:Maroh  13,  1902. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
243 
Of  late  we  have  lieard  and  read  much  regarding  this  nest, 
but  perhaps  none  too  much  of  the  right  sort.  The  latest  report 
•on  the  mite  IS  a  great  advancement  on  anything  of  the  kind 
yuntten  previously.  _  I  refer  to  Mr.  Cecil  Warburton’s  account 
in  the  Journal  of  the  Royal  Agricultural  Society.  One  fact  will 
be  of  the  utmost  importance  to  all  those  interested,  and  that  is 
the  way  Mr.  W  arburton  breaks  down  the  theory  that  the  mites 
j  ground  on  the  roots.  Many  remedies  have  been 
tried,  and  I  may  say  all  have  i>roved  ineffectual.  The  only 
thing  to  do  is  to  pick  off  the  infected  buds.  Some  growers  are 
planting  young  bushes  with  a  view  of  grubbing  them  after  a 
period  of  four  or  five  years  ;  they  will  in  all  probabilitv  manage 
to  get  two  crops  worth  having  then  out  with  them.  'As  Black 
Currants  will  always  find  buyers,  there  is  very  little  to  fear 
regarding  satisfactory  returns.  I  recently  heard  of  a  gardener 
who  did  not  know  what  the  “  bud  mite  ”  was,  and  only  last  year 
I  was  in  conversation  with  a  man  in  charge  of  a  fruit  plantation 
who  did  not  know  the  cause  of  the  big  buds  till  I  showed  him 
through  a  lens.  I  heard  a  grower  say  a  short  time  ago  that 
he  traced  the  mite  back  to  ’93  in  his  plantations,  and  it  is  only 
through  the  dry  weather  prevailitig  during  the  early  summer 
months  that  the  mite  spreads  so  rapidly.  Thus  heavy  rains  in 
June  and  July  would  do  much  to  prevent  the  spread  of  tliis 
destructive  insect. — H.  R.,  Kent. 
- - 
Chrysanthemum  Rust :  Is  it  Dying  Out  ? 
I  read  ivith  interest  “  W.  S.,  Wilts’  ”  articles  on  the  above 
pest  (page  207),  and  as  this  subject  must  now  affect  a  great 
number  of  gardeners,  more  especially  at  this  season,  I  think  a 
timely  discussion  from  sufferers  and  a  recital  of  their  experiences 
might  prove  interesting.  That  some  varieties  of  Chrys¬ 
anthemums  are  more  prone  to  the  disease  than  others  are  is 
evident  to  anyone  who  has  paid  marked  attention  to  collections 
afflicted  with  the  pest.  My  first,  acquaintance  with  rust  was  in 
the  spring  of  1900.  I  was  then  living  in  the  Kingston  district, 
where  Chrysanthemum  growing  was,  and  still  is,  well  carried 
out.  Having  a  desire  for  a  few  of  the  newer  sorts,  I  ordered 
the  desired  number  of  unrooted  cuttings  from  a  well-known 
firm.  Our  own  stock  was  then  perfectly  healthy  and  innocent 
of  rust.  After  rooting,  the  bought  cuttings  Avere  staged  in  a 
low  open  pit  along  with  several  hundreds  of  others.  The  disease 
first  made  its  appearance  on  three  plants  of  Marie  Cal  vat.  These 
were  promptly  isolated  and  the  whole  stock  carefully  inspected, 
but  no  other  varieties  at  that  period  exhibited  signs  of  rust.  The 
infected  plants  Avere  sponged  Avith  a  mixture  of  paraffin  and 
softsoajA,  but  still  continued  to  shoAv  occasional  spots  of  rust. 
This  continued  until  they  were  potted  into  Gin  pots,  Avhen  no 
more  signs  of  rust  Avere  observed  ;  and  on  potting  finally,  about 
the  last  week  in  May,  Ave  considered  our  stock  of  some  four  hun¬ 
dred  plants  (the  majority  of  which  Avere  for  large  blooms)  per¬ 
fectly  clean,  all  varieties  being  subjected  to  a  close  examination 
at  this  final  potting. 
