438 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
March 15, 1890. 
gracillimum, Lapagerias, Ivennedyas, with a good sprink¬ 
ling of the variegated Cobeea (one plant),trained amongst 
the other climbers, and kept thin, complete the list, 
but as the glass space is left clear for admission of light) 
the specimen plants underneath do not suffer from their 
associates overhead. 
In stoves and other houses, Cissus discolor and 
Asparagus plumosus elegans, growing up rafters and 
drooping therefrom, are special favourites with us in 
such positions. Climbers in too many cases are allowed 
to become crowded, thus destroying themselves, and 
defeating the object in view, as well as becoming most 
injurious by unduly shading the plants below them.— 
Stirling. 
-- 
THE FLORISTS’ LACED PINK. 
I am sorry I cannot agree with your correspondent 
(p. 426) with regard to ancient authorities on the origin 
of the common Pink. I make no pretensions to being 
a florist, although I can admire Carnations and Pinks, 
either single, double, or otherwise, and am therefore 
afraid that Mr. Thurstan will consider me rather 
unrefined in my taste. 
Plorists of 100 years ago or more were in no better 
position to define the origin of the Pink or Carnation 
than those of the present day, for the simple reason 
that the origin is lost in obscurity. There is a figure 
of Dianthus Caryophyllus in Svme’s English Botany, 
iff., 194, where it is called the Clove Pink, or "Wild 
Carnation ; and in the text it is stated that “ from this 
species are derived all garden varieties of the Carnation 
and Picotee.” “The Carnation,” it is further stated, 
“was unknown to the ancients in a cultivated state, 
not being mentioned by Pliny nor sung by the Roman 
poets, but has been cultivated in Europe from time 
immemorial. The best varieties in olden times came 
from Italy and Germany.” 
With regard to the common Pink, Loudon states 
that the rink as a florists’ flower is of less antiquity 
than the Carnation, and that it was the latter half of 
the eighteenth century before much improvement was 
made. Gerarde scarcely mentions the Pink ; Parkinson 
in 1629 mentions six or eight sorts. Rea in 1704 says 
there were many sorts, but of little esteem. Hogg in 
1820 gives nearly 100 sorts. Later on the Paisley 
muslin weavers give more than 300 varieties. The 
Pheasant’s-eye, Loudon says, was derived from D. 
plumarius ; Cob Pinks are a large sort intermediate 
between Pinks and Picotee Carnations. To garden 
Pinks 'in general Wildenow gave the name of D. 
hortensis, which is itself merely 7 a form of D. plumarius. 
Cultivation has effected a wonderful change in the 
foliage of both the Carnation and the Pink, although 
generally speaking the leaves of the former are either 
longer or broader than those of the latter. Exceptions 
there are I admit; and if Mr. Thurstan w'ould compare the 
foliage of the originals with their modern garden repre¬ 
sentatives, he would, no doubt, be surprised. There is 
a figure of D. Caryophyllus in Syme’s English Botany , 
iii., 194, as already mentioned, and another in Reichen- 
bach’s Flora Germanica, 6, t. 268. The leaves in the 
latter case are particularly long and grass-like, while 
on the same plate there is a figure of another form with 
even longer leaves. The latter is named D. longi- 
canlis, of Tenore, who considered it a species, although 
it is merely a form of D. Caryophyllus, with longer 
stems and leaves and slightly larger flowers. All 
botanists are agreed that the edges of the leaves of the 
wild Carnation are smooth. This is also true under 
cultivation, although there may be a few exceptions. 
The upper leaves only of Madame Arthur Warocque or 
Scarlet Souvenir de la Malmaison Carnation are rough 
at the edges ; but something more extraordinary may 
be seen by reference to Flora, 1821, 2, where a most 
singular form of D. Caryophyllus is figured. The edges 
of the leaves, bracts, calycine segments, and even the 
edges of the petals themselves grow out in places, 
irregularly forming large coarse teeth, very seldom 
small and closely arranged ones. 
