February 7, 1903. 
THE GARDENING WORLD 
123 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 
Exigencies of space at times compel delay in the insertion of many interesting Letters. 
Late Chrysanthemums. 
To the Editor of The Gardening World. 
g nl) _No section of Chrysanthemums is of greater value for 
cutting purposes than is the late-flowering section ; and that 
raisers of new varieties have recogmised this fact is shown by 
recent introductions of sterling merit. We now possess a good 
variety of colour upon plants whose habit and freedom of 
flowering are steadily gaining popularity. 
The whole of the under-mentionied are recommended for grow¬ 
ing in bush form, and to anyone who may need a word of advice 
as°to a good method of culture early propagation is best in 
order to allow time enough to “ stop ” several times before the 
first week in June, after when they should be allowed to grow 
and flower naturally, disbudding according to requirements. 
Of white varieties Winter Queen, Mrs. Jos. Thompson, 
Niveus and Princess Victoria are safely commended for grow¬ 
ing Mme. Felix Perrin is a pretty pink variety of good habit; 
another good pink, but as yet little known, is C. Jarvis, m good 
form with me last December. Yellow Mrs. Jos. Thompson, 
Pride of Ryecroft (sport from Niveus), Yellow Victoria and 
Golden Gem are all good yellows. Of crimson shades are 
Glorious, Christmas Crimson, and Christmas Glory—tins latter, 
I see, was shown at the last meeting of the R.H.S. 
For a profusion of neat flowers the three following miniature 
pompons are pleasing and pretty: Snowdrop, pure white; 
Miss Gertie Waterer, flesh pink ; and Primrose League, sulphur 
yellow. H - J - 
Sweet Peas and Bees. 
To the Editor of The Gardening World. 
Sir. —I have read Mr. Fraser’s letter in your issue of December 
13th. 1 am the correspondent referred to in the “ Horticultural 
Advertiser.’’ I have since read letters in your paper, also in the 
“ Gardener’s Chronicle,” on this subject. Some of the writers 
are quite opposed to my ideas, others rather favour them ; but 
I am desirous of being still further enlightened 
Mr. Edward Step, F.L.S., in his charming book, “ The Romance 
of Wild Flowers,” describes at length the structure of a Pea 
flower and the manner in which it is cross-fertilised by hive and 
humble bees. He states that the anthers shed their pollen before 
the stigma is mature, and that the flower described is found, with 
slight modifications, to prevail throughout the whole family ; that 
is as far as the native genera are concerned. He describes the 
Broom flower to show that by its mechanism cross-fertilisation 
is rendered almost inevitable. 
Mr Percy Groom, in his 11 Elementary Botany, says, like the 
flowers of all the Papilionaceae, these flowers are specially con- 
structed for pollination by means of bees, but says that they may 
effect cross-fertilisatioil, also that they may self-pollinate them¬ 
selves. 
These two gentlemen then appear to me to disagree with the 
Rev. W. T. Hutchins. 
Mr. Step is very emphatic, and from what Mr. Groom says, 
although n»t so emphatic as Mr. Step, I understand him to mean 
that. Mr. Hutchins is partly right. 
If it is a fact that the pollen is shed before the stigma is 
mature, it seems to me that self-fertilisation is an impossibility, 
which is directly opposed to Mr. Hutchins’ theory, and if he 
should chance to see this letter, I should much like to have a 
further reply from him, not that I wish for a moment to set 
up my views against his. I only wish to obtain more knowledge 
on this most interesting subject. 
I think it is generally admitted by botanists that flowers 
specially adapted for insect visitors (as Sweet Peas are said to he) 
are not so adapted for the advantage of the insects, but for 
the flowers, although it may he that it is mutual. 
I note that Mr. Hutchins himself admits part of what I con¬ 
tend, that- the bee exposes the stigma. What, then, can be 
more likely (assuming that the anthers mature first, and pre¬ 
suming that the pollen is no longer potent by the time the stigma, 
is mature) than that the bee will deposit upon the stigma, some 
pollen obtained from a younger flower P 
I have not seen Lord Avebury’s book referred to, but Mr. 
Fraser says that, in it Lord Avebury states that “ it will be 
observed that even British papilionaceous plants are not ex¬ 
clusively fertilised-by bees.” Inferentially, therefore, some are. 
I readily admit the fact that different varieties of Garden or 
Sweet Peas may be grown in close proximity and yet come true. 
