636 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
June 6th, 1885. 
THE 
(firtfritr (&xaksm (ffrimirar. 
Work of the Month.—The growing Dendrobes, 
Phalasnopsids, Saccolabiums, Aerides, &c., should now 
be well looked after, water being carefully given to them, 
and the moisture in the atmosphere of their houses 
well kept up. The young growths of Cattleya Dowiana, 
C. gigas and its varieties, and C. aurea will now be 
well advanced, and in many cases sheathing and 
pushing up bloom, and care must be taken that water 
does not lodge in the young growths. 
In the matter of water at the root, it is well not to 
be too liberal with this section of Cattleyas until the 
roots are pushing strongly, when if potted or basketed 
in a manner that admits of the free passage of the 
water, too much cannot well be given. Baskets or 
suspended pots are certainly the best for the smaller 
specimens of these plants. 
The Temperatures for June should be— 
East Indian, or Warm House.— 75 degs. to 80 degs. 
by day ; 70 degs. by night. 
Intermediate, or Cattleya House.— 70 degs. to 
75 degs. by day; 65 degs. by night. 
Odontoglossum, or Cool House. —60 degs. to 
65 degs. by day ; 55 degs. by night.— James O'Brien. 
i -- 
The Cattleya Fly.—I have been waiting with 
some interest to see if any of your correspondents 
would throw new light on the means of getting rid of 
the very troublesome Isosoma orchidearum (p.588), the 
fly which causes such great damage to Cattleyas, but 
nothing fresh has been revealed. I think I was the 
first to make the acquaintance of this unwelcome 
guest, having discovered it among some plants 
purchased out of one of the first importations of 
Cattleya Dowiana. Of course, as it and its work was 
quite unknown to me, it got firm hold before I found 
it, but I quickly succeeded in getting rid of it entirely 
by ruthlessly cutting off every young growth as soon 
as it showed signs of having been bored, and by hunting 
and catching the fly. This treatment I have always since 
recommended, and wherever it has been pursued 
without wavering, the pest has been got rid of entirely, 
but where the matter is carelessly dealt w T ith, only 
the partial success merited is attained, and the evil 
smoulders on until opportunity offers for its spreading 
again. 
The loss of one leader is really not of the consequence 
many suppose, as there are always others ready to 
start. I have frequently seen plants thus forced to 
grow from back eyes flower quite as well as they 
would have done if the first lead had not been cut, 
but the sooner the attacked growth is cut off the better. 
Fumigating, although giving assistance, I found to 
be ineffective, as the flies could stand more of it than 
the plants. I should think that with these gall-flies 
something might be done with either the sticky or the 
chemically prepared fly-papers, and I should like trial 
to be made with them. 
Your illustration (p. 588) is a real boon to the 
Orchid amateur, as it shows him the insect from 
which the evil of the swollen young growths comes, 
and places him in a position to deal with it, in many 
cases, before it can do mischief. Without it many 
would have to do as I did, and with considerable 
trouble trace back the injury of the young growth, 
and connect it with the strange fly not easily noticed 
unless looked for. 
Another insect is now doing much damage in collec¬ 
tions, and in some unnoticed until I have called atten¬ 
tion to it. This fly attacks the air roots (generally of 
Cattleyas), causing them to enlarge at the points, 
become very unsightly, and, of course, injures the 
plants. These enlarged roots on being cut through 
when well advanced are seen to contain growths like 
those shown in your illustration of May 16th. The 
mischief is to be wholly stamped out by similar treat¬ 
ment to that advised for the swollen young growths, 
the roots as soon as seen to be affected being cut off 
about half an inch above the swollen part, the pieces 
removed being collected, taken outside, and carefully 
placed on the fire. 
No doubt we shall make acquaintance with many 
other foreign plant destroyers, but if those who receive 
fresh importations carefully examine the plants and 
remove suspicious portions before putting them into 
the houses, a great many of them will be destroyed 
and much trouble be saved.— James O'Brien. 
-►$-<- 
Odontoglossum Pescatorei Thomsonianum. 
—Considering the remarkable amount of variation 
exhibited by the more popular species of Odonto¬ 
glossum, it is singular that the beautiful 0. 
Pescatorei should, comparatively speaking, show so 
little. It has been imported in large quantities, it 
has been well grown for years, and all are really 
beautiful, yet how few varieties stand out as distinct, 
and by reason of some well-marked characteristics are 
considered worthy of a varietal name. They are so 
few, in fact, that a good one when it makes its 
appearance now claims more attention than a new 
crispum, unless the latter be a wonder, and is 
certainly always worthy of recording. Baron 
Schroder’s unmatchable variety, Yeitchianum, so 
admirably pourtrayed in The Orchid Album, plate 68, 
is a pearl among pearls, one among thousands, and 
may not find its equal for years to come, yet that 
should not prevent us from doing honour to any well- 
marked advances in the same direction. Next to the 
Baron’s plant, one of the finest varieties we have seen 
was exhibited by Messrs. William Thomson & Sons, 
odontoglossum pescatorei thomsonianum. 
of Clovenfords, at the Orchid Conference, and which, 
as a matter of course, claimed much notice from 
connoiseurs. The form of the flower, the arrangement 
of the spots, and the area of the shading is -well 
shown in the accompanying woodcut; but we must 
add that the colour of the spots is deep crimson, 
and the shading lovely hues of violet. 
