572 
May 9th, 1885. 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
THE 
(firrMtr (Sr0krOT , Cafcntmr. 
Orchids at Kew.—I have been reading a para¬ 
graph in the last issue of your paper by “A. F. L.” 
on the above subject; and as it contains several 
remarkable statements, I must ask you to allow me 
to reply to the same through your columns. Your 
correspondent informs us that he “ visited Kew,” 
anticipating “ both pleasure and information. In 
my ignorance, I expected to find special houses for 
Acrides, Cattleyas, Dendrobes, &c." Instead of which, 
“ we behold a show which would disgrace a third-rate 
nurseryman. I was greatly disappointed, or rather 
disgusted.” 
“ A. F. L.” informs us that “ the Orchids occupy 
but a small part of No. 12, most of the space being 
devoted to economic plants.” Now it so happens 
that No. 12 is altogether devoted to economic plants, 
and No. 14 to Orchids; the two houses being iden¬ 
tical in size, also in being separated into a warm and 
a cool division. As to quality—“Rubbish, rubbish 
is the name of what I saw. The gorgeous colours, 
the wonderful forms, where are they?” It is not 
necessary to answer this question. I simply ask your 
readers to peruse the list of sixty-one species given by 
“A.F.L.” No'further answer is necessary. “A.F.L.” 
tells us that “twenty-one genera (out of 334) were 
represented by one, and occasionally by two speci¬ 
mens. Here is the complete list.” Then follows a 
list of sixty-one species belonging to these twenty-one 
genera. A perusal of this list shows Odontoglossum 
to be represented by thirteen species, Masdevallia by 
eight, Dendrobium and Cypripedium each by seven, 
and Cattleya by four. How does this tally with 
the statement that the “ genera were represented by 
one, and occasionally by two specimens ” ? But I 
have not done yet. After reading “ A. F. L.’s ” letter 
I went to the Orchid-house to compare notes, with 
the following result:—To Odontoglossum must be 
added three additional species, to Masdevallia four, 
to Dendrobium six, and to Cattleya one. These are 
in flower, which, doubtless, “ A. F. L.” meant, though 
he does not say so. At the foot I append a list (in 
flower) in addition to your correspondent’s “ complete 
list.” This shows fourteen additional genera and 
thirty-seven additional species, or thirty-five instead 
of twenty-one genera, and ninety-eight instead of 
sixty-one species now in flower. 
Lastly, “A. F. L.” remarks, “Thousands and 
thousands of people journey to Kew, and there is a 
grand opportunity to educate the taste of the masses, 
but it is neglected.” Whether the chief object of the 
Kew collections is the education of the taste of the 
masses is perhaps an open question. I should rather 
consider the object to be to present the best general 
idea of the earth’s vegetation as a whole. Be this as 
it may, the Orchids are the subject under discussion, 
and we will see how far the statements of “ A. F. L.” 
are borne out by facts. 
In 18S2. a complete list of the Kew Orchids was 
made, and the number was found to be 929 species, 
and a number of varieties in addition. At the present 
time, this number is exceeded, and it is estimated 
that over 1,000 are in cultivation. Now, as to the 
genera, I am unable to give the exact number, but I 
can slate from personal observation that it exceeds 
130, even in the sense of the new Genera Plantarum. 
This is equivalent to about 150 genera, as understood 
in gardens, for in this work a considerable number of 
garden genera are treated as synonyms. I should 
add that three small houses are devoted to the 
cultivation of Orchids in addition to No. 14 (which 
are not open to the public in the ordinary sense), and 
these of course contain a considerable number of the 
plants above-mentioned. [“ A. F. L.” could, of course, 
only deal with what he saw as one of the public.— Ed.] 
In conclusion, I may say this letter is not written 
officially ; my sole reason for writing it, is that I 
think the misleading statements of “ A. F. L.” 
should not be allowed to go forth to the world as 
unchallenged facts. 
