126 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
August  8,  1895. 
When  the  crop  is  ripe  leave  ofiE  forcing  ;  I  do  not  mean  to  stop  the  fire 
altogether,  but  only  a  little  fire  heat  is  needed  to  help  to  finish,  and  give 
plenty  of  air,  as  this  will  bring  flavour  and  harden  off  the  plants  to  be 
planted  outside.  The  beds  will  be  ready,  and  in  the  autumn  there  will 
be  a  good  second  crop.  I  saw  a  grand  crop  last  year  in  September  from 
forced  plants.  The  Rhubarb  can  be  brought  in  in  the  way  directed  for 
the  Kidney  Beans  and  Violets.  Now  this  is  suggested,  as  already  stated, 
for  those  who  have  to  supply  the  market,  and  who  have  a  number  of 
houses  of  which  they  must  make  the  best. 
Having  thus  briefly  considered  various  articles  of  produce  in  the 
light  of  the  profit  that  may,  or  may  not,  be  realised,  I  would  show, 
though  not  unmindful  of  the  views  which  may  differ  from  mine,  that 
Violets  and  Rhubarb,  with  a  trial  house  of  Kidney  Beans  and  Rhubarb, 
and  Strawberries  and  Rhubarb,  are  the  produce  the  cultivation  of  which 
will  be  the  most  profitable. 
(To  be  continued.) 
Chrysanthemum  Shows  in  Australia. 
The  Chrysanthemum  appears  still  to  be  increasing  in  popularity  in 
Australia.  It  is  reported  in  a  recent  number  of  the  “  Australian  Agri¬ 
culturist  ”  that  during  the  past  season  forty  shows  were  held  as  against 
thirty  in  the  preceding  year.  The  growers  in  that  part  of  the  world 
appear  to  labour  under  some  difficulty  in  getting  their  exhibits  to  the 
shows,  as  will  be  seen  by  an  extract  from  the  report  of  the  Wentworth 
show,  which  says,  "  Mr.  W.  L.  Higgins  was  the  most  successful  exhibitor 
in  Chrysanthemums,  and  it  is  a  fact  worthy  of  record  that  cut  blooms 
of  his  which  were  sent  to  the  Bendigo  show,  two  hundred  miles  by 
coach,  and  thirty  by  rail,  tock  prizes  there  after  being  four  days  cut.” 
And  I  should  think  the  reporter  might  have  added,  and  considerably 
shaken  up. 
A  Blue  Chrysanthemum. 
In  common  with  many  of  my  Chrysanthemum-growing  friends  I 
was  under  the  impression  that  the  idea  of  a  blue  variety  of  the  Chrys¬ 
anthemum  was  a  modern  one.  The  subject  has  been  referred  to  in  the 
horticultural  press  on  several  occasions  during  the  past  seven  or  eight 
years,  and  one  gentleman,  if  my  memory  serves  me  aright,  offered  a 
prize  of  £5  and  railway  expenses  to  any  exhibitor  of  such  a  novelty. 
We  are,  however,  as  far  off  from  the  coveted  colour  as  before,  and  are 
probably  likely  to  remain  so.  The  idea  is  not  by  any  means  a  new  one, 
for  I  find  on  looking  over  my  copy  of  Phillips’  ”  Flora  Historica,”  pub¬ 
lished  in  1829,  that  the  author  makes  allusion  to  the  subject  in  dealing 
with  the  question  of  the  colours  of  the  varieties  then  known.  He  says, 
”  A  rich  blue  would  be  a  most  desirable  variety,  and  we  recommend 
cuttings  of  the  lilac  kinds  to  be  planted  in  a  soil  with  a  considerable 
portion  of  bog  or  heath  earth,  with  a  hope  that  it  may  effect  such  a 
change.” 
Probably  the  experiment  was  made  ;  but  the  blue  Chrysanthemum 
is  still  a  myth,  unless  we  care  to  believe  in  the  Japanese  legend  about 
it  being  in  the  care  of  the  Buddhist  priests.  Certain  it  is  that  corre¬ 
spondence  with  friends  in  Japan  has  failed  to  elicit  anything  satisfactory 
concerning  the  existence  of  this  fabulous  flower.  The  happy  plant 
hunter  who  can  find  out  its  whereabouts  may,  I  think,  depend  on 
making  a  fortune  out  of  his  discovery,  if  he  can  introduce  it  alive  into 
Europe  or  America. 