A Cattleya Sanderiana, two years imported, has 
just flowered with G. Hardy, Esq., at Pickering 
Lodge, Timperley, Cheshire, which perhaps eclipses 
everything in regard to size that has hitherto been 
recorded. Across the petals the flowers measure 
11 ins., each petal being 3 ins. broad in their widest 
part. From the top of the upper sepal to the tip of 
the labellum the same length was measured, viz., 
11 ins. The lip was 3 ins. across, and the flattened 
part below the throat 2£ ins. deep. The colour of the 
flower was rich in every way, and every division 
perfect. A cut flower exhibited at the Whit week 
show at Old Trafford was seen by many Orchid- 
growers, all expressing astonishment at its noble size. 
Orchid Shading. —Parisian Blinds : Mr. Knox 
(p. 604) appears to think that the laths are too far 
apart in the Parisian blinds, but we have not found 
this to be the case. The space between each lath is 
yL of an inch, and although we get a great amount of 
light through them, there is not sufficient direct sun¬ 
light to injure the most delicate plants beneath. I 
have no doubt the cane blinds which Mr. Knox 
recommends would do equally as well, if they were 
made on the chain principle of the Parisian, but 
fastened together with string I believe they would 
barely last a season in this country, and would con¬ 
sequently become very expensive. I have had some 
experience with string exposed to the weather, and 
have never found it to retain its durability for more 
than twelve months. We have many visitors to our 
garden, and several competent judges have expressed 
their good opinion of the blinds, while others after 
seeing them have ordered the same kind of shading 
for their own houses.— G. TV. Cummins, The Grange, 
Hackbridge. 
Orchids in Flower at Clovenfords.—The fol¬ 
lowing Orchids were in flower last week in Messrs. 
William Thomson & Sons’ collection at Clovenfords, 
Galashiels:— 
Ada aurantiaca. 
Aerides Fieldingii. 
„ crispum. 
,, affine. 
„ quinquevulnerum. 
Anguloa Ruckeri. 
,, „ sangnineum 
,, Clowesii. 
,, eburnea. 
Cattleya Skinneri. 
„ Mossiee, various. 
,, Mendeli, various. 
,, Wagnerii. 
,, Warneri, various. 
Cypripedium barbatum. 
„ ,, nigrum. 
,, „ Wameri. 
„ caudatum. 
„ „ roseum. 
„ argus. 
„ cibolare. 
„ lievigatum. 
,, Dominianum. 
„ Harrisianum. 
,, hirsutissimum. 
„ Lawrenceanum. 
„ Crossianum. 
„ Swanianum. 
Hookerii. 
„ Veitchii. 
Dendrobium Ealconeri. 
„ Parishii. 
„ tortile roseum. 
,, thyrsiflorum. 
„ Cambridgeanum. 
,, alba sangnineum. 
„ macrophyllum. 
Lxlia elegans, various. 
„ „ alba. 
„ purpurata, various. 
„ „ alba. 
Lycaste plena. 
,, Skinneri. 
Masdevallia Harryana. 
„ Bull’s Blood. 
„ Denisoniana 
,, Lindeni, various. 
,, ignea, various. 
„ Chelsoni. 
,, Veitchii. 
,, chimera. 
,. amabilis. 
Vlaxillaria erandiflora. 
Odontoglossum crispum, var. 
„ Andersonianum. 
„ Ruckerianum. 
,, Coradinei. 
„ Halli. 
,, Pescatorei. 
,, Rossi magus. 
,, citrosmum. 
,, cordatum. 
Oncidium hastiferum. 
„ llexuosum. 
., tigrinum Barkeri. 
Phalamopsis Luddemaniana. 
Saecolabium ampullaceum 
Tricopilia coccinea. 
„ crispa. 
„ tortilis. 
,, „ alba. 
Vanda suavis, various. 
„ tricolor, various. 
Zygopetalum Clayii. 
Orchids at Kew.—The following letter from Sir 
Charles Strickland reached us too late for insertion in 
our last:—May 28th, 1885.—I am very glad to learn 
that your correspondent “ A. F. L.” himself cultivates 
the “ rubbish ” which he treats so contemptuously at 
Kew. I also take a good deal of interest in this kind 
of “ rubbish,” and shall very gladly avail myself of 
“ A. F. L.’s ” invitation to go and see his plants when 
I have an opportunity of doing so. I am sorry to 
have said anything impolite, but I think that 
“ A. F. L.” will allow that his own remarks were not 
very polite to the managers of the Kew Gardens, and 
that I only expressed what many of your readers must 
have felt when they read his letter. Lastly, my 
remarks only related to the plants in the large house, 
which is open to the public. I do not remember 
noticing anything particularly in the other houses, 
except a number of the terrestrial Orchids from the 
Cape, in a small lean-to, which I hope they will 
succeed with better than I have hitherto done, or 
than, I think, most others have done. — C. TV. 
Strickland, Hildenley, DIalton. 
Mr. Bolfe also asks us to publish the following: 
As “ A. F. L.” asks me a question in his last letter, I 
must ask you to let me answer it, and I will try to do 
so without reopening the discussion. He asks, “ As 
I have nothing to do with the Orchids, why do I write 
about them?” I might ask him the same question. 
He does not see why he “ should join in the chorus 
of praise to please any one.” I did not praise them, 
did not compare them with any other collection, did 
not even write about them, till I saw his letter. But 
he adds, “ Let him beware of picking a quarrel with a 
man in the crowd who disagrees with his bombast.” 
I am sorry he used that word, for I have written 
nothing about them elsewhere. He admits my state¬ 
ment that Kew possesses 1,000 species of at least 130 
genera, and I should not have taken the trouble to 
ascertain the fact had I not seen a statement so very 
different, and, as he thinks the thirty-seven species 
came into bloom in those thirteen days, the collection 
cannot be quite so bad after all. He adds, “ If my 
remarks have annoyed Mr. Bolfe, I am very sorry.” I 
will say the same, for I did not write to annoy any one. 
