ne , ae \ | | WE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. Vou. VII,.—No. 1. THE REPORT ORCHID CONFERENCE, ae : Gray Herbarium SOUTH KENSINGTONH@NANG University On MAY 12th and 13th, 1885. HARVARD UNIVERSITY HERBARIUM. THE GIFT OF 7 Me G ya Se eS ADVERTISEMENTS. FOR THE VILLA GARDEN, COUNTRY HOUSE, KITCHEN GARDEN, FLOWER SHOW, AND NURSERY. The Gardeners’ Magazine AMATEUR CULTIVATORS, COLLECTORS & EXHIBITORS OF PLANTS, FLOWERS & FRUITS; FOR GENTLEMEN’S GARDENERS, FLORISTS, NURSERYMEN, AND SEEDSMEN, ée. Conducted by SHIRLEY HIBBERD, F.R.H.S. EVERY SATURDAY, TWOPENCE. Contains Original Articles by the most eminent practical Horticulturists on the Selection and Cultivation of Flowers, Fruits, and Vegetables ; on the Principles of Taste in Designing and Embellishing Gardens; and on the Progress of Horticulture generally. Also Reports of Flower Shows, descriptions of new ‘Plants, and every matter of importance to Amateurs and Professional Gardeners. THE LATEST GARDEN NEWS,THE MOST ORIGINAL INFORMATION, AND MOST IMPARTIAL REFLECTION OF HORTICULTURAL AFFAIRS. Office: 4, AVE MARIA LANE, LONDON, EC. And Sold at all Newsagents and Railway Bookstalls. EPPS S SELECTED PEAT, For Choice Plants, Ferns and Orchids. Forty Sacks, 2s. 6d. per Sack; 30 ditto, 2s. 9d.; 20 ditto, 8s. 6d. ; 10 ditto, 4s.; 5 ditto, 4s. 6d.; Single Sacks, 6s.; Sacks, 6d. each. In trucks of 14 to 20 cubic yards or loads, 11s. per yard. Orchid Peat Extra. For Rhododendrons and common purposes, 15s. per ton, in trucks of not less than four tons; Sample Sack, 2s. 6d. LOAM, SAND, LEAF-MOULD, SPHAGNUM, &e. SEE SPECIAL LIST, ALSO FOR THE TRADE. RINGWOOD, HANTS. ADVERTISEMENTS. i JNO. EDWD. BONNY, IMPORTER AND GROWER OF ORCHIDS, ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER OF (Orchid Baskets, Rafts, Boats, Cylinders, &c., ON AN IMPROVED PRINCIPLE. Price List free on application. 68, DOWNS PARK ROAD, “HACKNEY, LONDON. TREPHO, FOR ORCHIDS. This New Material has been found a most successful article for BLOCKS, RAFTS, and POT ORCHIDS. It is Live Sphagnum pressed into Solid Blocks by Hydraulic Pressure, after having been Chemically treated to prevent its decay or souring. In the saturated atmosphere of an Orchid House it absorbs and continuously takes up the Gases and Moisture, and retains same for several days without drying, or being re-dipped. One dipping will last from THREE Days to a WEEK. Messrs. Fred. Horsman & Co., of Colchester, reports :—“ We have used TREPHO, with great success, having potted many thousand orchids with it.” Sole Purveyor, BENJAMIN FIELD, F.R.H.S. (Son-in-law and Successor to J. Kennard), SwAN PLACE, OLD KENT Roap, LONDON, S.E. CATALOGUE, Post Free, of all Horti- cultural Soils, Manures, Sundries, and Berkshire Pottery. Telegrams, FLORICULTURE, London. Established 1854. ALL APPLICATIONS FOR ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE SCHEDULE OF ARRANGEMENTS THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY FOt-tSSsoco SHOULD BE MADE AT ONCE TO Messrs. ADAMS & FRANCIS, GENERAL ADVERTISEMENT AGENTS, And Agents by appointment to the above Society, s9, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C. SIDNEY WILLIAMS’S CELEBRATED Octagonal Teak Wood Orchid Baskets, MADE WITH GALVANISED OR COPPER WIRE. Sse 21, FARRINGDON ROAD, E.C. eee (CLOSE TO THE STATION.) Illustrated Price List on application, A ‘ a ll ADVERTISEMENTS. NEW WORK VON ViiLIN Eee Demy 8vo., with numerous Illustrations, price 10s. 6d., Post Free. Dedicated by Special Permission to the President and Council of the Royal Horticultural Society. VINES AND VINE-CULTURE : Being a Treatise on the Cultivation of the Grape Vine, with Descriptions of the Principal Varieties. By ARCHIBALD F, BARRON, Superintendent of the Royal Horticultural Society's Gardens at Chiswick and South Kensington ; Secretary of the Fruit Committee ; Honorary Member of the Cercle d’Arboriculture de Belgique, etc. CONTENTS. Chapter 1.—Historical Sketch. Chapter XIV.—The Packing of Grapes. 55 II.—Propagation of the Vine. a XV.—The Pot Culture of Vines. oy III.—Hybridising and Raising Vines from », _XVI.—Fruiting Vines in Pots. Seed. », XVII.—Pot Vines as Decorative Table Plants. > IV.—Vine Borders : their Formation, Soil, », X VIII.—Ground Vineries. &e. » X&IX.—The Great Grape Conservatory at a V.—Structures for Grape Growing. Chiswick. ae VI.—Heating of Vineries. > XX.—Vines on Open Walls. » Wil.—Planting of Vines: when and how 3» _&XI.—Diseases and other Injuries. to do it. 3, ®XII.—Noxious Insects. », WIII.—The Gencral Management of Vineries. », XXIII.—Selections of Grapes for Special & IX.—Pruning and Training the Vine. Purposes + X.-—Disbudding and Stopping the Shoots. 35 SXIV.—The Classification of Grape Vines. 33 X1I.—The Setting of the Fruit. », _XXV.—The Varieties of European Grapes. », _XII.—The Thinning of the Fruit. >, &XVI.—The Varieties of American Grapes. », XIII.-.-The Keeping of the Fruit. Plates I.— X XX, Illustrations of the best kinds of Grapes. Opinions of the Horticultural Press. The JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE says :—“ It is the most complete, and it will be accepted as the standard work on the Vine.”’ The GARDENERS’ CHRONICLE says :—“ It is eminently practical and useful.” The sii tot ere dlnaal It is undoubtedly the most exhaustive volume upon Vines and Vine Culture ever published.” The GARDENERS’ MAGAZINE says :—“ It will certainly take,and probably keep, a leading place in the class of literature to which it belongs.’’ . The FLORIST AND POMOLOGIST says:—‘t There is nowhere to be found in our language so complete and thorough a descriptive list of the best varieties ef Grapes.” , Opinions of Horticulturists. DR. HOGG says :—“ It is the best monograph on the subject in our language.” ¥ R. E. W. BADGER says :—“ No intelligent person can read this book without understanding all that a book can tell about Vines and Grape-growing.” MR. W. THOMSON writes :—‘‘ Your book on the Vine I consider the most exhaustive on the subject that has yet been published.”’ MR. M. OUNN says :—“ The practical instructions are plain, concise,and in accordance with the best practice and opinions of the day.”’ MR. E. PYRAGRT Van GEERT writes :—“ The more I read your excellent book the moreI am ' leased with it.”’ MR. F. BURVENICH says :—‘*The more I read over and again your publication on Vines and Vine Culture, the more I feel interested with it.’’ MR. T, F. RIVERS says :—* It supplies a need which has been long felt,and is a thorough practical guide, not only to the amateur, but to the professional Grape-grower.”’ To be had of A. F. Barron, Royal Horticultural Gardens, Chiswick, near London. ALSO AT THE JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE OFFICH, : 171, FLEET STREET, LONDON. HORTICULTURAL SOILS, MANURES, SUNDRIES, & POTTERY, Trepho, for Orchids Insecticides, various Pots & Stands, superior well- Peat for Orchids & General} Pot Brushes or Scrubs made Use Weed Killer, Smith’s Orchid Pottery Loam, Sand, Fine & Coarse| Lawn Sand, Watson’s Wire Netting Compost or Small Peat Tiffanies & other Shad- Wire Work Fish Potash Guano, recom- ings Garden Tools & Cutlery mended Truck Baskets Brass Syringes Manures, all kinds Teak Orchid Baskets, Rafts} Fumigators Sticks & Labels, various Virgin Cork Charcoal Murry’s Vine Composition | Raffia & Tying Materials Mushroom Spawn Garden Pots and Orchid Pottery, and every Horticultural Requisite supplied. CATALOGUE FREE PER POST. BENJAMIN FIEUDUD, F.R.H.S. (Son-in-law and Successor to J. KENNARD), SWAN PLACE, OLD KENT ROAD, LONDON, S.E. Telegrams, FLORICULTURE, London. Establised 1854. ADVERTISEMENTS. ili A HIGH-CLASS GARDENING PAPER. JOURNAL HORTICULTURE, COTTAGE GARDENER AND HOME FARMER, Conducted by ROBERT HOGG, LL.D., F.LS., Assisted by a Staff of the best Writers on Practical Gardening a numerous Amateur and Professional Writers eminent in the various Departments of Horticulture and other Rural Pursuits connected with the Househbld. ESTABLISHED 1848. This widely Biroulating J ournal consists of Thirty-two pages of Letterpress, with occasional Supplements, and is richly illustrated with Wood Engravings in the highest style of the Art. The JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE contains the earliest Reports of all important Horticultural and other Shows. Published Weekly, price 3d., Post Free, 33d. TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION: One Quarter, 3s. 9d.; Half Year, 7s. 6d.; One Year, 15s. Post Office Orders to be made payable to EDWARD H. MAY. Office :—171, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C. TH E FRUIT MANUAL, Containing Descriptions and Synonymes of the Fruit and Fruit Trees commonly met with in the Gardens and Orchards of Great Britain, with Selected Lists of the Varieties most worthy of cultivation. By ROBERT HOGG, LL.D., F.L:S. FIFTH EDITION—GREATLY ENLARGED. Price 16s., per Parcels Post, 16s. 9d. JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE, 171, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C. A 2 1V ADVERTISEMENTS. “First to our hand come the home journals, among which the ably- conducted ‘ Gardeners’ Chronicle’ worthily holds the lead, as it has now done for more than a generation.’’—The Journal of Forestry. “The best and most important organ of the English Horticultural Press.”—E. PYNAERT, Les Serres Vergers. Gardeners’ “ Ghuonicle (“THE TIMES OF HORTICULTURE,”) is WEEKLY JLLUSTRATED JOURNAL, (ESTABLISHED 1841,) Devoted to all Branches of Gardening, Forestry, and Rural Pursuits, Every Friday, price Fivepenee ; post free, Fivepence-halfpenny. Tue ‘“ GARDENERS’ CHRONICLE ” has been for more than forty years the leading Horticultural Journal of the world, and is widely circulated at Home, in the ColJonies, and Abroad, especially among country gentlemen, professional and amateur horticulturists, planters, foresters, estate managers, and those interested in cultural matters and natural history. Its object is to afford the most accurate information in the principles of cultural science, the most trustworthy record of practical experience, and the earliest and most complete chronic'e of horticultural news, including reports of the principal Continental, Metropolitan, and Provincial exhibitions. Its Contributors include the leading Gardeners in every district of Great Britain and Ireland, and many of the principal Botanists, Entomologists, Chemists, Foresters, and Naturalists of this country, the Continent, India, the Colonies, and America. ILLUSTRATIONS. The ‘‘GARDENERS’ CHRONICLE ” is Illustrated with Woodcuts from original designs by W. H. Fircu, W. G. Surru, and other artists, and devoted to the representation of new and useful plants, of injurious insects, garden structures and implements, as well as to views and plans of beautiful gardens at home and abread. These are most valuable to the amateur and to the trade, “as our eminent contemporary has the well-established reputation, morse and more justified every day, of giving the most accurate and faithful engravings of new plants. Many of them are from the pencil of Fitch, whose name is synonymous with conscientiousness, scrupulous fidelity, and consumate artistic talent.’’ COUNT OSWALD DE KERCHOVE DE DENTERGHEM, in “ Revue de Horticulture Belge.” ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS PAYABLE IN ADVANCE. THE UNITED KINGDOM: 12 Months, £1 3s. 10d.; 6 Months, 11s, 11d.; 3 Months, 6s.; Post Free. FOREIGN SUBSCRIPTIONS (EXCEPTING INDIA AND CHINA): Including Postage, £1 6s. for 12 Months. India and China, £1 8s,.2d. P.O.O. to be made payable at DRURY LANE, London, to W. Ricwarps. Cheques should be crossed ‘“‘ Drummond.” Office; 41, WELLINGTON STREET, STRAND, LONDON, WC, et THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. Vou. VII.—No. 1. THE REPORT ON THE ORCHID CONFERENCE, HELD AT SOUTH KENSINGTON, On MAY 12th and 13th, 1885. 1886. ase 7 > tae OE BR gm ee ee r & U + © Ww. S. aaanaete Nassau STEAM PREss,” 60, Sr. MartTIn’s See CHARING Cross, W.C. > ore ~ om PREFACH. THe Orcum ConFerENceE, organised by the Royal Horticultural Society, may be considered as one of the greatest successes ever known in Floral Exhibitions, and one, moreover, with a special object in view, every point in which was brought to the desired conclusion. There was an extensive and splendid show, lasting two days, and also a Conference, at which the attendance of Orchid growers was numerous and influential, and tended much to advance the objects of the Society, viz., to exhibit a representative collection of Orchids in flower, together with any other objects desirable for their culture, and to spread a knowledge of their habits and requirements. In furtherance of these objects, interesting Papers were read and discussed, and much useful and valuable information elicited. The Exhibition was marked by a beautiful display of rare and showy Orchids, many of these being very large specimens; in fact, the greatest number of new and fine Orchids ever assembled at one show in this country were here displayed. It was also marked by the extraordinary facilities offered by the collection at one Exhibition of a great number of allied plants for comparing and estimating their distinguishing features ; as an example of which may be mentioned the extraordinary representation of five specimens of nearly all the large white- flowered Cattleyas known—an occurrence hitherto unprecedented. Many other instances might be cited, but a perusal of the Report will give sufficient information on all points. - The Council of the Royal Horticultural Society, in publishing this Report, beg most heartily to thank all those who so kindly assisted them in bringing the Conference to such a successful . issue, and they are much indebted to Dr. Hogg, of the Journal of Horticulture, for the woodcuts of the Orchids represented in thése pages. F. MASON, Souta Kensinerton, Hon. Secretary, R. H. 8. January 4th, 1886. NA Pei PAIMETINO ; Beds ot lerioi Se Si TaIS Go ¥iy a apna lore avi Ol tg | ie a Oar a 8.4 ; hs oz Hy . + eet hia T} t » . erin z oe ” CONTENTS. President’s Address .. Professor Rr1cH=ENBACH— On Proliferous Roots of Orchids .. ,, Trilabellia Continua ; », Luddemannia (Cycnoches) Pescatorei. . Mr. H. J. Verrcu, F.L.S.— On the Hybridisation of Orchids .. Mr. James O’Brien— On the Cultivation of Orchids », the Orchid House », the Staging », Watering Orchids ,», Potting Orchids .. », Materials for Potting ,», Shading and Heating : , ,, Arrangement of the Plants... od ae a te ,, the Cost of Orchids Discussion on Orchid Nomenclature Discussion on the Use of Manure in Orchid Growing .. Report by F. W. Bursipes, “ni . F.L.S., on Plants Exhibited (Horticultural) . * : - $4 oe we = List of Genera, Species, Varieties, and Hybrids shown. . Alphabetical List of the Genera of Orchids Report by H. N. Rivtey, Ei M.A., F.L.S., on Plants Exhibited (Botanical) : ot ; a = Seed of Phalenopsis. Phalznopsis, 15 months. Phaiznopsis, 22 months. Phalenopsis, 2} years. Phalznopsis, 3 years. * é f a i! UN i ~ payn Ji} ‘2 ¥ _ ‘ noe PLATE II. Seed of Eucypripedium. Seed of Selenipedium. PLATE III. Seedling Cypripedium, 6 months. Cypripedium, 2 years. PLATE IV. ’ Seed of Dendrobium. Seedling Dendrobium, 4 months. Dendrobium, 7 months. Dendrobium, 12 months. Dendrobium, 18 months, ~ j 4 r © . vi \) \\\\G\ a / "ih i) il | Th Niih alii} \ 1 i Dendrobium, 2 years, PLATE V. Seed of Cattleya. Seedling Cattleya, 6 months. Cattleya, 9 months. Cattleya, 2 years, Cattleya, 16;months, — REPORT ON THE ORCHID CONFERENCE. 