J 
298 THE FLORIST. 
to their utility I pledge myself, fearing not that they will give 
satisfaction. 
By the three rows here introduced, it will be observed that I am 
an advocate for the duplicate system of arrangement, that is, the first 
and seventh in each row to be the same variety, so with the second 
and sixth, the third and fifth; and I am convinced that this uni¬ 
formity (although perhaps difficult of execution) tends much to create 
general harmony in a well-bloomed bed of Tulips. The difficulty 
consists in not perhaps having two, four, or six blooming bulbs of 
each variety. There is no novelty certainly in all this; but the 
arrangement pleases me, and I have been complimented by older cul¬ 
tivators than myself upon the system, when they have honoured me 
by a visit at blooming-time. 
I will conclude by giving the following list of a few useful show- 
flowers ; 
Roses —Aglaia, Catalan!, Claudiana, Cerise a belle forme. Ponceau 
tres blanc, Maria, Madame Vestris, Lac, and Triomphe Royale. 
Byblcemens —Bijou des Amateurs, David, King (Holmes’), Lalla 
Rookh, Salvata Rosa, Pandora. 
Bizarres —Fabius, Glencoe, Hamlet, Polyphemus, PlatofF, King 
(Strong’s), Thomas Brown, and Ulysses. 
Wace Cottage, Holloway. 
THE RANUNCULUS. 
May I claim a brief space in your next Florist, just to state to 
Dr. Horner and your readers in general, that my article on the 
treatment of the Ranunculus, which appeared in the September 
Number, was written towards the close of June, and consequently 
I had not seen the respected doctor’s second letter, which appeared 
in July. I conceive the contents of this second letter modify, in a 
great degree, the statement of the first. In the June communication, 
the no-water theory was propounded, and shade was advised chiefly 
when the plants were in flower, as a protection to the blossoms. 
In the letter of July, the advantage of shading the plants was more 
largely entered into, and “ one rather plentiful watering, just as the 
flowers are expanding,” recommended. 
1 have the happiness to be a cultivator and not a controver¬ 
sialist, nor have I even a latent wish to forsake one occupancy for 
the other. I have read with pleasure the doctor’s communications, 
excepting only those few lines in which he says my statement is un¬ 
pardonable—wishes I may feel the unjustness of my remarks, &c.; 
and these expressions I feel assured the doctor, in his benevolence 
and candour, will withdraw, when he learns that I had not, when 
writing, seen his second letter, which contains the principal of those 
statements, for the total disregard of which he is pleased to censure 
me. 
