March  31,  1898. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTTCULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
285 
A  Successful  Year  at  Winchester. 
We  are  glad  to  observe  in  the  report  of  the  Winchester  Horticultural 
Society  that  as  the  result  of  the  last  Chrysanthemum  show  the  balance  in 
hand  was  raised  from  £55  15s.  9d.  to  £71  5s.  2d.  The  Society  is 
admirably  managed,  and  its  autumn  shows,  though  limited  by  the  size  of 
the  Guildhall,  rank  as  regards  merit  among  the  best  in  the  kingdom.  The 
executive  committee,  of  which  Mr.  F.  W.  Flight  is  chairman,  is  composed 
mainly  of  professional  and  commercial  gentlemen,  but  gardencr.s  and 
nurserymen  have  each  a  representative.  Mr.  Chaloner  Shenton  is  the 
Honorary  Secretary. 
National  Chrysanthemum  Society. 
From  your  report  of  the  above  Society’s  meeting  it  will  be  at  once 
inferred  that  I  had  no  confidence  in  Mr.  Sanders’  impartiality,  and  for 
that  reason  wished  his  removal  from  the  chair,  ilay  I  be  permitted  to 
say  that  the  extreme  opposite  was  my  view  of  the  matter  ?  I  called 
attention  to  the  difficulties  of  his  dual  position,  and  to  the  fact  that  1 
believed  the  meeting  had  the  greatest  confidence  in  his  absolute  impar¬ 
tiality.  The  logical  conclusion  of  this  was  that  individually  the  decisions 
of  the  chair  must  be  respected,  and  collectively  they  must  be  supported. 
I  took  this  course  in  view  of  the  pent-up  feeling  which  seemed  to  exist, 
and  could  only  do  so  under  the  cover  of  a  motion — that  of  adjournment 
being  the  most  convenient. — Robt.  Fife. 
[This  is  exactly  what  we  apprehended  on  reading  our  reporter’s 
“  copy.”  We  did  not  for  a  moment  think  the  proposition  a  reflection  on 
Mr,  Sanders,  whom  we  believe  incapable  of  swerving  from  the  line  of 
right,  and  we  cannot  imagine  anyone  who  knows  him  having  a  doubt  as 
to  his  strict  impartiality  as  Chairman  of  the  N.C.S.] 
The  “  Carnot  Mystery.” 
As  a  grower  and  exhibitor  of  Chrysanthemums,  I  should  like  to  ask 
those  who  have  had  opportunities  for  comparing  the  various  “  Carnots  ” 
if  they  will  kindly  describe  their  colours  as  they  have  seen  them. 
I  have  only  seen  one  of  the  so-called  yellow  varieties,  and  that  under 
the  name  of  G.  J.  Warren.  The  blooms  which  came  under  my  notice 
have  all  been  a  very  pale  canary  yellow.  Mine  ai  e,  or  could  be,  described 
in  the  same  words  as  used  by  Mr.  H.  J.  Jones  when  describing  Mrs. 
W.  Mease. 
Yellow  Carnot  or  G.  J.  Warren  are  described  as  deep  canary  yellow. 
I  am  sorry  to  say  I  have  not  seen  any  of  that  colour  yet,  and  would  be 
glad  if  some  of  your  correspondents  would  clear  up  what  we  might  call 
the  “  Carnot  mystery.”  Other  growers  are  in  the  same  fix  as  myself, 
and  will  not  order  Mrs.  Mease,  being,  in  fact,  afraid  to  do  so,  in  case  the 
variety  is  not  distinct  enough  [to  be  placed  on  the  same  stand  with 
G.  .1.  Warren  or  Yellow  Carnot.  The  Belfast  dispute  and  Mr.  Beckett’s 
opinion  of  the  flower  staged  as  Primrose  Carnot  has  something  to  do  with 
the  existing  doubts  ;  even  Mr.  Wells  seems  to  have  been  in  doubt,  and  wh(  n 
men  like  those  mentioned  are  not  sure,  what  about  the  rank  and  file  of 
the  growers  ?  Therefore,  in  the  interest  of  the  latter  class,  I  should  be 
glad  if  a  little  explanation  and  instruction  could  be  given  in  the  Journal  of 
Horticulture. 
Will  some  disinterested  growers  describe,  if  possible,  the  different 
varieties  of  “  Carnots,”  for  we  all  dread  disqualification  when  the  critical 
moment  comes  ?  A  case  in  point  may'  be  mentioned.  I  once  staged 
Golden  Queen  of  England  and  Emily  Dale,  when  the  latter  was  sent  out 
as  distinct,  and  being  my  first  attempt  to  gain  a  prize,  was  very  much 
annoyed  on  finding  my  card  reversed,  and  the  one  word  “  disqualified  ” 
plainly  written  on  it.  That  was  a  lesson  never  to  be  forgotten. 
