^f)Dtsotjenliron ^ocietp ^otesi 
leaf, its acorns or its roots produce soil conditions especially favourable to 
Rhododendrons ? 
And it would seem possible that the entire genus Quercus shares in this 
peculiarity, and probably all the small-leaved varieties particularly so. 
Some varieties of Quercus sessiliflora are reported to grow more quickly 
than Quercus peduncxilata, and also to thrive better on poor soil. This, 
however, is not my experience here. Some hundreds of Q. sessihflora have 
been planted in different places, some of which were raised from Norwegian 
seed, vouched for by the late Mr. W. R. Fisher. The result in all cases is that 
they have shown a marked inferiority to the common pedunculate oak of this 
locality as regards the vigour of their growth. 
Opinions are equally unanimous in condemning Ash, Elm, Beech, Sycamore, 
Poplar, and to these the writer would add the Lime. The dense shade produced 
by the beech cannot be mitigated, but, equally, the enormous value of the beech 
leaf mould produced cannot be overlooked, and one correspondent states that he 
has made a practice of curbing its soil-robbing propensities by driving a trench 
through its roots. 
The whole question is extremely far reaching, because there is little doubt 
that leaf mould as well as soil has much to do with the success of Rhododendrons, 
and incidentally with the diseases. 
The sweet chestnut is almost universally condemned, as being both too 
greedy and too dense. 
Mr. William Watson, on page 56 of his book, “ Rhododendrons and Azaleas,”* 
says that ‘‘ soils on which Spanish Chestnut, Birch, Conifers, particularly Pinus 
Pinaster, thrive, are not unlikely to suit Rhododendrons.” 
It would seem likely that both the Spanish Chestnut, always difficult to 
place with any certainty that it will thrive except in actucd places which it is 
known to favour, and Pinus Pinaster demand from the soil just those very 
qualities which are required by the Rhododendron, and this criticism should 
possibly be extended to the others. 
Opinion regarding the large maples seems curiously uncertain, but one 
authority writes that acer rubrum is a greedy tree, and that he fears 
acer dasycarpum is not much better. Generally speaking large-leaved varieties 
must be bad, since they demand moisture, and conversely the small varieties of 
the maples would probably be desirable where height is not required. 
The question of small leaves suggests the birch, favoured by the writer in 
spite of its surface-rooting habits ; and certainly the prospect of a group of 
betula ermani arising like fountains of coffee cream from the midst of broad¬ 
leaved Rhododendrons or a carpet of intricatums is a vision tempting enough 
to induce anyone to give it a trial. 
The cherries would seem suitable, especially Prunus serrulata, Prunus Avium 
fl. pi. and Padus Watered, but this group is very liable to disfigurement from 
* “Present-Day Gardening Series,” pub. T. C. & E. C. Jack, London. 
156 
