October 4, 1890. 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
09 
Mrs. Holmes and family, on the death of her husband, 
was carried unanimously, and the great loss the National 
Chrysanthemum Society and Horticulture generally 
has sustained was referred to. The Birmingham 
Chrysanthemum Society will hold its thirty-first 
exhibition in November next, and the committee and 
members generally are fully sensible of the great work 
the late Mr. William Holmes had done for Chry¬ 
santhemum culture, and the popularity of the flower. 
--- 
SEEDLING- DOUBLE BEGONIAS. 
The character of these is rapidly changing, for 
instead of the large pendulous flowers, with innumerable 
small and closely packed petals, we find, among the 
best collections, flowers which are nearly upright, with 
fewer petals, but larger and rounder, and arranged 
with more perfect regularity. Occasionally one already 
meets with an example of this kind, which is nearly 
all that could be wished, maintaining an upright 
flower stem until the flower drops from age, and which, 
without any overcrowding of the petals, preserves a 
well-covered centre to the last. We meet with many 
varieties carrying small flowers and petals which will 
do this ; but large round-petalled examples of this 
character are comparatively rare. Of the former, , 
Mr. Laing’s Marquis of Stafford is a fair example, 
and of the latter, Mr. Cannell’s Rosebud, and 
Mr. Crousse’s Rose Laing. 
Every year of course adds largely to the number of 
these charming upright doubles, and for every worthy 
addition, Begonia growers may feel justly grateful, as 
bringing them nearer that most desirable period when 
the question of ties and supports will be reduced to a 
minimum. But let us view the subject from another 
point: In the first place, growing for less weighty 
blooms involves, according to my experience, the 
greater number of worthless varieties—varieties 1 mean 
which carry flowers so slightly double that they may be 
at once destroyed ; and in the second place the upright 
flowers, when you have produced them, can never com¬ 
pete as cut blooms, in the exhibition stand, with those 
marvellous and not by any means ill-shapen flowers, 
which are pendulous simply by reason of their immense 
size and weight. 
From these facts, if facts they be, I gather, first, that 
to grow seedlings according to the present fancy (and I 
have nothing to say that is not in favour of their 
surpassing excellence and beauty) you must make up 
your mind to a more considerable sacrifice of time 
and labour than heretofore, and secondly, that if you 
want cut flowers for the exhibition box, you must 
pursue a somewhat different line, and hybridise seed 
from the best of those magnificent but pendulous 
blooms, from which the grower of “uprights” only 
allows pods and pollen to fall unused. 
My humble opinion therefore is that we should have 
a double object in view—viz., the raising of seedlings 
carrying upright flowers, of perfect shape and moderate 
fullness, and also the production of another class to 
bear shapely, finely coloured flowers, however large, 
and even though their weight and size should involve 
that drooping but by no means ungraceful habit, 
which at one time was considered not a blemish, but 
a beauty. —Somersetshire Rector. 
-- 
THE GOOSEBERRY. 
“The Gooseberry,” says Mr. Leo Grindon, in his 
book on Fruits and Fruit Trees, “is a native of - 
Central and Southern Europe, also of Western Asia, 
occurring in the Caucasus, and under different forms in 
the Himalayas. As a rule, when wild it dwells in 
thickets, especially where the ground is rocky. In 
England, though often met with in the recesses of 
sylvan dells, it is but doubtfully indigenous. All the 
seemingly wild examples are descendants probably of 
ancient cultivation. Like the sweet Violet and many 
other flowers, it often wanders out of gardens. Way¬ 
farers, eating the fruit as they go along, cast the seeds 
right and left, and, these germinating readily, the 
plant is soon arm in arm with the aborigines.” 
Whether indigenous or not, the Gooseberry is an old 
inhabitant of England, for Tussar, who lived in the 
reign of Henry VIII., wrote of it— 
“ The Barberry, Respis, and Gooseberry too, 
Look now to be planted as other things do.” 
Whether it is much older than the time of Henry VIII. 
I cannot say, but it would seem the ancient Greeks and 
Romans had no knowledge of it, or, if known, it must 
have been disregarded, and this disregard doubtless 
because in southern and south eastern Europe the 
berries of the Gooseberry are small and tasteless. Dr. 
Hogg seems to regard the Gooseberry as an indigenous 
British wild plant, and thinks all the cultivated 
varieties have come from the wildings. 