New  Chrysanthemums  in  New  Zealand, 
Mr.  Thomas  Wells  of  Cambridge,  N.Z.,  in  an  article  entitled 
"  Exhibition  Chrysanthemums,”  which  appeared  in  a  recent  number  of 
the  “Auckland  Star,”  gays — “Last  season  was  the  most  fruitful  in  good 
new  varieties  we  have  had  for  some  years,  the  most  notable  eight  of 
which  I  should  place  in  the  following  order  of  merit,  viz.,  Charles 
Davis,  rosy  bronze  ;  Mdlle.  Th^rrise  Rey,  ivory  white ;  The  Queen,  white  ; 
Mrs.  E.  D.  Adams,  white  suffused  purple ;  Viscountess  Hambledon, 
silvery  pink;  Joan  Farwell,  crimson ;  Mrs.  Bruce  Findlay,  pink;  and 
Miss  Dorothy  Shea,  terra  cotta.  The  whole  of  these  are  indispensable 
in  every  good  collection,  whilst  Mdlle.  Th^i^se  Rey  is  such  an  advance 
in  whites  that  no  exhibitor,  large  or  small,  can  afford  to  be  without  it.” 
The  same  grower  refers  to  there  being  hundreds  of  varieties  in  the 
colony,  and  at  the  request  of  some  brother  cultivators  of  the  Autumn 
Queen  he  gives  a  list  of  what  in  his  opinion  are  the  best  thirty-six 
varieties  in  New  Zealand.  It  may  be  interesting  to  reproduce  it  here,  as 
it  will  show  that  the  high  position  occupied  by  most  of  the  varieties  is 
not  confined  to  England  alone.  They  are  ''’iviand  Morel,  Chas.  Davis, 
Mdlle.  Th^rfese  Rey,  The  Queen,  Mrs.  B.  D.  Adams,  Viscountess 
Hambledon,  Joan  Farwell,  Mrs.  Bruce  Findlay,  Miss  Dorothy  Shea, 
Eda  Prass,  Thunberg,  Stanstead  White,  Duke  of  York,  Mrs.  C.  H.  Payne, 
Miss  A.  Hartshorn,  Grandiflorum,  The  President,  Mdlle.  Marie  Hoste, 
Excelsior,  Mrs.  Libbie  Allen,  Domination,  Niveus,  Col.  W.  B.  Smith, 
Sunflower,  Florence  Davis,  Lucrece,  Mr.  A.  H.  Neve,  Waban,  Tarawera, 
Mrs.  F.  L.  Ames,  Wm.  Seward,  Fred  Dormer,  Golden  Wedding,  Edwin 
Molyneux,  Mrs.  Wm.  Trelease,  and  G.  W.  Childs. 
Chrysanthemum  Souvenirs. 
In  a  very  short  time  now  the  season  will  be  at  hand,  and  enterprising 
show  committees  may  well  consider  the  plan  of  issuing,  either  at  a 
small  charge  or  gratis,  some  form  of  booklet  similar  to  those  which  are 
distributed  at  the  American  shows.  I  have  several  of  these  before  me, 
and  can  well  imagine  th^t  many  a  visitor  who  would  not  care  to  keep  an 
ordinary  schedule  would  put  such  a  little  work,  if  neatly  printed  and 
got  up  tastefully,  aside  for  future  reference,  and  as  a  pleasant  reminder 
of  an  evening’s  enjoyment.  The  preservation  of  such  would  act  as  a 
permanent  advertisement  of  the  society,  and  would  certainly  do  it  more 
good  than  harm.  The  contents  would  have  to  be  mainly  determined  by 
locality  and  other  circumstances,  but  a  general  idea  may  be  gleaned  of 
the  kind  of  publication  referred  to  in  a  very  few  words.  The  title 
page  should  bear  the  name  of  the  society,  and  dates  on  which  the  show 
is  held ;  a  list  of  the  officers  and  committee  might  follow  with  the 
principal  prizes,  special  and  otherwise.  If  music  forms  a  part  of  the 
proceedings  a  programme  could  be  given.  This  might  be  followed  by  a 
brief  description  of  the  show,  and  two  or  three  short  articles  on  subjects 
of  special  interest  concerning  the  flowers.  In  some  cases  it  might  be 
useful  to  include  a  list  of  the  prizewinners,  and  a  time  table  of  trains 
from  neighbouring  towns  and  villages.  Above  all  a  few  pages  of  blank 
paper  at  the  end  for  visitors  to  make  notes  on  should  not  be  forgotten. 
A  few  advertisements  from  tradesmen  in  the  immediate  vicinity 
would  go  a  long  way  towards  the  expense,  and  in  the  American  show 
souvenirs  which  I  have  they  are  very  numerous.  In  size  they  should  be 
convenient  enough  to  be  slipped  into  the  pocket  when  done  with,  say 
7  or  8  inches  long  by  about  4  inches  in  width. — P. 
MANURES  AND  THEIR  APPLICATION. 
Under  this  title  a  pamphlet  of  thirty-one  pages  is  before  us,  being 
a  lecture  delivered  to  the  Cheshunt,  Wormley  and  District  Horticultural 
Society,  May  9th,  1895,  by  Mr.  W.  Dyke.  The  object  in  view,  as  stated 
is  “  to  give  those  whose  duty  or  pleasure  it  is  to  cultivate  the  soil 
some  idea  of  the  different  kinds  of  manure  to  use,  their  action  when 
applied  to  the  soil,  and  the  quantity  likely  to  produce  the  best  results 
generally .” 
