348 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
October  8, 189S. 
and  try,  if  possible,  to  get  some  one  of  your  numerous  correspondents  to 
verify  his  statements,”  On  reading  that  it  occurred  to  me,  Why  should 
“  W.  D.”  be  so  eager  in  this  matter?  “  Phenyle  Adviser  ”  had  advised 
kainit  (page  397,  April  80th,  1896),  and  a  friend  of  his  (“  W.  D.”)  had 
tried  it  on  his  plants  without  saccess  1  Then  “  W.  D.”  jumps  from 
“  Phenyle  Adviser  ”  to  “  G.  A.,”  and  from  the  latter  to  the  former,  and 
seizes  on  chlorides.  What  for  ?  To  show  that  66  ozs.  of  chloride  of 
pwtash  in  12  cwt.  of  infested  Cucumber  soil  did  not  affect  the  plants  or 
kill  eel  worm  ?  or  to  prove  that  “neither  free  lime  nor  chlorides  are  (is) 
able  to  kill  eelworm  in  soil  or  Cucumber  roots  ?” 
"  W.  D.’s  ”  ideas  seem  to  have  run  deeper  than  any  of  those  things, 
for  the  whole  gist  of  his  first  and  subsequent  communications  has  been 
to  convey  the  impression  that  “  when  a  house  is  once  infested  with  this 
pest  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  means  of  completely  eradicating  it. 
Soluble  phenyle  was  a  failure,  nitrates,  chlorides,  sulphates,  and  phos¬ 
phates  had  no  effect.  After  that  everything  is  spoiled  by  “  if  ”  and 
“  thinking,”  including  the  “  life  history.” 
Here,  then,  was  a  plain  teat.  Eelworm  was  practically  invulnerable 
according  to  “  W.  D.,”  and  upon  this  point  I  joined  issue  on  page  225, 
September  3rd,  1896,  in  which  the  matter  was  plainly  set  forth  and 
responsibility  accepted  for  the  statements  of  "  Phenvle  Adviser  ”  and 
“  G,  A.” 
In  “  W.  D.’s  ”  reply  (page  272)  to  my  inquiry  on  page  226,  as  to 
what  strength  of  soluble  (if  it  was  such,  for  the  prefix  is  omitted  by 
“  W.  D,"  on  page  195)  phenyle  was  employed  in  disinfecting  the  soil 
mentioned  on  page  195,  I  fail  to  find  an  answer.  Why  ?  Was  it 
phenyle,  or  that  substance  made  soluble?  Or  why  does  “  W.  D.” 
drop  soluble  phenyle  as  the  matter  proceeds?  Has  he  been  affected 
by  Mr.  W.  Iggulden’s  statement  on  page  272,  that  soluble  phenyle  is 
a  “simple  and  effective  remedy  ”  for  root  eelworm  in  Cucumbers  ? 
On  page  325  there  is  no  reference  to  my  queries  on  page  304  in 
respect  of  caustic  soda  and  potash,  carbolic  acid  and  corrosive  sublimate, 
cyanide  of  potassium,  and  fresh  gas  lime,  substances  mentioned  as 
being  used  in  the  “  some  sixty  experiments  ”  alluded  to  by  him  on 
page  195,  killing  or  not  destroying  eelw’orms.  Why  this  silence  on 
vital  points?  “W.  D,”  again  quotes  his  friend’s  case  on  page  325. 
Why  did  not  “  W.  D.”  send  a  specimen  of  his  friend’s  Cucumber  plants 
after  treatment  with  the  1  oz.  solution  of  kainit  to  a  gallon  of  water  to 
the  Editor  of  the  Journal  of  Horticulture,  and  thus  have  demonstrated 
its  inefiScacy  in  destroying  eelworm  in  Cucumber  roots?  This  would 
have  settled  the  points  as  to  whether  the  plants  in  question  collapsed 
from  the  continuance  of  the  eelworm  attack,  or  from  the  consequences 
of  the  eelworm  infection  before  the  kainit  solution  was  applied.  Why 
did  not  “  W.  D.”  ascertain  for  himself  whether  the  kainit  solution  had 
or  had  not  killed  the  eelworm  ? 
