April  5,  1900. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
287 
Fruit  Prospects  and  %  Weatl|er. 
In  the  south  of  Ireland  we  have  had  during  the  past  month  very 
abnormal  weather.  I  cannot  remember  another  March  in  which  the 
temperature  was  continuously  so  low — hardly  a  single  day  even  with 
the  sun  shining  above  50°,  and  generally  below  40°.  The  result  is 
that  the  season  is  about  a  month  backward.  I  have  had  Ashleafs  and 
Snowdrop  Potatoes  planted  in  friable  soil  for  a  month,  and  they  are 
barely  moving.  It  would  have  been  worse  than  useless  to  sow  small 
vegetable  seeds.  Of  much  importance  is  how  this  state  of  things  will 
generally  affect  the  fruit  crop  prospects,  and,  perhaps  you  would  invite 
the  opinion  of  English  and  Scotch  correspondents  on  the  point.  Here 
we  are  certainly  a  month  behindhand.  There  is  not  a  fruit  tree  in 
flower  in  my  garden  at  the  end  of  March.  I  have  often  had  even  such 
late  varieties  of  Pears  as  Beurre  Diel  and  Josephine  de  Malines  in  full 
flower  at  the  end  of  February.  There  is  a  fair  prospect  of  bloom  upon 
Marie  Louise,  Clapp’s  Favourite,  Beurre  Bachelier,  Williams’  Bon 
Chretien,  Jargonelle,  Louise  Bonne  de  Jersey,  and  Conference,  but 
Beurre  d’Amanlis  and  Doyenne  du  Comice  are  not  sufliciently  forward 
to  form  an  opinion  yet.  The  same  thing  applies  to  Apples.  Needless 
to  say  there  is  not  even  an  Irish  Peach  Apple  yet  in  blossom  or  likely 
to  be  for  a  fortnight.  The  earliest  garden  blossoms  are  generally 
Apricots — fully  a  week  must  elapse  before  either  an  Apricot  or 
Nectarine  blossom  expands  in  my  garden,  and  then  only  those 
partially  protected  against  a  south  wall.  So  of  flowers,  Crocus,  Snow¬ 
drops,  Anemones,  and  early  Narcissi  are  gradually  expanding  equally 
late.  Admitting  the  danger  from  late  frosts  is  thus  minimised,  is  not 
all  this  encouraging  for  fruit  prospects  ? — W.  J.  Mdephy,  Clonmel. 
■ - - - 
Sparrows  and  Yellow  Crocuses. 
I  HAVE  no  wish  to  enter  into  the  controversy  as  to  what  induces  the 
sparrow  to  destroy  the  yellow  Crocus  blooms  in  so  many  gardens, 
although  from  his  conduct  in  other  respects  I  should,  notwithstanding 
his  many  attractions,  be  inclined  to  lean  to  the  side  of  those  who  say 
that  they  are  pure  mischief.  I  wish  to  note  the  circumstances  of  my 
own  experience,  of  which  I  can  give  no  explanation.  For  many  years 
I  suffered  annually  from  their  depredations  ;  each  year  as  the  spring 
arrived  I  watched  the  development  of  the  borders  of  bright  flowers  in 
my  garden,  and  I  hoped  that  I  should  be  left  unmolested  ;  but,  alas  !  it 
was  not  to  be,  and  I  vowed  vengeance  against  the  whole  tribe,  which 
all  ended  in  smoke,  for  I  have  neither  shot  nor  trapped  one.  However, 
some  years  ago  when  spring  arrived  and  the  blooms  were  very  abundant, 
and  I  looked  of  course  for  the  arrival  of  my  friends,  but  none  came. 
There  is  a  farmyard  next  to  my  garden  in  which  they  hold  their 
parliamentary  discussions  and  arrange  their  plans,  and  strange  to  say, 
whether  the  conservatives  outnumbered  the  radicals  or  whatever  was 
the  reason,  my  Crocuses  were  left  severely  alone.  Since  that  time  I 
have  never  suffered  as  I  used  formerly  to  do.  I  can  only  think  that 
some  conservative  orator  amongst  them  denounced  their  proceedings 
and  obtained  a  vote  in  my  favour,  and  not  a  single  bloom  suffers. — 
D.,  Deal. 