The following are a few authorities to which reference 
may be made with regard to the leaves of D. Caryo¬ 
phyllus being entire as far as the species is concerned— 
namely, Syme’s English Botany, above quoted, The 
Student’s Flora of the British Islands, by Sir Joseph 
Hooker, Babington’s Manual of British Botany, 
Withering’s .British Botany by Maegillivray, Baxter’s 
British Botany, ii., t., 81, and Loudon’s Ency¬ 
clopedia of Flants. All of the above are also 
agreed that D. Caryophyllus is the origin of the 
Carnation. To the number might be added Curtis’s 
Botanical Magazine, ii., t. 39, where the text states 
that “ D. Caryophyllus, or the Wild Clove, is generally 
considered the parent of the Carnation, and may be 
found, if not in its wild state, at least single, on the 
walls of Rochester Castle. ” 
In Yol. 54, t. 2744, of the same work it is stated that 
“ the Picotee is a term used amongst florists for those 
varieties of the Carnation which have their colours like 
a fringe round each petal, instead of distinct stripes 
running through from the apex to'the base ; they are 
of more modern culture than the Carnation.” I may 
here state that the dark colours were not originally 
confined to the margin of the petals, as may be seen by 
reference to the Compleat Florist, an old work dated 
1740, and in which, amongst other subjects, a number 
of coloured figures of Picotees arc given. The last- 
quoted plate of the Botanical Magazine also shows the 
same thing. The Picotee of the olden time is thus 
defined in Loudon :—“ The colours should be perfectly 
distinct, distributed in long regular stripes, broadest at 
the edge of the lamina, and gradually becoming 
narrower as they approach the unguis, there termi¬ 
nating in a fine point.” I make these quotations to 
show that the Picotee is a varietal race of the Car¬ 
nation, and gradually evolved from it to its present 
state of perfection. 
Most Picotees may be scentless, but unfortunately a 
large number of the modern Carnations at least have 
the same fault. Garden or even wild varieties of a 
species are not all scented alike. The Rose, Carna¬ 
tion, Chrysanthemum, Cyclamen, and others afford 
instances of this kind. The Wild Pink (D. plumarius) 
is distinctly and sweetly scented, so that the modern 
representatives may owe their fragrance to the wilding. 
I should say 7 they do owe it. 
The variability of the Pink (D. plumarius) even in a 
wild state is very great, as anyone may see for himself 
by inspecting a collection in a botanic garden where 
the same has been made up of importations from 
different localities on the Continent, either by seeds or 
otherwise, so that we need not wonder that it varies 
under cultivation. Some variations of D. plumarius 
may also be seen by reference to Reichenbach’s leones 
Flore Gernumicce, 6, t. 257, where the type is given 
together with I), p. moschatus and D. p. hortensis, 
two synonymous names for a form of the Pink, having 
the basal portion of the blade deep red, and the fringe 
white. A pure white variety is figured on the same 
plate under the name of D. hungaricus, and another 
with smooth petals is named D. plumarius blandus. 
This is going farther than I should have expected, for 
the base of the petals in the wild D. plumarius at 
least is nearly always bearded, making another good 
distinction between that species and D. Caryophyllus, 
which has always smooth petals. 
Most, or all of the authorities above quoted, who 
state that D. Caryophyllus is the parent of the garden 
Carnations and Picotees, also state under D. plumarius 
that the latter is the parent of the garden Pinks, so 
that I need not repeat them, with oue exception, 
namely Syme’s English Botany, iii., 195, in the text 
relating to which it is stated that this species is the 
origin of all garden plantsunderthe names of Pheasant’s- 
eye Pinks, white Pinks, &c. Dr. Withering states 
that gardeners well know that from Carnation seed, 
Pinks are never obtained, nor from that of Pinks can 
Carnations be produced. In describing the properties 
of a florists’ Pink, Maddock says that “ the broad end 
of the petal should be perfectly white and distinct from 
the eye, unless it be a laced Pink, that is, ornamented 
by a continuation of the colour of the eye round it, 
with a large proportion of white in the centre.” I 
consider I have now given sufficient proof that the 
common Pink, in its various modifications and races, 
even including the florists’ laced Pink, has been derived 
from D. plumarius, and not D. Caryophyllus. 
To avoid repetition, as this paper is already of 
inordinate length, I may state that I fail to find any 
authority on the British Flora who distinctly affirms 
that either the Carnation or the Pink is a true native 
of Britain. They say that neither of them are true 
natives, although they are naturalised in many places, 
such as on old castles and the adjacent rocks, &c. In 
the 7th edition of Withering’s British Botany by 
Maegillivray, D. plumarius is omitted altogether. 
Localities given for D. Caryophyllus are Rochester 
Castle, and Deal Castle, Kent ; also in Cambridgeshire, 
Essex, Shropshire, Yorkshire, and on the walls of Cardiff 
Castle, Glamorganshire. Localities for D. plumarius are 
mentioned in Surrey, Kent, Essex, Hauglimond Abbey 
and Ludlow Castle in Shropshire, and Conway Castle in 
Wales. On the Continent D. Caryophyllusis truly indi¬ 
genous to Belgium, France, Italy, Hungary and Greece. 