As  to  “  Phenyle  Adviser  ”  altering  his  opinion  from  his  “  latest 
'^experiment”  (page  397,  April  30th,  1896)  to  another  and  better  (for 
the  plant)  by  August  20th,  1896,  page  179,  I  fail  to  see  in  what  way 
“  G.  A.”  has  erred.  Besides,  both  kainit  and  nitrate  of  soda  were 
mentioned  as  killers  of  eelworm  by  “  Phenyle  Adviser  ”  before  “  W.  D.’s” 
friend  acted  with  the  kainit  solution  only. 
“  W.  D.”  also  (page  325)  “  shies  ”  at  10  per  cent,  of  lime.  Why  ? 
The  loam  treated  with  that  amount  of  quicklime  would  not,  according 
to  “  W.  D.,”  grow  Tomatoes,  Cucumbers,  or  eelworm.  If  the  latter 
would  not  “  grow  ”  in  loam  treated  with  10  per  cent,  of  quicklime, 
how  does  “W.  D.”  reconcile  it  with  the  statement  on  page  195,  that 
“  free  lime  [is  notj  able  to  kill  eelworm  in  soil  or  Cucumber  roots  ?  ” 
Mark,  free  lime — the  oxide  (CaO) — is  stated  to  be  useless  by  “  W.  D.,” 
and  that  it  is  not  free  lime,  but  slaked — the  hydro-oxide  (Ca(OH)j) — 
that  is,  used  with  the  loam  in  which  to  the  extent  of  10  per  cent, 
eelworm  would  not  “grow.”  This  is  a  strange  mode  of  “thinking,” 
“  seeming,”  &c. 
As  for  Tomatoes  and  Cucumbers  not  growing  in  loam  containing 
10  per  cent,  of  lime,  the  soil  where  the  best  Tomatoes  and  Cucumbers 
are  grown  in  Hertfordshire  in  the  largest  quantities,  contains,  according 
to  an  analysis  by  Dr.  Voelcker,  13'75  per  cent,  of  lime ;  and  in 
another  part  of  that  county  or  shire  both  Cucumbers  and  Tomatoes, 
where  the  soil  contains  28-77  per  cent,  of  lime,  are  grown  very  success¬ 
fully  for  market.  Oh,  the  lime  is  carbonate  1  What  is  it  after  it  has 
been  mixed  with  loam  a  few  weeks  ?  Different  from  the  chalk  which 
Hertfordshire  farmers  sometimes  use  to  the  extent  of  100  tons  per  acre. 
The  practical  cultivator  who  first  showed  that  frost  would  kill 
eelworm  in  infested  soil  does  not  live  at  Turnford,  nor  does  he  mention 
the  field  to  which  “  W.  D.”  alludes,  but  he  stated  the  fact  before  a  Com¬ 
mittee  of  the  Eoyal  Horticultural  Society,  and  it  was  recorded  in  the 
Journal  of  Horticulture, 
Tomatoes  being  grown  in  a  field  and  infested  and  destroyed  by  root 
eelworm  does  not,  according  to  “  W.  D.,”  prove  anything.  Then  there 
is  nothing  in  facts,  and  no  one  has  right  to  the  evidence  of  their  own 
eyes.  But  I  kept  something  in  reserve — namely,  outdoor  culture  of  both 
Tomatoes  and  Cucumbers  having  to  be  given  up  ten  years  ago  in  a  certain 
district,  whence  they  had  before  been  sent  to  market  by  the  truckload, 
through  attacks  of  eelworm,  and  I  have  good  reason  to  remember,  as  it 
was  all  loss  that  year,  and  in  the  next  the  Onions  on  the  same  land  were 
wholly  destroyed,  as  they  have  in  some  places  this  season,  by  eelworm. 
