488 
THE GARDENING WORLD 
April 5, 1890. 
s^ofjidifi^irs^. 
--•*«- 
Carnations from Seed. 
“K. D.” has either misquoted me at p. 472, or I made 
a mistake when writing to him as to the time I sowed 
my seed. What I intended to say was that I sowed 
my Carnation seed on the 5th of February, not March. 
I know that I am not of the orthodox floricultural 
faith, but, regardless of the teaching of the schools, I 
dare to follow the bent of my own inclinations. 
Nevertheless I am not unwilling to experiment on a 
small scale, and therefore have to-day sown the 
remainder of my own saved seed, but the main crop is 
already up, nice young plants ready for pricking out, 
and by September I hope to have from 3,000 to 4,000 
bushy little plants to put out in the open ground, 
where I find I lose but few if planted in good time. 
My outdoor plants this season are very promising, 
indeed, some are so forward that I shall lift them to 
bloom indoors. These plants throw up an immense lot 
of flowers, and they are grand for decorative purposes. 
They also throw up a small amount of grass for early 
layering, and those so treated last year and potted up 
early in the autumn are now throwing up flowering 
spikes, thus giving me bloom during the summer, 
while the late sown come in for autumn and spring 
bloom. This year I am trying the new Victoria or 
annual strain, said to bloom within four months of the 
time of sowing. If these are useful for cut bloom, 
they will be a great acquisition. 
I love the Carnation in every form, colour, or style 
of marking. Of course, the florists’ standard varieties 
are grand for the show table or for pot culture ; but for 
a delightful occupation and genuine gratification, 
commend me to a bed of seedlings. If the seed is 
obtained from a trustworthy source, there is nothing 
more interesting or delightful ; but there is a good deal 
of rubbish sold in the trade, and with such stuff there 
is nothing but disappointment, aggravation, and 
disgust. Save all true lovers of flowers from such 
mortification ! — William Wardill, Luton, March 29th. 
The Florists' Laced Pink. 
I still adhere to the statement I made on a former 
occasion that the Pink and the Carnation are botani- 
cally distinct, notwithstanding the fact that the 
species from which the garden plants grown under 
those names are of close kinship. Seeds of Dianthus 
plumarius still give rise to Pinks, and seeds of D. 
Caryophyllus to Carnations. The latter are also still 
unmixed with the blood, so to speak, of any other 
species. I admitted on a former occasion that culti¬ 
vation has done much to alter the character of the 
foliage in both the Pink and the Carnation ; but not- 
withstanding this, the original botanical character, 
referring to the serrulate and smooth edges respectively, 
will, in the majority of cases, serve to distinguish the 
garden forms. The habit and general aspect of the 
two species are also, as a rule, very different ; D. 
plumarius producing a greater quantity of grass (leaves) 
than D. Caryophyllus, provided the plants are healthy 
and make an average amount of growth. Only the 
leaves on the upper portion of the stem of a certain 
variety of Carnation I mentioned were serrulate on the 
edges. 
The corroborative proof to confute old authorities 
making erroneous statements with regard to the origin 
of the Pink and the Carnation is to be found in the 
plants themselves. If they were of hvbrid origin a 
botanist would be able to detect it, as in the case of 
Orchids, Narcissi or other subjects ; but the garden 
Pinks and Carnations possess the same botanical 
characters as the wildings. Colours, scent, and the 
doubling of flowers offer but little difficulty to a 
botanist in this case in referring a plant to its proper 
specific name. There is no need, therefore, to refer to 
old books in order to know to what species the Pink 
and Carnation belong respectively. 
Although Loudon did not distinctly state that the 
Pheasant’s-eye was the origin of the "Florists’ Pink ” 
he quoted Maddock, who defined a laced Pink as only 
differing by having a continuation of the colour of the 
eye round the edge. Here again the botanist could 
settle the matter easily. I omitted to quote Loudon 
as an authority for stating that D. Caryophyllus was 
considered as the source not only of the Carnation, but 
also of the Pink. If Mr. Thurstan carefully reads’ the 
quotation he will discern that Loudon did not express 
it as his own belief—in fact, he evidently did not 
believe the statement about the Pink. He made other 
quotations regarding the origin of different races of the 
Pink, but used such words as "seemingly” and 
"seem,” thereby expressing a doubt in each case. 
