2L0 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
March  6,  1802. 
Violet,  La  France. 
I  have  been  disappointed  with  this  variety.  I  understood  it 
was  superior  to  Princess  of  Wales  in  that,  though  equal  in  other 
respects,  it  did  not  make  such  extravagant  foliage  or  have 
unnecessarily  long  stalks;  therefore  took  up  less  room,  and  a 
larger  number  of  plants  could  be  accommodated  in  a  frame.  This 
latter  I  find  to  be  true,  but  I  do  not  find  it  so  free  in  bloom,  at  all 
events  in  the  winter  months ;  and  I  get  decidedly  more  flowers 
from  Princess  of  Wales  in  the  same  space.  This  latter  variety 
has  also  done  well  with  me  this  winter  in  pots  in  a  fairly  cool 
house,  and  it  will  continue  to  be  the  single  variety  I  shall 
principally  rely  upon. — W.  R.  Raillem. 
The  Gardaiier  s  CurritUium. 
The  following,  culled  from  a  recent  is.sue  of  a  leading 
Scottish  provincial  paper,  seiwes  as  an  example  of  “  how  others 
see  us.”  ^  The  article,  or,  rather,  letter,  is  headed,  “  Our  Young 
JMen :  ^  hat  should  They  Become?  How  They  May  Succeed  in 
Life.”  Proceeding  to  advise  as  to  the  selection  of  trades,  the 
writer,  after  mentioning  that  of  a  wheelwright  as  perhaps  the 
best  for  a  country  lad,  says,  “  So  it  is  with  gardening.  A  firsLrate 
gardener,  who  can  use  a  spade  and  kirows  his  business,  is  almost 
sure  to  he  an  independent  and  happy  man.”  Further  on  the 
following  paragraph  occurs  :  “  The  gardener  who  knows  the  habits 
of  plants,  who  knows  about  bees,  who  can  manage  a  horse  and 
a  cow,  who  learns  the  best  breeds  of  poultrs^  and  of  pigs,  will 
not  have  much  time  for  football,  and  none  at  all  to  lounge  at 
the  corner.”  The  above  may  not  be  a  glowing  description,  but 
it  is  nevertheless  a  true  account-  of  the  node  range  of  subjects 
embraced  by  modern  “  gardening.”- — S. 
Chrysanihemimi,  Lily  Mountford. 
In  your  issue  of  February  27  (page  183),  Mr.  W.  J.  Godfrey 
disputes  Mr.  Wells’  assertion  that  I  was  the  raiser  of  the  above 
variety,  although  he  admits  that  it  at  one  time  bore  the  name  of 
Miss  Hilda  Chamberlain.  He  also  states  that  it  was  raised  from 
imported  seed.  I  will  now,  with  your  permission,  take  the  first 
opportunity  of  clearing  up  what  has  been  a  mystei'y  to  a  great 
many  growers  regarding  the  origin  of  this  variety.  In  1895  I 
had  rather  a  large  number  of  seedlings  in  hand,  and  finding  that 
it  Avas  impossible  in  a  private  place  to  give  them  a  proper  trial,  I 
got  a  friend  of  mine,  at  that  time  foreman  at  Highbury,  to  grow 
a  dozen  varieties  from  the  seedling  stage.  One  came  particularly 
good  the  first  season,  and  a  bloom  Avas  sIioaa  n  the  same  autumn  in 
a  stand  of  tAA;enty-four  Japs,  and,  I  believe,  the  Right  Hon. 
J.  Chamberlain  bestoAved  the  name  of  Miss  Hilda  Chamberlain 
upon  it  at  my  desire  himself.  The  folloAving  autumn  Mr.  Deacon 
put  up  a  group  of  the  same  A'ariety  groAA'ii  as  bush  plants,  Avhicli 
AA’as  greatly  admired.  Mr.  Deacon  also  drcAv  my  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  variety  had  by  some  means  got  into  the  hands  of 
others,  and  Avas  in  great  distress  about  it.  While  going  round 
the  show  I  noted  a  bloom  of  the  same  variety  under  the  name  of 
Dr.  Wray,  in  a  stand  of  tAventj'-four.  I  found  the  OAiner,  and 
upon  my  putting  a,  fcAv  questions  to  him  he  admitted  they  had 
been  brought  to  him  by  a  journeyman  Avhom  he  had  engaged  from 
Highbury.  He  Avas  good  enough  to  alter  the  name,  and  in 
addition  attached  my  name  as  the  raiser.  As  Mr.  Norman  Davis 
AA-as  distributing  my  novelties  at  the  time,  I  coiild  not  conscien¬ 
tiously  offer  it  to  him,  as  I  did  not  hold  the  entire  stock. 
