June  7,  1900 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
483 
Since  writing  to  you  we  have  found  out  that  it  is  the  Rhus  Toxico¬ 
dendron  that  causes  the  skin  irritation.  Would  you  mind  making  it 
known  amongst  your  numerous  readers  that  this, although  a  beautiful  and 
quick  growing  creeper,  is  decidedly  injurious  to  have  upon  a  dwelling 
house?  Last  Tuesday  I  cut  away  a  few  shoots ;  on  Wednesday  my  face  and 
arms  began  to  swell,  and  on  Friday  I  was  unable  to  see  out  of  my  eyes.  As 
I  stated  last  week,  my  mistress  has  had  several  severe  attacks,  and 
could  not  make  out  which  creeper  caused  it.  Now  we  know  for  certain. 
— F.  Crook. 
[This  letter  refers  to  a  query  on  page  494  relating  to  the  action  of 
Rhus  leaves  supposed  to  be  Ampelopsis.  There  are  two  kinds  of  poisonous 
Sumach,  Rhus  Toxicodendron,  known  in  the  U.S.A.  as  “  Poison  Ivy  ” 
or  “  Poison  Oak,”  and  Rhus  venenata,  known  as  “  Poison  Elder  ”  or 
“  Poison  Dogwood.”  The  former  is  very  common  in  California  and  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  San  Francisco,  where  country  picnics  and  excursions 
are  a  popular  form  of  dissipation,  it  causes  much  inconvenience  and 
fright.  On  some  constitutions  the  effect  is  very  severe,  though  we  have 
never  heard  of  a  case  that  has  had  a  fatal  ending.  Innocent 
excursionists  often  unwittingly  decorate  themselves  jvith  this  pretty 
but  baneful  Sumach.] 
Seminal  Varieties  of  Trees. 
Every  year  paragraphs  appear  in  the  newspapers  relative  to  the 
leafing  of  the  Oak  and  Ash,  and  the  “  splash  ”  or  drought  that  is  por¬ 
tended,  according  as  one  or  the  other  of  those  trees  wins  the  race  in  the 
development  of  foliage.  We  are  told  in  a  note  on  page  459,  last  week, 
that  “  the  Oak  was  the  first  to  leaf  this  year,  which  indicates  a  dry 
hot  summer  and  a  bountiful  harvest,  just  as  in  1898.”  Does  this 
imply  that  the  leafing  of  the  same  trees  was  in  different  order  in  1899  ? 
I  venture  to  assert  there  was  no  difference  between  them  in  priority 
of  leafage  in  that  or  any  year. 
I  have  noticed  that  Oak  trees  as  a  rule,  and  speaking  generically, 
always  develop  leaves  before  the  Ash  trees  do  that  are  growing  near 
them.  But  there  are  exceptions.  Some  few  Ash  trees  always  precede 
certain  Oak  trees  in  leafing,  but  this  denotes  nothing  as  to  the  weather 
that  will  follow,  but  is  simply  a  question  of  variety  or  seedling 
variation.  Trees  of  both  genera  that  are  raised  from  seeds  differ  in 
stature  and  contour,  as  well  as  in  precocity  in  leafage.  It  is  precisely 
the  same  with  Horse  Chestnuts. 
I  can  every  day  see  a  splendid  avenue  of  the  last  named  trees — some 
hundreds  of  them ;  and  very  beautiful  most  of  these  trees  have  been 
during  the  past  three  weeks,  but  not  all.  Though  they  were  taken 
from  the  same  seed  bed,  and  were  of  exactly  the  same  size  when  planted, 
they  differ  strikingly  now,  both  in  size,  shape,  and  the  character  of  their 
flowers,  while  some  always  have  developed,  and  always  will  develop, 
leaves  sooner  than  the  others,  simply  because  some  are  in  their  nature 
early  and  others  late.  For  half  a  century  a  particular  Ash  tree  has 
been  noted  as  the  latest  in  leafing  of  all  trees  in  a  large  parish,  while  a 
particular  Chestnut  is  far  in  advance  of  all  its  congeners  in  assuming 
its  spring  and  early  summer  garb. 