D. plumarius is a native of middle Europe from Austria 
to Lombardy, and the middle of Russia.— Wild Pink. 
PEAGH BUDS DROPPING-. 
I quite agree with Mr. Kipling (p. 391) as to the 
cause, or some of the causes, of Peach buds falling. I 
have long held the opinion that the source of many of 
our fruit crop failures, both in and outdoors, but 
especially indoors, is nothing less than the partial or 
total neglect of the trees in autumn. If we cannot 
assist Nature, we should endeavour, at least, to follow 
her. Certainly it is not natural to allow the trees to 
suffer for the want of sufficient air and water. A writer 
some time ago went so far as to say that a “ bit of 
spider ” at that season (autumn) did no harm, in fact, 
that it rather assisted in ripening the wood ; hut loss 
of foliage from such a cause, and wood undergoing the 
natural process of ripening, should not be confounded 
one with the other, for as surely as there is premature 
loss of foliage, so surely will there be bud-shedding. 
Every leaf supplies its portion of nourishment for the 
future well-being of the bud, aud if its action is checked 
from any cause, the vitality of the buds must be im¬ 
paired. I am no believer in the drying off and 
crippling with red-spider system of culture, if I may so 
call it. 
Young trees, especially if they are in very rich loose 
borders, are apt to grow over luxuriantly, making more 
wood than they can ripen in our sunless climate, 
consequently bud-shedding is the result but cnce a 
Peach or Nectarine house is got into proper fruiting 
form, and is attended to as it should be, as regards a 
properly regulated amount of air and water, and kept 
free from red-spider and all other pests, bud-shedding 
will be reduced to a minimum. This season I have 
very little cause for complaint, but some of my 
neighbours inland—the gardens here are on the sea 
coast—are complaining. As far as I can learn it is 
worse than it has been for years, the generality of the 
complaints, especially inland, leading me to think, with 
“Stirling,” that the season has something to do with 
it. I have remarked that the buds looked very spongy 
in January ; they seemed to be prematurely swollen, 
with an insufficient supply of rising sap to properly 
develop them. I have Pear trees in the open in flower, 
but the same varieties in the Orchard house are fully a 
fortnight later, showing, I think, what can be done to 
retard such trees under proper management. Of 
course, it takes great care and attention, with a proper 
amount of help, to do so. 
As regards “stuffing” houses, which ought to be 
devoted to fruit culture, with Chrysanthemums, 1 do 
not agree with it; yet I have had them both full and 
empty, and never saw any difference. Of course, 
housing such plants should be done judiciously, taking 
care that the trees are in a proper state of maturity, 
also that the plants put in should be able to stand the 
same treatment as the permanent tenants, as regards 
ventilation and water—in fact, always studying the 
well-being of the trees in the first place. 
Young beginners cannot do better than follow the 
very practical remarks .of Mr. Kipling (p. 391) as to 
the culture of Peaches ; it is the kind of advice I would 
certainly give. I thought a word from the north of 
Ireland on this subject might not be out of place.— 
E. Baffin, liunkerry House Gardens, Bush Mills, co. 
Antrim. 
-- 
STRAWBERRIES. 
Tiieue is scarcely a garden of any size, from the cot¬ 
tager’s plot upwards, in which this delicious fruit is 
not cultivated more or less ; and such being the case, 
it is not surprising that growers are anxious to hear of 
any system that will prove the most advantageous in 
their culture. The system that I am about to say a 
word or two on is probably not new to others, but to 
mo it is original, for I never heard of its being adopted 
by anyone until the idea struck myself some years ago ; 
and as I find it so profitable and successful, I think I 
cannot do better than give it to the readers of The 
Gardening! World, in the hope that others may be 
benefited by it. 
As a rule, I make my new plantations in September, 
though March would do equally as well, but by doing 
it in the former month the time occupied in trans¬ 
planting them a second time is saved. In the first 
place, then, I line off the ground I intend to plant the 
Strawberries on about 3 ft. or 34 ft. apart between the 
rows. I think it is a great mistake to plant too 
closely, especially when there is room to spare, and 
even where that is not the case. Lettuce, Spinach, or 
any other small-growing vegetable might be sown 
between the rows for the first year. I open trenches 
along the lines drawn out, two spades deep and the 
breadth of the spade in width. 