The  collection  continued  to  groAV  in  this  satisfactory  manner 
until  the  latter  part  of  August,  Avhen  the  Marie  Calvats  already 
mentioned,  along  Avith  plants  of  Elsie  Teichman,  Pride  of 
Madford,  Modesto,  Mrs.  Barkley,  Australie,  and  Mrs.  Weeks, 
shoAved  signs  of  rust  on  the  bottom,  or  cutting,  leaves.  About 
the  last  Aveek  in  September,  when  housing  time  came  round, 
some  two  dozen  plants  were  more  or  less  affected,  these  being 
nearly  all  heavy-foliaged  varieties,  Elsie  Teichman,  in  par¬ 
ticular,  being  the  Avorst  offender.  No  cuttings  Avmre  taken  from 
any  of  the  infected  stock,  yet  in  the  spring  of  1901  the  disease 
again  appeared,  and  on  nearly  the  same  varieties,  Avhich  were 
propagated  from  cuttings  taken  from  apparently  healthy  plants. 
We  again  took  careful  precautions,  and  separated  the  affected 
varieties,  and  again  fondly  hoped  that  Ave  had  overcome  the 
enemy.  Alas !  for  our  hopes.  W’^hen  August  again  came  round 
we  observed  our  old  enemy,  appearing  in  much  the  same  form 
and  on  nearly  the  same  varieties.  About  this  time  circumstances 
made  it  necessary  for  my  removal  from  the  Kingston  district, 
but  on  taking  charge  of  these  gardens,  in  the  early  part  of 
September,  I  discovered  my  old  antagonist  in  complete  posses¬ 
sion  of  the  Chry.santhemum  department,  a  collection  of  some 
six  hundred  plants  being  more  or  less  thoroughly  infested  with 
rust.  As  my  previous  experience  had  proved,  it  Avas  useless  pro¬ 
pagating  froin  an  unhealthy  stock  I  have  discarded  every  plant, 
and  from  various  sources  liaA’e  acquired  an  entirely  fresh  batch 
of  cutting,s,  Avhich  up  to  the  present  time,  I  am  pleased  to  say, 
show  no  signs  of  rust.  In  conclusion,  regarding  the  dying  out 
of  the  disease,  I  am  afraid  that  is  too  good  uoavs  to  be  true. 
In  several  gardens  in  this  neighbourhood  collections  of  plants 
are  badly  affected,  one  grower  having  adopted  the  same  drastic 
measure  as  myself,  namely,  introtluced  a  complete  change  of 
stock. — T.  H.  Bolton,  South  Hants. 
Wron^  Nomenclature 
There  are  lots  of  plants  and  flowers  that  are  cultivated  under 
names  that  are  Avrong.  The  names  have  been  proA'ed  to  be  Avrong 
and  yet  they  are  still  continued.  In  days  of  such  enlightenment 
as  these,  Avhen  books  are  comparatively  cheap  and  gardening 
periodicals^  noAvise  scarce,  it  seems  almost  impossible  for  a  plant 
to  be  cultivated  by  practical  gardeners  under  a  name  that  has 
become  superseded.  I  do  not  have  to  look  far  for  an  example. 
The  Avell-knoAvn  Aiaim  Lily  (Richardia  africana)  furnishes  much 
matter  for  thought  on  such  a  subject.  To-day  it  is  the  “Arum 
Lily,”  to-morroAv  the  “  C'alla  Lily.”  Noav  I  do  not  say  anything 
is  Avrong  about  the  common  or  trivial  names,  but  Avhen  Ave  are 
told  that  it  is  C'alla  aethiopica,  or  the  Lily  of  the  Nile,  it  is 
time  to  say  something.  The  plant  is  certainly  not  a  C'alla,  as 
we  know  the  genus,  but  the  meaning  of  the  derivation  is  cer¬ 
tainly  in  keeping  Avith  the  lovely  spathes,  kallos  meaning 
beautiful.  Still,  that  fact  alone  is  nothing.  HUthiopica  is — if 
travellers  are  authorities^ — totally  Avrong,  for  it  is  a  native  of 
South  Africa,  Avhere  it  groAvs  by  thousands,  and  is  known  as 
the  “  Pig  Lily,”  and  has  never  been  found  groAving  wild  on  the 
banks  of  the  Nile.  Then  why  the  name?  Again,  it  is  not  an 
Arum  proper,  but  I  think  as  a  common  name  Arum  Lily  is 
much  more  siiitable  than  others,  as  it  is  easy  to  trace  a  resem¬ 
blance  betAveen  our  Avild  Arum  maculatum.  Then,  again,  the 
use  of  the  Avord  “  Lily  ”  is,  of  course,  quite  improper.  If  people 
AA^ere  to  take  the  trouble- — if  trouble  it  be — to  find  out  the  deriva¬ 
tion  of  a  name  of  a  plant  before  using  a  name  they  don’t  under¬ 
stand,  scientific  gardening  Avould  make  fine  .strides  onAvard.  The 
generic  name  of  the  Arum  Lily  is  Richardia,  named  so  in 
honour  of  a  French  botanist,  L.  C.  Richards  ;  the  specific  name 
“africana”  plainly  tells  us  AA’liere  it  comes  from.  If  a  feAV  facts 
like  the  foregoing  could  be  brought  to  bear  on  all  plants  being 
cultivated  under  a  misnomer  a  great  boon  AA'Ould  be  conferred 
on  the  horticultural  world. — H.  R.,  Kent. 