HoAA-ever,  I  wrote  to  my  friend,  Avho  had  left  Highbury,  and  told 
him  that  if  he  could  do  anything  AA  itli  the  Axariety  he  was  free  to 
do  so.  Shortly  afterAA'ards  I  received  an  appl’cation  from  a 
nurseryman  near  ShreAA’.sbury  in  reference  to  the  variety.  I 
AA'roto  explaining  Iioaa’-  the  A'ariety  had  got  into  circulation,  and 
referred  -them  to  my  friend.  In  the  end  the  nuseryman  bought 
the  remainder  of  the  stock,  AA'liich  I  packed  and  sent  myself,  so 
I  haAm  no  doubt  about  the  variety. 
In  the  meantime  I  had  neAvs  of  the  variety  haA^ing  gone  South, 
notably  Penshurst  Avay.  I  believe  I  had  certainly  giA^en  up  hear¬ 
ing  anything  more  about  it,  although  I  still  grcAv  a  little  plant  of 
it  every  year,  as  I  do  every  A’ariety  of  my  oaa  n  raising.  Then  last 
year  aa'o  had  the  Lily  Mountford  boom.  I  ordered  plants  from 
Mr.  Davis,  and  AA'hen  the  plants  arrived,  I  fairly  shook  hands 
Av'th  them.  It  Avas,  Avithout  doubt,  my  old  friend  Miss  Hilda 
Chamberlain.  I  Avrote  back  to  Mr.  Davis  telling  him  that  I 
should  be  able  to  tell  him  something  about  Lily  Mountford  n  the 
autumn.  I  greAv  the  tAvo  side  by  side,  and  Avill  defy  anyone  to 
prove  th-’t  they  are  not  one  and  the  same.  In  fact  Mr.  Godfrey 
admits  it.  If  Mr.  Godfrey  noAv  disputes  that  I  was  the  raiser,  I 
can  bring  further  proof.  Did  Mr.  Godfrey’s  informat  on  regard¬ 
ing  it  originate  from  the  same  source  as  the  Alutual  Friend 
sport?  Does  he  Avish  any  intelligent  reader  of  the  Journal  to- 
believe  that  any  person  raising  a  Amriety  like  Lily  Mountford 
from  seed  aa-ouIcI  hide  their  light  und.r  a  bu.shel  and  send  it  out 
as  a  sport?  In  conclusion,  I  think  Mr.  Godfrey  might  have 
made  sure  of  the  orig'nation  of  the  variety  before  correcting 
Mr.  Wells  in  such  an  emphatic  manner. — Hy.  Weeks,  The 
Gardens,  Thrumpton  Hall,  Derby. 
— — 
The  hrysanlhemum  Auoit. 
Regarding  Cdirysanthemum  Lady  RidgAvay,  I  am  very  pleased 
to  knoAV  the  origin  of  this  fine  Amriety.  I  had  tried,  but  could 
not  succeed  in  finding  out  Avho  raised  it,  and  it  AA'as  thought  to> 
Iwe  come  from  America.  To  be  safe  I  had  called  the  surmise 
in  que.stion  thus(?).  HoAA'ever,  I  can  apologise  to  Mr.  Douglas, 
and  congratulate  him  for  liaa’ing  raised  it.  Those  aaIio  have  seem 
this  variety  shoAvn  in  Edinburgh  by  Mr.  Lunt,  can  appreciate  it 
at  its  full  Avorth.  This  adds  one  more  to  the  English  raised 
A'arieties;  and  again  we  can  .say,  “Well  done!”  Replying  to 
Mr.  Godfrey,  I  AA-as  quite  under  the  impression  that  Mons.  E. 
Calvat  raised  Mdme.  Phillipe  Rivoire  ;  for  this  mistake  I  mu.st 
apologise.  Point  tAAO,  as  to  Sir  H.  H.  Kitchener,  I  think  the 
second  “  H.”  mu.st  be  a  pr'nter’s  error;  and  I  AA-as  also  made  to» 
say,  AA'lien  speaking  of  xUistralie,  that  it  Avas  yelioar.  [See 
separate  note. — Ed.]  Noav  about  Pride  of  Madford,  Messrs. 