47 if it were necessary to do so, what he has said about the exceeding difficulty there is in getting fertile seed. Mr. Darwin, in his book on the “ Fertilization of Orchids,’ mentions that, having made a microscopical examination of the seed pods sent to him, he often found that in an entire pod there was not one fertile seed ; but, on the other hand, every now and then, for some reasons which at present it is impossible to understand, seed pods do produce a vast number of fertile seeds, and I, myself, have before now from a cross between cypripedia produced so large a number of plants that I have been constrained to throw a number away. With regard to dendrobia, too, I have had pods which have produced a very large number of plants. I have also had seed from odontoglots which has certainly germinated, but it only arrived at a size which was scarcely distinguishable without the aid of a microscope, and very speedily died. So far as the very small experience I possess as a hybridizer goes, I should say it is far more difficult to raise the seedlings of some hybrid crossings than it is to raise very delicate children. Those errors I referred to in the few opening remarks I made, of diet and treatment, which I am afraid all our knowledge has not enabled us to avoid with regard to children, the very limited experience we have got with regard to the progeny of Orchids does not enable us to avoid in their treatment. A very singular circumstance is ‘mentioned by Mr. Fitzgerald in his book on “‘ Australian Orchids,” which shows the extreme difficulty with which they are fertilized. He mentions a magnificent specimen of the Dendrobium speciosum, the Brisbane Lily, and says that there were no fewer than 40,000 fiowers open at the same time on that plant; but though the plant was growing in the open air and was open to the visits of insects, only one flower produced a seed pod. There was one circumstance I omitted to refer to in my opening remarks, which I wish to mention now in con- nection with Mr. Veitch’s name, and which is very appropriate in that connection. The Veitch Memorial Medal Committee were so kind as to place at the disposal of the Conference Committee three medals. ‘The Conference Committee were anxious to award these medals in the directions which they thought most appropriate. On previous occasions these medals have been awarded for very remarkable instances of cultivation in Orchids, but we thought we might properly 48 REPORT ON THE make a departure on this occasion from precedents, and con- sequently the committee have decided to award the three medals in this way—one medal to Professor Reichenbach for his very eminent services in connection with scientific Orchidology, services of which Mr. Veitch has made an appropriate recogni- tion, and services which everybody interested in Orchids feels to have been of the most remarkable nature. The next medal we thought we should like to award to a gentleman whose name is immortalized in connection with many Orchids, which he was the first to discover and introduce into this country. That gentleman is the Rev. W. 8. Parish, who was for a long time a chaplain in the East India Service, stationed in Burmah, and to whose discoveries we owe a large number of Burmese Orchids. (Hear, hear.) The award in the case of the third medal, I think, renders my mentioning the matter especially appropriate on this occasion. We thought we could not more wisely award it than to that very skilful hybridizer, Mr. Seden— (hear, hear)—to whose skill we owe many of the beautiful hybrids which have been produced in Mr. Veitch’s nursery. Of course, in awarding that last medal we did. not at all overlook the services rendered by a gentleman whom I saw in the room a short time ago, [mean Mr. Dominy. (Hear, hear.) But we had only three medals to award, and so, of course, we could not award more than three, and we thought perhaps it would be more judicious to award a medal to a soldier who is still fighting in the ranks than to a veteran—great as our debt of gratitude is to him—who has retired from them. (Applause.) Mr. Verrcu: May I say that, representing as I do the Veitch family, nothing could gratify me more than that the medal founded in our father’s memory should have been given to Seden. He entered my father’s service twenty-five years ago, and has been in our employ ever since, and a more zealous foreman it would be impossible to find. I wish to bear testi- mony to my pleasure that Seden should have the medal. Mr. B. T. Lowne: I wish to point out that one of the difficulties in rearing seedling Orchids arises, I believe, from the fact that the pollen is only developed from the prolification of the mother cells, after the pollinia are placed upon the stigma. I think it is possible that the stimulation due to the presence of the pollinia gives rise to the development of the capsule, even whilst the oyales remain unimpregnate. ; ’ ———— gee. ORCHID CONFERENCE. 49 Mr. James Bareman then rose and said: I have particular pleasure in proposing a vote of thanks to Mr. Veitch for his admirable paper. I am sure that he, and Mr. Dominy also, will know and appreciate the effort it costs me to make this proposal, for I have been brought up with the very strongest abhorrence of hybridizers. (Laughter.) I fell into evil hands early in life. My first Orchid-growing friend was Mr. Huntly. When I paid Mr. Huntly a visit at his snug rectory in Huntingdonshire, he pomted out to me his cacti and his Orchids, and said, ‘I like those plants, in fact they are the only plants I grow, because those fiends (meaning the hybridizers) cannot touch them.” (Laughter.) You must make a little allowance for a botanist, for hybridizers do give botanists a lot of trouble— (laughter)—but, however strong my prejudices were, I must confess that when I saw such plants as the cattleya down- stairs, if I was not converted, I was, at all events, what comes to the same thing, shut up. (Laughter.) I have the ereatest pleasure in moving this vote of thanks to Mr. Veitch. (Applause. ) Mr. Joun Day said he had great pleasure in seconding the motion, for he thought Mr. Veitch richly deserved the thanks of the Conference for his splendid paper. Mr. Bateman had already said all that was necessary, and he had nothing to add except that he was sure everybody would join in thanking Mr. Veitch most cordially. The vote of thanks was then carried unanimously. Mr. Vertcu, responding to the vote, said: I am exceedingly obliged to you, ladies and gentlemen, for your kindness. I look upon you all here as one large family, and if anyone can con- tribute to the pleasure of those they meet, or can add to the scientific knowledge of the country, I think it is his duty to do so. Mr. Bateman is such a kind-hearted, genial gentleman, that many a time I have asked myself why, when he came into my houses, he used to act in such an extraordinary manner when he saw a hybrid. Now I have found it out; it was this friend ef his who he has mentioned who set him the bad example. (Laughter.) However, I am very glad to find that Mr. Bateman has lived sufficiently long to get rid of his pre- judices against the hybrids, and I hope I shall before long be able to name one after him. . (Laughter.) D 50 REPORT ON THE The Presipent then called upon Mr. O’Brien to read his paper on ‘¢ THe CULTIVATION OF ORCHIDS.” Mr. James O’Brien said: The subject of Orchid culture being almost inexhaustible, I shall only be able to touch briefly upon some of its phases, and in doing so, whilst endeavouring to make some remarks acceptable to all Orchid growers, I shall direct them principally towards the amateur. A glance at what has been written on the subject many years ago, proves that there may be rules laid down for the culture of any or all of the Orchids, and that a good result once attained may always be secured by following the same line of treatment. Whenever I read a detailed account of the treatment given to an exceptionally fine plant by some grower of forty or fifty years ago, I find that in our practice of to-day we need not depart from it in the least to ensure the same good results, which ought, however, to be attained by us with much less trouble than by those of olden time, by reason of the much better accommodation we have. Orchids, from the time of the earliest arrivals, have always been appreciated, and as early as the year 1800, when the lovely Aerides odoratum and many other showy things were introduced, their habits and culture seem to have been understood fairly well, but the bad construction of the houses and their defective heating by means of flues and other contrivances militated sadly against the culture of the small growers and the varieties requiring cool treatment ; and hence, while many continued the culture of the more robust kinds, and attracted visitors from distant parts to see them when in bloom, no general progress was made until the period between 1835 and 1850, which was perhaps the richest in importations of fine handsome Orchids. During that period the fine discoveries of Messrs. Veitch’s collector (Lobb) with aerides, saccolabiums, and vandas; Griffiths with his cymbidiums and dendrobes; Skinner, Barker, and Hartweg, in Mexico, Guatemala, and along the Andes ; and other collectors, made quite a revival among the Orchid growers, and the result of new energy being put into the matter was that with some of the showier Orchids such perfection was attained that I fear we could not even now match some of the specimens mentioned as being exhibited at the Horticultural Society’s Shows ORCHID CONFERENCE. 51 at the famed Chiswick Gardens, where in those days a good — collection of Orchids was to be found. Among the best exhibits for many years appear those from Mrs. Lawrence’s renowned collection at Ealing Park, that home where our worthy President, Sir Trevor Lawrence, first acquired that love for Orchids which he has turned to such good account in forming and keeping up, always in good condition, the best representative collection of Orchids which was ever got together. Among the specimens exhibited in 1845-6-7 are enumerated : from Mrs. Lawrence, Ealing Park, Aerides odoratum, with sixteen leading growths and between thirty and forty flower spikes ; Cattleya crispa, with over twenty spikes ; Saccolabium premorsum, covered with bloom; EH pidendrum bicornutum, with many spikes; Oncidiwn ampliatwn majus, with many spikes, forming a head of golden flowers over four feet across; and Odontoglossum grande, quite worthy of being a leading plant in a collection. J. H. Schroder, Esq., of Stamford Green, is also credited with Calanthe veratrifolia, with eighteen spikes, and many other fine plants. J.J. Blandy, Esq., with Saccolabiwm guttatum, with eighteen flower spikes. R. S. Holford, Esq., of Weston Birt, with Aerides odoratum, with twenty-seven to thirty spikes. Sigismund Rucker, Esq., also produced specimens which it is pleasant to read about; and among other things, ~ Robert Hanbury, Esq., in November, 1845, exhibited a robust plant of the autumn-flowering Cattleya labiata, with four spikes, bearing sixteen flowers between them, and forming a specimen which any of our best collections would be glad to give room to at the present day. _ Of plants described as being very fine in different places forty years ago, but which are yet rare, and in some cases the specimens mentioned are not to be matched, are Renanthera coccinea, in the gardens belonging to A. Palmer, Esq., at Cheam, with seven panicles on a plant, each bearing from 100 to 110 flowers, and an equally good one of it in the possession of R. 8. Holford, Esq., on one of the panicles of which were one hundred and seventeen of its showy scarlet flowers. Good specimens are also mentioned of the yellow Calanthe curculigoides from the Straits of Malacca; Angrecum bilobum, with a dozen long flower spikes ; the rose-coloured Eulophia guineensis ; and in the gardens of the Horticultural Society, in 1847, a Lelia superbiens with nine large heads of bloom, n 2 a oe rT?* 52 REPORT ON THE These notes show that the love for Orchids, which existed from the time the first plants came into the country, has steadily increased, and that their widely-diffused culture of the present day, far from being a modern fashion in flowers, is but the result of the steady progress of that which always existed, and always will exist, as long as that love for flowers, which is one of the chief characteristics of the inhabitants of these isles, ~ remains. For those who want novelty as well as beauty, too, there is as good a prospect still as for those who wish simply for the beautiful, for if we turn to the works of Dr. Lindley, Professor Reichenbach, and other writers on Orchid lore, we there see such a host of lovely things figured or described, but not yet imported, as to prove bewildering even to one, like myself, who has made Orchids a study from childhood. So far as Iam concerned, I never could see that there was any diffi- culty in growing the greater part of our handsomest Orchids, provided the one who took them in hand had a real liking for 5 them, and a determination to use his own eyes and his best judgment for their benefit. In such a case success follows invariably, for Orchids, like the domestic animals, soon find out when there is one who is fond of them about them, and they seem to be happy and to thrive and establish an understanding with such a guardian, indicating to him their wants in many important matters as plainly as though they could speak. It is this kind of understanding that should be aimed at, as it goes a great way towards securing success, as well as giving pleasure to the pursuit; and it is the existence or the want of this kind of relation between the plants and their master which makes all the difference between a good grower and a bad one—between a healthy collection and a shabby one. Be sure, that without someone takes an unfeigned and steady interest in the plants, they will not thrive, but if one can be found to be watchful over their interests, and apply what knowledge he can get by what he sees or reads of in other collections, a good measure of success is sure; and hence some of our smaller 4 amateurs, by their diligence and real liking for their plants, often grow things to perfection which have puzzled more scien- tific men. In growing a general collection of Orchids, however, many stubborn subjects will be met with, but as the bad-doers of the past have given way, those of the present will follow, no doubt, in the case of all who steadily persevere. Every point in | ORCHID CONFERENCE. 