161 
THP GARDENING WORLD 
November 12, 1892. 
FLORICULTURE. 
The Auricula. 
There are some remarks in “ R. D.’s” article in 
your issue of the 29th October with which I do not 
wholly agree, and with your permission I should like 
to reply to them. 
Dealing first with the exclusion of seedlings from 
open competition. My answer is that of the Rev. 
F. D. Horner that a more retrogressive policy could 
not possibly be conceived ; injurious alike both to 
the plant and the exhibition which is got up to foster 
their well-being. Why do we have these shows ? 
Partly, I think, to compare the improvement (if any) 
between the new and the old. This could not be if 
" R. D.'s ” suggestions Were allowed full play ; and, 
then again, where would the interest be to the lover 
of the flower if old varieties only were pitted against 
each other in their several classes to the total ex¬ 
clusion of seedlings ? 
Methinks " R. D. ’ is rushing to the very point he 
is so anxious to avoid when he advocates a separate 
class for seedling Auriculas “ not in commerce,” for 
who would be the competitors in that class? Well, 
I take it that in a late season, and so far as the 
southern exhibition is concerned, there would only 
be Mr. Douglas who could put up such a dozen or 
half-dozen Auriculas; and, further, would the Rev. 
F. D. Horner care to bring down those magnificent 
examples of Auricula culture if he were limited to 
showing varieties “ only in commerce.” I trow not ; 
and who would be the loser by his absence ? Not 
the Rev. F. D. Horner, but those who, like myself, 
make our annual pilgrimage to London to see the 
giants fight. 
No, no, " R. D it won’t do, and I think you 
would be the first to admit it if your suggestion was 
adopted at the next show and you saw the fruit 
thereof. 
I think R. D.” lays too much stress on the dis¬ 
advantages the small grower is supposed to labour 
under ; for my part I cannot see what he has to 
complain of. He has the classes for “ four ” and 
“ two " provided for his especial benefit, and what 
more can “ R. D.” suggest. I admit that the 
exhibitor who is unable to show ‘‘high quality 
seedlings,” whether they be his own or other 
people’s raising, is placed at a great disadvantage 
compared to those who can do so, but not to the 
extent “ R. D.” would have us believe. Take, for 
instance, Mr. T. E. Henwood at the show held in 
Apr 1 , 1890. There he ran the Rev. F. D. Horner 
very close for first place in the dozens with one 
variety only that was ‘‘not in commerce; ” in the 
sixes he was first with all varieties *' in commerce.” 
In April, 1891, he was first in the dozens with only 
Abbe Liszt out of the twelve that was ‘‘not in 
commerce,” the remaining eleveu being within the 
reach of every one who cared to buy them; and in 
the sixes he was first with a similar lot of varieties. 
This in itself refutes “ R. D.’s” argument that 
exhibitors of old varieties are placed at such a dis¬ 
advantage as he makes out. 
It is not the plants that win the prizes, although of 
course they are the medium, it is the man who grows 
them. Give a good grower (and by a good grower 
I mean one who, like Mr. Henwood, studies their 
inmost needs) inferior varieties, and he will, five 
times out of every six, beat the man who has superior 
sorts, but who does not give the time and attention 
to bring them to perfection. 
I do not follow “ R. D.” in his fourth paragraph, 
where he says, “ when the seedlings were judged at 
different times by two or three different sets of judges 
with varying results.” Perhaps “ R. D.” would 
explain more fully—such an indictment needs a fuller 
explanation. 
It is a good thing, I think, that all the varieties 
that receive Certificates year after year are not “ let 
out,” for the varieties that I should care to invest 
in that have been Certificated during the last few 
years could be counted on the fingers of one hand. 
I have not seen many yet that are real improvements 
on the older sorts. 
I can condole with " R. D.” in his lament over the 
non-seeding qualities of the Auricula. I have 
crossed and seeded (or tried to) for the last two 
years, and I have only a few unbloomed seedlings to 
reward my efforts. I do not think the “ vile atmos¬ 
phere of London ” has much to do with it, for our 
air here is not ■' vile,” and yet the seed is scarce ; but 
‘‘R. D.” asks for too much when he begs that growers 
should “ distribute a few grains of the seed they 
save.” He quotes Mr. Martin R. Smith’s distribu¬ 
tion of Carnation seed, but the two cases are not 
analogous, for Carnation seed is far more plentiful 
than Auricula. — J. T. Keen, Bevois Town, Soutli- 
a 
The Show Tulip. 