I  enclose  a  circular  by  W.  Wells  ;  in  it  you  will  notice  he  places  G.  .J. 
Warren  and  Yellow  Carnot  as  identical,  while  he  quotes  Mr,  Lees  as 
praising  the  one  and  condemning  the  other.  This  all  tends  to  mystifica¬ 
tion.  I  plead  for  enlightenment.  I  should  be  glad  if  some  independent 
authorities  could  briefly  describe  the  different  “Carnot”  sports  for 
clearing  up  the  mystery.  I  trust  you  may  find  room  for  the  informa¬ 
tion  requested,  and  which  would  be  welcomed  by  many  readers. — 
Alex.  Haggart,  Moor  Park,  Ludlow. 
[We  shall  gladly  find  room  for  suitable  communications  on  the 
peridexing  subject.] 
Chrysanthemum  Notes, 
I  NOTE  this  year  a  commendable  practice  is  being  adopted  by  many 
societies — viz.,  the  early  issue  of  the  prize  schedules.  Both  societies  and 
exhibitors  suffer  when  the  schedules  are  sent  out  only  a  few  days  prior  to 
a  show.  Especially  to  the  smaller  ciiltivator  does  this  apply,  for,  as  a 
rule,  he  confines  himself  to  the  strict  requirements  of  his  particular  classes, 
want  of  space  being  the  cause  of  this.  Schedules  issued  in  April  or  May 
admit  then  of  no  reasonable  reconstruction  of  his  forces  in  the  matter  of 
variety  and  number  of  plants.  _ 
So  much  interest  is  now  taken  in  the  cultivation  of  Chrysanthemums, 
that  the  class  comprising  the  small  grower  and  the  amateur  is  distinctly  on 
the  increase,  and  their  enthusiasm  is  unbounded.  I  have  often  been  ‘ 
surprised  at  the  extent  of  the  purchase  of  new  varieties  by  the  amateur. 
With  this  cultivator  there  is  a  distinct  understanding  that  up  to  date  they 
must  be  in  the  matter  of  variety. 
The  rate  of  progress  in  the  quality  and  extent  of  the  Japanese  section  of 
the  Chrysanthemum  is  admittedly  fast.  If,  however,  some  society  would 
offer  prizes  for,  say,  two  or  three  dozen  varieties  introduced  previous  to 
1890,  another  series  at  a  space  of  five  years,  and  a  third  for  up-to-date 
sorts,  the  real  rate  of  progress  and  improvement  could  be  accurately 
gauged.  What  is  improvement  in  a  Japanese  Chrysanthemum  is  a 
disputable  point,  and  one  not  universally  acknowledged. 
A  brief  reference  to  a  few  cultural  points  may  not  be  unacceptable  to 
the  beginner.  I  note,  too,  a  growing  tendency  amongst  the  experienced 
to  treat  the  Chrysanthemum  as  hardily  as  possible.  It  is  really  a  hardy 
plant,  and  any  undue  alteration  cannot  fail  to  be  detrimental.  To  the 
inexperienced  I  would  say.  Root  your  cuttings  under  cool  conditions,  and 
grow  them  as  sturdily  as  possible.  Immediately  the  plants  are  well 
rooted  get  them  into  cold  frames,  where  they  cannot  become  weakened  by 
undue  beat,  as  is  the  case  occasionally  in  the  greenhouse  or  vinery.  I 
need  hardly  emphasise  the  necessity  of  keeping  the  plants  as  near  to  the 
glass  as  possible  in  the  early  stages  of  growth,  as  it  is  common  know¬ 
ledge  that  without  a  stout  foundation  you  cannot  have  a  satisfactory 
superstructure.  In  the  Japanese  section  especially  is  it  imperative  to 
secure  robust  leaves,  and  it  is  surprising  what  a  difference  is  manifest  in 
the  manner  in  which  the  blooms,  and  the  leaves  also,  remain  fresh  when 
cut  as  compared  to  those  on  weakly  grown  plants. 
I  am  acquainted  with  cultivators  who  aim  at  reducing  both  the  size  of 
the  wood  and  leaves.  Especially  does  one  instance  of  this  occur  to  my 
mind.  Calling  on  an  enthusiastic  beginner  in  August  last  year  I  remarked, 
“Your  plants  look  nice,  but  I  should  have  liked  them  better  if  they  had 
been  half  as  thick  again.”  With  a  look  of  astonishment  he  replied,* 
“  Why,  I  have  been  trying  to  keep  down  robustness  as  much  as  possible.” 
