306 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
October  2,  1902. 
plants  in  while  the  house  is  being  cleansed,  but  in  this  case  the 
plants  can,  as  a  rule,  be  placed  on  one  side  while  cleaning  opera¬ 
tions  go  on  at  the  other.  Hot  lime  may  be  brushed  on  the  walls 
after  these  and  the  glass  and  stages  have  been  cleaned,  the  lime 
being  distasteful  to  insects  and  killing  the  spores  of  moss  that 
usually  thrive  in  the  damp  of  an  Orchid  house.  Brush  it  well 
into  all  the  corners,  both  above  and  below  the  stages,  and  clear 
the  latter  of  all  rubbish  and  dust. — H.  R.  R. 
Rare  Orchids  at  Aberdeen. 
Two  very  pretty  Orchids  were  recently  to  be  seen  in  Messrs. 
Reid  and  Co.’s  shop  window  at  145,  Union  Street,  one  Ccelogyne 
Dayana  grande,  which  is  one  of  the  rare  varieties  of  this  genus. 
When  first  flowered  and  exhibited  by  Baron  Schroder  in  London 
it  created  some  interest  among  Orchid  growers  and  others 
interested  in  Orchid  culture.  The  present  plant,  we  believe,  was 
a  small  piece  imported  about  seven  years  ago,  and  bought  at  an 
Orchid  sale  in  Edinburgh  by  Sir  William  Henderson,  LL.D.,  of 
Devanha.  Since  then  it  has  increased  rapidly  and  now  carries 
over  500  blooms.  This  plant  is  known  as  the  Nicholas  Orchid, 
and  is  a  native  of  Borneo.  The  other  variety,  Saccolabium  Blumei 
majus,  is  a  very  fine  Orchid,  a  native  of  the  Indian  Islands.  Mr. 
John  Proctor,  gardener  at  Devanha  House,  is  to  be  complimented 
on  his  success  in  Orchid  culture.  “  We  do  not  think,”  says  the 
“Aberdeen  Free  Press,”  “that  any  of  these  varieties  have  been 
seen  in  such  perfect  bloom  in  the  North  of  Scotland  before.” 
Arbor  Days, 
If  the  opinion  of  Herr  Reichert,  of  Berlin,  is  correct,  that 
Great  Britain  is  almost  at  the  bottom  of  the  return  giving  the 
proportion  of  forest  land  to  the  total  area,  viz.,  11,272  square 
kilometres,  I  think  it  is  time  that  public  interest  should  be 
aroused  in  the  matter  of  forest-tree  planting.  The  return 
alluded  to  gives  to  Russia  and  Sweden  forests  equal  to  42 
per  cent,  of  their  area,  to  Austria  31,  to  Germany  26,  to 
Norway  and  India  25,  to  France  16,  to  Portugal  5,  to  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland  4,  and  to  Cape  Colony  0.29.  Parts  of 
Siberia,  South  America,  and  Central  Africa  remain  the  chief 
sources  of  supply  for  the  near  future. 
In  France  the  alarm  was  given  not  long  ago  by  M.  Melard, 
and  M.  Guinier,  an  inspector  of  forests,  believes  that  the 
planting  of  forests  in  France  is  now*  full  of  promise.  England 
wants  to  save  Egypt  from  ruin,  perhaps  never  to  leave  it 
again  ;  but  what  says  another  inspector  of  forests,  M.  Roger 
Ducamp  1  “  If  the  pax  Britannica  in  Egypt  means  the  drying 
up  of  the  Nile,  such  a  peace  is  worse  than  anarchy  ” ;  and 
Lord  Rosebery  once  said,  “  The  Nile  is  Egypt,  and  Egypt  is 
the  Nile,”  whose  sources  are  constantly  decreasing  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  destruction  of  the  forests  there.  Without 
forests,  little  water ;  without  water,  no  crops,  no  cattle,  and 
rent  and  taxes  cannot  be  paid. 