53 Orchid culture is of importance, one neglected item often causing failure in some direction or other. Let us glance at a few of the most important matters, beginning with Ture Orcuip House. In this particular we certainly have the advantage over those of former years, in that we now have compact, well-ventilated, and comfortably-heated structures ; but these changes were not made until the Orchid growers themselves took to designing their own houses or advising with the builders about them, and from that time a new era in Orchid culture commenced. The running lights, which were so fond of slipping down in the night, were done away with; the swinging-sashes on a level with the plants on the side-stages were doomed; those neat little sliding-traps at the base of the house, and those convenient top ventilators, substituted, and many other sanitary matters arranged, which anyone may see to perfection in that fine new Cattleya house, and those other recently-built structures belong- ing to William Lee, Esq., at ‘‘ Downside,” Leatherhead, where one of our largest, best, and best-housed collections will be found, many of the convenient arrangement in those houses being of Mr. Lee’s own designing. At Baron Schroder’s, too, at ** The Dell,” Egham, some of the best of our modern improvements, combining usefulness and ornament, will be found; and as the plants contained in the houses are of the best and rarest, a visit to them is a great pleasure to any Orchid grower. In former times it used to be considered imperative to build the Orchid houses running east and west, and many adhere to that plan still; many also consider that a lean-to or three-quarter span facing north is the best for odontoglossums and cold-house plants. For my part, I cannot say that houses of any other aspect are not as good as these, provided they be properly arranged in other respects. A north house is certainly very cool, and good for cold-house plants, and particularly mas- devallias in summer ; but, from the very conflicting evidence I have gathered in different parts of the country, I should say that anyone having houses which they wish to devote to Orchids need not be deterred by their facing this way or facing that, or in building new ones to greatly inconvenience themselves to make their houses run in any particular direction. 54 REPORT ON THE Tolerably low, span-roofed houses are the best to build for most Orchids, and in building them, no two should be placed together side by side, but each should be built apart, in order to allow of the bottom ventilation being effected by traps opening into the outer air. In some cases, where this has been neglected, chambers from end to end, with openings at intervals, and other intricate contrivances, have been resorted to, but all to no purpose, as the houses have gone back to the style of those of very many years ago, and are practically unventilated, as we now understand the word. It is to the even balancing of the ventilation, by means of the bottom ventilators opening into the outer air, and the top ones at the highest point of the house, that we, in a great measure, may attribute our much better culture of odontoglossums, masdevallias, cattleyas, &c., than the Orchid growers of former years displayed. Next in import- ance after the ventilation, comes Tue STAGING. This, by common consent, seems to be best when an open woodwork staging is raised over a close one, containing either water or shingle, which is kept moist. Some, indeed, grow moss on this close staging, and ferns underneath them; but although such arrangement is perhaps beneficial whilst the ferns keep clean, they are so liable to thrips and other insects that they are better kept out of the Orchid houses, in my opinion. ‘The open woodwork staging is certainly very good above the close and moisture-supplying one, and great need of it might be seen formerly in the presence of large numbers of inverted flower-pots for raising the plants. As a further means of giving moisture and storing rain-water, which alone should be used, wherever it can be obtained, for watering Orchids, too much space cannot be devoted to open rain-water tanks under the stages. Plants watered with rain- water alone have a great advantage over those watered with water from any other source, and Mr. Bateman records his opinion that they are not attacked by those small snails which are so troublesome where they abound. From my own observa- tion I can say that I believe there is a good foundation for the statement. Way ORCHID CONFERENCE. 55 WATERING ORCHIDS. The watering of Orchids is a matter on which much depends. It is now pretty generally understood that all evergreen Orchids, either terrestrial or epiphytal, require plenty of water when growing freely, and less when not growing; that those which lose their leaves, such as some dendrobes, invariably require a period of rest, during which water is entirely witheld and a lower temperature given, and that odontoglossums, masdevallias, and the other cold-house things, want water summer and winter ; but I find the resting or drying-off system is often overdone, and plants injured accordingly, and that in some collections the plants would be much better if watered all the year round than dried as they are to such an extent that they cannot recover in the growing season what they lose in the so-called resting period. My own opinion is that any drying-off which causes shrivellmg is wrong, and that cattleyas, lelias, and similar plants, if properly potted, do best kept moist, even when not actively growing ; but care must be taken to see that they are not in bad peat. As a rule, it would be much better for the plants we often see in small collections if they had one-half the quantity of potting material about them and twice the quantity of water they get given them. Syringing a house of Orchids should never be done, and the syringes should be only used for ‘moistening the staging and back walls, or doing any other work on which it can be certainly employed without harm. When used on the plants the operator cannot tell what he is doing, and in the hands of a thoughtless person the syringe is the most mischievous instrument ever introduced. There can be no rule for its use among Orchids as a means for distributing water, and certainly no benefit that can be set against the loss of young growths and decayed flower-spikes which must follow an indiscriminate use of it. On Portinc Orcuips. And now it will be well to notice a few matters connected — with the potting and materials used. For growing the epiphytal Orchids in the early days of Orchid culture, blocks or logs of wood were largely used, with, in many cases, wire baskets for the more spreading kinds. These baskets were first made of iron wire, but this being found to be objectionable on account of its rusting, copper wire was substituted. Soon it got found out 56 REPORT ON THE that Orchid roots and young growths did not like metallic substances, and slate was employed to make baskets of different shapes, which were fitted with wire suspenders. Later on the designs were very varied and fanciful, baskets being made of scollop-shells, cocoa-nut husks, rods of hazel, oak, and maple, all of which were found objectionable for some reason or other. During all this time the ordinary flower-pot was making way, disguised to meet the case by having holes and slits to accommodate the air roots. This fashion of flower-pot at length became extensively used, but as it was alleged against it that it harboured insects, it had to give way to the plain, common garden pot, which is now doing such great service. But I am sure that we have allowed the common flower-pot to encroach too far, and that while we beat our predecessors with odonto- glossums, masdevallias, and many other things which do per- fectly well in pots, we have certainly lost ground with saccolabiums, aerides, and plants of that nature; so much so, that they are but poorly represented in many otherwise good collections. My own opinion is that it is solely through potting them instead of basketing them, and that in pots the chances are against them on many points. Their large fleshy roots do not get the air in pots that they do in baskets, and when potted they are generally placed on the stage too far from the glass, and retain the water given them longer than these plants like. Against these arguments it is said, with much truth, that it is impossible to suspend everything, and that when baskets are used they are dangerous to the plant when decaying. To this it may be answered that if it is for the benefit of the plant, some means of raising it to a fair distance from the glass should be found, and that if the saccolabiums and aerides have done well in baskets, which would have done badly in pots, the trouble of removing the old basket and replacing it with a new one ought not to be considered. The saccolabium specimens at Mrs. Lawrence’s, that with twenty spikes at Mr. Blandy’s, and all the others in those days were in baskets, and I do not think their equals will ever be found in pots. The Orchid baskets, too, are so much improved in the present day that all objection to them has been removed, and I venture to predict a great future for them. I should like those who are not satisfied with their saccolabiums, aerides, and smaller a, ORCHID CONFERENCE. 57 vandas, to try them in baskets, using plenty of crocks and charcoal where obtainable, and only a little sphagnum moss. In growing this class of plants, if the growers would but take the hint from the denrobes, which grow with them in their native habitats, and make the growing-time of the saccolabium to correspond with theirs, they would give their plants less heat and water in winter, and more in spring and summer, and a better condition would come upon them. ‘The excessive heat which is often given to saccolabiums and aerides, and given, too, in winter, and while they are so far away from what little light there is, stunts them, prevents their flowering, and makes it hard work for them even to live. Marerimats ror Porrinea. Now as to materials for potting. Good living sphagnum for saccolabiums, aerides, vandas, phalenopsis, angrecums, and others of like growth, and the fibre of peat composed of fern root alone for cattleyas and lelias, has always been considered the best. Unfortunately, much of the peat of late years has been of grass and heath root, which is liable to rapid decay, and consequently to cause injury to the plants. Various materials, such as cocoa- nut fibre, have been advanced to supersede peat, but none have proved acceptable. I therefore recommend all who wish their plants well to keep to the sphagnum moss and the best peat they can get, using the less of the latter when it is not good, and to leave experiments to others. There are always plenty ready to try new things, and curiously enough it is never the learner who carries the experiments to a serious conclusion, but the well-tried old hand, who, having done all that is good and reasonable, goes in for a new idea on a large scale. I can call to mind several unaccountable instances of this kind, in one of which I remember a clever grower in the north, who had for years grown his plants to perfection, suddenly became possessed with the idea that chopped sphagnum, and what appeared to me to be road-grit, was the proper thing for all Orchids, and forthwith he proceeded to pot them in it. In another case I found that a previously well-grown collection had been potted in sphagnum moss and what I was told was prepared cocoa-nut fibre. How effectual the preparation was in getting the piants ready to depart this life I need not say. Above all things a steady perseverance in what others have 58 REPORT ON THE found to be a correct method of treatment answers best, and it is better to leave doubtful experiments to their originators until they are proven. The worst of it is that wonder-workers are never tired of getting others to injure their plants by trying their schemes, and hence much mischief occurs. For my part I have generally found that the extreme practices, which we hear of from time to time, in the end only go to prove the extraordinary tenacity of life in Orchids, and their adaptability to the different kinds of treatment they must necessarily receive at different hands. SHADING AND HkatTING. Next comes the shading and heating of the Orchid house. With respect to the shading, I am convinced that all Orchids should be shaded against the direct rays of the sun, and that the shading should, where possible, be varied in thickness according to the plants contained in the house. Some of those very thin materials we see exhibited, when strengthened with webbing, do admirably for lelias and other Mexican and Brazilian plants ; the medium textures for cattleyas, and the thickest for cypri- pediums, masdevallias, and all cold-house plants, all East Indian Orchids, and all terrestial Orchids, such as Calanthe veratrifolia, Phajus Wallichii, &&. These grow in dense jungles, and bright sunlight dwarfs them and altogether spoils them. I saw a remarkable instance of this recently in a garden where a Calanthe veratrifolia had been kept in a sunny house for years, and had always been a miserable and stunted object. At length it was placed out of the way on the centre bed, and underneath the tall plants, which effectually hid it from view. In a very short time it became a robust, free-flowering plant. I have seen many similar cases where excessive sunlight under glass has had much the same effect as excessive coid would have done. I therefore assert that. although most Orchids require a clear light, yet when grown under glass all of them should be sheltered from the unbroken rays of the sun from the time it gets the power to injure until its power wanes. For Orchids in flower a thick shading is absolutely necessary, as the flowers last twice as long shaded, and draw on the strength of the plants much less than they do when exposed to the sun. As regards the heating of Orchid houses, I early found that it was necessary to have some plan, and to adhere to it, checking it by the ORCHID CONFERENCE. 59 thermometer. I therefore compiled the following scale for the whole year :— TasBLeE oF TEMPERATURES FOR Orcuip Houses. = WarM HOUSE. CATTLEYA,OR | CooL, OR MOoNnrTHSs. INTERMEDIATE | ODONTOGLOSSUM East INDIAN. HOUSE. i] HOUSE. Day. | | Night. | | Day. | Night. || Day. Night. | Degrees. | Degs. || Degrees. | Degs. | Degrees. | Degs. January ........ | 65—70 | 60 | 60-65 | 55 | 50-55 | 45 February ...... || 65—70 | 60 60—65 55 | = 50—55 45 Martlis ec shee | 65—70 | 60 | 60—65 55 || 55—60'| 50 April. ca wae | 65—70 | 60 || 60-65 | 55 | 55—60 | 50 May wc Spear on 70—T75 65 65—70 60 60—65 55 June Vi eetesese 75—80 70 70—T5 65 60—65 55 July... Sahat a 75—85 70 70—80 65 || 60—70 55 AUSUSE Sega las 75—85 70 70—80 65 | 60—70 55 September ...... 