Efjoljobenbron ^ocietp ^otes!. 
So much has recently been written about these beautiful gardens, that I 
need not now dwell on the feelings of admiration with which I always view them. 
On my first visit, Mr. Moore (who may well be proud of the monumerits of his 
own and his father’s labours), was lecturing in one of the plant houses, where 
I had the pleasure and profit of hearing his remarks. When these were 
concluded he accompanied me, and I owe him many thanks for the interest 
and zeal with which he helped me to hunt the shrubberies, and to find, examine, 
and name several relics of “ thirty years ago” still lingering in sheltered nooks 
and hollows, or protected, but not swallowed up, by other shrubs. 
R. Hookeri, to my surprise, seemed fairly flourishing. I do not remember 
whether it had bloomed out of doors ; there certainly were no bloom-buds. 
Although I have received vague tidings of its survival elsewhere, I have 
nowhere else except in Glasnevin Gardens seen this rare species growing in the 
open air; but why I scarcely know, for it is said to grow in its native land in 
company with R. eximium, which is far from being very tender. R. Hookeri 
is not a native of Sikkim, but of Bhotan, and it offers an excellent illustration of 
how the latter country furnishes so many equivalents (Hke, and yet unhke) of 
the Rhododendrons of the former. 
In Sikkim, the species is R. Thomsonii, so well known and comparatively 
hardy, with its almost round leaves and waxen bells of blood-red flowers. In 
Bhotan, the equivalent is R. Hookeri, with florets very similar in colour and 
shape, but much more numerous, and holding themselves differently. The 
calyx, moreover, is distinct, and the leaves very peculiarly so. These last are 
oblong, and show underneath on the nerves most curious tufts. In this respect 
R. Hookeri stands quite alone, so far as I know no other Rhododendron 
showing this peculiarity, which is not transmitted to hybrids, of which I have 
raised a numerous progeny. It breeds freely with that most difficult of breeders, 
R. FULGENS, both ways, with many forms of R. arboreum, R. barb.^tum, 
R. CAMPYLOCARPUM, and R. PONTICUM and the ordinary hardy hybrids, also 
with R. ARGENTEUM, but not with R. Falconeri or with R. grande, and this 
last fact confirms me in the persuasion that R. argenteum and R. grande 
must be kept apart. My other reasons need not be mentioned here. With the 
scaly-leafed Rhodo.dendrons I have only succeeded as 5 '^et in breeding with 
R. DAURICUM. 
I have called R. Hookeri rare. At Kew there was a fine plant in the 
temperate-house, which died a few years ago. On m}^ mentioning this to m}' 
most liberal friend, Mr. Anderson-Henry, he replaced the loss. To him I also 
owe my two finest plants, which, after what I saw at Glasnevin, I shall with 
comfort consign to my canvas house (about which more hereafter). 
My friend, Mr. Luscombe, must have grown and bred from it, to judge by 
certain plants which he kindly sent me many yeais back. In r-arious places I 
have met with it, but it is certainly rare. The flowers must not be judged of by 
the very poor plate in the Botanical Magazine. (Plate 4926). 
108 