Of  course  Great  Britain  has  an  insular  and  a  moist  climate 
(exactly  what  is  wanted  for  forests),  and  has  coal  possibly 
sufficient  for  centuries,  and  therefore  does  not  require  fire¬ 
wood  ;  but  it  is  quite  different  when  we  have  to  deal  with  the 
question  of  timber,  of  which  from  12  to  14  cubic  feet  a  head 
are  annually  used,  although  iron  is  more  and  more  taking  its 
place  in  ships  and  house-building.  Yet  Dr.  W.  Idelich,  a 
forest  expert,  in  an  address  delivered  before  the  Society  of 
Arts,  predicted  in  spite  of  this  a  positive  timber  famine  in 
the  near  future,  and  concluded  by  saying,  “That  country 
that  first  engages  in  systematic  timber  cultivation  on  a  large 
scale  will  do  much  to  assure  its  own  perpetuity  as  a  nation,” 
and,  in  my  opinion,  as  a  wealthy  nation  also.  Take  Palestine 
and  Spain  as  instances  of  the  gradual  simultaneous  decline 
of  forests  and  prosperity. 
Take  the  King  of  Greece  and  Princess  Sophia,  on  the 
other  hand,  who  on  their  own  estates  and  at  their  own 
expense  are  planting  forests,  so  convinced  are  they  that  the 
gradual  deforesting  of  the  kingdom  is  leading  to  disaster. 
The  ratio  of  timber  consumption  in  Europe  is  constantly 
increasing.  It  is  said  that  Germany  needs  30  cubic  feet  a 
head,  and  that  the  natural  growth  cannot  keep  pace  with 
the  demand,  especially  for  soft  woods,  is  shown  by  the  news 
that  the  limit  of  production  has  been  reached  in  Scandinavia, 
and  that  they  are  now  awakening  to  the  fact  in  Sweden,  so 
that  the  school  children  planted  last  year  on  Arbor  Day  no 
fewer  than  600,000  trees. 
Canada  can  still  export,  although  many  districts  are 
already  depleted  ;  but  the  United  States — where  private 
owners  are  now  largely  planting  (and  Nebraska  has  now  a 
billion  of  forest  trees  growing  on  land  Avhich  in  former 
geographies  was  noted  as  the  “  Great  American  Desert  ”  from 
their  total  absence) — have  against  this  an  annual  con¬ 
sumption  of  350  cubic  feet  a  head,  or  25,000,000,000  cubic  feet, 
for  fuel  and  lumber.  The  United  States  now  use  the  annual 
growth  of  1,200  million  acres  of  woodland,  whereas  the  total 
forest  area  is  less  than  500,000,000  acres,  so  that  more  than 
half  of  the  annual  consumption  is  a  draft  upon  forest  capital. 
Without  regarding  street  or  suburban  traffic,  90,000,000  rail¬ 
way  sleepers  are  annually  required  for  renewals  at  25  per 
cent,  advance  on  the  price  of  ten  years  ago,  and  600,000  tele¬ 
graph  poles  at  50  per  cent,  advance. 
Mr.  N.  A.  Eggleston,  of  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture  actually  states,  “  Lumber  alone  would  load  a 
train  of  cars  sufficient  to  encircle  the  earth  at  the  Equator, 
and,  if  we  add  all  other  timber,  posts  and  fuel,  such  a  train, 
would  be  100,000  miles  in  length  ;  or  it  would  require  480,000 
ships  of  1,000  tons  each  to  load  the  forest  products.”  Accord¬ 
ing  to  his  calculations  the  commercial  value  of  the  forest 
trees  of  the  United  States  is  so  great  that  it  exceeds  that 
from  any  other  source.  In  1894  the  value  of  the  cereal  crops- 
was  £208,601,589,  whilst  that  of  the  products  of  the  forests 
for  that  year  was  £3,000,000  in  excess  ;  the  value  of  the 
gold  and  silver  raised  was  only  one-fifteenth,  and  the  whole 
value  of  all  mineral  products  was  only  about  one-half  of 
the  forest  products.  Such  official  statements  are  bound  to 
arouse  public  attention  ! 
