300 
THE GARDENING WORLD 
January 9, 1886. 
“Yes,” said the owner, “that ‘poor one’ cost me 
twenty-one guineas in Stevens’s Rooms last year, and 
now it is not worth as many pence. ” He then went on 
to remark about the way that Odontoglossums flowered 
the second year after they were imported. I could 
give numerous instances of the same thing, but I 
daresay those given will suffice, I shall be very pleased 
to hear the opinion of some of our leading Orchid 
growers on this subject. I maintain that if the first 
spike made in this country is a good one, that it will 
come so again ; but if the first spike is of a narrow- 
petalled form no amount of cultivation will ever alter 
it.— W. Thomson, Jun., Clovenfords. 
Sweet-scented Orchids.— Your correspondent 
at p. 285, mentions Pilumna laxa, but does not notice 
that it is extremely sweet-scented after dark, even 
sweeter than P. fragrans or P. nobilis, but has no 
scent at all during the day. Another Orchid which is 
remarkable for its extremely rich powerful scent at 
night, is Epidendrum ciliare, which is just coming into 
flower with me. It remains in flower for several weeks 
in my drawing room every winter. — C. IV. Strielclavd, 
Hildenley, Malton. 
-->;£<-- 
SYRINGING ORCHIDS. 
Mr. James O’Brien’s paper calling attention to some 
of the evils attending this practice will possibly do some 
good, but in condemning it at all seasons, in any form, 
and in the sweeping and unequivocal way he has done, 
he will possibly not only neutralize that good, but 
very probably do some harm by inducing those who 
have hitherto succeeded in the judicious use of the 
syringe to abandon it altogether, and so fail. In con¬ 
demning the use of the syringe, he appears to have 
imitated the example of a “special pleader” rather 
than that of an impartial arguer, by using such 
arguments only as are most damaging to his adversary, 
but in discussing a question of this nature, the pro and 
con would have been the fairer method and the one best 
calculated to elicit the truth. If instead of quoting 
and discussing the acknowledged wrong methods of 
using the syringe only, he had also discussed and com¬ 
bated the better and very generally approved methods 
which many, if not most Orchid growers believe to be 
advantageous and even essential to the health of the 
plants, his arguments would have appeared less 
prejudiced and therefore less objectionable. 
Mr. O'Brien in quoting from a paper read by him at 
the Orchid Conference, says, “syringing a house of 
Orchids should never be done.” “ When used on plants 
the operator cannot tell what he is doing, and in the 
hands of a thoughtless person the syringe is the most 
mischievous instrument ever introduced.” “There 
can be no rule for its use among Orchids for dis¬ 
tributing water, and certainly no benefit can be set 
against the loss of young growths and decayed flower 
spikes which must follow an indiscriminate use of it. ” 
I am quite unable to see why the operator cannot see 
as clearly what he is doing with a syringe in hand as 
with a water pot. As to putting either into the hands of 
a thoughtless person in an Orchid house, well! I 
would rather not ! but of the two instruments when in 
such hands commend me to the former as being the 
least likely to lead to bad results. 
There truly can be no rule, no absolute rule for its use, 
nor, I imagine, can there be for the use of any other 
instrument, nor scarcely for any other of the many 
delicate operations required in the management of 
Orchids. That the loss of young growths and decayed 
flowers -will follow its indiscriminate use none can deny, 
but omit the prefix here, and all is well. “ Syringing 
is supposed by some to be a means of keeping up a 
moist atmosphere, but as to the benefit to be derived 
from it in that capacity, in my experience it defeats 
itself by producing too much moisture at times.” 
Surely it is not intended here to mean that a supply of 
atmospheric moisture is maintained by syringing over¬ 
head, and if it means only for the purpose of damping 
walls, paths, and other dry surfaces, it is, perhaps, of 
all others the most useful instrument ; and even Mr. 
O’Brien does not, in the early part of his paper, object 
to its use for this purpose. 
