^fjobobenbron ^odetp ^otess. 
Gardeners’ Chronicle, March l ^ th , 1881. 
The rich and glossy foliage of R. Aucklandii is one of its charms. “ The 
bush ” is described as being in its native haunts “ copiously leafy,” a character 
by no means too common among Himalayan Rhododendrons. 
R. Fortunei has inferior foliage, more flimsy, and generally paler ; but the 
two species are so often confounded when judged by the leaves that it may be 
worth while to be a little more particular. Purchasers of the rarer Rhodo¬ 
dendrons can very seldom see in blossom the plants they propose to buy. The 
first thing, therefore, for a fancier is to study to recognize the leaves. Many 
nurserymen have collections of young Rhododendron plants raised from unnamed 
seeds sent from India (I know of several most inviting collections of this sort, 
and notably one at Mr. W. Bull’s, at Chelsea), and tallies get frequently misplaced 
among plants which live so many years before blooming ; hence a critical 
knowledge of the foliage is very desirable, almost absolutely necessary, for a 
fancier. 
The faculty is acquired by practice, and excites sometimes great astonishment, 
as I have found, among the uninitiated. I have taken some trouble in procuring 
and comparing the foliage of the two species named above. 
The leaves of R. Aucklandii, are thicker, darker, larger, and more elongated 
than those of R. Fortunei, and I have observed that the veins branch from the 
mid-rib at a wider angle. The under side of the leaf, examined under a lens, 
seems moreover of a coarser texture. This is my experience, but I speak subject 
to correction, for a comparison of the plates and descriptions in the Botanical 
Magazine, and Sir J. Hooker’s Rhododendrons, is enough to drive one 
to despair. 
Rhododendron species are undoubtedly variable even in their native wilds, 
but there remains for the writers of the future much to be done in classification 
and correction of nomenclature. Perhaps some of your readers know whether 
the two species I have named interbreed. I do not know, but it seems most 
probable. Both breed very freely with our hardy hybrids, with R. ponticum, 
and I should imagine with R. arboreum. I have already, in your columns, sung 
the praises of a breed raised between R. Aucklandii and the hardy hybrid 
‘‘John Waterer,” in the Lawson Nursery. 
Last spring, I received a truss from one of the seedlings possessed of even a 
stronger perfume than that of R. Aucklandii, the scented parent (thus more 
than confirming the views of Dean Herbert and Gartner), and yet perfectly hardy. 
A plant of the same cross is now swelling for blossom here under glass, and 
very numerous plants of almost similar parentage are planted in the woods in 
every possible aspect. It is curious and interesting for a naturalist to observe 
the prepotency of R. Aucklandii, the pollen parent, in the character of the leaf. 
Identification 
by leaf. 
71 
