76 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN, November 6, 1860. 
use sending them. There were buds on No. 1, but no bloom, but 
my friend told me it was much the same as the others. My friend 
lias a nice shrubby plant of No. 1 in a pot. I would pay much 
more deference to his judgment than my own, in either floral or 
botanical distinctions, and he assures me that No. 1, with the 
rather upright, grass-like, awl-shaped leaves, is the true original 
rigens. You will observe that there is a great difference of the 
foliage of No. 1 and all the rest. No. 2 is the true splendens, 
obtained through a nurseryman direct from Messrs. Henderson. 
The leaves are shorter, slightly more rounded, and if anything 
more white beneath than Nos. 3 and 4. The white shows a 
little on the upper side also, and from standing often obliquely 
you catch the view of the under side. I think, also, that the 
plant altogether inclines to be dwarfer and more trailing than 
No. 3, though my friend owned that this season No. 3 bloomed 
most profusely, and that the blooms individually were quite as 
large as No. 2. No. 3 is what I have long known and grown as 
rigens, but never had it so fine as this wet season, thus giving a 
hint as to its culture. No. 4 is from a strong plant of what was 
sent to me as splendens, differing little except in having the 
leaves a little broader than No. 3, longer than No. 2, and also in 
the stems being much more abundantly stored with milky juice. 
All who know rigens under the character it presents under No. 1, 
and under which aspect my friend tells me it is not very free 
blooming, would have reason to be pleased with No. 2, which, 
no doubt, is a great improvement. If they had previously had 
No. 3 as rigens, they would be too apt to imagine they had 
got a distinction without a difference. There is also a consider¬ 
able difference between No. 2 and No. 4, if you scrutinise the 
leaves closely, so far confirming our friend Mr, Beaton’s state¬ 
ments as to the number of varieties. A drawing of these leaves, 
especially No. 1 and No. 2, would settle the point as to the dis¬ 
tinct varieties at least.—R. F. 
[We have printed the foregoing letters because we would not 
have any of our readers suspect that we are not willing to have 
our errors, or the errors of our contributors, fully exposed when- 
ei r they occur. In the present instance, however, we think 
tL it there is no error except on the part of those who for many 
years have been cultivating Gazania splendens under the mis¬ 
applied name of G. rigens. 
We never saw the latter in cultivation, but we have referred 
to the coloured drawing of it in the “Botanical Magazine,” 
vol. i., t. 90, and if that drawing is correct, it is unmistakeably 
distinct from G. splendens. The petals are fewer in number, 
the white marks on the dark brown of the claws of the petals are 
totally different in form, and some of the leaves are of a shape 
quite varying from those of G. splendens. To enable our readers 
to identify G. rigens, we copy the following description of it 
from Martyn’s edition of Miller’s “ Gardener’s Dictionary.” 
“ This is a low-spreading plant, with woody stalks six or eight 
inches long, trailing on the ground, having two or three side 
branches, each terminating in a close head of leaves, which are 
narrow, green on their upper, but silvery on their under surface, 
and cut into three or five segments at the end. The peduncles j 
arise from these heads, are six inches long, naked, and support , 
one large orange-coloured flower; each floret in the ray has a 
dark mark towards the base, withtvhite intermixed.” The words 
which we print in italics, besides the other points of difference 
we before mentioned, make the flowers quite distinct from those 
of G. splendens. Those who wish to see a coloured portrait of 
the latter may do so in plate 29 of Messrs. Carter’s “ Illustrated 
Bouquet.” 
If our Teaders will refer to our No. 623, they will see Mr. 
Beaton’s account of the origin of G. splendens, and his belief I 
thkt it is a cross betw een G. rigens and G. uniflora. We should ! 
have thought that G. pavonia more likely to be one of the j 
parents. Mr. Beaton refers to the “Botanical Register” of 
1835, but the volume he had in his mind is twenty years older j 
than that. In 1815 (“ JBot. Reg., i., t. 35) is a coloured portrait j 
of G. pavonia. The claws of the petals, or rather florets of the 
ray, have each a distinct arrow-head-shaped mark. Its leaves 
are pinnatifid. Mr. Sydenham Edwards there observes, “ In 
G. rigens the circle that encompasses the foot of the ray is black, 
here (in G. pavonia) of a hazel brown on the inside, and blue 
on the opposite surface. At Messrs. Colvilles’ and Mr. Knight’s 
nurseries we have seen a plant which we take to be a hybrid, or 
cross production of the two, partaking, in almost equal pro¬ 
portions, of those parts in which the parents differ, but altogether 
smoother and more robust than either ; the very circle of the 
ray is partly black, as in rigens, and partly brown, as in pavonia.” 