When the Gooseberry was first noticed or first named 
is not known, unless as Mr. Grindon observes, it is 
indicated “in some measure by the etymology, which 
seems to be traceable to some certain old gothic words 
denoting crisp, curled, or frizzled, thus to indicate at 
the same time, that the original Gooseberry was the 
hairy one, the Uoa crispy of the renowned old Fuchsius, 
who gives a drawing of it on page 187 of his Historici, 
published in 1537, temp. Henry VIII. Primitive forms 
of the word are found in Groiseberry and Groseberry, 
with which may be compared the French Groseille and 
the Scotch Grozet or Grosart.” The synonym found in 
the eastern counties, “ feaberry,” also written “ feap- 
berry,” and “ fay-berry,” though not yet satisfactorily 
explained, is of much more recent date.” Which ever 
was the earliest form, the hairy, or the hairless, the 
plants are essentially the same. Both conditions occur 
among the progeny obtained by sowing the seed of 
either, and this quite independently of soil or climate. 
In France, the Gooseberry is little cared for. The 
climate which suits it best is precisely that which is 
best loved by the scented Rose, the humid one of 
Britain : and it is in this last-named happy land the 
perfection attained by the one is reached in correspond¬ 
ing degree by the other. No country in the world 
excels Britain in regard to its Gooseberries. They ripen 
delightfully in every part, and for the poor man as well 
as the rich. To say where the best are produced is 
not easy. The district pre-eminently favourable is 
reputed to be that one distinguished as the Lothians. 
Mr. Grindon states that the culture of the Goose¬ 
berry appears to have been first attended to at the 
period of the Reformation. It was then taken up both 
in England and upon the Continent, say in Holland 
and in Germany ; but the progress was slow until 
within the last hundred years, during which time the 
strides have been rapid. Whether our ancestors ever 
saw in it any other form than the little round bush, 
some 3 ft. or 4 ft. in diameter, which we are accustomed 
to meet in modern gardens, no historian has put upon 
record. “ Perhaps it may be only within our own age 
that the Gooseberry has shown itself able to rise, when 
trained against a house-front to the height of several 
yards, bearing plentifully to the very top, and pre¬ 
senting a beautiful spectacle when led abreast of 
Jessamine and Clematis.” 
In one particular the Gooseberry never changes. The 
Gooseberry never forgets its prickles, which, by the 
way, compared with the thorns and spines of prickly 
plants in general, are very curiously exceptional, 
coming of a remarkable development of the pulumus 
or cushion-like enlargement at the bases of some leaves. 
Found in the wild state in woods and sylvan dells, the 
Gooseberry under cultivation, is always the better for 
a moderate amount of shade, though it suffers from too 
much. Hence it does well even when planted against 
a north garden wall, and when so placed, if covered up 
at the proper time with matting, fruit remains at 
command till the time even of Damsons. 
There is a sportiveness about the Gooseberry as with 
the Apple and Pear ; hence the distinction not only of 
smooth and hairy sorts—by some distinguished as the 
Esau varieties—but the fourfold classification of red, 
yellow, white, and green. 
An authority on the subject states that upon the 
whole it is acknowledged that the yellow-skinned 
varieties are the richest and most vinous in flavour, 
and that the least meritorious, especially when large, 
are the green sorts. The best for preserving are found 
among the hairy kinds, smooth sorts, or nearly smooth, 
are preferred for vinegar, and for that capital old 
English domestic beverage Gooseberry Wine, which, 
when skilfully manufactured, possesses the flavour of 
Champagne, and mantles like the best Clicquot. The 
smooth sorts are the best adapted also for that admir¬ 
able service—one in which the Gooseberry is very 
nearly unique, and certainly unexcelled—employment, 
while still green, for the tart, the pie and the pudding, 
and to which end, for refreshment even in winter, it 
may be stored up in jars and bottles. 
The cultivation of the Gooseberry is an easy matter. 
In ordinary gardens, where quantity and quality are 
required, a moderately rich soil will produce these. 
The great thing in the cultivation of the Gooseberry is 
the proper pruning of the branches. In performing 
this operation it ought to be borne in mind that the 
finest fruit is produced on the young branches, so that 
the development of these ought to be encouraged, and 
all old wood cut away.— R. D. 
THE HARDY WHITE PASSION 
FLOWER. 