I venture once more to invite lovers of florists’ 
flowers, and especially amateurs who may bs slightly 
wavering as to the variety of flower they shall 
bestow their study and impart their love upon, to 
pause before trading, and to give consideration to 
■‘ The Show Tulip,” which is not a new species of 
flower recently introduced, but one of the oldest on 
record. Yes ! one that our fathers, grandfathers, 
and great grandfathers cultivated with the truest 
love and purest of pride! And in confirmation of 
this we need only refer to some of the oldest floral 
works published a century or more ago, and to the 
more recent writings of the late Doctor Horner, 
Doctor Hardy, George Glenny, etc.; and whilst we 
can embrace such names among the present cultiva¬ 
tors as Samuel Barlow, the Rev. F. D. Horner, and 
other known florists too numerous to mention, surely 
there must be something enchanting in the show 
Tulip to have so endeared it in the hearts and eyes 
of such noted and talented florists of the past and 
present. But not only men of learning and position 
has the Tulip nestled in their hearts, but by the 
brawny-handed blacksmith and the Lancashire 
weaver it has been equally cherished and loved ! 
And to-day such men can be found v/ho will un¬ 
hesitatingly pronounce the show Tulip as the gayest, 
the most refined, and most fascinating flower of the 
period. 
Why, then, is such a flower so apparently slighted 
and neglected by those of the “ south ” who have 
taste and time for study, and possess special facili¬ 
ties for the cultivation of flowers ? I know it cannot 
be cultivated, in a commercial point of view, profit¬ 
ably, and that is the reason why the great trade 
florists discard it. The persons I invite to give the 
show Tulip a trial are those who are blessed with a 
natural taste and power of love for florists’ flowers. 
Tulips are easy of cultivation, and the leading show 
varieties can now be obtained at very moderate 
prices. 
I have cultivated Tulips and other florists' flowers 
for close upon half a century, and it would be im¬ 
possible for me to explain the immense delight and 
many hours of true happiness which my Tulips have 
afforded me, year after year, during their blooming 
seasons, but they have also produced me pleasures 
of friendship, which my memory will ever retain, by 
associating me in the warmest and truest affection with 
some of the most noted florists, including the late 
Doctor Hardy, the late Michael Potter, our esteemed 
friends, Samuel Barlow, the Rev. F. D. Horner, old 
Ben Simonite, and many, many other Tulip growers, 
who glory in their fame. —James Thuvslan, Richmond 
Road, Cardiff. 
-- 
ROOTWORK. 
If a number of first-class gardeners, amateur and 
professional, were asked their opinion of rootwork 
the majority would say, Have nothing to do with it, 
it harbours fungus and plant vermin, and will give 
great trouble. Perhaps you would allow me to give 
our experience. More than fifteen years ago we had 
a fence in sight of the drawing room which it was 
desirable to hide by a pretty object. I had heard of 
a rootwork near here, and on going to see it was told 
of a gardener in the neighbourhood who had much 
experience and good taste in rootwork. I then con¬ 
sulted many friends, amateur and professional; most 
advised against — one lady told me her rootwork had 
to be pulled down on account of a noisome fungus; 
but two quite first-class authorities, one professional, 
the other Mr. Berkeley, told me that they had seen 
quite successful rootwork, so I engaged the gardener, 
and finding that he answered to description gave 
him a free hand. 
A number of good sized Spanish Chestnut and 
Oak trees had been cut down near us some years 
ago, we had the roots of these grubbed up and found 
that the softer parts had perished, leaving the hard 
cores. With these the rootwork was built, and it 
was, with bank about 104 ft. long, 23 ft. broad in 
its widest part, 9 ft. in its narrowest, and 6 ft. high at 
its highest. The noisome fungus did trouble, but 
we dug it out carefully, and after a time saw no 
more of it. Slugs and snails were rather trouble¬ 
some, but that they sometimes are where there is 
no rootwork. A good many Laurels had been 
planted to grow up and hide the fence, and also 
Euonymus, Box, and small trees. Fat Tommy, a 
fine cat known in the neighbourhood and figured in 
one of your contemporaries, lived for thirteen years 
in a tub running up and down with a riDg on a wire 
to scare the birds from rare plants. 