The authorities on the British flora whom I quoted 
did not consider either the Pink or the Carnation as a 
true native, that is, an aboriginal wilding. They 
evidently regarded them as escapes from cultivation, 
either of the single forms or of the doubles reverted to the 
single state so that they have been able and do perpetuate 
themselves by means of seeds. By including the Pink 
and the Carnation in the British floras does not 
necessarily imply that these plants are true British 
natives. In fact it is distinctly stated in Syme’s English 
Botany, The Student's Flora of the British Islands, and 
Withering’s Botany, that they are naturalised. It will 
be noticed, in The Student's Flora just mentioned, that 
naturalised introductions are not numbered, whereas 
real British natives are numbered. Then, again, in 
Babington’s Manual of British Botany, introductions 
that have become naturalised are distinguished by marks 
which are explained in the beginning of the book. 
After Dianthus plumarius and D. Caryophyllus there 
is a *, which certainly means naturalised. James Donn 
and Loudon I do not consider as good authorities on 
the British flora, because they seem to accept anything 
as British if found outside a garden wall. With the 
evidence before me, I agree with Mr. Thurstan in 
considering that the plant mentioned by the Rev. G. E. 
Smith was D. plumarius.— Wild Finlc. 
Cineraria, Gem. 
The plant of this exhibited by Mr. J. James, Wood- 
side, Farnham Royal, at the Royal Botanic Society’s 
spring show, on the 26th, was of dwarf habit, bearing 
moderately large flower heads. The broad ray florets 
were bright blue on the upper half, and white on the 
lower, forming a broad white zone around the disc 
florets. A Floricultural Certificate was awarded it. 
Cyclamen, Duke of Fife. 
The flowers of this variety are of great size, and rose- 
coloured with a deep purple mouth. The individual 
segments of the corolla are obovate, and measured over 
2 ins. in length as exhibited at the show of the Royal 
Botanic Society on the 26th ult. The St. George’s 
Nursery Company showed it, and were awarded a 
Floricultural Certificate for it. The leaves were by no 
means so brightly coloured as they might be. 
New Varieties of Amaryllis. 
The Champion. —For description of this grand form, 
see p. 440. The same bulb threw up a second flower 
scape, thus prolonging its blooming period considerably. 
Olivette.— The tube of this flower is funnel-shaped, 
with a regularly recurving lamina, the segments of 
which are crimson-scarlet, greatly intensified upon the 
lower part. 
John Heal. —The segments of the perianth are 
broadly elliptic, much imbricated, and form an almost 
regular flower. They are of a dull dark crimson, with 
broad white tips, reminding one of Leopoldi, one of the 
principal ancestors of the present race. There is a 
short and broad, greenish, six-rayed star at the base. 
It is named in compliment to the raiser, who has done 
so much for the improvement of the garden Amaryllids. 
All three were exhibited at the Royal Botanic Society’s 
spring show, on the 26th March, by Messrs. J. Veitch & 
Sons, and were awarded Floricultural Certificates. 
New Clivias. 
Stanstead Beauty. —The flowers of this variety are 
long and funnel shaped, with the inner segments 
obovate. All are of a pale reddish orange hue, and 
sulphur-yellow on the lower half. In the former 
colour it differs from the numerous named kinds now in 
cultivation. It was exhibited at the Royal Botanic 
Society’s show on the 26th of March, by Messrs. J. 
Laing & Sons, Forest Hill, and was awarded a Flori¬ 
cultural Certificate. 
Meteor. —This variety is very dwarf in habit, and 
bears a relatively very large number of flowers in an 
umbel. The individual flowers are remarkably short, 
with a widely open or spreading lamina. The segments 
are broad, orange coloured and sulphur in the throat. 
It was exhibited on the same occasion as the last by 
Messrs. B. S. Williams & Son, Upper Holloway, and 
was accorded a Floricultural Certificate. 
Epacris. — Those that flowered early, and after 
having been cut back were placed in heat, should now 
be starting. _ Plants requiring more root room should 
be re-potted just as the young buds commence to push. 
A large shift should in all cases bo avoided, otherwise 
the soil is liable to get into bad condition through 
over watering. Replace the plants in heat to encourage 
good growth. 