- - 
Magpie’s  Nests. 
Supplementary  to  my  brief  notes  on  page  211,  anent  magpies’ 
nests,  it  may  be  interesting  to  remark  that  since  penning  them 
I  have  noticed  the  increasing  bulk  of  the  nest  in  question,  and 
closer  inspection  revealed  the  fact  that,  instead  of  appro¬ 
priating  the  old  nest  for  incubation,  a  neAV  one  has  been  in 
process  of  construction  as  a  joint  tenement.  It  Avas  this  morn¬ 
ing  (March  7)  that  I  observed  one  of  the  birds  still  busily 
engaged  in  that  operation.  The  “bachelor’s”  nest,  hoAvever, 
has  apparently  not  been  attended  to.  I  Avas  not  previously 
aware  that  magpies  sometimes  constructed  their  nests  in  the 
manner  indicated,  and  it  AA’Ould  be  interesting  to  learn  if  any 
correspondent  of  the  Journal  could  relate  a  similar  circum¬ 
stance.  I  may  add  that  it  has  also  been  very  interesting  to 
observe  the  pugnacious  attitude  assumed  by  the  tAvain  magpies 
Avhen  their  arboreal  domain  Avas  being  trespassed  upon  by 
inquisitive  rooks — sometimes  five  or  six  together — and  Avho  had 
to  retire  minus  building  loot.  Blackbirds,  thrushes,  missel 
(properly  mistle)  thnishes,  and  other  birds  have  likeAvise  been 
rigorously  driven  off  from  the  brooding  domain. 
Regarding  the  folk-lore  of  the  magpie,  a  great  Avealth  of 
popular  superstition  has  clustered  round  this,  one  of  the  most 
interesting  members  of  our  native  fauna.  The  pyet,  as  it  is 
called  in  some  parts  of  the  kingdom,  is  almost  universally 
regarded  in  a  special  sense  as  a  bird  of  evil  omen.  Popular 
reasons  for  the  bird’s  persistent  Avickedness  in  the  North  of 
England  especially,  are;  (1)  Because  it  was  the  only  bird  that 
Avould  not  go  into  the  ark  Avith  Noah ;  (2)  because  it  is  a  hybrid 
between  the  raven  and  the  dove ;  (3)  because  after  the  cruci¬ 
fixion  it  alone  of  all  the  birds  did  not  go  into  full  mourning. 
Its  appearance  and  the  numbers  seen  at  one  time  are  believed 
to  be  significant. 
In  NorAvay,  where  it  is  said  to  be  most  popularly  prized, 
the  magpie  is  invested  Avith  a  certain  amount  of  superstitious 
lore,  and  it  also  is  there  the  most  domestic  and  fearless  bird, 
occasioned  by  the  protection  accorded  by  the  natives  regarding 
it  as  a  harbinger  of  good  luck.  Consequently  a  Norw'egian  AAmuld 
never  think  of  terrifying  the  bird  for  the  sake  of  sport,  but 
inveigles  it  to  preside  over  the  house,  and  Avhen  it  has  taken 
up  its  abode  in  the  nearest  tree  defends  it  from  all  ill. — W.  G. 