Additional list (additional genera in italics):— 
Bletia hyacinthina ; Cattleya Mosshe; Ccelia Bauer- 
iana ; Coryanthes maculata ; Dendrobium chryso- 
toxum, Dalhousieanum, Dayanum. densiflorum, Far- 
meri, Jamesianum; Epidendrum bicornutum, costa- 
tum, evectum ; Eria excavata; Leelia cinnabarina; 
Masdevallia Benedictii (forty-four flowers), Lindenii, 
octhodes, xanthina ; Maxillaria luteo-alba, variabilis ; 
Mesospinidium roseum; Miltonia radiata; Odonto¬ 
glossum crispum, maculatnm, sceptrum; Oncidium 
aureum, insculptum ; Panisea uniflora ; Pleurothallis 
velatipes; Polystachya pubescens ; Eestrepia elegans ; 
Sauroglossum elatum ; Sobralia sessilis ; Stelis musei- 
fera; Thunia alba; Zygopetalum Gautieri.— R. A. 
Rolfe, Herbarium, Kew. 
-Your correspondent “ A. F. L.,” who talks 
so freely about everything in the Orchid-house at Kew 
being “ rubbish,” has evidently only one idea of merit 
in a flower or plant, the very vulgar one of size. For 
my part, I never go into the Orchid-house at Kew 
without finding some interesting plant in flower, which 
either is not to be found elsewhere, or is very rarely 
seen, such as the curious Cirrhopetalum picturatum, 
which is now in flower there, a plant which is the 
more interesting from its relationship to the still more 
remarkable species, Cirrhopetalum Thouarsii, and C. 
ornatissimum. By-the-bye, if any of your readers 
should happen to have a plant to spare of C. Thouarsii, 
and would exchange it for one of C. ornatissimum, I 
should be glad to make the exchange.— C. W. Strick¬ 
land, Hildenley, Malton. 
-- 
The Cultivation of Phalsenopsis. —It has 
occurred to me that there is a secret in growing 
Phalasnopsis which is not generally known, or, at 
least, not acted upon. I have seen several collections 
of Orchids, and it is a remarkable fact, as it seems to 
me, that where only a few are grown they are usually 
found suspended above other plants, sometimes in the 
plant stove and occasionally in the East Indian-house. 
But in gardens where they can be counted by hundreds 
a house is set apart for them exclusively, and in some 
such places I have seen them hanging up from the 
roof, and in others standing on inverted pots on the 
stages. I have always noticed the finest plants in the 
former case. 
Naturally Plialasnopsis grow with foliage of trees, 
<fec., about them, and although they may get but little 
manure from birds or animals, they must derive 
benefit from the moisture and natural gases given oil 
by the plants or foliage beneath them. If growers 
who have failed to do them well would hang their 
plants up at a short distance above the stage, and 
convert the stage into a bed of undergrowth, first by 
putting a quantity of good soil on and then planting 
any trailing plants that will stand the drip, I believe 
they would succeed. 
Since adopting this plan ourselves, we have not had 
occasion to syringe or water the stage but once since 
it was formed, as the plants underneath get sufficient 
water from the drip of the Phahenopsis. When there 
was only the bare stage, it required damping two or 
three times daily, but now the atmosphere is more 
even, and we effect, besides, a saving in labour, which 
is an important item to those who have not too much 
assistance. I fancy if Mr. Philbrick, Q.C., were to 
give orders to take up all the plants that are growing 
under his Phahenopsis the results would not be so 
satisfactory as at present. In several places I could 
mention, where they are growing above other plants, 
the success is equally as good, although not so 
numerous. Some men give the Phahenopsis all the 
attention and skill they can bestow on them, and yet 
cannot bring them to perfection, while others wonder 
why theirs grow and flower freely with scarcely any 
attention. Do we imitate Nature enough ?— G. IF. 
Cummins, The Grange, Wallington. 