I  said,  “Well,  results  will  prove  the  advisability  or  otherwise  of  such 
treatment.”  A  very  poor  record  of  prizewinnings  had  my  friend  to  show 
for  his  labour. 
To  the  compost  for  the  second  potting  I  advise  the  addition  of  some 
directly  stimulating  food.  For  instance,  I  use  Thomson’s  Vine  manure, 
at  the  rate  of  1^  lb.  to  every  bushel  of  compost,  for  the  reason  that  if 
the  plants  do  not  lay  the  foundation  for  a  vigorous  growth  at  the  proper 
time,  they  do  not  thicken  downwards  afterwards  in  the  right  proportion. 
The  attempt  to  accommodate  too  many  plants  is  a  common  fault.  Far 
better  successfully  manage  fifty  than  spoil  100,  is  the  maxim  I  would 
teach.  Two  other  failings  I  have  from  time  to  time  observed.  One  is, 
incorrectly  supplying  the  plants  with  water  ;  and  the  other,  neglect  in 
repotting  at  the  proper  time.  In  the  first  instance  too  much  water  is 
often  given,  causing  a  check  to  free  root  action,  resulting  in  a  loss  of 
chlorophyll  or  colouring  matter  in  the  leaves.  I  have  often  been  surprised 
to  find  how  little  water  some  varieties  of  Chrysanthemums  will  flourish 
upon.  No  plan  will  restore  the  lost  colouring  to  the  leaves  as  quickly 
as  keeping  the  soil  about  the  roots  in  a  partially  dry  state  after  they 
decline  in  their  natural  colour.  Stubborn  cases  may  be  remedied  by  the 
application  of  a  pinch  of  su'phate  of  iron  in  the  water,  which  ought  to  be 
applied  in  a  tepid  condition  for  a  time. 
Neglect  in  potting  the  plants  in  their  early  stages  of  growth  means  a 
loss  of  vigour  by  the  continued  cramping  of  the  roots,  which  in  itself 
cannot  do  otherwise  than  cause  a  check  to  that  freedom  of  growth  so 
desirable.  Not  only  does  it  do  this,  but  it  is  frequently  the  direct  cause 
of  a  loss  of  many  of  the  primary  leaves  at  a  time  when  we  cannot  afford 
to  lose  them.  A  check  to  the  growth  of  Chrysanthemums  in  any  form 
cannot  be  other  than  injurious  to  an  extent  not  always  appreciable  at  the 
moment. — E.  MOLYNEUX. 
ROYAL  HORTICULTURAL  SOCIETY. 
March  22nd, 
Scientific  Committee.— Present  :  Dr.  M.  T.  Masters  (in  the 
chair)  ;  Prof.  A.  H.  Church,  Mr.  T.  Hudson,  Mr.  Michael,  Mr.  A.  Sutton, 
Dr.  Muller,  and  Rev.  Prof.  G.  Henslow,  Hon.  Sec. 
Orchid  Roots  with  Fungus. — With  reference  to  the  nature  of  the  fungus 
attacking  Orchid  roots  in  a  damp  atmosphere,  referred  to  at  the  last 
meeting.  Dr.  W.  G.  Smith  of  the  Yorkshire  College,  Leeds,  writes  as 
follows  : — “  The  Orchid  aerial  roots  sent  contained  a  fungus  which  lives 
on  them  and  has  killed  some  already.  The  absence  of  any  form  of 
reproductive  organs  renders  it  impossible  to  identify  the  parasite.  Other 
portions  of  diseased  plants  (e.e.,  leaves)  would  be  required  to  ascertain 
the  true  nature  of  the  fungus.  The  fungus  present  attacks  living  cells, 
consumes  the  food  laid  up  by  the  plant,  and  finally  kills  the  roots.  A 
disease  having  somewhat  the  same  effects  has  been  found  in  the  Vanilla 
plants  of  Mauritius.” 
Palm  Leaves  Discoloured. — Mr.  W.  A.  Holmes,  F.R.H.S.,  of  the  Putney 
Nurseries,  sent  some  portions  of  Palm  leaves  with  numerous  translucent 
spots.  They  were  received  from  the  Continent.  An  examination 
appeared  to  indicate  a  previous  attack  by  insect  grubs,  but  none  were 
present,  the  interior  tissue  having  disappeared  from  the  spots  ;  so  that  the 
new  leaves  would  probably  be  quite  healthy. 
