THE GARDENING WORLD. 
January 14. 1905. 
grown under similar conditions and propagated freely from 
cuttings like that easily accommodated plant. The soil may 
be enriched with leaf-soil and encouragement given to growth 
by a plentiful supply of moisture during the growing season, 
and similar protection in winter to keep the foliage clean. A 
few cuttings every summer will, however, always provide a 
stock to be wintered in cold frames, and upon which the cul¬ 
tivator may always fall back to make good any losses he may 
sustain in winter. 
A. lactiflora. 
The above is best known in gardens under the name ot A. 
coronopifolia, a biennial species from Siberia, easy of cultiva¬ 
tion and readily renewed from year to year by means of seeds 
freely produced and ripened. In friable soil upon the rockery 
this usually maintains its position by means of self-sown seed- 
iiim's, and is as easily grown in small pots by those who prefer 
to treat it in that way. The leaves are arranged in a single 
rosette, closely hugging the ground, bright green, and more or 
less deeply cut, as. the name is intended to imply, the habit 
beino- like that of a Coronopus, but taller. The flower-stems 
range from 6 in. to 12 in. high, terminating in an umbel of 
white flowers recalling those of Samolus \ alerandi, anothei 
plant belonging to the same natural order. They are, how¬ 
ever, larger and more effective. Some prefer to sow tire seeds 
in pots or pans, pricking, them off singly in small pots and 
planting them out in spring. This, moreover, is all the trouble 
necessary in connection with the species. 
Douglasia vitaliana. 
The above is a native of the Pyrenees, from whence it was 
introduced in 1787, and is placed here from the fact that it is 
best known in gardens under the name of Androsace vitaliana. 
The flowers are of a bright yellow and produced singly from 
the close tufts of leaves, but in the aggregate they have a 
handsome appearance in early spring, being more like a Draba 
than the average run of the Androsaees. It may be cultivated 
under similar conditions accorded the Androsaees from the 
v. a Alchemilla. 
Letter to the Editor. 
Rubus ulmifolius flore pleno. 
To the Editor of. The Gardening World. 
Si 1% _I wa s veiy much interested to read the excellent note 
by “ Heather Bell ” on the above plant in your issue for 
January 7th, page 11, and well knowing its value, I can fully 
endorse his remarks. Among the different forms of the Rubus 
family there are many valuable for the beauty of their ilowers, 
but "this, is, in my opinion, the best of all, and when well cul¬ 
tivated is one of the most showy plants we. have. We obtained 
a stock of this variety several years ago and formed a large 
bed of it in the wilderness, and when in flower it is the admira¬ 
tion of all. That it is still remarkably scarce there is no 
doubt, but 1 think this can be accounted for by the difficulty 
experienced in propagating it. The extremities of the young 
shoots readily take root when they reach the ground, and it 
would seem that by carefully lifting and potting in a suitable 
compost they would continue to grow ; but, after treating 
scores of them in this way with every care, I am bound to say 
that the results are most disappointing, for not more than one 
in fifty lived. 
I have endeavoured to find out when this plant was first 
brought before the public, but have been unable to yet; per- 
haps'the Editor may be able to kindly throw some light on the 
subject. 
I do not see Rubus ulmifolius or the varieties given inNichol- 
son’s Dictionary, but Johnson s gives R. ulmifolius as intro¬ 
duced from Spain in 1823, so in all probability the variety 
under notice is a garden form. The correct name is R. ulmi- 
folius flore roseo pleno. 
We find this plant succeed well in a thoroughly worked, 
heavy clay, and ample room is necessary for the strong shoots 
to develop, these reaching a length of 8 ft. to 10 ft. in a season, 
and the stems which have flowered during the past season 
should be cut out in autumn or spring. 
1 might add that a plant under the name of R. frutieosus 
flore roseo pleno is given in Johnson’s, but am inclined to 
think that this is the plant under notice incorrectly named, as 
one sometimes sees it in gardens under the misnomer of R, 
frutieosus, and as such it was sent here. 
A. E. Thatcher. 
[It does not seem to be known for certain when this Bramble 
originated, but it was listed in the Bollwyller Tree Catalogue 
at least as far back as 1844, under the name of Rubus fruti- 
cosus flore roseo pleno. It is not certain, however, what plant 
Linnaeus meant when he described a Bramble under the name 
of II. frutieosus, as he had two different forms on one of his 
herbarium sheets of dried specimens, including the single wild 
form of the Bramble under notice. No doubt he considered 
most of the common forms of Brambles as mere varieties of one 
species, and his description was therefore too wide to apply to 
any one now regarded as specifically distinct. 
The old name could not Vie retained for any of the forms, so 
that the correct name for the wild form of the Bramble in 
question is R. ulmifolius, Schott. It was open, therefore, to 
give the double variety a new name as well—namely, R, u. flore 
pleno. To add the word roseo is superfluous, for the simple 
reason that the single wild form has rose or pink flowers of 
greater or less intensity. It is the commonest of the wild 
Brambles on all our heaths and commons and in hedges. The 
only change that lias taken place is in the doubling of the 
flowers. C. Koch named it R. bellidiflorus—that, is, the Daisy- 
flowered Bramble—which is very appropriate, but the giving of 
a specific name to a mere double variety was improper, there¬ 
fore R. ulmifolius flore pleno is the correct name. 
Loudon in 1844 had not seen this double Bramble in British 
gardens, though he included it in his Arboretum et Fruticetum 
Britanicum, merely quoting the source from which he learned 
of Its existence. We can remember seeing it in one of the 
Dundee parks as long ago as 1887 in the form of a large bush, 
but we had been familiar with it previously in the Royal 
Gardens, Kew. There can be no doubt, therefore, that it has 
been in the country for many years, and though a British 
Bramble, the double form evidently originated on the Con¬ 
tinent. 
We appreciate all that has been said of its beauty, ancl feel 
greatly surprised that it has not been planted in the pleasure 
grounds of every private establishment. The larger it grows 
the finer it looks, as it is always very floriferous if allowed to 
attain its natural dimensions. We have seen a mass of it 10 ft. 
high and 14 ft. or more in width. 
We are surprised that Mr. Thatcher should have found it 
difficult to increase by this natural method of propagation 
amongst Brambles. Probably he would have more success if 
he would allow the layers another year to form a strong root- 
stock before severing the layers from the mother plant,— Ed.] 
Phaedranassa Carmiloi. 
The above plant is a member of the Daffodil family, but does 
not in any way resemble the familiar flowers of any type of 
Daffodil. It is indeed distantly connected and would come 
more nearly in contact with Urceolina pendula, and, like that, 
pushes up its flower-scapes in advance of the foliage. To some 
extent, this may be a drawback to its cultivation, but that 
defect can easily be hidden by standing dwarfer plants in front 
of it. The flower-scapes reach a height of 2 ft, and carry an 
umbel of eight to eighteen drooping flowers. These are tubular 
and scarlet, with glaucous green but short segments, edged with 
yellow. The contrast between scarlet and the dark glaucous 
green to be seen in the members of this genus is a very marked 
contrast between it and most other members of the same order. 
It is now flowering in the T-range at Kew. The plant is by no 
means new, having been first introduced in 1867 from Costa. 
Rica, but like many other species requiring stove heat, it often 
gets neglected. 