As “ Devoniensis ” appears to be “in the know,” and 
to show the unnamed amateur he speaks of, that I am 
equally anxious to have fair play—without prejudice or 
malice—I will with pleasure do with his communication 
what he has avoided doing with mine, and will 
endeavour to answer him fully. What we wanted to 
know most of all, was the history of that aged white 
Passion Flower that was growing at St. Mary’s, Bovey 
Tracey, and which was old enough to be a grandfather 
as compared with the so-called original plant which 
Mr. Fuller sold us in 1882. It was well that “Devo¬ 
niensis” has brought Messrs. Lueombe, Pince & Co.’s 
circular under notice, because the publication of that 
list was in a great measure the means whereby the 
knowledge as to the existence of other white Passion 
Flowers was obtained ; and in the end, my people 
found that they had been drawn into a mare’s nest, or 
nearly so, whereupon we were constrained to rush the 
plant into commerce before its time, and in consequence, 
of course, did not make near so much money over it, 
as we should have done in the ordinary way. Fortu¬ 
nately, I have unearthed some copies of this identical 
circular, and enclose one herewith for your perusal, to 
show you that there is no mention whatever as to 
emphasising the fact that the stock at the Exeter 
Nursery was raised from Fuller’s plant—on the 
contrary, the information is purposely most guarded 
on this point. My late employers, Messrs. Lueombe, 
Pince & Co., spent a good deal of money in working 
up this novelty — one item alone being 10,000 circulars 
and piostage—in perfect faith, of course, that they 
possessed, the entire stock as contained in the con¬ 
ditions of the purchase. It can, therefore, be readily 
understood why our surprise and chagrin was so 
great when finding other white Passion Flowers in 
different parts of the country, among whom may be 
mentioned Miss Morris, of Lustleigb, who had it in 
1879, and had given many plants away. The late 
Rev. Mr. Ellacombe is also said to have seen it in 1865, 
and the specimen in Lady Morlev’s garden was 
certainly not a youngster ; moreover the example at St. 
Mary’s, Bovey Tracey, was probably forty years old. 
“Devoniensis” describes the Whiteway specimen as 
another seedling, but this does not tally with the 
information given me years ago by the gardener there, 
who told me that his plant was from a cutting. 
Howevei, this is neither here nor there ; what we should 
all like to do is to prove that Mr. Fuller was really the 
raiser of the white Passion Flower, known in gardens as 
Constance Elliott, from a seed of the common blue kind, 
and few things would please me more than to be able 
to do so ; but so far as I can see, the whole of the 
circumstances point another way, my conviction being 
still the same, that this beautiful twining plant was an 
accidental sport or freak of nature. The true variety 
has the whole of the fringe or hairy appendage of the 
corona of ivory whiteness ; but the sepals and petals 
are not so pure—on the other hand, the flowers of 
Fuller’s specimen were more green than white, and the 
blooms were not so fine—hence its fate, and this was 
Fuller’s own outspoken opinion of it, when the old 
man first offered his plant to me, or why did he part 
with it for such a paltry sum 1 — IF. Napper, Chelsea. 
-- 
ORIGIN OF THE FLORISTS’ 
DAHLIA. 
The opening paper at the Dahlia conference, at Chis¬ 
wick, on Tuesday of last week, was by Mr. Shirley 
Hibberd, the subject being “The Origin of the Florists 
Dahlia.” Instead of reading in the customary manner 
from written or printed copy, Mr. Hibberd entered 
upon a free, extemporaneous discourse ; dividing his 
subject into two parts, the historical and the biological. 
The earliest description of the Dahlia extant is in the 
Treatise on the Animals and Plants of Few Spain, 
by Francisco Hernandez, published at Madrid in 1615. 
From this time there was no more heard of the flower 
for a hundred and fifty years. It was again heard of 
in 1787, when Nicholas de Menonville was sent from 
France to Mexico to obtain, by any means, the cochineal 
insect and the plant on which it fed. This explorer 
reported having seen in the gardens great Asters on 
stems 6 ft. high, with leaves like those of the Elder 
tree, and this augmented the desire in Europe for the 
possession of the floral wonder. The desire was grati¬ 
fied in 1789, when a parcel of seeds was sent from 
Mexico city by Vincent Cervanti, to be grown by the 
Abbe Cavanilles, in the Botanic Garden at Madrid. 
Of these, England secured a share through Lord Bute, 