Cattleya citrina.—This grand Orchid, -which is 
now in flower, or fast approaching thereto, is and 
deserves to be a general favourite. Its peculiar style 
of growth always attracts attention, differing as it does 
from most Orchids in growing downwards, instead of 
in the usual way, except when in pans, which in 
a measure interferes with the natural habit of the 
plant, though it does not prevent the flowers from 
assuming their naturally drooping habit. Whether 
grown on blocks or in pans the cool-house is perhaps 
the best place that can be found for them ; failing 
which, anyone who has a greenhouse may succeed with 
it, providing the temperature in winter does not fall 
too low. I have seen it thus grown, and. in far better 
health than when it used to be in the same house 
as the other members of the same family. While 
growing, and until the flower buds are getting pro¬ 
minent, I keep it in the cool-house, but then remove it 
to the Mexican-house, which causes the flowers to come 
larger, and also brings out more clear and distinct the 
white edging of the lip. During the time the flowers 
are in perfection the plants are removed to the 
conservatory, where the delicious perfume is much 
appreciated.— E. Bumper, The Gardens, Summerville, 
Limerick. 
Cool Orchid-house. —I am desirous of construct¬ 
ing a cool Orchid-house, and have a position against 
a north wall (8 ft. high), which I think is just the 
spot for it, but I am in a difficulty as to the exact 
pitch of the lean-to roof. I have to be from home 
from 10 a.m. till 5 p.m., and not keeping a gardener, 
I am anxious to know what angle will give me the 
maximum amount of light with the minimum amount 
of risk from injury by bright sunshine, my object 
being to avoid the use of blinds, which I cannot be 
at home to pull up or down as required. I shall be 
grateful for any hint from a practical Orchid-grower 
of experience.—- City Man. 
-- 
Dendrobium Devonianum.—I send you some 
fine blooms of this showy Dendrobe. All the blooms 
on the plant are produced three, four, and five 
together in each spray. Is this usual ? All our other 
plants have only two and three flowers at a joint.— 
John Laing, Forest Hill, S.E. [The species does not 
usually flower so freely as your plant is doing.— Ed.] 
- Q »—O 
FLORICULTURE. 
The Cineraria. —My first acquaintance with the 
improved forms of the Cineraria—the varieties that 
displayed signs of the patient, careful work of the 
florist—dates back some thirty-five years. I remember 
Madame Sontag and Lady Hume Campbell, two 
varieties raised and distributed by Messrs. E. G. 
Henderson & Son, then of the Wellington Road 
Nurseries, now of Maida Yale. It was then that 
increasing beauty in the tints and combinations of 
colours, and excellency in form, began to be made 
manifest: from that time forward the work of im¬ 
provement has been rapid and striking. About 1S53 
some very fine varieties were raised, showing a marked 
improvement. They were Bousies’ Lady Mary Labou- 
chere and Optima, Ivery’sMrs. Truelove, and Turner's 
Sir Charles Napier, which were all good indeed. 'There 
were also Henderson’s Formosa, a dark violet self; 
Kate Kearney, pure white self; and Prince Arthur, a 
scarlet-crimson self; Sutton’s Lady Camoys, white, 
edged with blue ; Ivery’s Orlando, white, with bluish- 
purple margin ; and Sievewright's Scottish Chieftain, 
white, with a deep violet edge. Two years or so after 
we had Lidgard's Brilliant, a variety that created 
quite a sensation, because of its fine form, dark disc, 
broad zone of pure white, and narrow edging of the 
brightest blue. 
At this time Mr. Turner, of Slough, and others, were 
foremost in raising new varieties, and they increased 
with amazing rapidity, though all, more or less, 
showing signs of a decided improvement, both in 
size, substance, and colouring. If any one will turn to 
the coloured illustrations of Cinerarias given a quarter 
of a century ago, they will find that the dark disc 
in the centre of the flower was a sine quA non, and 
regarded by all raisers as indispensable to a first-class 
flower. Now-a-days, this finds no favour among those 
who make many of the awards to new flowers; and 
the florists’ standard of that time is repudiated in 
many of its particulars in these days. 
It is worthy of note that Mr. Henry Cannell re-intro¬ 
duced to the public, a few years ago, Cineraria 
cruenta. This species was, in common with one 
or two others, the progenitors of the fine florists’ 
varieties of the past forty or fifty years. C. cruenta 
is a common-looking blue or purple star-flower, about 
the size or a little larger than the common Daisy. 
We are thus able to see what a great work has been 
accomplished; and to-day, the newest forms of 
Cinerarias present to view flowers of enormous size, 