BOTTLE-TREE OF AUSTRALIA, 
In gardens, the tree to which the above popular name 
has been given is generally known under the name of 
Delabechea rupestris. The correct name, however, is 
Sterculia rupestris. Like a number of other species 
belonging to the genus, it is remarkable for the 
polymorphism of its leaves ; that is, it varies with 
leaves of several different kinds. They may be linear, 
lanceolate or oblong, and quite entire, or digitately 
compound, with five to nine linear leaflets radiating 
from the top of the petiole. They are smooth, leathery, 
evergreen, very graceful and handsome on well-grown 
specimens. An idea of the character of the foliage in 
its best form may be seen by reference to the 
accompanying illustration, for which we are indebted to 
Messrs. B. S. Williams & Son, Upper Holloway. It is 
a native of Australia, from whence it was introduced in 
1880, and takes the name of Bottle-tree from the 
peculiar way in which the lower portion of the trunk 
swells out, even in a comparatively young state. It 
may be grown in a greenhouse, but would make the 
finest foliage, perhaps, in an intermediate house. 
Propagation may be effected by cuttings in a moderately 
well-ripened state, and kept close in a frame, or under 
a bell-glass or hand-light. Light loamy soil, or a 
mixture of peat and loam, will constitute a suitable 
medium in which to grow it. 
-- 
SUBSTITUTES FOR FLOWER 
POTS. 
Your correspondent, Mr. J. Kipling, like " Barnaby 
Rudge ” and many other gardeners in these economising 
days, has been forced to adopt many a makeshift in 
order to raise the large quantities of bedding plants 
which have to be provided at this season of the 
year. 
Our friend Mr. Kipling’s system of “mossing ” is a 
very good one, which I have practised in getting up 
the tens of thousands of plants which I have had to 
supply annually for the last twenty years ; but about 
eight years ago it occurred to me to try an improve¬ 
ment on the mossing system. The great drawback I 
found to it was that the roots got away out of the moss 
ball before planting-out time came, and consequently 
suffered, when being transferred to their summer 
quarters, by the mutilation of their roots in getting 
them separated. 
My system is this : Instead of “ mossing,” in the way 
described by Mr. Kipling, I simply take a 3-in. pot, 
and put a little long moss—or, better still, if it can be 
had conveniently, a little sphagnum—in the bottom, 
and allow it to come up the sides of the pot. Then I 
place a piece of turf in the bottom, and pot off each 
plant rather firmly in the usual manner. Then, by 
giving it a sharp knock on the potting bench, the ball 
turns out quite whole, being assisted in holding 
together by the sphagnum. Having the box I want to 
place the plants in on the bench on my right hand, 
the plants are put in at once, and the interstices filled 
up with a little light soil. Treated in this way I find, 
when the planting out season comes round, that each 
plant’s roots are only just emerging from their own 
ball, and therefore are spared the tearing of them 
asunder in removing them from the box. 
At first sight one might consider this a slower 
process than "mossing,” but with a little practice one 
soon gets into the way of doing it much quicker. 
The only difficulty you will find is that when the pot 
employed gets a little dirty by constant use, the balls 
do not turn out so freely, but by taking up a clean pot 
occasionally, this difficulty is easily got over. If any 
of your numerous readers care to give my system a 
trial, or have already adopted it, I should be pleased to 
hear their opinion about it.— J. F. Smith, Cullen 
House Gardens, Banff. 
My best thanks are due to your correspondents Mr. 
Kipling and “Orford,” particularly the former, for so 
fully describing the system of mossing Pelargoniums. 
That the system is a good one I can fully confirm, as 
we have practised it here for four years. I first saw it 
carried out by Mr. Taylor at Loughcrew, Oldcastle, and 
thought it the very thing to suit my purpose, and had 
no hesitation in copying it, particularly as the luxuriant 
growth of the plants bore ample testimony to the 
beneficial results to be derived from it. Although I 
first saw mossing carried out at Loughcrew, it is quite 
plain that to Mr. Kipling, the introducer of the system, 
I am indirectly indebted for the information, and here¬ 
with vote him a “good fellow ” and benefactor to his 
fellow craftsmen. 