Cannell  received  an  AAAard  of  Merit  for  this  from  the  R.H.S.,, 
and  this  is  its  proper  name.  Beauty  of  Teignmouth  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  Audit,  therefore  it  is  an  outsider.  (This  AA-as- 
well  discussed  in  the  Journal  of  Horticulture  some  tAvo  or  three 
years  ago.) — W.  Wells. 
The  Common  Wren. 
When  recently  ado-erting  to  ih.>  Long-tailed  Tit  and  the  Goldem- 
Crested  “  Wren  ”  (properly  Gold  Crest — as  it  does  not  belong  te 
the  Wren  genus),  naturally  my  mind  reverted  to  our  familiar 
common  Wren  (Troglodytes  parvulus  europaeus  or  Amlgaris) — and 
as  the  feAV  obseiwations  Avhicli  appeared  in  the  Journal  anent  the 
former  seemed  to  elicit  some  little  interest,  I  am  induced  to  offer 
a  feAV  remarks  regarding  what  is  also  popularly  knoAA-n  as  the 
“Jenny  Wren,”  “Dicky  Wren,”  and  “Kitty  Wren,”  in  many 
parts  of  the  countrv'-  Its  principal  habitat  are  bushes  and  Thorn 
hedges.  It  sometimes  ascends  trees  similar  in  manner  to  that  of 
the  Tree-Creeper.  It  utters  a  SAveet,  and,  for  so  small  a  bird,  a 
loud  song  whilst  flitting  from  bush  to  bush  AA-ith  Yery  rapid  motion 
of  the  Avings.  Its  nest,  AA-hich  much  resembles  in  shape  that  of 
its  namesake,  the  Golden-Cre.sted  Wren,  is  different  in  texture 
from  its  not  using  the  grey  lichen  found  on  the  boles  of  trees. 
The  nest  is  comparatively  large,  oval,  and  domed  above,  with  a 
small  opening  in  the  side,  and  AA'hen  built  in  a  tree  or  shrub,  the 
superstructure  is  generally  composed  of  green-coloured  moss. 
Sometimes  the  nest  is  built  again.st  the  side  of  a  moss-covered 
tree,  and  not  unfrequently  placed  under  the  thatch  of  a  building. 
Bits  of  thatch  are  then  intermixed  with  moss,  evidently  with  the 
vicAV  of  avoiding  detection.  The  breeding  nest  is  lined  Avith  soft 
feathers,  and  contains  from  six  to  eight  eggs. 
The  male  is  very  assiduous  in  his  attentions  towards  the 
female  during  incubation  in  supplying  her  Avith  food.  A 
peculiarity  of  the  Common  Wren  is  to  build  tAvo  nests  the  same 
season,  and  one  of  them  is  commonly  called  the  cock’s,  or  bachelor 
Wren’s  nest,  and  Avhich,  though  built  of  the  same  material,  is 
unlined.  It  is  a  common  traditionary  persuasion  that  the  male 
)  is  the  sole  tenant  of  this  nest  as  a  domicile  for  nocturnal  rest, 
during  the  season  of  incubation  :  also  a  Avinter  resort  for  the  cock 
I  and  hen  together,  and  this  is  a  faot.  as  proAmd  by  the  Avriter.  It 
has  also  been  supposed  that  the  object  of  the  cock’s  nest  is  to 
,  draw  attention  from  the  breeding  nest,  and  further,  that  as  two 
]  broods  are  produced  in  the  season,  the  cock’s  ne.st  is  utilised  by 
I  the  first  brood  of  the  young  birds  for  feed  ng  purposes  when  fit 
'  to  fly  :  but  this  latter  .supposition  I  cannot  vouch  for  personally. 
The  cock’s  nest  is  generally  built  in  a  more  exposed  situation  than 
the  breeding  nest,  doubtless  Avith  the  object  of  drawing  attention 
from  the  latter  habitation.  The  .same  peculiarity  is  observable  in 
the  habits  of  the  squirrel.  The  form  of  the  squirrel’s  nest, 
except  AA'hen  built  in  the  hollow  of  a  tree,  is  precisely  the  .same,.. 