75—80 70 70—75 65 || 60—65 55 October 2-33.00 | TO—T5 65 65—70 60 | 60—65 55 November ...... | 65—T70 60 60—65 55 55—60 50 December ...... | 65—70 60 60—65 55 | 50—55 | 45 Degrees Fahrenheit. The higher day temperature to be attained by Sun-heat when possible. This scale cannot, of course, be followed to the letter, neither is it necessary that it should be; it: is intended rather to give a basis on which to operate, to enforce a strict guard over the regulation of the heating, and to the preserving of that lower night temperature which is of such vital consequence to the plants, and which should in all cases be insured by night ventila- tion and by every other means at command. In summer the prescribed temperature will often be exceeded, but it hardly matters by how much if the extra rise is due to sun-heat, and the houses in which the plants are are properly shaded and kept moist. ARRANGEMENT OF THE PLANTS. And now the manner of the arrangement of the plants in the houses demands attention, as I am bound to confess that in all ages of Orchid culture, even down to this day, a great mortality has always prevailed among small growing plants. This arises, probably, in many cases, from excessive heat and too little air, but in by far the greater number of cases by the lesser plants being made to occupy the front portions of the graduated stages, thus reversing the proper order of things, and placing the strong 60 REPORT ON THE plants near the glass and the weak and dwarf ones the farthest from it. From this cause I am sure the periodical scarcity of the ionopsis, trichocentrums, comparettias, barkerias, and such like frail things may, in a great measure, be attributed to the distance they are grown from the glass. Indeed, it is of the highest importance that in general practice some attempt should be made to arrange the plants with relation to the distance from the glass of the roof according to their height and general growth. Hence, the very smallest should always be grown on blocks, rafts, or in baskets or shallow pans, and the others arranged according to their heights, as nearly as the necessity for occupying all the staging will permit. Allowing 1 ft. from the glass as the safety line, a good rough rule may be laid down that every small or medium-sized true epiphytal Orchid will do best if brought to within its own height of that line ; thus, if a plant is 12 ins. high it should be brought — to within 2 ft. of the glass of the roof; if 1 ft. 6 ins. to 2 ft. 6 ins., and so on until the larger and stronger growing kinds, which will do in any position, are reached. | The rule should be approached as nearly as possible with small things, but with large ones a distance of 3 ft. from the glass is a convenient and good one. Of course, this rule, like every other in such an elastic matter as Orchid culture, cannot be adhered to in all cases, but if steadily kept in mind and followed where practicable, it will be found of the greatest service in pre- serving the delicate subjects. Cypripediums, masdevallias, cool- house Orchids generally, and terrestrial Orchids, although requiring some consideration in the same way, are not included in those which it is absolutely necessary to arrange after some modification of the before-mentioned plan. I may also add that fumigation, which is so injurious to many Orchids, claims many victims from the small growers, and it is best for each grower to find some safe liquid insecticide than to resort to fumigating at all. And now after I have endeavoured to gain converts by showing that Orchid culture is a pleasant occupation to those who possess some skill and much diligence, and who are willing to observe nature and follow her dictates in the culture of their plants, demanding of them only twelve months’ work in a year, exercising their judgment in all cases to the best of their ability, and maintaining the most scrupulous cleanliness in houses, t .~. a> ed i ORCHID CONFERENCE. 61 plants, and everything around their plants, let me finish with a few observations as to the cost of the plants. Tue Cost or Orcuips. On this head it may safely be said that never were good showy Orchids to be obtained at more convenient prices, and that the present regulation of supply and demand, while pre- senting to the wealthy collector rare plants for which he must pay well, at the same time offer to him who finds a congenial pastime in tending his one or two little houses of Orchids, plenty of beautiful things as well within the reach of his purse as any ordinary plant would be. Indeed, good things are cheaper now than ever they were, and with the exception of a few very high prices, those realized now-a-days are not the outcome of a new Orchid craze, as a comparison with former prices will prove. Rare things, according to the esteem in which they are held in their day, have always commanded good prices. In March, 1846, at a sale of Guatemalan Orchids at Stevens’s, Celia macrostachya realized £10 to £12 10s.; Barkeria spectabilis, £5 to £17 each; FEpidendrum Stamfordianum, 5 guineas; Lelia superbiens, £18 to £15; Mormodes and Epidendrums, 5 to 10 guineas each, and Arpophyllums, £10 to £15 each ; the 168 lots realizing £600. In 1845, D. aqueum fetched £10 a plant, and later on D. formosum 15 guineas, other dendrobes, £10 to £12 each; Oncidium macranthum, £5 to £8 each. In 1847, the imported plants of Vanda Lowii fetched from £10 to £25 each ; Aerides maculosum, £20; A. crispum, £21; A. odoratum, £16, and others equally high prices; Mrs. Lawrence, the Earl of Derby, Mr. Rucker, and Mr. Schroder being the principal buyers. Notes taken at the same period also tell us that errors of description were more frequent in former times than in ours. Ansellia Africana is described as having immense sprays of hand- some flowers each as large as a tulip, and in another case the auctioneer is entrusted with the sale of a bright scarlet vanda! It will, therefore, be seen that ever since Orchids were introduced they could command prices according to their beauty or rarity, and so no doubt it will continue to be. Let us hope that the now great facilities for obtainimg handsome things, formerly very expensive, may, with the aid of the display of their beauties at this Conference, induce many new growers to 62 REPORT ON THE commence, each according to his means, for out of such ranks our great Orchid growers of the future will be recruited. At the conclusion of Mr. O’Brien’s paper the Chair was taken by Professor Michael Foster, in the place of the President, who was called away. On the motion of the Chairman a hearty vote of thanks was accorded to Mr. O’Brien, and shortly afterwards the Conference adjourned for an hour for luncheon. On reassembling Mr. W. Lee took the Chair. The next subject on the paper for discussion was Orcutp NoMENcLATURE. Mr. Harvey, in opening a discussion on this subject, said : I feel very great diffidence, in the presence of men who know so much more than I do about Orchids, in alluding to the subject. My excuse, however, must be that I feel very strongly on the question of nomenclature. The great difficulty we have to meet with to-day is the absence of Professor Reichenbach, without whom I am afraid we cannot do much in this matter. I think that, as we have had a Conference on the nomenclature of daffodils, we ought to have one on the nomenclature of Orchids; and, indeed, it is especially required. Now, although I do not suppose that it is in the power of the present Conference to decide that the Orchid Conference Committee shall be a permanent institution, I suppose the Council of the Royal Horticultural Society could do so, and what I would venture humbly to suggest is this, that the latter body should be asked to accept the recommendation of this Conference, that the Committee should be appointed per- manently. I feel sure that nothing can be done in the matter of nomenclature without Professor Reichenbach, and therefore the mode in which we ought to act seems to me to be that we should ask the Society, on the recommendation of this meeting, to make the Orchid Conference Committee permanent,and that we should take steps to secure the presence of Professor Reichenbach at a tuture date, and then go into the question in a systematic and scientific manner. (Hear, hear.) I think I know some things which perhaps I ought not to mention, but I believe Professor Reichenbach’s attendance might be secured if we took the right mode of doing it. Unfortunately, the learned gentleman’s health is not very good, but I think he would come, and, in fact, I have had a letter from him saying that he would be present to-day. The Cuatrman: The question of nomenclature of Orchids is a very extensive one, and is one which, I think, cannot be ORCHID CONFERENCE. 638 properly dealt with on the present occasion. When the Com- mittee put this question down on the paper for consideration to-day, it was hoped and expected that Professor Reichenbach would carry out his promise to come to the Conference, and we had intended to refer the whole of this question to that gentle- man, and to get him to give us a paper on the subject, as we want a little direction in that way. If the question of the nomenclature of daffodils was of importance, surely the question of the nomenclature of Orchids is of much more importance. At present we are rather at sea about the nomenclature of Orchids, as we have only just a few names which have been given to us by Professor Reichenbach, and we want a more extended and general consolidation of this question. I am, therefore, afraid that it cannot be discussed on this occasion. The question might be referred, in the manner Mr. Harvey has suggested, to the Orchid Conference Committee, before they quite close their labours, and they would certainly bring the question forward and not lose sight of it. More than that I do not think we can do to-day, but of course we shall be happy to hear any remarks on the question, if any gentleman has anything to say. Mr. Lyncu observed that it was of course ncsessary in the first place to ascertain all that could be learncd about every individual plant, and then they might be compared in series ‘which should be as complete as it was possible to get them. This would, he thought, give the best results scientifically and horticulturally. This system had been applied to the Iris family, and as there appeared to be something in common between the Iris and the Orchid, it would perhaps be possible to take the Iris example and apply it to the classification of Orchids. Mr. O’Brien said he had only to observe that if they were to defer the matter of nomenclature until they could secure Professor Reichenbach’s attendance, they ought not to go too far in it at present. For his own part he was prepared to make a few observations on the subject, but on the lines they had now laid down he thought it better to defer them. Mr. Bursince remarked that in his mind there was nothing whatever to prevent the Orchid Conference Committee from discussing the matter among themselves, though perhaps they could not do so in public. It was then agreed that the question should be deferred to a future date. 64 REPORT ON THE Tue Use or Manure iw Orcurp Growine. Tue Cuarrman: I have just had laid before me the question of—what shall I say?—the question of the use of manure in the cultivation of Orchids. Now all manures are composed more or less of substances of an aciduous nature, but I have had one kind of manure brought to my notice which is quite free from acid of any kind. It is the fish manure of Messrs. Jensen and Co., of which firm Mr. Alfred Borwick, who is a member of our Society, and who I hope is here to-day, is one of the proprietors. I should like to call upon Mr. Borwick, if here, to tell ussomething of the experience he has had in the cultivation of Orchids with this particular kind of manure. Mr. Atrrep Borwick then rose and said: I have some difficulty in complying with the request of the Chairman in this matter, because the idea of anything like manuring Orchids is horrible to most Orchid growers. It has often been a source of regret to me to see so many Orchids dwindle, if not possibly pass out of existence, after they have heavily flowered, not from any want of care or devotion, for that is generally in excess of the demand, but apparently from a deficiency of strength, or in other words a species of starvation. I am led to think this must be the case from information conveyed by travellers and collectors, that birds throng the trees upon which Orchids are found, and that they supply in their dung a rich diet, containing, as it does, ammonia, phosphoric acid, and some potash, which is washed by the rains and dews into the interstices of the trunks, so that the plants not only enjoy the advantage offered by residence on living trees, but the stimulant and food provided by the birds. Terrestrial Orchids in the same way have the benefit of decaying vegetation, which supplies stores of ammonia. As soon as plants come into house cultivation, there is at once an end to these rich manurial provisions, and they have to depend upon moss, peat, charcoal and crocks, with possibly occasional charges of liquid manure, for their subsistence. In all the soils and ingredients used for potting Orchids there is little trace of potash or other manurial con- stituent, and nothing goes to promote the development of fibre in plants like potash. The aim is to produce bulbs of largest size and firmest growth, but that is impossible unless there are healthy roots in abundance, and these roots can obtain a sufficient amount of nourishment to supply the fibres, of which the bulbs ORCHID CONFERENCE. ; 65 mainly consist. The manure which I have used for some time is that of Messrs. J. Jensen and Co., 10, St. Helen’s Place, E.C., who are engaged in the manufacture of fish manure at the Loffoden Islands, the seat of the great Norwegian cod fisheries. When I tell you that this year no fewer than 32,000,000 of large fish were caught, you can form some slight idea of the magnitude of the fisheries. The fish are gutted, the bodies salted for food, the livers go to make oil, while the heads and backs are available for manure. They are dried, pulverised, and reach England in the form and condition of flour. The average manurial constituents of dried cod-fish are 10°60 ammonia, and 30 phosphates. Grand as these ingredients are in themselves, they are wanting in one thing, namely, potash. If this is absent, it is impossible to obtain perfect fertilization ; wherever it is present in due degree, the effect is astonishing in the vigour and rigidity of plant growth. Refined salts of potash and magnesia are added to the fish manure, and at once produce a perfect fertilizer of similar constitution to bird dung, and containing the essential constituents of ammonia, phosphoric acid, and potash, in the form most available for plants. In this manure there is no acid used ; fishbone is very gelatinous and when sufficiently pulverised dissolves in the soil, so none is needed. Seeing, asI did, the effect.of this combination on all pot plants, it struck me that Orchids might like it also. Last August I began to experimentalize upon a plant of Cymbidium Lowtt, and requested my gardener to put half-an-ounce on the soil. We soon observed a darker colour in the foliage; in four or five weeks two strong growths appeared, which proved to be flower spikes; as they grew more fish potash was added from time to time. Since