Owing to other more pressing gardening work, the 
rootwork was neglected and many Ferns took 
possession to the injury of the other plants, some of 
the earlier imported Azalea mollis, Abelia Rupestris, 
Berberis stenophylla, Azalea amcena, and other 
small shrubs made the rootwork pretty in spite of 
its being overgrown. Taking the hint from the 
success of the shrubs we next made a small rootwork 
at our cottage garden near, planting Osmanthus of 
all sorts, Skimmias, the more tender Spiraeas, 
Clematis, climbing Roses, etc.; this has a pretty 
effect and the shrubs have thriven wonderfully. 
Our old rootwork here was next taken in hand, 
and having a gardener who does not mind the trouble 
of snail and slug hunting, we grubbed up the 
Laurels, all but a few of the ornamental trees and 
all the Ferns, put in fresh soil among the roots, 
made a large bed of good soil on the level at the 
top, and planted all manner of Alpine and herba¬ 
ceous plants and small shrubs, one object being to 
show what a great number of plants can be grown 
in a small space, an answer to friends who say that 
their gardens are too small to do much in. 
So far the remodelled rootwork is a complete 
success, and much prettier (looking like a wild bank) 
than any rockwork of the same size that I have seeD, 
the black old roots, most of them still quite sound, 
setting off the plants. At the bottom of the root- 
work there is a bed of good loam full of fine Primroses, 
and on the bottom bays such plants as Ramondia 
pyrenaica, Shortia galacifolia, Cyclamens, Colchicum 
speciosum, Hellebores, Meconopsis Wallichii, Galax 
aphylla, Pulsatilla, Palms, etc. At one end of the 
rootwork is a bed in which slabs of stone are sunk, 
with plants against and amongst them, and at the 
east end a quantity of burr work so as to try the 
different shelters close to each other. —George F. 
Wilson, Heatlierbank, Weybtidge Heath. 
-- 
HARDY TREES AND 
SHRUBS. 
Abelia rupestris. —This is a neat,twiggy shrub from 
2ft. to 3ft. high, with slender shoots, and very pleasing, 
shining green, serrated leaves. The tubular, sweet- 
scented flowers are produced in clusters at the end 
of each shoot, even the smallest, and are of a very 
delicate shade of pink—indeed almost white. It 
ma^es an excellent wall plant, but by no means 
refuses to grow and flower freely without either 
shelter or protection, provided a fairly rich and well- 
drained soil is supplied. From August to October 
is the flowering period of this handsome deciduous 
Chinese shrub. This is the only really hardy species, 
though the handsome rosy-purple flowered A. flori- 
bunda, from Mexico, has stood for several years un¬ 
injured in southern England, but it is not to be 
relied upon. Both species are readily propagated 
from cuttings. 
/Esculus hippocastanum. —A fine, hardy, free- 
flowering tree, supposed to have been introduced 
from Asia, of which there is a double-flowered, a 
variegated, and several lobed and cut-leaved forms. 
The tree needs no description, the spikes of pinky- 
white flowers, which are produced in great abund¬ 
ance, and ample foliage rendering it one of, if not the 
handsomest trees of our acquaintance. It gives a 
pleasing shade, and forms an imposing and pic¬ 
turesque object in the landscape, especially where 
the conditions of soil—a rich, free loam—are pro¬ 
vided. 
T 2 . rubicunda (the red Horse-Chestnut), if only 
for its neat and moderate growth and attractive 
spikes of brightly coloured flowers, must be con¬ 
sidered as one of the handsomest and most valuable 
of our small-growing trees. Being of moderate size 
(for we rarely meet with specimens of greater height 
than 30 ft.) and of very compact habit, it is rendered 
peculiarly suitable for planting in confined spots and 