We are not informed what means Mr. O’Brien would 
advocate in the arrangement of the houses for the 
supply of a proper and “equable ” amount of moisture ; 
but as he appears to infer that the method is uncertain 
and hurtful, we may, perhaps, safely conclude that he 
would adopt some method of evaporation of moisture 
from the heating apparatus, or from conveniently 
situated fermenting materials. Each of these methods 
has its special advocates, and, as far as I have been able 
to judge, each of them appears to answer well when 
carefully and intelligently carried out. My experience 
has led me to believe that moisture evaporated from 
the heating apparatus or from open tanks (except in 
the driest and hottest weather), although the least 
troublesome to obtain, is the most dangerous because 
the most difficult to regulate, and consequently in cold 
weather the most conducive to the loss of young growths 
and decayed flowers. The method of obtaining at¬ 
mospheric moisture from fermenting materials is also, 
unless managed with the greatest skill, irregular, 
dangerous, and too cumbersome and laborious for 
general adoption. 
Another method, and the one now very generally 
practised is by syringing dry unheated surfaces only ; 
and although somewhat laborious, it has this special 
advantage—the moisture can be regulated to the greatest 
nicety by repeating or discontinuing the process as 
required. Evaporation from heated surfaces does, no 
doubt, produce a constant—more “equable”—and a 
greater amount of vapour than the other methods, but 
in sudden changes of the weather it is very conducive 
to condensation and drip, which are the most fertile 
causes of injury to young growths and flowers. But I 
would ask, is an “ equable” amount of vapour desir¬ 
able in cultivating Orchids ? If we look to the conditions 
of climate which exist in their native habitats, or if 
we take as examples the varying states of moisture 
which are permitted in the houses of our most success¬ 
ful orchidists we shall, I think, conclude it is neither 
desirable nor safe. It is true, that in the tropics there are 
not those extreme changes of temperature or humidity 
that we sometimes experience, but the continued and 
daily repeated evaporation there is infinitely greater 
than that which occurs in our orchid houses, where, 
for months together in the dull seasons of the year, 
the humidity of the air is too “equable ” and much too 
near to saturation to be conducive to the permanent 
health of the plants. 
To rely entirely on the syringe for keeping plants 
clean, either from insects or dirt is no doubt wrong, but 
when properly used it is convenient and suitable for 
either purpose ; I fear there would [frequently be an 
accumulation of filth in the most “out of the way ” 
plants if the syringe was not occasionally used, and if 
the sponge was entirely relied on. It is, unfortunately, 
too true that unsightly deposits remain on the foliage 
after repeated syringings, even when the purest water 
is used ; for even soft water drained from the roofs 
carries with it a slight solution of white lead, and 
this is, perhaps, the strongest argument which can be 
urged against the use of the syringe ; but if an oc¬ 
casional sponging with water, in which a very small 
quantity of the best soap is dissolved, be also practised, 
there will be but little cause for complaint in this 
respect. If, however, the plants are permitted to 
remain for weeks unsponged, such deposits will un¬ 
doubtedly disfigure the foliage. 
Mr. O’Brien says, “syringing is done to imitate 
nature,” what operation in nature is it supposed to 
imitate? Is it rain ? The plain answer must be, Yes. 
Not, however, under the force of a clear, nor a mid-day 
sun, as this would be neither an exact nor an intelligent 
imitation of nature, nor is it wise under the artificial 
conditions we employ, to “deluge everything in the 
house” very often, but when done by an experienced 
person, and after a very hot day in summer, it may be 
occasionally done with excellent effect. Mr. O’Brien 
says, “nature sends rain down from above falling on 
the upper sides of the leaves, while the plants under 
glass find it coming from above, from the earth upwards 
and from all parts of the compass in a few minutes.” 
Nature does undoubtedly send rain from above, but in 
the tropics it is frequently accompanied with storms 
and hurricanes of such tremendous force, of which we 
have but little conception here, and in comparison with 
which the rain from our syringe must be like a “Scotch 
mist.” Located, as many of the plants are, high upon 
the trees, and subjected as they sometimes are to a 
horizontal storm force of from 30 to 50 lbs. avoirdupois 
on the square foot, or a speed of from 80 to 100 miles 
per hour, it is rather a stretch of fancy to imagine that 
the rain “descends gently on the upper surfaces only.” 
