July  23,  1903. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
77 
Names  of  Plants. 
Although  I  have  a  fair  knowledge  of  Latin,  which  is  often 
useful,  I  fail  to  see  why  plants  should  have  names  given  to 
them  which  the  men  who  have  most  to  do  with  them  can 
neither  understand  nor  pronounce.  Further  than  this,  the 
words  used  have  no  existence  in  Latin,  and  these  dog  Latin 
words  are  mixed  up  with  dog  Greek  and  French.  Not  even 
content,  the  “inventors  of  language”  seem  to  think  that  any 
English  word  or  name  can  be  made  into  Latin  by  adding  “  um  ” 
to  the  end.  There  is,  as  an  example,  a  very  fine  Anthurium 
named  after  myself  in  sham  Latin,  “  Fletcherianum.”  What 
can  be  the  meaning  of  this^  and  how  would  a  Frenchman  pro¬ 
nounce  it  ?  Originally  Latin  was  intended  to  be  a  universal 
system  of  nomenclature,  which  could  be  understood  almost  all 
over  the  world ;  but  this  idea  has  been  done  away  with  by 
the  supposed  conversion  of  English  to  Latin  by  the  much 
enduring  “  um.” — T.  F. 
Rose  Show  Dates. 
I  do  not  quite  iollow  “  The  Herefordshire  Incumbent  ”  in  the 
diflSculties  he  sees  in  the  dates  of  affiliated  Rose  shows  being 
arranged  by  the  N.R.S.  None  of  the  cities  he  names — Birming¬ 
ham,  Leeds,  and  Manchester — have  affiliated  societies,  and  I  can 
conceive  no  reason  why  Hereford  should  be  asked  to  “  take  a 
back  seat.”  Further,  I  spoke  only  of  clashing  with  shows  in 
the  same  district,  or  with  N.R.S.  shows.  It  would  obviously 
not  matter  so  much  if  Hereford  clashed  with  an  East  Anglian 
show. 
Hereford  may  be,  for  all  I  know,  “  the  oldest  Rose  show  in 
existence,”  but  is  it  older  than  Norwich,  which  celebrated  its 
fiftieth  anniversary  in  1879  by  an  extra  grand  show,  when  Mr. 
R.  N.  G.  Baker  came  all  the  way  from  Exeter  in  the  pouring 
rain  of  that  terrible  summer,  with  magnificent  H.P.’s  which 
carried  all  before  them.P — W.  R.  Raillem. 
Gold  Medallist  in  Horticulture." 
On  page  531  of  the  last  volume  of  the  Journal  I  asked  several 
questions  under  the  above  title,  which  appears  as  an  announce¬ 
ment  (on  advertisement  boards  at  Snow  Hill  Station,  Birming¬ 
ham,  and  several  other  stations  on  the  Great  Western  Railway) 
of  special  qualifications  in  horticulture.  I  am  disappointed  in 
not  receiving  answers  to  my  inquiries  as  to  the  qualifications  of 
the  advertiser.  I  hoped  that  the  advertiser  might  have  some 
friends  about  Birmingham  who  would  have  substantiated  for 
him  the  claim  that  he  makes  inferentially ;  or  that  the  advertiser 
himself — which  would  be  more  manly  and  straightforward — 
w’ould  take  the  public  of  Birmingham  into  his  confidence,  and 
tell  them  in  what  way  he  is  a  “  gold  medallist  in  horticulture.” 
I  have  searched  the  records  of  the  Royal  Horticultural 
Society  and  of  the  Royal  Botanic  Society,  and  the  South  Ken¬ 
sington  reports  of  examinations  in  botanical  science ;  and  I  have 
made  inquiries  in  other  likely  directions  where  there  is  a 
possibility  of  a  gold  medal  having  been  awarded  for  horticulture 
or  botany,  and  I  cannot  discover  the  name  of  the  advertiser  in 
any  reports  or  lists  of  candidates  for  honours  in  horticulture 
or  botany  in  connection  with  any  society. 