then there are five breaks, four of them of strength sufficient to content anyone. I then ordered its use for all terrestrial orchids, Lycastes, Calanthes, Sophronites, Phaius, Zygopetalums, Odontoglossums, Masdevallias, Dendrobiums, and even for Oncidiums and Leelias. So far, vigour seems to be on the ascendant, and I see no reason whatever to retire from the line taken up or to alter my views. The plan of operations is simple. My gardener uses more peat round the sides of the pots, and he merely dusts the peat with a pinch of the manure, and wherever the fish potash is, there the roots work. Mr. Wm. Bull told me a fortnight ago that it was a vexed question as to what extent manures could be used for the cultivation of Orchids, and one which demanded the consideration of growers. The manure E 66 REPORT ON THE to which I have alluded is very easily obtained and applied. I would not recommend anyone to make trials, except on plants of little value, and then no harm can be done. If it is found serviceable in the way indicated, there will then be time',to consider a wider application. (Applause). The Cuarrman: I do not Inow whether any cultivators of Orchids here have ever ventured to try any manure on their plants. I have never heard of its being done, but if any gentle- man here has made the experiment we shall be very glad to hear what he has to say. ) Mr. Harvey: I did once try an experiment with manure on a Cymbidium Lowii, but I very nearly killed it. Mr. James: For some years past we have been in the habit of using pure horse urine, after it had been diluted, on many Orchids, and we have always found that, when used, it has proved: very beneficial, especially in the growing season. We are using “it largely for damping the stages and paths at night, when a heavy dew quickly arises. I think, if we take into consideration what Mr. Borwick has already hinted at, the fact that plants invariably suffer extremely after carrying their heavy spikes, it seems to impress one with the thought that there is some necessity for sustaining the strength. The question has been raised of late years as to whether Orchids benefit by having their spikes removed after they are formed. I have no doubt in my own mind that it is a marvellous advantage if you want to gain strength in the plants. I have an instance of the Odontoglossum Alexandre. Two years ago we took very special care of it as being an extra good one. Somehow a small slug got into it and eat the spike out and it at once began to make two bulbs, but most unfortunately the spikes got eaten out of the two bulbs. The result has been that this year it has made a double growth from each bulb, and. now it has four heads to the plant, and, marvellous to say, it has sent up nine spikes to the flower, an instance which I have not seen before in an Alexandre. One bulb has three spikes on the side of the double leaf. I take it for granted that this must be merely a question of strength from raising the plant, which was a moderately strong one. Further, I think, that as regards the question of some kind of nutriment, it is not so much a question of what kind is applied, but rather of how it is applied. If you drench the flowers with pure horse urine diluted and use it in watering, ORCHID CONFERENCE. 67 it benefits the plant, because from tbe constant moisture going up in the growing season, the plant must take in the ammonia which is constantly rising. With reference to syringing, I do not think that all our friends would have agreed with Mr. O’Brien in never using the syringe, and I think that statement would require qualification. We have always used weak liquid manure on the surface of the plants, and a moderately good practical rule is not to use it strong enough to injure the flower. I do contend that the syringe is beneficial in the growing season, especially when the nights are genial and there are no frosts. I think that manure is quite beneficial, and I have satisfied myself on the matter with reference to the many different things we have used. The difficulty which many meet with in using artificial manures, and which I myself have met with, is that of beginning by applying it too strong. Whenever people begin to use it they begin with it too strong. If they would only use it weaker and then proceed to ascertain for themselves the plants that will take the strongest kind, they will not have so many failures. Mr. Burzsinee: In connection with what Mr. James has said as to cutting off the spikes of Orchids, I have no doubt that must be of the greatest assistance to the plant. Twelve or fifteen years ago the finest plants in England were those in the collec- tion of Mr. KE. Salt, at Ferniehurst. I never saw plants which grew so well, and all their growth was owing to the spikes being cut off. Mr. Salt had a delicate wife who could not go into the Orchid house, and the consequence was that Mr. Salt cut the spikes at once, even before the last flower on the spikes had expanded ; and I believe that it was owing to that that they were the finest specimens I ever saw. The question of manure for Orchids is a very delicate question. Mr. James tells us we must not use the manure too strong, I think the best point in Mr. Borwick’s paper was, when he told us to use the manure on our common plants. I am very anxious to put the point in this way, because if young growers begin to use manure without having some proportion given to them, some absolutely exact data as to cases in which manure has been successfully used, they will simply be playing with fire. I am very anxious to put these points before the meeting, because I have often seen these plants so badly injured by an indiscriminate use of manure, E 2 68 REPORT ON THE Mr. James: I contend that the flowers draw up their nutri- ment from the dew of the house in a very much larger measure than from anything in the peat; and I say again, that if the manure is not too strong it is beneficial to the plant. I do not think for a moment that any young grower would be so stupid as to water any plant with liquid manure. There is just now springing up an idea that young men are the right men to conduct the affairs of the world, both in gardening and in every- thing else. Perhaps old men are not always wise, yet I do think that if young men do begin to water Orchids with liquid manure they will do a very stupid thing. At any rate, I think it would be a wise method to practice first of all on those plants you care the least about in regard to value. Mr. Drurrr: I simply wish to say that I consider the use of manures to be distinctly beneficial to terrestrial Orchids. Mr. Hearn (Cheltenham): The question of watering Orchids “with manure is a most difficult one, and one that will have to be argued out by practical people. There is no doubt that Orchids are watered by a great many growers with manure, but | they generally like to keep their secret to themselves. As regards Orchid manuring we have not used it over the tops of the pots, — but we have used on several occasions cow manure, sheep manure, and horse manure, and we also tried the three together with a small addition of soot. We found the plants were very ~ vigorous for a year or two, but after that we were bound to wash the entire plants out, for we found they got rather a yellow hue. Since that time we potted them, and instead of watering them overhead we have thrown down in the house manures, in the way of nitrate of soda and sulphate of ammonia, and after a week or so we found the plants became of a most brilliant dark green colour. The only thing we find is, that all the different classes of deadrobia and cypripedia will take a large quantity of liquid manure of any sort; but tender roots do not take so large an amount of manure of the same strong kind. We have tried this plan now for six years. The Carman: Most of the remarks which gentlemen have made on this subject do not appear to have been upon the identical question which I introduced, that is, the direct appli- cation of this powder of fishbone, which is not treated with acid, as is usual with most manures. But this manure, I am informed, is absolutely free from all aciduous matter, and ORCHID GONFERENGE. | 69 therefore it suggests itself to my mind as a perfectly novel manure ; and although we are perfectly well acquainted with all the methods of getting atmospheric manures, still we are not so well acquainted with the direct application of this powder to the roots. It was for this reason that I introduced the ques- tion, and having introduced it and heard the various remarks that have been made, we will now leave it. Dr. Masters: It appears to me from what has been said on this subject, that we have to deal with general principles. In the first place, we do not know the chemical composition of any part of the leaf or of the flower, and until we know that, we cannot have any definite rule as to the right manure to apply or when to apply it; but we may certainly say without any fear of contradiction, that all plants, Orchids not excepted, want manure, and are the better for it, at a certain time. The thing to know is, what is the right food to give, and what is the proper time to give it. The proper food to be given them at one time is that which will make bulb and leaf, and which at another time will enable them to form flower and seed. Now, as to the structure of Orchids, I may perhaps be more at home. ‘The structure is extraordinarily diversified. The internal structure of leaves, flowers, and roots, even in the same genus, is widely different, but I cannot believe that the appropriate food must be -equally different. That we have got to find out in the future. More especially I would call attention to the roots of these flowers. There is nothing in nature like the root of an Orchid. Instead of turning down into water like most other roots, the Orchid root almost invariably turns up from it; therefore, if you dip these roots into liquid manure, I think you will be quite certain to injure them, as they undoubtedly absorb most of their food through atmospheric agency. Mr. Borwicx: I would not use the ordinary bone manure, because it is so hard by nature that acid is required to make it mix with the ground. But the manure of which I have spoken mixes easily with the ground without any acid at all. Mr. James: Are we to understand that this Orchid Conference — will continue yearly? If so, I may suggest that on a future occasion we might exhibit plants that have been put to the various processes mentioned. In following up what Dr. Masters has said, I think it is proved to demonstration that the whole nutriment is taken in by the plant in the way he has suggested. 70 REPORT ON THE ORCHID CONFERENCE. It seems to me that everything points in the direction that the whole of the nutriment which the plant draws in, whatever it is, is taken through the air, upon which the plant subsists. Should we continue this meeting at a future time, I think it would be worth while for any members who may have special subjects to bring before the meeting to treat them in their own way. The Caiman, after a hearty vote of thanks had been awarded to Mr. Borwick for his remarks on the question of manures, said: I cannot give any promise that this meeting will be con- tinued, because we have hardly got so far as that. When we first took up this idea of an Orchid Conference, we did so with considerable trepidation, because we had not only to consider the time of the year when people would be in London, but also the season when plants could be moved without being injured. Of course, if we want to have the best possible show, we ought to have it very much earlier; but then we have to consider ‘about people being in London, and the question of visitors, and other matters connected with it. It must be remembered that this Conference brings no grist to the mill of the Horticultural Society in any way. We do not take any money at the door, but it is all done out of the pure love of Orchid growing. (Hear, hear.) I should say, speaking my own mind and feeling on the subject, that this Orchid Conference should continue. It has, I think, been a great success, everybody seems to have been exceedingly well pleased and satisfied, and I must say a great deal more interest has been taken in the subject than I ever expected to see. I was especially glad to see so many gentlemen come back after the adjournment for lunch. It now only remains for me to thank you all for your very kind attendance and for . the very patient way in which you have listened to the remarks that have been made. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Hotsroox Gasket, of Liverpool, then said: I strongly hope that the Council of the Horticultural Society will see their way to make this an annual Conference. I am quite sure that the oftener it is held the more largely it will be attended. I would wish now to propose that the thanks of the meeting be accorded to those gentlemen, especially to two of them—Sir Trevor Lawrence and Mr. Lee—who have taken such a vast deal of trouble for our entertainment. This motion having been carried with acclamation, the Chair- man announced that there would be a Primula Conference next year, and the proceedings were brought to a close. ee oe a a REPORTS ON THE PLANTS EXHIBITED. L. HORTICULTURAL, BY F.