Nearly  eight  pages  are  devoted  to  a  disquisition  on  the  need  for 
manures,  the  sources  whence  they  are  derived,  and  the  manner  in  which  ^ 
they  become  available  as  plant  food.  Water  culture  is  mentioned, 
growing  plants  in  sand,  and  feeding  in  both  cases  with  nitrate  of  lime, 
ammonium  nitrate,  sulphate  of  potash,  phosphate  of  magnesia,  and 
ferric  chloride,  which  is  notable,  as  only  the  sulphate  of  potash,  and 
that  not  commonly,  is  used  practically  as  manure.  In  using  nitrate  of 
lime  we  get  nitric  acid  into  the  plant,  for  Mr.  Perceval  tells  us  it  takes 
up  the  nitrogen  and  rejects  the  lime  ;  from  ammonium  nitrate  there  is 
nitric  acid ;  from  sulphate  of  potash,  sulphur  with  the  rejection  of 
the  potash  ;  from  phosphate  of  magnesia,  phosphoric  acid  with  the 
discarding  of  the  magnesia  ;  and  from  the  ferric  chloride,  chlorine  with 
the  leaving  behind  of  the  iron.  Thus,  in  the  plant  we  have  nitrogen 
twice  told,  sulphur,  phosphorus,  and  chlorine  ;  and  in  the  water  or 
sand,  lime,  potash,  magnesia  and  iron,  which  the  plant  can  utilise  at  its 
discretion,  and  does  by  the  acid  secretion  of  its  roots. 
This  is  a  phase  of  the  subject  seldom  recognised  in  water  or  sterilised 
soil  (sand)  culture.  In  the  water  we  get  the  essential  oxygen  and 
hydrogen,  and  from  the  atmosphere  the  equally  important  carbon.  The 
water  or  sand,  therefore,  is  for  all  practical  purposes  simply  fertile  soil 
containing  potassium,  calcium,  magnesium,  and  iron,  yea,  and  ammonia, 
for  having  strict  regard  to  Mr.  Perceval’s  excellent  exposition  (page  51), 
the  plant  absorbs  the  nitric  acid  and  refuses  the  ammonia.  By  what 
process  is  this  ammonia  converted  into  nitrate  of  lime  or  potash  in  the 
water  ?  Mr.  Dyke  tells  us  it  is  effected  by  “  bacteria  ”  in  the  soil,  but 
is  silent  as  regards  the  water  culture,  and  even  the  sand.  By  some 
means  the  ammonia  must  become  nitrous,  and  afterwards  nitric  acid, 
or  there  can  be  no  nitrate  for  the  plant  to  take  the  nitrogen  from  and 
leave  the  base. 
On  page  5  we  are  told  that  only  leguminous  plants  can  utilise 
nitrogen  gas,  and  that  others  derive  nitrogen  as  nitrates  from  the  soil, 
the  amount  of  nitric  acid  brought  down  to  the  soil  in  rain  probably 
being  not  more  than  2  lbs.  per  acre  in  a  year.  The  amount  “  supplied  in 
the  annual  rainfall  at  Rothamsted  is  probably  4  to  5  lbs.  per  acre, 
excluding  the  condensation  by  the  soil  ;  the  mean  of  Continental 
estimates,  including  localities  near  towns,  is  .  .  .  10'23  lbs.  per  acre.” 
(Dr.  Fream’s  “  Soils  and  their  Properties,”  Messrs.  Bell  &  Sons,  page  62.) 
Mr.  Dyke  says,  “  This  small  amount  is  of  very  little  use  when  we  come 
to  consider  the  amount  of  nitrogen  removed  by  some  crops  ;  e  y.,  a  crop 
of  Potatoes,  8  tons  to  the  acre,  would  remove  48  lbs.  of  nitrogen,  which 
is  equal  to  292  lbs.  of  nitrate  of  soda.”  What  of  the  amount  of  ammonia 
abstracted  by  the  Potato  tops  from  the  atmosphere?  Surely  the 
100  acres  of  leaf  surface  of  an  acre  of  Potato  plants  get  some  of  the 
atmospheric  ammonia  during  respiration,  as  well  as  from  dews  and  rains, 
independent  of  that  derived  from  the  soil  by  their  roots.  Of  course,  it 
is  argued  the  plants  cannot  utilise  it.  This  is  strange,  for  the  plant  is 
not  deficient  in  the  bases  essential  for  the  change  into  nitrous  and  nitric 
acid.  Does  not  such  change  take  place  in  the  plant  as  well  as  in 
the  soil  ? 
We  find  in  Mr.  Dyke’s  pamphlet  the  usual  account  of  the  formation 
of  nitrates  in  the  soil  from  organic  matter  by  microbes,  but  we  cannot 
conceive  whence  plants  got  their  nitrogen  in  primaeval  times.  Some¬ 
thing  is  wrong  somewhere  ;  either  the  plants  can  of  themselves  form 