Of the Gazania leaves sent by our correspondent, Nos. 3 and 4 
are entirely alike, and like those of a well-cultivated G. splendens. 
Those marked No. 2 are altogether shorter, and of a darker green 
on the upper surface. Leaves No. 1 are totally different from 
either, and so approaching to awl-shaped, with the end rather 
expanding into a lanceolate form, with a revolute edge, that we 
suspect them to belong to G. suhulata; but no one can be 
certain upon the point without seeing the flowers. 
We shall be obliged by any one sending us plants of what they 
believe to be G. rigens and G. suhulata. — Eds. 0. G.] 
GRAPES SHANKING-. 
I HAVE a large vinery of Black Hamburgh Grapes planted 
twelve years ago, and the Grapes shank every year. The border 
is four feet deep, and the soil is bad. What would you advise 
me to do with the border ? What book would you advise me to 
piu-chase on the cultivation of Yines ?—T., A Subscriber. 
Another correspondent, “ A. B. B.,” has his Muscats of 
Alexandria similarly shanked this year, “ and the leaves turned 
yellow as they do in autumn. The Yines are planted inside the 
house; but the greater pai’t of the roots have grown into the 
border outside, which is very wet indeed, and some of the roots 
are quite at the bottom of it.” 
[These are only two out of a score of letters all agreeing in 
complaining of shanked Grapes, and all making statements in one 
form or other, showing that the roots are growing in a tem¬ 
perature too cold in comparison with the temperature in which 
the branches and leaves are luxuriating. To one and all we give 
the same answer: Raise the roots to within eighteen inches of 
the surface, and by placing bricks, &c., below them prevent 
them descending lower; manure the surface so as to tempt the 
roots to ascend; cover the outside borders with tarpaulin or 
other shelters, so as keep from them excessive rains and cold; 
drain them thoroughly where wet. Again and again have we 
told inquirers that they must keep the roots of Vines as warm as 
they do their branches. If they do that, supply them on the 
surface with a little manure annually, and do not allow the roots 
to descend deeper than eighteen inches, they will have no 
shanked Grapes. Mr. Ashman in his communication to-day 
sustains what we now, and so repeatedly, have recommended.] 
CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT OF AN 
ORCHARD-HOUSE. 
As many orchard-houses have been built, and many more will 
be now that their practical utility is so fully recognised, I think 
it may be useful to give a few hints as to their management, the 
result of four years’ experience. But first let me say a few words 
as to the construction of an orchard-house. 
No one is more conscious how much the gardening world ow r es 
to Mr. Rivers than myself; and I would recommend those who 
have not read his “ Orchard-house,” to procure it. The enthu¬ 
siasm with which it is written is delightful, but I believe some 
of his directions as to building can only be carried out under 
very favourable circumstances. 
In this neighbourhood Oak for posts is expensive, and if it 
w r ere cheaper I would not recommend its use. A wooden house 
with a glass roof is, after all, only a glazed shed, and if not in¬ 
tended to be heated can never be so safe from frosts as a good 
brick building. Without glass sides much fruit will be shaded 
and infei'ior; with glass sides and one end glass, so few bricks 
are required that it can never be worth while to sacrifice dura¬ 
bility and appearance in attempting to do without them. 
The house we recommend is a span-roofed house 60 feet long 
by 20 feet wide, the bricks laid in Portland cement, the sides 
and one end glass, costing about £105. If this be larger than is 
required, 40 feet by 20 feet is a convenient size. We have one 
which cost £66. No better houses need be built as orchard- 
houses, and if heated they would be equally adapted for green¬ 
houses or vineries. If the glass end is towards the south the 
light will be more equally distributed—one side having the 
morning sun, the other the afternoon. I would not build an 
orchard-house less that 20 feet wide. A large body of ah’ is, of 
course, less quickly reduced in temperature, and at wenty-feet house 
will be safefrom a frost thatmight be injurious in a narrowbuilding. 
Whilst travelling in Scotland lately I found many persons 
who talked of orchard-houses as failures, and gave myself some 