An  avenue  of  Lime  trees,  no  doubt  raised  from  seeds,  is  most 
uneven,  and  altogether  disappointing,  while  another  avenue  from 
grafted  trees  is  entirely  uniform  and  beautiful.  The  variations  in  Ash 
and  Oak  trees,  are  not,  as  a  rule,  so  markedly  diverse,  yet  the 
differences  are  plain  enough,  some  being  naturally  late  and  others.early 
in  leafing.  An  early  Ash  precedes  a  late  Oak,  but  the  overwhelm'ing 
majority  of  the  Ash  trees  are  the  later  year  by  year.  So  much  for  the 
Oak  and  the  Ash  and  the  splash.  That  the  early  or  late  leafage  of  one 
or  the  other  of  those  trees  is  just  a  case  of  seminal  variation  is  the 
opinion  of — A  Northern  Gardener. 
Old  traditions  die  hard..  I  had  thought  the  old  story  about  the  Oak 
and  the  Ash  leafing  was  about  dead,  but  I  see  it  is  still  lively.  I 
should  like  to  ask  of  any  close  observer  of  nature  if  they  ever  saw  the 
common  Ash  in  leaf  before  the  common  Oak.  The  old  quatrain  begins 
“  when  the  Oak’s  before  the  Ash.”  There  is  great  virtue  in  that  “  when,” 
just  as  we  often  find  in  an  “  if.”  I  have  observed  these  trees  closely  for 
many  years,  and  have  found  the  Ash  to  precede  the  Oak  in  leafing. 
That  being  so,  is  it  worth  while  to  prognosticate  the  nature  of  the 
weather  ?  because  that  has  happened  which  always  happens,  let  the  season 
be  a  wet  or  dry  one.  Some  Ash  trees  are  earlier  than  others,  as  some 
Oaks  are,  but  in  the  Ash  florescence  is  early  and  prominent,  and  may 
often  be  taken  for  leafage  by  partial  observers. — Observer. 
A  New  Kew. 
Remembering  how  during  the  discussion  which  has  recently  arisen 
over  the  proposed  new  Chiswick,  the  exceeding  salubriousness, 
healthfulness,  and  beauty  of  Kew  Gardens  has  been  quoted,  I  was  a 
good  deal  surprised  when  an  influential  municipal  friend  here  in 
conversation  the  other  day  mentioned  a  conversation  he  had  had 
with  a  very  high  municipal  person  of  Richmond,  who  intimated  that 
because  of  the  difficulty  experienced  in  growing  certain  things  at  Kew 
it  was  contemplated  to  remove  the  gardens  to  a  less  populated  district. 
I  fear  I  smiled  over  that  intimation,  for  it  would  need  all  the  queen’s 
horses  and  all  the  queen’s  men  to  take  Kew  as  it  is  to  pieces,  carry  it 
twenty  miles  into  the  country,  and  put  it  together  again.  Still 
farther,  I  had  not  heard  of  those  distressing  conditions  of  culture 
existing  at  Kew,  of  which  there  has  been  so  much  reason  to  complain 
in  smoke-ridden  Chiswick.  Possibly  the  Richmond  official  was  labouring 
under  an  attack  of  Kew  fever,  which  had  distorted  objects  so  much. 
But  what  was  a  respected  coutemporary  driving  at  last  week  when 
he  said,  “  Kew  was  thirsty,  and  at  the  present  rate  of  things  the 
gardens  were  likely  to  suffer  as  they  did  last  summer  from  ‘  draught.’  ” 
No  doubt  we  have  here  a  nice  printer’s  error,  the  unfortunate  “comp.”  at 
the  moment  being  in  a  draught,  or  perhaps  being  “  drought  ”  wanted  a 
“draught.”  I  hope  no  one  has  any  hard  things  to  say  of  Kew,  because 
it  had  suffered  so  far  this  season  from  lack  of  rain,  but  some  persons 
may  gladly  seize  on  the  suggestion  conveyed  that  not  only  is  Chiswick, 
through  excess  of  drainage  being  soil  dried,  but  that  Kew  Gardens  is 
sharing  the  same  fate.  Must  even  the  gardens  authorities,  as  they  look 
upon  the  flowing  Thames,  yet  exclaim,  “  Water,  water  in  plenty,  yet 
not  a  drop  for  our  lawns  and  trees  !”  Surely  it  is  not  quite  so  bad  as 
that. — Kingston. 