-W. BURBIDGH, F.L.5., CURATOR TRINITY COLLEGE BOTANICAL GARDENS, DUBLIN; FORMERLY OF THE ROYAL GARDENS, KEW; MEMBER OF THE ‘SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ”’ OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. i BOTANICAL, BY Pieces LOY, MAS FP L.8., BOTANICAL DEPARTMENT, BRITISH MUSEUM} ETC., ETC. REPORT ON THE PLANTS EXHIBITED. .. HORTICULTURAL. INTRODUCTORY. Orcnips are so extremely popular to-day that the holding of a special Conference on these plants by the Royal Horticultural ‘Society, in May last, seemed quite natural, seeing that they to some extent represent the horticultural respectability of many nineteenth century gardens. That the exhibition was very successful goes without the saying, and visitors had indeed a good opportunity of forming for themselves very vivid impres- sions as to the beauty and variability of these interesting plants. For the benefit of those, however, who were not able to attend, our report is both critical and explanatory. One of the first points which strikes one in connection with the late Conference is the fact that in the main professional botanists were conspicuous by their absence, so that the burden of management fell almost entirely on the shoulders of amateur . and trade growers, aided of course to the utmost by the officers of the Royal Horticultural Society. That the absence of Professor Reichenbach and others was, in a way, very unfor- tunate is generally acknowledged, and in what manner I hope to show in this report under another head. Perhaps it is best that the Orchid Conference and its results may after 74 REPORT ON THE all be considered as a successful beginning of the Orchid question, rather than in any sense final and absolute. At the same time, were we to compare this meeting with those held in connection with (1) Apples, and (2) Daffodils, it would not be quite fair, seeing that in the case of Apples one thousand five hundred and forty-five varieties of one species (Pyrus malus) only were under consideration, and in the second only a solitary genus (Narcissus) of about twenty species, and, say, five or six hundred varieties and forms was discussed. On the other hand, when we consider that in the natural order of Orchids we have at least three hundred and thirty-four genera, comprising, according to various computations, from six to ten thousand species, the vast difference between the wider scope of our present Conference and former ones becomes strikingly apparent. Even when we grant that we have only about one thousand five hundred or two thousand species and varieties of Orchids in cultivation, and for a moment remember that some. or other of these entirely fill up a whole year by their flowering, it becomes at once apparent that no one Conference or exhibi- tion can include more than a portion of that number. As a matter of fact, only fifty-seven genera of Orchids were repre- sented on this occasion by about three hundred and fifty species and varieties. We thus see at a glance what a mere fringe of the subject was touched upon after all, albeit that the finest of all the seasonable kinds were exhibited. Besides all this, one must not fail to point out the fact that the great trade collections were but poorly represented, owing to the principal nurserymen having semi-public .exhibitions of their own on view at the same time. It is when we look at the late Conference in this light that its real importance is seen, notwith- standing that its necessarily limited representative or seasonable character becomes also more fully apparent. It is, however, much to be desired that a meeting so successful and instructive should be followed by other Orchid meetings of a similar calibre from time to time. It is almost needless to say that our climate renders the exhibition of tropical Orchids nearly impossible, except during the warmest months of the year; but if a permanent Orchid Committee were appointed, much good work might be done by its members, even at the ordinary flower shows and meetings of the Royal Horticultural Society. ORCHID CONFERENCE. 75 Descriptive AND AnatyticaL List or GENERA, SPECIES, VARIETIES, AND Hysrips SHown. The genera exhibited at the Conference numbered 57 in all, the total number of species and varieties being 348. The proportions stand as follows :—Odontoglossum 66, Masdevallia 48, Cypripedium 40, Dendrobium 34, Cattleya 27, Oncidium 19, and Leelia 11. The following is a descriptive enumeration, in alphabetical order, of the genera, species and varieties exhibited :— Actneta.—A. Humboldtii is a species from Colombia, of Stanhopea-like habit. Flowers fleshy or wax-like, yellow spotted with brown; odorous. Also known as A. superba, and as Peristeria Humboldtii. _ Apa.—A. aurantiaca is an evergreen species, nearly allied to Brassia, from Colombia, bearing erect nodding spikes of vermilion-coloured flowers. The generic name is commemorative of the Golden God of the Assyrians. Aiiripes.—F ive species and varieties were shown. A. Ballan- tinei, a showy kind; A. Fieldingii,’ or ‘ the Foxbrush,” “ Air Plant;” A. Houlletianum; A. quinquevulnerum, the cinque spotted; and A. Veitchu. Anevutoa.—Three kinds were shown, viz., A. Clowesii, with yellow flowers like deformed tulips; A. Turneri; and A. uniflora maculata, a purple spotted variety from Peru.. A. Clowesii, commemorates the late Rev. John Clowes, who bequeathed his collection of Orchids to Kew. Bortxuea (Huntleya).—Two species only were shown, both natives of Colombia, viz., B. Lalindei and B. Patini. Brassta.—Only one species, viz., B. cinnamomea (B. Keiliana = B. glumacea) was shown. It is a native of Merida (? Venezuela), with greenish-yellow flowers. 3 BuisorpHyttum.—Three species were shown, viz., B. Dearei, of dwarf habit, with yellow-brown lined flowers; B. Lobbu, a smaller-flowered species of similar colour; and B. Siamense. All are of Eastern origin. To this genus B. (Megaclinium) vee os —— - 76 REPORT ON THE oxypterum, an African species, is added by some authors. It is of botanical interest only. Native of West Africa. Buruinetonta.—Only one species, viz., B. fragrans, from Brazil, was shown. It has recurved or drooping spikes of fragrant white flowers, and is very ornamental when well grown. CaLanTHE.—Two evergreen kinds, viz., C. Domini (the first hybrid Orchid), with erect spikes of purplish flowers and the Javanese C. veratrifolia, were shown. The latter has pure white blossoms. The pseudo-bulbous or deciduous section of this genus was represented by C. vestita igneo oculata, having white red-eyed flowers, from Moulmein; also the variety gigantea, with stouter spikes and larger blossoms; and Sanderiana, a novel Introduction. Camarotis.—An old species, C. purpurea, used formerly to be a favourite exhibition plant, specimens having been shown at the Chiswick Flower Shows bearing over a hundred spikes of its bright rose-purple flowers. CyprireDIum.—Forty species and varieties of these interesting Lady’s Slipper Orchids were shown, about twelve of them being garden hybrids raised by Messrs. Veitch and others. The most interesting were C. Godefroye, a novelty, from Cochin China; C. argus, a richly spotted kind from the Philippines, C. barbatum in variety; C. caudatum, from Peru, with petals over two feet in length, and a great octopus pouch-like lip. C. Harrissianum was of interest, as being the first hybrid raised in the genus, and as having been named in compliment to Dr. Harris, of Exeter, who suggested to Mr. Dominy the idea of cross-fertilising Orchids. C. Stonei, from Borneo, and its valuable ribbon-petalled variety, C. Stonei platytenium, were well repre- sented, single plants of the last-named being valued at from £80 to £140 each. C. levigatum is interesting as having been found growing on the roots of Vanda Batemanii in the Philippine Isles. ©. Lawrencianum, found in North Borneo, is a handsome species, larger than C. barbatum, and named in compliment to Sir T. Lawrence, Bart. The other forms shown were C. albo purpureum, barbatum tis , eee —— is * ORCHID CONFERENCE. , 77 grandiflorum, biflorum, Bulleni, calurum, concolor, niveum, ciliolare, Dayanum, Druryii, grande, Haynaldianum, Hooker, Lowii, marmorophyllum, wmicrochilum, Parishu, Pearcei, Roezlli, Schlimmii, Sedeni candidibulum, Selligerum, do majus, superciliare, Swannianum, tessellatum porphyreum, villosum, vireus, vernixum, Wallisu, and Warneri. Highty-four plants in all were shown. Denprosium.—Thirty-four species and varieties were re- presented, nearly all being Indian kinds. The most remarkable were D. Brymerianum, with glossy, gold-coloured flowers, the lip being deeply fringed; D. Harveyanum, of similar character, but having deeply-fringed petals; D. crassinode album, a white- blossomed variety of a well-known showy species ; D. albo san- ouineum, a rare kind, with large buff, purple or claret-blotched flowers. Amongst the most showy were D. Falconeri, D. Ward- ianum, D. fimbriatum, D. Dalhousieanum, D. thrysiflorum, D. macrophyllum, and D. Cambridgeanum, all well-known kinds. The black-haired section (nigro hirsute) were represented by D. infundibulum, D. Jamesianum, D. cariniferum, and D. cruentum, the remainder being D. Bensonie, D. chrysotoxum, D. clavatum, D. densiforum, D. Devonianum, D. fimbriatum, D. Jenkinsi. a curious little creeping species, D. Paxtoni, D. Pierardi, D. primulinium, D. pulchellum, D. rhodostoma, D. Smillie, D. rhodopterygium, D. tetragonium, and one or two others. Sixty- seven plants in all were exhibited. Denprocuitium.—D. filiforme was the only species shown, and is the very epitome of neatness and gracefulness amongst these charming flowers. The racemes of golden-green blossoms resemble the most dainty filagree work, and droop from among the deep green grass-like foliage in the most elegant manner. Philippines. Diacrum.—A very fine and well-cultivated specimen came from Kew, bearing fine stout spikes of its pure white purple- . dotted flowers. Itis commonly known as Epidendrum bicornutum, and is, together with one or two Schomburghias, remarkable amongst Orchids in having hollow or cow’s-horn-like pseudo-bulbs, both alike forming shelter for various species of tropical ants. D. bicornutum is a native of Trinidad, where it has been found clinging to rocks quite near to high-water mark, and within reach of the salt spray. 78 REPORT ON THE Disa.—Two well-grown specimens of Disa grandiflora (the “Flower of the Gods ”) were shown, neither being in bloom. It is the most showy of all terrestrial Orchids, and comes from the watercourses on Table Mountain, South Africa. EpipenprRuM.—Five species and varieties only were repre- sented. EH. ibaguense had reedy stems and lilac trusses of flower ; HE. Parkinsonianum, with channelled, fleshy, glaucus leaves, and large pure white flowers; KE. rhizophorum, another species of reed-like habit; E. vitellinium, and its variety E. vitellimnum majus, having glaucus-leaved pseudo-bulbs and branched spikes of pale orange-vermilion coloured blossoms. All are South American or West Indian. Erim.—An Indian genus (allied to Dendrobium), of which only one inconspicuous species, viz., E. excavata, was shown. Flowers whitish, in lateral clusters, issuing from a depression in the fleshy pseudo-bulbs. GaLEANDRA.—S. Devoniana alone was exhibited. It is a plant of grassy or reed-like habit, from the Rio Negro, and was named long ago by Lindley, in compliment to the late Duke of Devonshire, a patron of the Royal Horticultural Society, and one of the first of amateur Orchidists. The flowers are borne seven or eight together in terminal nodding spikes, and are whitish, veined with purple on the expanded involute lp. GRAMMATOPHYLLUM.—The plants of this genus are known popularly as the ‘‘ Letter Orchids,” and are from Malaysia and Madagascar. The plant exhibited appeared to be an undescribed species. HovunieT1a.—A small genus from Colombia. The species exhibited, H. odoratissima, bears numerous yellowish-purple marked flowers of exquisite fragrance, whence the specific name. Tonopsis.—A small genus of Brazilian or West Indian Orchids, extremely difficult of cultivation. One species grows in Jamaica on the twigs of hedges and trees in full sunshine, and the best success is obtained by bare-block culture in our hot- houses. The kind shown was I. utricularioides. Carrtzya.—A well-known genus of extremely showy South American plants, Twenty-seven varieties were shown, Mr, Lee’s ORCHID CONFERENCE. 79 plants, as also those shown by Mr. F. Sander, being in excellent condition. The most interesting were varieties of C. Mendelli, C. Mossie, and C. Wagneriana. C. Blunti was also very attractive, and some plants of C. citrma were much admired. This last- named species is quite anomalous in the group, resembling Epidendrum vitellinum in general appearance, but having the peculiar habit of growing head downwards ; it also prefers a bare board or block of wood to compost of any other kind. Thirteen varieties of C. Mendelli were shown by Mr. Sander and others, some forms being gorgeously coloured on the lip; C. gigas, C. labiata pallida, C. nobilior, C. Percivaliana, C. Skinneri, C. Triane, C. Warneri, and others, were well-grown. The gems of the whole group, however, were a couple of plants of C. Skinneri alba, one from Kew, and the other, of which mention has already been made, being from Mr. Sander’s collection. Cuysis.—Two species were shown, viz., C. bractescens, from Oaxaca, and C. Lemminghei, from Tobasco. The former has large, sweet-scented, ivory-white blossoms, the latter has smaller white flowers tipped with rosy purple blotches. Two hybrid kinds were also»shown. C. Chelsoni is the result of a cross, effected between C. aurea x C. bracteata. Another Veitchian hybrid, named C. Sedeni, was also represented. CrrHoPpeTALuM.—This genus now forms a distinct sub-section of the Eastern Bulbophyllums, and are so exquisitely beautiful when closely examined that one regrets the more their rarity in our modern collections. C. fimbriatum, the only species repre- sented, came from the Royal Gardens, Kew, and bore three- quarter whorls of purplish flowers on the apices of slender erect peduncles or scapes. Cat1a.—The only species of this genus shown was C. triptera, native of Jamaica and Cuba. It has several synonymes, such as C. Baueriana, C. glacialis, &e. It has erect spikes of rosy-coloured flowers. Catoeyne.—Of this well-known and highly popular Eastern genus eight species and varieties were exhibited. The white- flowered C. cristata, and its pale form, C. Lemoniana, were especially attractive. CC. elata, C. ocellata var. maxima, and C. ochracea, were also represented by well-grown plants ; but perhaps the most interesting were C, Parishii and C. pandurata, the so REPORT ON THE latter having a green perianth and a curiously warted black lip shaped like a fiddle, hence its specific name. It is common on low jungle trees in the forests of Borneo, the other species shown being of Indian origin. Corax.—C. Jugosus was represented by two examples, bearing wax-like flowers of an ivory whiteness, the petals and the trowel-shaped lip being richly barred and spotted with rich velvety purple markings. Nearly allied to the Maxillarias, and one of the most distinct and pleasing of its kind. Cyrmpipium.—The two species shown were C. Devonianum, from the Khasia Hills, and C. giganteum var. Lown, another Indian species, and a great favourite with collectors, as it blooms profusely, and its blossoms endure fresh for a period of ten or | twelve weeks after their buds expand. The colouring is peculiar and attractive, the perianth being of a warm greenish-yellow, the boat-shaped lip being white with the central portion painted with cinnabar. Kerrersternia.—A solitary species, K. graminea was shown an Orchid of considerable botanical interest, but not showy. Lz.1a.—Twelve species and varieties were shown, the most beautiful being the several varieties of L. elegans, and L. Schilleriana. lL. albida, whitish; L. autumnalis, rose-purple; L. bella, a rare and valuable variety already alluded to elsewhere ; L. cinnabarina, L. purpurea alba, L. labiata and L. elegans. Walstenholmiz were all staged in good condition. Leprotes.—L. bicolor was the only species represented. It is a dwarf epiphytal kind, with terete channelled foliage, and bears showy white-petalled flowers, the lip being stained with rose colour or purple. This plant is now referred to the genus Tetramicra, which see in accompanying list. LuppEManni1A.—A curious genus supposed to have a marked tendency towards a dwarfic habit. Its affinities are with Acineta or Peristeria. Lycaste.—Three species only were shown, viz., L. gigantea, a strong-growing kind having greenish blossoms, the fuscous lip being fringed with longish hairs. L. plana and L. Skinnerii — were also represented. ORCHID CONFERENCE. ; 81 Masprevatura.