In  the  matter  of  the  desired  specimen  of  root  eelworm,  I  cannot 
understand  why  “  W.  D.”  should  wait  until  his  friend’s  Cucumbers  were 
dead  and  destroyed  before  making  answer  to  my  request.  But  I  do  not 
mind  this,  as  there  is  a  probability  of  my  making  the  acquaintance  of  the 
descendants  of  the  animals  which  were  able  to  resist  some  sixty  different 
experiments  with  as  many  substances  intended  for  their  destruction, 
including  corrosive  sublimate — one  of  the  most  deadly  to  all  the  race.  Of 
one  thing,  however,  “  W.  D.”  may  be  certain  about,  and  that  is  that  the 
eel  worms  will  have  but  a  short  time  to  live  after  they  are  received  by  me 
from  the  Editor  of  the  Journal  of  Horticulture. 
As  regards  the  winters  in  the  Northern  United  States  and  Southern 
Canada,  I  was  under  the  impression  that  the  soil  was  there  frozen  las 
many  feet  deep  as  that  of  England  is  inches  in  ordinary  winters  ;  also 
that  the  cold  experienced  on  the  Continent  in  a  similar  latitude  to  that 
of  England  was  more  severe.  The  parts  mentioned  are  in  the  root  eel¬ 
worm  zone,  for  I  have  been  favoured  with  communications  from  culti¬ 
vators  practising  in  those  regions  in  reference  to  eelworm. 
In  conclusion,  I  may  say  that  I  am  “  very  disappointed,”  for  after 
the  display  made  by  “  W.  D.”  at  the  commencement  of  his  critiques,  I 
expected  a  better  show  at  the  finish.  As  it  is  there  is  not  any  of  that 
practical  knowledge  and  experience  that  can  profit  your  readers  or — 
G.  Abbey. 
[We  rather  suspect  that  the  “finish”  of  eelworm  is  not  /quite  arrived 
at.  We  think  Mr.  Abbey  has  received  specimens.  We  have  received 
something  too,  and  we  hope  that  between  the  two  investigators  there  is 
a  prospect  of  eel  worms  having  a  bad  time  in  the  future.] 
SIXTY  YEARS  AGO. 
I  THINK  your  columns  should  contain  reference  to  our  Gracious 
Queen  having  reigned  over  us  for  sixty  years,  and  to  the  progress  that 
horticulture  has  made  during  that  long  period,  for  who  can  dispute 
that  our  profession  has  done  glorious  work  for  the  destinies  of  this 
great  empire  during  Her  Majesty’s  wise  and  successful  reign? 
We  have  only  to  look  at  our  three  100-feet  long  houses,  ablaze  with 
bloom  of  Zonal  Pelargoniums  at  the  present  time,  and  compare  them 
with  those  grown  by  the  aid  of  the  old  brick-flue  system  of  heating 
of  sixty  years  ago.  Such  perfection  as  we  now  see  had  not  even 
been  dreamt  of  then.  Greenhouses  in  those  days  were  merely  wooden 
sheds,  now  they  are  nearly  all  glass,  light,  and  airy  ;  and  this  artificial 
arrangement  is  as  near  on  Nature’s  supply  of  light  as  it  is  possible  to  be. 
How  different  those  days  of  sulphury  flues  to  the  present  time,  with  the 
softest  and  sweetest  warmth  imparted  from  hot- water  pipes  hung  from 
and  along  the  roof,  giving  heat  as  direct  as  from  the  sun  as  near  as  can 
be  imagined. 
These  low,  proper-angle  shaped  structures  grow  plants  immensely 
better  than  the  comiervatories  did  at  the  beginning  of  the  Queen’s  reign  ^ 
they  were,  and  have  been  ever  since,  called  “plant-killers,”  As  a  proof 
of  how  things  have  improved  in  floriculture  I  have  sent  you  flowers  of 
the  old — then  exclusively — scarlet  Geranium,  called  Tom  Thumb. 