- — 
A  National  Victoria  Rose  Day, 
I  DO  not  see  the  least  reason  for  concern  that  we  have  few  Roses  to 
wear  on  St.  George’s  Day.  What  have  English  people  to  do  with  a 
personage  who  may  or  may  not  have  existed,  and  concerning  whom 
those  who  profess  to  know  do  not  write  in  complimentary  terms  ?  Let 
us  bury  such  personages  in  proper  oblivion.  It  was  I  who,  in  one  of 
our  Surrey  papers,  made  the  proposal  that  if  England  wanted  a  national 
Rose  day,  it  should  be  on  June  28th,  the  anniversary  of  the  Queen’s 
coronation.  That  was  written  in  answer  to  a  local  complaint,  that 
Roses  could  not  be  had  on  April  23rd.  Well,  it  is  folly,  of  course,  to 
be  proposing  flower  days  at  seasons  when  flowers  cannot  be  had. 
Primrose  people  were  wise  in  selecting  a  flower  for  their  purpose  on 
April  19th,  that  was  everywhere  in  season  and  abundant. 
If  we  really  want  a  national  Rose  day,  common  sense  tells  us  to 
select  a  day  when  Roses  are  plentiful.  To  suggest  as  a  Rose  day  a 
date  when  only  wealthy  people  can  purchase  flowers  is  ridiculous.  On 
June  28th  we  are  in  the  very  thick  of  the  Rose  season,  when  everybody 
can  have,  and  if  they  like,  wear  a  flower,  and  if  the  day  be  known  as 
the  “  Victoria  Rose  Day,”  in  honour  of  the  Queen,  and  of  her  wondrous 
reign,  it  would  probably  endure.  That  English  people  are  lacking  in 
the  needful  emotional  feeling  to  make  them  enthusiastic  over  a  proposal 
of  this  kind  I  am  aware.  They  like  Saint  Barleycorn  better  than  all 
the  Saints  of  the  Calendar,  and  King  Gold  they  love  to  distraction, 
whilst  all  other  kings  and  queens  have  from  them  very  temporary 
admiration.  Whilst  I  should  like  to  see  a  national  Rose  day,  and  every¬ 
body  wearing  a  flower  on  June  28th,  I  have  little  anticipation  that  it 
will  be  generally  respected.  When  Britons  declare  with  somewhat 
isolated  bumptiousness  that  they  are  not  as  other  nations  are,  one  can 
but  regret  that  in  many  respects  it  is  true.  We  have  not  all  the 
virtues. — A.  D. 
New  and  Rare  Plants. 
The  numbers  of  new  or  rare  plants,  and  of  those  that  have  been  to 
all  intents  and  purposes  lost  from  the  view  of  general  cultivators,  and 
which  have  been  brought  before  the  Floral  Committee  of  the  Royal 
Horticultural  Society  of  late  years,  are  very  considerable.  Bearing 
this  fact  in  mind,  and  further  having  regard  to  the  great  educational 
value  of  the  society’s  fortnightly  meetings,  it  strikes  me  as  deplorable 
that  the  practice  of  giving  all  possible  information  respecting  the  plants 
shown  should  have  fallen  into  disuse.  There  was  a  time  when  a  grower 
sent  with  his  plant  every  item  he  knew  that  dealt  with  its  history  and 
parentage,  and  these  facts  proved  of  the  utmost  value  from  an 
educational  point  of  view  to  the  visiting  public.  When  one  sees  at  a 
show  a  plant,  on  the  table  set  apart  for  the  rarities,  that  particularly 
excites  one’s  admiration,  one  naturally  wants  to  have  all  the  procurable 
information  respecting  it.  This  is  provided  in  the  most  readily 
available  form  on  cards  attached  to  the  individual  exhibits. 
As  an  example  of  my  meaning,  I  may  mention  Schizanthus  Wise- 
toniensis,  which  was  exhibited  at  the  Temple  Show.  Notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  ic  was  entered  for  special  recognition,  and  in  fact  received 
an  award  of  merit,  so  far  as  I  could  ascertain  not  an  iota  of  informa¬ 
tion  was  forthcoming  for  the  edification  of  the  committee.  From  my 
point  of  view  this  was  one  of  the  finest  plants  in  the  entire  exhibition. 