—This popular South American genus now numbers about one hundred species, of which nearly one-half, viz., forty-eight species and varieties, were shown on this occasion. The large and richly-coloured forms of M. Harryana were perhaps the most showy; there were also two fine forms of M. Veitchii, viz., gigantea and grandiflora. M. Shuttle- worthii was also very attractive, as also were the great spider-like flowers of M. chimere. Perhaps the rarest and most interesting plant in this group was a tiny specimen of the new M. race- mosa (= M. Crossii), bearing erect spikes of vivid scarlet flowers. These neat-habited plants divide the honours of what are known as ‘Cool Orchids” with the genus Odontoglossum, and like them often have especial greenhouses devoted to their culture. Among the rarer kinds we noted M. amabilis, M. Armini, M. Backhouseana, M. civilis, M. Gaireana, M. Houlteana, M. psittacina, M. tridactylites, M. trichete, M. trochilus, M. Wagneriana, and M. xanthina, all hearty and well grown. Maxitiuaria.—The most remarkable species in this group was the new M. Sanderiana, elsewhere alluded to in this report. M. luteo-alba, M. triangularis, M. Turneri, M. Harrisonu, and M. triangularis were also represented in good condition. Mesosprnip1um.—This genus, now more generally referred to Odontoglossum, was represented by M. sanguineum only, a bright rosy-flowered plant, not unlike the rare Odontoglossum roseum in general habit and colour of its flowers. Mereacuintum.—A small genus of African Orchids, interesting as being representative of the Eastern bulbophylls. The smail dark purple or brownish flowers are borne on a curious wavy- margined leaf-like spike. The plant exhibited came from Mr. RK. Lindsay, Curator of the Royal Botanical Gardens, Edinburgh. : OpontocLossum.—Of all the cool growing or temperate Orchids, those of this group are now the most in favour with amateur cultivators, and without a doubt O. Alexandre is to-day the most popular of all Orchidaceous plants whatever, it bemg grown literally by the million in this country. Among the sixty-six species and varieties shown at the Conference, the following seemed especially worthy of extended notice: Mr. J. T. Peacock sent a well-grown specimen of O. Wilckeanum, which may be F 82 REPORT ON THE best described as a pale-coloured form of O. luteo purpureum, having narrow yellow-fringed petals blotched with chocolate- brown markings. A plant marked O. hybrid (?) reminded one of O. Lindleyanum (= OQ. epidendroides) or of O. Wallisii, having a pale yellow starry perianth with blotches of a reddish- brown colour. In Mr. Peacock’s group I also noted O. Hallii, from the Lloa Valley; O. Hallii xanthoglossum, from Hcuador ; and typical O. luteo purpureum, from New Granada; these, together with the O. Wilckeanum above mentioned, forming a most interesting group, showing some of the most marked variations of a single species under different geographical conditions. O. hebraicum, also from Mr. Peacock, reminds one of O. nevium majus in habit of growth and inflorescence, but the flowers are larger, of a more creamy-yellow hue, the sepals being dotted with reddish-brown in a linear manner. It is quite possible that this plant represents O. nevium majus in the upland districts of Columbia, where it is found growing wild. O. Andersonianum is a well-known and one of the most beautiful forms or varieties of what we now call O. Alexandre (Bateman), but which the late Prof. Lindley had previously named O. crispum. It is rather singular that Lindley, in describing the colour of the flower, says that it is yellow, so, that either he was misled by the dried specimen which he had before him, or, as ° might be quite possible, he really had a yellow-flowered variety. _ When Weir and Blunt first found O. Alexandre, and sent home living plants, all the varieties were white, and the yellow varieties, or so-called hybrids, did not appear for some years after the first . introduction of this now popular species. O. Andersonianum may be taken as a typical yellow O. crispum, some of its forms being suffused with pink on pale cream-coloured grounds, the sepals and petals being more or less spotted with reddish-brown markings. It is a native of New Granada. O. Ruckerianum, another typical form of QO. crispum, is similar to O. Ander- sonianum, but the sepals and petals are copiously suffused with rosy-purple or lake colouring, their margins being whitish and elegantly crimped; but there can be no doubt but that these two forms are united by intermediates. O. Ruckerianum puncta- tissimum differs from the typical form in having a profusion of dots instead of weil-marked spots or blotches. Mr. Pollett’s form of O, Ruckerianum, a very beautiful one, fa na ele ed nd —- ill B+) bis ORCHID CONFERENCE. ; 88 was remarkable, inasmuch as the spots assumed a bar-like arrangement on the sepals. His O. Andersonianum superbum again had buff-coloured sepals and petals, suffused with pink and with dark red markings. O. Alexandre Bonnyana is a large, broad-petalled variety, white, with pink-flushed sepals and petals, the sepals only having one large cinnabar blotch situated at a point about two-thirds of their length from the ovary. O. polyxanthum came from several exhibitors, and at first sight looks like a paler, less heavily-blotched O.triumphans. Some, however, believe it to be of hybrid origin, and O. triumphans x O. maculatum or QO. nebulosum have been suggested as possibly its parents. O. triumphans is a native of Peru, how- ever, while O. nebulosum is from Mexico, as is also O. maculatum, so that I prefer here to consider O. polyxanthum as merely a geographical form of O. triumphans. The flowers really resemble typical O. triumphans in form and size, the bases of the peri- anth divisions being clear yellow, petals dotted or lined, the sepals only being heavily blotched with dark red brown; the cordate lip is crimson-brown, margined with creamy yellow. © This description is from Mr. Duke’s specimen. O. sceptrum reminds one of a short-perianthed form of O. luteo purpureum, having flowers only about half the size, colour yellow, blotched with brown, a native of Colombia. Mr. Lee showed a pale-flowered variety. Mr. Duke had a pale form of O. crispum, resembling O. hebraicum, but the flowers were less copiously spotted than is usually the case in that variety. Mr. Smee had a fine pink flowered O. Alexandre, of which the petals were profusely dotted in the centre, the sepals less so, the lip being pure white with a golden crest, its lower or apical por- tion being blotched with chocolate. O. Alexandre var. guttatum seems intermediate between O. Andersoniaum and O. hebraicum. Messrs. Sander, of St. Alban’s, had a fine series of O. crispum (yellow grounds) and O. Alexandre (white grounds), among which were many of the reputed hybrid forms. Both the yellow and the white forms varied much in breadth of perianth segments, and in depth, size, and variety of marking. In one variety the yellow colouring matter is emphasised, or focussed, as it were, in a rich golden lip-crest, while in another the red colouring comes out either as blushing perianth segments, or in the form of red spots or blotches. Looking at this bank of imported plants, it was at once apparent that the sooner we cease naming them in F 2 84 REPORT ON THE Latin the better. No two forms were alike, and those exhibited proved very conclusively that there is a sliding scale of varieties between even the most distinct and remarkable of the named kinds. It is convenient in gardens to have some ready means of distinguishing these beautiful forms, but it is quite clear that the varieties of Odontoglossum crispum are not more deserving of Latin varietal names than are the numerous wild forms of Anemone coronaria or Ranunculus asiaticus. Mr. Lee had some fine broad-petalled forms of QO. Alexandre, and a good plant of QO. crispum Jenningsianum, which reminds one of O. Ruckerianum. This plant was also represented in the Sanderian collection. QO. Alexandre var. Chestertonii, also from Mr. Lee, had white sepals and petals, the latter with heavy chocolate spots, the sepals being barred with the same colour. Mr. Brymer had a very showy variety of Q. Alexandre, with its sepals and petals suffused with rosy-lake, the column heavily blotched with dark chocolate brown. Perhaps, however, the gem of all the O. Alexandre group is O. Cooksoni, which has white crisp-edged sepals and petals of medium breadth, each ornamented with two or three bold blood-red blotches. The markings on the sepals are bar-like. This variety has been illustrated in the “* Orchid Album,” and is to QO. Alexandre what QO. Veitchianum is to 0. Pescatorei, than which no higher praise can to-day be given. In addition to those named above, the following species and varieties were shown: QO. coronarium miniatum, O. citrosmum and its variety album, O. Uro-Skinneri, O. Pescatorei, OQ. Phalenopsis, O. coradinei, O. odoratum, QO. hystrix, 0. bictoniense, O. maculatum, O. cristatum, and others. Oncrprum.—O. Marshallianum and O. macranthum were the most handsome of the kinds shown, but O. papilio ( = the ‘* Butter- fly Oncid” of Demerara) attracted much attention, as, also, did the great panicled inflorescence of QO. altissimum, O. sarcodes, O. sphacelatum, and the blotched and diadem-like O. serratum (=0. diadema). O. juncifolium is remarkable as belonging to the terete or onion-leaved section, which small group also comprehends the new O. Jonesianum, one of the most distinct and showy of new additions to this genus. Pantsra.-—Only one species, P. (Calogyne) uniflora, was shown, It is botameally interesting, but not showy, ORCHID CONFERENCE. 85 Pxscatorer.—A small genus of leafy evergreen orchids, nearly related, indeed now generally referred, to Zygopetalum. P. Lehmanni, the only species represented, has showy, purplish flowers, with a curiously ridged dise on the lip. Puatus.—Three species were shown, viz., P. maculatus, P. grandifolius var. Wallichii, and P. albus, the last-named being a deciduous-leaved plant, with elongated rod-like pseudo-bulbs, and now more generally called «‘ Thunia alba” in gardens. All are well-known garden plants. Puat#nopsis.—-These ‘* Moth Orchids,” as they are popularly called, comprise the very élite of the epiphytal Orchids, so far as beauty and graceful habit are concerned. Unfortunately, they are not easy to grow successfully many years together. Only four kinds were shown, viz., P. Parishu, a splendidly-grown plant from the Kew collection; P. Luddemannia, P. tetraspis, a rare novelty, with milk-white flowers; and, above all, the lovely rose- tinged variety of P. amabilis (the queen of Orchids), known as Sanderiana, a lovely plant from a little visited island of the Philippine Archipelago. Potystacuya.—A small genus of Orchids from the West Indian Islands, P. pubescens having erect spikes of yellowish flowers, the sepals being lined or streaked with purple. Kew. Pontnieva.—Terrestrial South American herbs near Neottia. P. maculata, the species represented, has spotted leaves. Renantuera.—-A showy genus of Eastern epiphytes, near Vanda. RR. coccinea, the species exhibited (not m bloom), comes from China, and bears large panicles of Indian red, yellow-barred flowers ; a remarkable plant, well grown at Chats- worth and elsewhere. Restreri.—A most interesting little group of plants. R. antennifera, the plant shown, having yellow flowers dotted with purple and long antenne-like petals. Saccotasrum.—Only two species of this showy genus were represented, viz., S. retusum and §. ampullaceum, neither remarkable as showing good culture. - s ~ 7 ne es | ass 4 2 1? ae . x ’ - ORCHID CONFERENCE. 137 324. Unorrera, Lindley. Two species, wild on the Khasia Hills, and resembling Saccolabium. 325. Vanda, R. Brown. Twenty species and numerous varieties, from India, Malayan Archipelago, and Tropical Australia. Vanda suavis and V. tricolor are well-known favourites, varying greatly. V. teres and V. Hookeri are lovely representatives of the terete-leaved group. V. San- deriana is one of the finest species. See Orchid Album, t. 15, 48, 59, 61, 73, 77, 124, 168, 172, 180; Bot. Mag., t. 2245, 3416, 4114, 4482, 5174, 5611, 5759, 5811, 5834, 6173, 6328. The following species are figured in Gard. Chron. :— *V. Bensonex, 1867, 180. *V. Catheartii, 1870, 1409. *V. corulescens, 1878, 529. *V. fuscoviridis, 1848, 351. *V. lamellata Boxalli, 1881, xv., 87. *V. Sanderiana, 1883, xx., 440, 441. *V. suavis, 1872, 974. *V. suavis, Wingate’s var., 1884, xxii., 237. *V. teres, 1883, xx., 278. *V. tricolor Patersoni, 1884, xxii., 236. 326. Vanilla, Swarz. Twenty or more species, of world-wide distribution in » tropical countries, and remarkable as affording delicious flavouring principle from their fruits. See Gard. Chron., 1879, xii., 139. *Vanilla, fertilisation of, Gard. Chron., 1867, 997. 327. Vrypaczenta, Blume. Hight species, from the Malayan Archipelago, and the Pacific Islands. Near Heteria or Anectochilus. 328. Warrea, Lindley. Two species, from Colombia and Peru. See Bot. Mag., t. 4235 (Maxillaria), Loddiges, Botanical Cabinet, t. 1884 (Maxillaria). WarscewiczELia (see Zygopetalum), Orchid Album t. 126. a ; 188 -- REPORT ON THE ORCHID GONFERENCE. 329. Wutuscuimernia, Reichenbach f. Two species, from the West Indies and North Brazil. Near Cranichis. 330. Xynosrum, Lindley. Sixteen species, from Tropical America, resembling Maxillaria. See Bot. Mag., t. 2806, 2955, 2981. 831. Yoanta, Maximowicz. One species, wild in Japan, resembling Giinceun: 332. Zeuxine, Lindley. Sixteen, from India, Malaysia, and Tropical Africa. Not showy. 833. Zygopetalum, Hooker. Forty species, from the warm parts of South and Central America, Brazil, and the West Indies. Huntleya, Bollea, Warscewiezella, and Promenra are now included in this genus. See Orchid Album, t. 28, 50, 78, 87, 142; Gard. Chron., 1879, xii., 189; Bot. Mag., t. 2748, 2819, 8402, 3585, 3674, 3686, 4766, 4830 (Warrea), 5046, 5567, 5582, 5598 (Huntleya), 60038, 6331, 6458. *“Z. aromaticum, Gard. Chron., 1868, 75. + 334. Zycostates, Lindley. Three or four species, from Brazil; approaching the genus Ornithocephalus. Not showy. oe hoe = REPORT ON THE PLANTS EXHIBITED. EE. BOTANICAL. From a botanical point of view, this exhibition, one of the largest and most varied yet made, was of very considerable interest, for though certain very popular cultural genera—e.g., Odonto- glossum, Cattleya, and Cypripedium—formed the bulk and most conspicuous portion of the show, yet there were a number of smaller and less striking plants shown which possessed an almost strictly botanical interest. These were chiefly shown by the amateurs, the dealers devoting themselves rather to the more showy genera and hybrids. Several of the genera well known in cultivation were hardly or not at all represented in the exhibition, owing to their not flowering at that time, and the ornamental- foliaged plants belonging to the group Neottiee were conspicuous by their absence. In spite of this, however, there were examples of no less than sixty-one genera. The majority of these were epiphytes, the terrestrials being usually more difficult of cultivation, and as a rule less showy. The greatest number were natives of tropical South America, but species from most other parts of the world were there. The proportions are represented by the following order: South America (including Mexico), East India, Malaya (including Philippine Islands), Indian Peninsula, Australia, China and Japan, Europe, North America, Africa, Madagascar. The Indo-Malayan region would doubtless have been more strongly represented, had not several of the most important genera been almost out of season, such were Dendrobium, Ceelogyne and Phalenopsis. 