It  is  so  difficult  for  me  to  assume  that  birds,  in  pulling  or  eating 
flowers,  do  anything  wantonly.  One  might  as  well  assume  that  when 
birds  eat  Peas,  or  Cherries  or  Pears,  or  any  other  fruits  they  are 
acting  wantonly,  and  not  because  they  seek  food.  Certainly  the  little 
holes  tits  make  close  to  the  stems  of  Pears  that  are  unprotected  seem 
to  be  wantonly  made,  as  often  nothing  more  is  eaten,  but  that  food  is 
the  object  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  Pear  looks  tempting  at  the 
time  the  harm  is  done,  but  the  fruit,  after  all,  is  not  sufficiently 
luscious  to  gratify  the  bird’s  palate,  hence  it  passes  on  to  another  one, 
and  again  the  same  thing  happens.  Were  the  harm  done  “  wantonly,” 
or  from  pure  love  of  mischief,  we  should  then  have  to  put  the  birds 
on  a  reasoning  equality  with  boys  who  love  to  indulge  in  wanton 
mischief,  because  they  know  that  some  one  or  other  will  experience 
annoyance. 
Could  the  Croydon  sparrows  read  and  understand  the  recent 
note  from  “B.  K.,”  how  they  would  laugh  and  chatter  over  his 
vexation.  But  they  are  just  as  innocent  of  doing  him  or  his  Crocuses 
“wanton”  harm  as  they  are  of  understanding  hie  feelings  when  he 
sees  his  plucked  flowers,  or  perhaps  in  the  late  summer  his  pecked 
Pears  and  Apples.  It  is  not  evidence  to  say  that  not  a  particle  of  the 
flowers  cast  on  the  ground  is  eaten.  Seeing  that  invariably  the  flowers 
are  bitten  ( ff  near  the  calyx,  it  seems  far  more  likely  that  the  object 
of  the  injury  done  is  to  obtain  the  nectar  or  honey  which  may  lie  in 
the  bafe  of  the  flower,  and  be  it  remembered  of  the  Saffron  Crocus, 
also,  which  is  sweetly  perfumed.  What  birds  search  for  in  these 
flowers  they  apparently  find  also  in  Primroses  and  Polyanthuses, 
which  in  places  sparrows  destroy  wholesale,  especially  in  the  neigh¬ 
bourhood  of  buildings,  where  probably  other  sweet  food  is  very  much 
lacking  in  April. — A.  D. 
Pelargoniums  and  Gerai|iums. 
Replying  to  “  W.  G.’s  ”  note  in  last  issue,  I  well  remember  the 
seedlings  referred  to,  but  am  under  the  impression  that  G.  pratense 
and  not  sanguineum  was  the  supposed  male  parent,  Mr.  Lowe’s  object 
being  to  introduce  “blue  blood”  into  the  Zonals.  The  cross  has  been 
frequently  attempted  (by  myself  among  others),  but  always  in  vain, 
and  I  believe  there  is  no  authentic  record  of  any  hybrid  between 
Pelargonium  and  Geranium.  Some  of  the  seedlings  certainly  differed 
most  wonderfully  from  the  seed  parent  Madame  Vaucher,  but  I  could 
never  myself  detect  any  blue  in  them,  and  I  believe  that  they  were 
merely  the  result  of  self-fertilised  flowers,  and  were  reversions  to  an 
ancestral  type,  as  we  afterwards  took  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
to  Chiswick,  and  found  it  almost  indistinguishable  from  inquinans 
one  of  the  original  species  from  which  our  modern  race  started. — ■ 
Chas.  B.  Pearson. 
- <»#.> - 
Judges  and  Judging. 
It  is  very  apparent  from  the  number  of  letters  which  have  appeared 
that  this  is  a  subject  of  wide  interest.  One  can  see,  too,  that  divergent 
views  are  held  on  the  subject,  though  the  majority  of  your  correspon¬ 
dents  favour  the  retention  of  the  same  judges  year  after  year. 
Nevertheless,  I  shall  hold  to  the  statement  published  on  page  179,  as  I 
do  not  think  any  of  your  correspondents  have  advanced  any  very 
strong  arguments  against  it.  It  will,  perhaps,  be  as  well  if  I  refer  to 
the  several  letters,  and  reply  briefly  to  any  points  raised  therein. 