What dreadful shocks must “ cruel nature ” inflict on 
those delicate stomata which Mr. O’Brien would have 
us regard so delicately and tenderly when using the 
syringe, but who is not against harrowing their surfaces 
with a sponge, as I presume this is what he means by 
the “ordinary way” of cleaning them. No doubt 
much harm is sometimes caused by the inadvertant 
and “ indiscriminate ” use of the syringe, but this is 
scarcely sufficient cause for discarding it altogether, 
especially as some excellent examples of cultivation can 
be seen where it is occasionally and judiciously used. 
Mr. O’Brien and other skilful cultivators may be 
able to grow orchids successfully without it, but their 
labour must be infinitely greater than those who do 
use it. Many of us have still great respect for this 
good old instrument, I therefore trust Mr. O’Brien will 
not let a “careless boy’s example,” nor the fact that a 
stray shot from it may sometimes hit the under, instead 
of the upper surface of a leaf, nor even that everything 
in the house may occasionally, on a warm summer’s 
eve, be deluged thereby, be sufficient cause to induce 
him to wield his powerful pen against its use.— 
T. Challis. _ 
I am glad to see that the subject of syringing Or¬ 
chids is in a fair way of being thoroughly ventilated 
in your columns. I think myself that all observant 
Orchid-growers are prepared to vote for restriction in 
the use of the syringe to something like the limits which 
Mr. O’Brien mentions in his clever article at p. 268. 
Had anyone advanced such an argument to me seven 
years ago, I should certainly have taken the other side ; 
but since then I have, like Mr. King, worked the 
matter out for myself, and I find that the less syringing 
there is the better, if all other requisites are attended 
to. My experience is that anyone can do best by using 
it only for special work ; but even Mr. Simcoe’s remarks 
prove that it requires a very clever practitioner to 
define the proper limits in which it may be used. 
According to all authorities the growing season is the 
only one in which the syringe should be used ; but in 
my opinion that is the most risky, as the immature 
growths are the most susceptible to injury by water in 
their centres. With respect to the heavy rainfall in 
the tropics, I, too, have advice, and it tends to show 
me that the plants, sheltered as they are by the leaves 
and branches from the rain, generally only get it 
second-hand by evaporation, and this is the great 
point to provide for. I shall have some further remarks 
to make on this subject later on ; but in the meantime 
I hope your correspondents will give us the benefit of 
their opinions pro and con, as it is a matter of vital 
importance. For my own part, I cannot speak too 
strongly against the thoughtless use of the syringe, 
which, to too great an extent, obtains in plant culture 
generally, and I think that one of the reasons why 
plants which are often badly done in gardens are well 
done by the market men is that the latter are very 
careful with the syringe, and in most cases do not use 
it at all, unless for special work, such as Mr. O'Brien 
mentions.— A. Clarke, 66, Belsize Park Gardens. 
I think the remarks made on this subject by your 
correspondents will be read with interest by many 
Orchid growers. I had the pleasure of hearing Mr. 
O’Brien’s paper read at theOrchid Conference, and believe 
what he said of the syringe in the hands of a thought¬ 
less person. If anyone were to allow water to lodge in 
the sheaths of Cattleyas, or in the centre of Phakenopsis, 
most of us know the results would be rotten pseudo¬ 
bulbs in the first case, and loss of leaves and plants in 
the latter. But I have found the syringe a useful 
instrument in the hands of those who study its use, and 
I can give one or two instances where it may be used 
to advantage. 
Last summer we had a thousand plants placed in the 
open air, and during August and the early part of 
September I particularly noticed in the early morniDg, 
when there was any dew at all, that the plants were 
quite wet, both on the surface and under-sides of the 
leaves (I am speaking of the cool section of Odonto¬ 
glossums and Oncidiums) ; at the same time plants of 
the same species growing indoors under the ordinary 
treatment were quite dry. I have heard some 
travellers say that heavy dews are what many Orchids 
get in their native homes. When there has been no 
dew overnight I have gently syringed the plants both 
indoors and out with the best results, but only a gentle 
spray, and not sufficient to run down the leaves to 
settle in the young growths, always using clear rain¬ 
water, and after the plants have been carefully watered. 
I discontinue this early in October when the plants are 
altogether again in their winter quarters. 