Great  Britain  was  well  provided  by  Nature  with  great 
forests.  The  Druids  had  their  fine  groves  of  Oaks,  and 
Queen  Elizabeth  was  amongst  the  first  English-speaking 
advocates  of  forestry.  Comparatively  few  of  these  Oaks 
remain  ;  but  according  to  the  best  authorities  they  may  live 
1,500  years — only  Cedar,  Sequoia,  and  Baobab  having  a  still 
longer  life,  while  Poplars  reach  only  50,  Elms  335,  Maples 
516,  Birches  576,  Oranges  620,  Cypresses,  Walnuts,  and  Olives 
800,  Planes  1,000,  and  Limes  1,100  years.  Had  former 
generations  no  duty  to  posterity1?  They  had  only  a  life 
estate  in  the  forests,  with  no  permission  to  waste  ;  and  as 
far  as  possible  the  present  generation  should  try  to  rectify 
this  great  injury  to  the  British  commonwealth  by  planting 
largely.  New  Zealand  has  done  this  ;  and  South  Australia, 
at  least  for  some  time,  paid  a  bonus  for  successful  plantations 
of  forest  trees,  and  distributed  them  free  of  charge. 
Cannot  wealthy  Great  Britain  follow  the  example  of  Ger¬ 
many  in  raising  forest  trees  at  cost  price  for  municipalities, 
and  paying  a  bonus  of  ten  shillings  an  acre  for  forests  planted 
by  them,  or  (with  some  restrictions)  to  private  persons  who- 
will  do  the  same  ?  There  are,  in  fact,  townships  in  Germany 
where  they  require  no  district  taxation.  At  Freudenstadt,, 
for  instance,  they  have  been  since  1875  in  the  enviable 
position  of  being  able  to  pay  to  each  of  about  1,300  burghers 
a  sum  varying  from  25s.  to  55s.  from  the  profits  of  the 
forest  owned  by  the  little  town.  Another  instance  is  Saal- 
dorf,  where  the  eighty-four  ratepayers  each  receive  every 
year  wood  and  turf  for  burning  to  the  value  of  £5,  and  lately 
the  sum  of  £830  was  divided  amongst  them,  or  nearly  £10 
to  each,  as  surplus  from  sales  of  timber.  This  village  had 
yet  a  further  sum  of  £3,000  in  hand,  and,  of  course,  no  debts. 
The  initiation  of  such  a  system  by  the  Government  seems 
to  me  a  sine  qua  non  for  success,  at  least  with  the  smaller 
landholders-.  Even  so  long  ago  as  April,  1863,  the  Secretary 
of  State  for  India  wrote  to  the  Governor  of  Madras  :  “  To 
forests,  from  their  nature,  the  usual  maxim  of  political 
economy,  which  leaves  such  undertakings  to  private  enter¬ 
prise,  cannot  be  applied.  Their  vast  extent,  the  long  time 
that  a  tree  takes  to  reach  maturity,  and  the  consequence 
that  few  persons  live  long  enough  to  obtain  any,  and  more 
especially  the  highest,  returns  for  expenditure,  even  once  in 
the  course  of  their  lives,  are  proofs  of  the  necessity  that  forest 
management  should  be  conducted  on  permanent  principles, 
and  not  left  to  the  negligence,  avarice,  or  caprice  of  indi¬ 
viduals,  and  therefore  point  to  the  State  as  the  proper 
administrator,  bound  to  take  care  that,  in  supplying  the 
wants  of  the  present  generation,  there  is  no  reckless  waste, 
no  needless  forestalling  of  the  supply  of  future  generations. 
This  is  matter  of  experience,  not  in  India  only,  but  in  all 
parts  of  the  world.”— F.  E.  H.  W.  Krichauff  (in  the  “Journa. 
of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society.” 
(To  be  concluded.) 