Mr.  A.  Kingston  was  first  in  the  field,  and  needless  to  say  he  strongly 
objects  to  any  changes  in  the  direction  indicated,  and  brings  forward  in 
support  of  his  case  arguments  that  are  manifestly  unreasonable.  I  most 
certainly  should  not  advocate  the  employment  of  a  Rose  specialist  to 
judge  Chrysanthemums,  and  did  not  hint  at  such  a  thing.  I  am  by  no 
means  convinced  that  the  judging  by  the  same  men  at  Chrysanthemum 
shows  is  alwavs  followed  by  good  results.  Both  Mr.  A.  Kingston 
(page  199)  and  “An  Ex-Secretary”  (page  217)  propound  the  same 
question  as  to  whether  the  continued  re-election  of  judges  does  not 
prove  that  the  executive  committees  are  satisfied.  To  this  I  would 
unhesitatingly  reply  in  the  affirmative,  but  I  do  not  by  any  means  think 
that  entire  satisfaction  to  the  exhibitors  follows  as  a  natural  matter 
of  course. 
Then  your  secretarial  correspondent  suggests  that  I  should  not  like 
to  stand  back  for  another.  This  would  be  quite  true  if  I  could  get 
no  other  engagements,  but  this  ringing  of  the  changes  simply  provides 
fresh  judges  for  every  show  if  such  be  desired,  and  I  maintain  it  to  be 
desirable  in  the  best  interests  of  societies,  exhibitors,  and  judges. 
“Ah  Old  Provincial”  (page  245)  writes  a  most  excellent  letter,  and 
though  his  views  are  in  opposition  to  my  own,  I  was  delighted  with 
the  logically  reasonable  phrasing.  So  far  as  I  can  gather  his  great 
fear  seems  to  be  not  in  change  simply,  but  in  indiscriminate  change. 
This  I  think  he  need  not  worry  about,  as  committees,  if  they  did  com¬ 
mence  to  make  changes,  would  use  their  utmost  endeavours  to  get 
capable  men. 
It  is  a  curious  fact  that  “  An  Old  Provincial”  adopts  in  support  of 
his  position  my  chief  reason  for  objecting  to  the  same  adjudicators 
year  after  year.  He  implies  that  they  become  familiar  with  one 
another’s  methods,  likes,  and  dislikes,  and  are  prepared  to  give  and 
take.  Just  so;  and  in  this  very  give  and  take  comes  the  great  chance 
of  unconscious  injustice  to  exhibitors.  At  practically  all  exhibitions 
we  find  the  competition  singularly  close  in  many  classes — so  close,  in 
fact,  that  the  result  hinges  on  the  taste  of  an  individual.  This  is  all 
very  well  in  the  first  year,  but  suppose,  as  is  often  the  case,  the  compe¬ 
tition  between  those  exhibitors  continues  as  keen  in  succeeding  years, 
and  the  same  judges  officiate,  and  the  decision  is  based  on  the  same 
point,  what  must  naturally  result  ?  Simply  that  exhibitor  No.  2  is  not 
getting  his  deserts,  but  is  being  unjustly  dealt  with,  as  in  all  probability 
another  set  of  judges  would  reverse  the  positions. 
That  such  a  position  as  this  has  arisen  cannot  be  disputed,  and  the 
advantage  of  fresh  judges  is  obvious.  There  is  a  tendency  in  this 
constant  re-election  of  the  same  judges  year  after  year  to  create  small 
monopolies,  and  these  are  not  good  for  the  public  at  large.  No  doubt 
personal  feeling  enters  into  the  question  of  change,  as  some  of  the 
older  judges  may  fear  that  if  an  established  engagement  failed  them 
they  would  not  get  another.  This  I  think  to  be  a  false  premise,  as  the 
re-arrangement  would  simply  mean  that  they  would  go  to  fresh  places,, 
to  judge  the  products  of  different  exhibitors,  displayed  in  dissimilar 
tents  or  places,  and  the  entire  novelty  would  awake  an  added  interest 
in  their  work,  with  the  natural  result  that  that  work  would  be  better, 
or  at  any  rate  more  cai’efully  done. — An  iNquisiTOR. 