It  has  been  suggested  to  me  that  the  term  “  gold  medallist 
in  horticulture,”  as  it  appears  on  the  advertisement  boards,  is 
a  “  flowery  ”  way  of  stating  that  the  advertiser  has  been  awarded 
a  gold  medal  of  a  certain  size  and  value  by  a  grateful  and  very 
liberal  horticultural  show  committee  for  a  non-competitive 
exhibit  of  a  few  of  our  very  easily  grown  and  common  hardy 
herbaceous  flowers.  If  this  is  the  fact,  are  not  the  terms  at 
the  head  of  this  letter,  and  on  the  advertisement  boards,  mis¬ 
leading?  Would  not  it  be  more  correct  and  truthful  to  use 
the  words  “recipient  of  small  gold  medal  for  hardy  flowers”? 
Then  the  most  ignorant  would  rightly  understand,  and  not  be 
so  liable,  to  make  a  mistake  as  to  the  qualifications  of  the 
advertiser. 
Gold  and  silver  medals  are  as  plentiful  among  non-competitive 
exhibitors  as  Blackberries  in  autumn  ;  but  we  have  never  before 
observed  a  recipient  of  either  a  gold  medal  or  a  silver  medal 
under  such  circum -tances  advertise  himself  as  a  “gold  medallist 
in  horticulture.”  Trained  horticulturists  like  my  friends  Miss 
Harrison,  one  of  Mr.  George  Cadbury’s  lady  gardeners,  and 
Avinner  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society’s  medal  in  horti¬ 
culture  ;  and  Mr.  Lewis  Castle,  manager  of  the  Duke  of  Bedford’s 
experimental  frSit  farm,  winner  of  the  Worshipful  Company  of 
Fruiterers’  prize  of  gold  medal  and  twenty-five  guineas  last 
year  in  open  competition  to  all  England,  or  Great  Britain,  are 
the  bona  fide  “  gold  medallists  in  horticulture.” — Inquirer. 
Queries. 
I  have  leave  to  cover  in  part  of  my  kitchen  garden  Avith  wdre 
netting  against  birds.  The  walls  are  10ft  high.  Can  any  gar¬ 
dener  advise  Avliat  sort  of  iron  posts  should  be  used?  How  fixed 
into  the  ground?  What  width  of  netting,  gauge,  and  quality? 
What  sort  of  iron  horizontal  supports?  How  strained  over  the 
walls  ?  How  to  support  brick  Avails  ? — C.  N. 
Back  to  the  Land. 
Dare  I  say  a  feAV  words  upon  the  divergent  opinions  so  freely 
offered  upon  “Back  to  the  Land”?  The  subject  has  been  well 
thrashed  by  many  correspondents,  and  there  appears  a  strong 
determination  to  agree  to  differ.  The  life  of  the  small  holder 
is  not  an  ideal  one;  from  its  very  nature  it  must  for  the  greater 
part  be  hard  and  rough,  with,  in  but  few  instances,  remote 
possibilities  of  much  pecuniary  gain.  Surely,  hoAvever,  such  an 
existence  is  infinitely  preferable  to  that  spent  by  so  many  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  slum  portions  of  our  great  towns  and  cities. 
That  success  or  failure  depends  largely  upon  local  conditions  and 
individual  effort  and  enterprise  noecls  little  expatiation. — 
PrOA'INCIAL. 
The  first  and  most  important  principle  in  the  politics  of  a 
nation  is  the  care  of  its  population.  This  is  of  necessity  a 
nation’s  greatest  wealth.  The  means  Avhereby  a  steady  increase 
is  assured  must  always  engage  the  attention  of  the  statesman,  and 
Avhatever  they  may  consist  of,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that 
they  must  contribute  to  the  general  good  and  happiness  of  the 
people.  I  think  statesmen  and  political  economists  are  agreed 
upon  this  point.  Hoav  this  is  to  be  effected,  or,  if  already  in 
partial  effect,  how  maintained,  is  ever  the  anxious  question. 
Perhaps  no  one  is  able  to  very  materially  alter  the  general  trend 
which  Avorks  as  silently  in  the  upward  and  onward  direction  as 
the  laAv  of  natural  selection,  but  we  can  Avatch  over  its  progress 
and  foster  hei'e  a  promising  tendency  and  curb  there  an  undesir¬ 
able  incubus. 
