management, they are, to a certain extent, precluded by a careful 
and nourishing regimen, combined with thorough cleanliness and 
attendance to the essential conditions of health. More proper food, 
suitable environment, and cultural treatment according with the 
habits assigned by Nature to the plant, are the fundamental 
principles upon which preventive and curative measures are (or 
should be) based. 
The Carnation is a native of the South of Europe, and is to 
summer what the Violet is to winter—a producer of air-laden 
fragrance. Both are seen at their best on the hills over which 
sweep the Mediterranean and other sea breezes. That air is salt. 
Look at home. Violets thrive nowhere so well as near the sea—in 
sunny Devon ; on the highest cliffs in Britain (Bowlby heights. 
North Yorkshire) Carnations do the same. Nevertheless, under 
certain cultural conditions both become liable to spot. “ D., Deal,’' 
tells ns (page 421) why they “damp” in structures near the sea, hence 
Carnations are found healthier in murky Sheffield than in stuffy 
plant houses within reach of salt air. The one gets chlorine both 
from the air and water, for there is always abundance of it in town 
rain water, while the other might as well be in the Midlands for 
any benefit derived from the sea breezes. To get chlorine into 
the plant it must pass the epidermis. This it may do in two ways 
—1, absorption by the leaves or soft parts of the plants ; 2, suction 
by the roots. Scientists tell us that leaves cannot absorb 
moisture—water or vapour, but that is a point of no consequence 
to our present investigation, for we obtain it one way or the other, 
either on the epidermis from the air or into the plant by the 
absorption of the rain water. That on the plant—outside, mark— 
must be obtained from the air, which it is not when the house is 
kept close, for instead of being condensed on the leaves it is caught 
on the outside of the glass, and is of no use as a protective coat to 
the plant. Of course, it will pass into the rain water tank, and so 
enter the plant to the extent of about two or three grains per gallon 
of such water absorbed. That is one reason why plants are 
healthier when watered with rain water than with well water. 
The chlorine passes into the plant somehow. It either enters 
by the part above or below ground (epidermis). It does not enter 
by the stomata, and it is questionable if any enter the plant by leaf 
or young growth absorption. All the same, we get it as a deposit 
on the epidermis, along with abundance of sooty and other matter 
deposit in towns, and near the sea it acts on the plant so as to 
harden the epidermal cells, both usually having a double layer of 
air-cells. This I found the case with plants grown in the town of 
Bradford and in the sea air of Cleveland, both in Yorkshire. In a 
close atmosphere the epidermal cells are frequently filled with 
water. This water means other elements—growth to the plant, 
food for the fungus. That is all it wants with the plant. 
Now this chlorine is not of itself hateful to the f unguses l iving 
on Carnations, for they must be able to appropriate potash7 soda, 
magnesia, lime, phosphoric acid, silica, iron, and chlorine, other¬ 
wise they could not exist. But the funguses cannot convert those 
bodies from inorganic into organic matter, therefore if a spore 
alights on a surface coated with chlorine or any of the elements 
named it must perish. The fungus must have this done for it by 
the plant—the potash, soda, lime, magnesia, iron, manganese, 
alumina, phosphoric acid, sulphuric acid, silica, sodium chloride, 
and potassium chloride organised. Thus the fungus can do nothing 
without the previous or present action of the plant, for it is such a 
dainty feeder that it must have its food well prepared—the fatter 
and richer the better. Poverty—the weakly, sickly, and lean—has 
no effect on the fungal appetite ; but see the relish Carnation fungi 
have for succulent, thriving plants. Souvenir de la Malmaisons 
are more esteemed than the species (Dianthus caryophyllus), and 
this point brings us to the gist of the matter—the struggle for 
existence. 
The fungi and their hosts (Carnations) live on exactly the 
same substances. The fungal analysis is:—Potash, 38’97 ; soda, 
1212 ; magnesia, 4-58 ; lime, 1’43 ; pho.^phoric acid, 13’24 ; 
sulphuric acid, 0 02 ; silica, 9T3 ; iron, 2 00; and chloride of soda, 
3 3G. Mark how large the per-centages of potash and phosphoric 
acid are as compared with the sulphuric acid (sulphur) and calcic 
element or lime, also the large amount of soda, silica, and magnesia 
in contrast with those of iron, likewise the appropriative capacity 
of the fungus for chlorine. Understand these elements are 
obtained from the Carnation plant, therefore they must have 
been extracted from the soil, for they are all mineral substances, 
inorganic, and only assimilable by non-parasitic organisms. What 
becomes then of the hygienic doctrine ? Feed a plant, and it is 
only more nutritious food for fungi ; cleanse the epidermis, and it 
only admits the parasites, suckers, or mycelium more freely. But 
other things happen under proper feeding and sanitary conditions. 
The cell walls become thicker, the epidermal cells have stouter 