This  now  insignificant  flower  was  at  that  time  the  pride  and  glory  of 
every  well-kept  garden,  and  up  to  thirty  years  ago  “  Scarlet  Geranium  ” 
was  the  general  term  for  this  good  old  plant,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
we  had  no  other  colours,  and  no  doubles,  or  even  semi-doubles,  existed. 
Now  from  this  exceedingly  bright  and  brilliant  scarlet  we  have  many 
decided  colours  and  innumerable  intermediate  shades  and  tints — pure 
white,  salmon,  pink,  orange,  and  plum — closely  boi dering  on  purple,  both 
in  doubles  and  singles.  I  have  sent  you  pips  of  the  latter,  our  revised 
Tom  Thumb  also,  and  it  will  be  asked.  Is  it  possible  all  these  other 
colours  and  immense  additional  size  have  been  sprung  from  this  ?  The 
answer  is  “Yes,”  and  the  rejoinder  can  be  no  other  than  “It’s 
marvellous  !  ”  Now  let  us  look  at  their  size.  The  old  favourite  is 
barely  an  inch  across  the  top  petals,  whereas  some  of  this  year’s  raised 
seedlings  measure  more  than  2J  inches  across  the  same  part.  The 
substance  of  flowers  sixty  years  ago  and  these  moderns  had  better  not 
be  compared. 
I  think,  Mr.  Editor,  flowers  have  done  their  part  in  advancing  with 
the  times,  and  that  horticulturists  have  done  honour  to  their  Queen  and 
their  country,  although  perhaps  no  government  or  country  ever  did  so 
little  in  acknowledging  and  encouraging  the  good  work  that  has  been 
going  on  during  all  these  years. 
Fruits. 
Fruits  have  made  equal  progress.  Strawberries  were  Strawberries  in 
name  only  sixty  years  ago,  poor  diminutive  fruit  tied  on  straws  and  so 
carried  about  and  sold  ;  now  we  have  immensely  improved  form,  size, 
and  flavour.  I  am  writing  with  a  43-acre  field  of  Strawberries  within 
view,  and  during  the  past  fruiting  season  I  have  counted  twenty  special 
trucks,  from  other  railway  companies’  lines,  waiting  at  our  station  to  be 
filled  with  this  refreshing  fruit,  and  despatched  to  nearly  every  large 
city  and  town  in  the  north.  Surely  to  have  come  to  sending  off  70  tons 
of  this  fruit  in  one  day  and  from  one  station,  to  say  nothing  of  what 
was  carted  by  road  to  London  during  the  day  and  night,  must  fill  every 
breast  with  admiration,  and  nearly  all  other  kinds  of  fruit  have  advanced 
both  in  quantity  and  quality  at  the  same  ratio . 
Vegetables. 
Potatoes,  sixty  years  ago,  were  like  Strawberries,  no  one  knew  how 
to  grow  them.  Their  nature  and  constitution  had  not  been  entered  upon  ; 
the  result  was  only  what  we  should  now  call  the  very  inferior  ones 
were  cultivated,  and  these  were  considered  a  luxury,  whereas  this  last 
spring,  in  consequence  of  the  improved  cropping  and  disease-resisting 
qualities.  Potatoes  were  so  abundant  that  a  farmer,  Mr.  Thos.  Wood, 
positively  sold  60  tons  at  10s.  per  ton.  I  have  known  similar  kinds  of 
Potatoes  sell  at  £10  to  £20  per  ton,  even  twenty-five  years  ago  ;  and  if 
we  look  round  we  shall  find  that  both  rich  and  poor  have  more  than 
doubled  the  productions  of  the  garden  for  the  sustenance  of  life  com¬ 
pared  with  what  we  had  sixty  years  ago. 
For  those  practical  reasons,  I  think  the  whole  system  of  hoiticulture 