This is just the point that greatly puzzles me, and I should like 
to be further instructed upon it. How is this fact to be re¬ 
conciled with the theories propounded, such as I have named ? 
With regard to degenerate flowers, Mr. Fraser seems rather 
to prove one of my points. In speaking of the Violet, I suppose 
he refers to the cleistogamous flowers, but do- the seeds from 
these flowers produce plants bearing good blooms ? 
Is not the Cap sc I la Bursa a good example of a degenerate 
flower? Not. because it does not produce much seed, as all 
gardeners know to their disgust. Indeed, I understand that most 
degenerates produce abundance of seed. 
My notion of a degenerate flower is one that is small and 
inconspicuous and reproduces itself rapidly, such as many of our 
garden weeds. Strasburger, in his “ Text Book of Botany,” says 
that “ self-fertilised flowers appear to be retrogressive.” 
I hope you will pardou my having written you at such length. 
_ T. N. O. 
The Preparation of Soils, 
To the Editor of The Gardening World. 
Sir, —Well may your correspondent who has assumed such a 
sublime no in de plume as “ Trenching Successor,” sigh with 
Burns— 
“ 0 wad some power the giftie gie us 
To see oursels as others see us. 
It wad frae monie a blunder free us, 
And foolish notion.” 
In this case it would have prevented “ T. S.” from foolishly 
losing his temper. What a fury the poor man has worked him¬ 
self into! Before “ rushing into print ” he would do well to 
study the methods of other and abler critics than himself. He 
does not seem to derive much benefit from his perusal of The 
Gardening World, so I am afraid he must be set down as a very 
new reader. Does he imagine that anyone will consider his 
spiteful, ill-natured letter anything but what it really is—the 
revenge of a small nature against a successful predecessor. The 
poor man should learn that the first point in a public controversy 
is courtesy to your opponent. I doubt-, however, if anyone 
capable of penning such an epistle knows the meaning of the 
word courtesy. I would, therefore, draw his attention to the 
letter on the same subject by Mr. E. Beckett. 
Another thing “ T. S.” would do well^to understand is that 
the readers of the “G.W.” do not care two straws for his per¬ 
sonalities. What is my fault? Innocently enough, in writing 
an article, I, without malice, mention in the way of argument 
that my successor went entirely against my methods, and his 
success was by no means conspicuous. In the hurry of pennjiug 
that article I may have made a mistake in saying that “ my suc¬ 
cessor had trenching on the brain. ” . After reading his letter I am 
fully convinced that to use brain was a mistake ; “ head ” would 
have answered the purpose. In writing the article complained of 
I took particular pains to make the locality of the garden I men¬ 
tioned as obscure as possible, and here in his fury he has given 
the whole show away, and made himself the laughing-stock of 
the locality. If he had not lost his temper nobody would have 
been the wiser, so therefore he would have suffered none from 
my words. 
As to his sneer about my information being second-hand, that 
is as it may be. It will perhaps interest him to know that I 
have had a very cordial invitation to visit the garden from one 
higher in authority on the estate than himself. From a feeling 
of delicacy I refused, as anyone with the proper feeling about 
them dislikes to visit where things are not quite as they used 
to be. As to his Tomatos and Cucumbers, one would imagine 
by the way he writes that these grow in the open, whereas, as a 
matter of fact, they are grown under glass in forced soil. 
“ T. S.” only claims to have double-dug his soil, but seeing that 
the two methods are twin-sisters, I am not so very tar out. 
Another word, and I am done with this angry critic. He admits 
(although unconsciously perhaps) that his last season’s method 
was wron g, at lea st it looks rather suspicious, as this year .he has 
tried another plan, and even yet he is not quite sure that- he is on 
the right road. “ Job ” will now have to take a back seat, as 
this poor martyr will now take his place as the champion “ tried ” 
maul. 
It is with genuine pleasure that one turns t-o the courteous, 
manly letter of Mr. Beckett. Everyone knows of his success as 
a gardener, and I would be proud to meet- him, and if it is un- 
luck to be in his vicinity I will gladly take advantage of his kind 
invitation. I may say to Mr. Beckett that the heavy clay I men¬ 
tioned in my article never suffers from drought. It is, there¬ 
fore, much more advantageous to try and keep the roots near the 
surface, so as to benefit by the warmth. I thank him for his 
friendly criticism, and if ever placed in a locality as far south 
I will not forget to profit by his advice. Chas. Blair. 