The  policy  of  British  legislation  has  been  for  many  years  on:^ 
of  vigilance  and  Avatchfulness  rather  than  one  incurring  danger 
by  uiiAvise  interference.  The  consequence  is  an  increased  pro¬ 
sperity  in  Avealth  and  population.  Such  a  state  of  matters  must 
always,  if  it  does  anything,  presuppose  happiness,  contentment, 
and  plenty.  Noav,  on  glancing  fieldwards,  though  Ave  may 
not  be  learned  in  the  secrets  of  the  art  of  producing  the 
all-essential  foodstuffs  for  a  people,  we  find,  instead  of  Wheat, 
grass  lands  on  every  hand.  Wealth  consists  of  land  and  power, 
and  it  very  naturally  strikes  us  as  strange  that  this  part  of 
wealth  is  so  indifferently  utilised  in  Britain.  We  ask,  why,  then, 
is  Britain  possessed  of  so  many  luxuries,  her  people  the  best  paid, 
fed,  and  clad  of  all  nations,  and  yet  they  till  little  of  their  land. 
We  rea.son  further,  and  say  that  Britain’s  Avealth,  happiness,  and 
prosperity,  all  of  which  have  no  compeers,  cannot  be  due  to  her 
productions  in  the  form  of  food.  We  soon  satisfy  our  curiosity 
in  that  matter,  and  eventually  find  that  she  purchases  her  neces¬ 
saries  and  needfuls,  as  well  as  her  luxuries,  in  the  foreign  market. 
Even  cut  flowers  have  engaged  her  attention  last  year  to  the 
extent  of  £238,463,  a  fact  of  itself  indicative  of  the  Avealth  of  the 
nation.  She  goes  to  a  foreign  market  because  she  finds  it  neces¬ 
sary  to  do  so,  for  it  is  the  life  of  a  successful  trade  to  buy  your 
wants  in  the  cheapest  market,  and  the  more  Ave  do  so,  it  folloAAjs 
that  we  sell  more  of  those  things  Ave  need  less  ourselves.  It  is 
the  old  question  of  barter  over  again.  Britons  Avant  food,  which 
cannot  be  cheaply  enough  produced  at  home,  and  in  return  they 
give  coals,  ii'on,  &c.,  for  that  Avhich  they  need.  We  are  ready  to 
patronise  home  foodstuffs,  if  they  can  be  put  on  the  market 
alongside  Avith  those  of  our  foreign  producers. 
Think  for  a  moment,  seeing  hoAv  completely  we  get  along 
without  cultiA'ating  our  home  land,  hoAV  the  matter  Avould  stand 
wdth  us  if  our  ports  Avere  closed  to  Free  Trade.  We  Avould  then 
be  at  the  mercy  of  a  class  that  never  has  much  to  boast  of  unscru¬ 
pulous  probity  in  dealing.  Besides,  any  multiplication  of  effort 
in  the  direction  of  food  producing  could  but  insufficiently  supply 
the  demand,  alloAving  that  all  available  land  for  the  purpose  could 
be  made  to  turn  out  many  times  more  than  it  does  noAv.  Is  it  a 
matter  for  congratulation',  therefore,  to  anticipate  men  investing 
their  life  savings  in  a  feAV  acres  of  practically  unproductive  pro¬ 
perty  ?  Let  any  one  Avho  thinks  so  try,  and  I  have  no  doubt  he 
shall  change  his  idea  of  the  matter.  Ea^cii  on  the  Continent, 
where  the  conditions  are  immensely  more  propitious,  iunv  do 
things  stand?  This  is  what  “Fairchild,”  in  his  admirable  little 
treatise,  “  Rural  Wealth  and  Welfare,”  says  on  that  point :  “  One- 
third  of  France  is  cultiA^ated  by  OAvners  of  farms  averaging 
acres.  Four-fifths  of  Bavaria,  Belgium,  and  Switzerland  are 
in  farms  of  less  than  tAvelve  acres.  Even  Prussia  has  900,000  • 
farms  of  less  than  four  acres.  These  farms  vary  in  quality  from 
poorest  to  richest,  and  peasant  farmers  are  not  able  to  boast  of 
their  Avealth.”  This  is  precisely  Avhat  I  Avould  expect.  Such 
farms  cannot  support  a  family,,  and  the  abortive  energy  expended 
in  the  pittance  Avhich  is  produced  exceeds  by  far  its  value,  and 
labour  is  always  scarce  in  such  communities,  therefore  it  must  be 
difficult  to  replenish  the  exchequer.— D.  C. 