140 REPORT ON THE E\pPIpDENDRES. This section formed a very large portion of the show, and perhaps the most conspicuous part of it. Among the plants of chiefly botanical interest was Stelis muscifera (Lindley), rather a pretty little plant for the genus, with dark red leaves and spikes of very small dull red flowers. It came from the Royal Gardens at Kew, together with its ally, Physosiphon Loddigesti (Lindley), a curious little plant with long slender spikes of very small pale orange flowers, the sepals of which form at the base a short tube, the points spreading in a starlike manner The tube contains and conceals the rest of the flower, after the manner of a Masdevallia, between which genus and Pleurothallis this plant seems to be a connecting link. The flowers of the specimen exhibited were of a paler colour than usual. Fine plants of the strange Restrepia antennifera (Lindley) were shown by Mr. Brymer and Mr. Southgate. The ever-popular genus Masdevallia was exceedingly well represented ; all sections of the genus were shown, and almost all the exhibitors showed some species, the series shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence attracting universal admiration. The chimera section was illustrated by M. Roezlii (Rchb. f.), chimera (Rehb. f.), and Backhousiana (Rechb. f.), three very closely-allied plants, if indeed they are not varieties of one species ; and there were also plants of M. Benedicti (Rchb. f.), some splendid specimens of Veitchiana ‘Rehb. f.), and Lindenii (André), with its variety or subspecies Harryana, and there were plenty of plants of the smaller flowered M. ignea (Rchb. f.), with the varieties awran- tiaca, coccinea, &¢. Other species exhibited were M. Shuttleworthii (Rchb. f.), and the pale variety awanthocorys, ludibunda (Rehb. f.), Reichen- bachiana (Endr.), psittacina (Rehb. f.), trochilus (Rchb. f.), and a fine plant of Schlimii, with four flower spikes, civilis (Rchb. f.), Houtteana, of which a beautiful plant with numerous flowers was shown by Messrs. Vervaet, F’raseri(Rchb. f.), and racemosa (Rehb.f.), which latter, however, was hardly in bloom. There were also a considerable number of hybrids. Among the small-flowered species the most curious were M. Arminii, shown by Sir T. Lawrence, M. Estrada, triangularis, simula and tridactylites, with small brown flowers set singly on very slender wire-like stems, so as to vibrate with every breath ORCHID CONFERENCE. 141 of wind. It belongs to the triaristella group, remarkable for the tails being inserted below the apex of the sepals, and not a continuation of them. It was shown by Mr. Courtauld. M. ochthodes (Rehb. f.), with spikes of small yellow flowers, came from Kew Gardens. The Dendrobia were not so well represented as might have been expected. This was owing, doubtless, to their earlier flowering period, many species being out of bloom. There were, however, a good number shown, including many interesting plants and some remarkably fine specimens of well-known species, among which would be noted the plants of D. nobile, shown by the Duke of Devonshire and Mr. Prinseps. Of the yellow-flowered species, the most interesting were D. densiflorum, Jenkinsii, chrysotowum, D. ochreatum (Cambridge- anum) and Jenkinstii, and D. Harveyanum, shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence, remarkable for the petals being decorated with fringes, while the edge of the lip is almost, and those of the sepals quite, entire. D. Brymerianum, in which the fimbriation of the lip is carried to its greatest development, was shown by E. Harvey and J. Southgate. D.crwentwm has very remarkable greenish- yellow flowers, streaked with red. It belongs to the nigro- hirsute section, and was shown by B. D. Knox, of Caversham, and by R. Whyte, of Lee. To the same section belongs D. Jamesianum, a fine plant of which was sent by H. Low, who also sent a specimen of D. Lowii, with its singular yellow and red flowers, with a bearded lip prolonged at the base, so as to form with the foot of the column a kind of spur. It is most nearly allied to D. cruentum. Specimens also were shown of Faleoneri, and its variety Wardianum, Bensonia, Devonianum, Parishii, lituiflorum and crassinode, and rhodopterygium. LD. albo- sanguineum, with its large fawn-coloured flowers with crimson blotches in the throat, was shown by J. C. Duke. There were also plants of D. Dalhousieanum, and superbum vars anosmum and Dearei, the latter, a beautiful white-flowered plant, shown by Baron Schréder. Sir Trevor Lawrence showed also specimens of two very interesting Australian species, but rarely seen in collections, viz., D. Smillie (F. Muell), one of the dendrocoryne section, with a large tuft of small rosy flowers with a green lip, borne at the end of a large pseudo-bulb (it has been figured in Fitzgerald's Australian Orchids), and D. tetragonwm, first found by Allan 142 REPORT ON THE Cunningham. This plant is remarkable for its four-angled pseudo-bulbs, and its starlike, whitish flower, with narrow, acuminate petals and sepals, very unlike those of any other species but those of D. amboinense (Hook). The unusual form of the flower suggests a mimicry of the Spider Orchids of Australia, Caladenia Patersonti, &e. A beautiful pan of D. Fytchianum from Southern India was shown by R. Ewing, of Cheshunt, with thirty leafless pseudo- bulbs, thickly covered at the summits with the delicate white flowers. One hybrid dendrobium only was shown, viz., ~ D. rhodostoma, a cross between D. sanguinolentum and Huttonii. Specimens were exhibited by J. Cypher and Sir Trevor Lawrence. Bulbophylla, as a rule, are not popular plants, owing to the small size of their flowers; but specimens of the large-flowered section, Sarcopodium, were shown. Sir Trevor Lawrence brought B. siamense and Dearei, which latter was also shown by C. L. Ingram, and from the Duke of Devonshire came B. Lobbit. Perhaps the most curious plant in the exhibition was Megaclinium oxypterum (Lindley), the only species shown from the Edinburgh Botanic Gardens. The genus is allied to Bulbo- phyllum, especially to the clavatum section, having, like the species of that section, the rachis dilated into a swollen mass in which the flowers seem imbedded. In the Megaclinium the rachis is flattened, with wavy edges, curiously marbled with purple, about three inches long and nearly one in diameter. On each side of it is a row of small dull-coloured flowers. It is a native of Western Tropical Africa, and was one of the very few species shown from that continent. From Kew Gardens came Cirrhopetalum jimbriatum, the only representative of that curious but not showy genus. It bore several umbels of small dull-coloured flowers, arising on slender peduncles from the bases of the leafless pseudo-bulbs; and the ~ same establishment sent a plant of Panisea uniflora, a humble, inconspicuous species, with solitary dull ochreous flowers, a native of the Himalayas, perhaps move correctly referred to the genus Celogyne. The large genus, Eria, was illustrated by one species, and that not a conspicuous one, viz., H. ewcavata. It was sent frow Kew. Celia Baueriana is a curious West Indian plant, with short, compact spikes of small white flowers beautifully scented, and overtopped by the rather thin, long and narrow leaves. There ORCHID CONFERENCE. 148 are but few species in the genus, and this is by no means the finest. It came from Kew Gardens. Blume’s genus, Dendrochilum, has been separated by Mr. Bentham in the ‘“‘ Genera Plantarum” into Dendrochilum and Platyclinis, which latter genus he refers to the neighbourhood of Liparis, from which genus it is abundantly distinct. To it belong the dendrochilums of cultivators, such as D. glumaceum and Cobbii. Cut spikes of the former were shown by Dr. Paterson with other cut flowers of Orchids. The true Phaii, with leafless flower stems, were but poorly represented, P. Wallichii (Lindley) being the only one shown. We regretted not to see P. tuberculosus (Blume), which has been so successfully flowered this year by several of our best culti- vators, for it is without exception the noblest of all terrestrial Orchids in cultivation at present, though also, alas! very difficult to deal with. The genus Thunia has been reduced by Mr. Bentham to a section of Phaius; the habit, however, is so different that it would seem better to keep it as a distinct genus. It is said also that the thunias will not hybridize with the phaii, this, if put beyond doubt, would be additional evidence against the close alliance of the two genera. Two species were shown, 7. Marshal- liana and T’. alba (Lindley), both closely-allied plants. Bletia hyacinthina (Brown) was the only Japanese Orchid in the show. It was exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, and is especially interesting as being the only Asiatic species of the genus, which is otherwise confined to America. It thus furnishes another example of the connection of the floras of North America and Eastern Asia. There were several representatives of the small genus Chysis. Mr. Cobb, of Silverdale Lodge, Sydenham, showed C. Limminghet and a fine plant of Chysis bractescens with three flower spikes. The latter species was also exhibited by Mr. C. N. Wyatt, of Cheltenham. Messrs. Veitch showed, in a collection of hybrids, C. Chelsoni, a hybrid between C. bractescens and C. aurea, and C. Sedeni, between C. bractescens and C. Limminghei. The genus Acanthephippium is rarely seen in collections, doubtless on account of its impatience of cultivation. It is a close ally of the preceding genus, as is evidenced not only by its structure but also by the fact that it is has been successfully hybridized with it. A. bicolor (Lindley), a native of Southern 144 | REPORT ON THE India, was shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence; the flowers are rather large and fleshy, pink, white and yellow in colour. The Ccelogynes were but poorly represented, owing to the lateness of the season, many of them, especially those of the pleione section being winter-flowering plants. There were, however, plants of C. cristata (Lindley), nitida, ocellata, and ochracea, and cut spikes of C. elata were shown by J. Southgate ; but the | most interesting species was the rare C. Parishii (Rchb. f.), with its green flowers spotted with black, shown by Mr. J. C. Duke. Of the genus Calanthe but few kinds were shown. C. veratrifolia _ (R. Br.), the most widely distributed of the genus, ranging from Southern India to Australia, was shown by Mr. Brymer. C. Dominii, hybrid between C. furcata and C. masucci, was exhibited by Mr. Cortauld. Mr. Lee showed fine plants of C. vestita var. igneo oculata gigantea, and Mr. B. §. Williams brought C. Sanderiana (Rchb. f.), the finest perhaps of the vestita section. It seems strange that so few species of this beautiful genus have found favour with cultivators. There are a number of Malayan and North Indian species of great beauty which are never seen now in collections. Among the Epidendree proper, Diacriwm (Epidendrum) — bicornutum (Benth.) was sent from Kew Gardens. The genus was originally made as a section of Epidendrum by Lindley, but was raised to the rank of a genus by Bentham in the ‘‘ Genera Plantarum,” on account of its two-horned lip being free from the column. The habit, too, is very different, and the flowers large and showy. The true epidendrums are by no means popular among cultivators, and indeed the genus contains a very large propor- tion of plants with small and dull-coloured flowers. Still a considerable number of species have been in cultivation, but few have attracted much attention. A small number were shown. including EE’. ibaguense (Lindley), EF. rhizophorum (Lindley), E. raniferum (Lindley), and cut spikes of EF. erectum, shown by Dr. Paterson. There was also a plant of EH. falcatum (Parkinsonianum) shown by the Duke of Devonshire. This species is a near ally of EF. ciliare, having like that plant large pale yellow or white flowers with a broad three-lobed lip, but it is especially interest- ing from its fleshy curved, almost cylindrical-grooved, leaves, recalling somewhat those of Tetramicra bicolor. ORCHID CONFERENCE. 145 The Barkerias have been reduced by Mr. Bentham to a section of Epidendrum. They seem, however, to possess sufficiently distinctive characters to be kept separate. Most of the species have beea in cultivation, but none were shown at the exhibition. The Cattleyas were very extensively represented, as would naturally be imagined, and included, besides, a very large number - of plants of /abiata section, several of a more distinctly botanical interest. Among the latter were C. Forbesii (Lindley), shown by Sander, C. Acklandia (Lindley) and elatior var. Leopoldi, brought by H. Low, and C. citrina (Lindley), of which several plants were shown. This is probably the most northern species of Cattleya, and is unique in the genus for its oval pseudo-bulbs, glaucous leaves, and pendant half-opened flower. There were also several splendid plants of C. Skinneri, perfect masses of flowers. The highly polymorphic C. labiata was represented by numberless forms, bearing as many names, and most of the well- known varieties were shown, the most striking of which was the fine white variety Wageneri, shown by Mr. Sander, who obtained a first-class certificate for it. The whole genus was at one time referred by Professor Reichenbach to the genus Epidendrum, and indeed there are connecting links in the form of such plants as EF. Boothianwm -(Lindley). Mr. Bentham has, however, kept the genus distinct, on account of the free lip embracing the column. The relations of the Cattleyas with the Lelias is also of some interest. Hitherto the number of pollinia, eight in Lelia, four in Cattleya, have been con- sidered as sufficient to keep the two apart. In view, however, of the remarkable facts set forth in Mr. Veitch’s paper on hybridiza- tion, it may well be doubted whether this view is the correct one, as the two genera seem to cross, in some instances at least, very readily. One of those hybrids is Lelia bella (C. labiata x L. purpurata), a plant of great beauty, shown by Baron Schréder. The Lelias were of course as well represented as the Cattleyas, and included L. purpurata, Schroederi elegans, with the variety Schilleriana ; lobata, shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence, and autwmnalis, — while L. xanthina and cinnabarina, shown by J. Southgate, represented the orange-flowered section. The finest species of the small genus Tetramicra or Leptotes, T. bicolor, a well-known plant, with its curious fleshy terete K : 2 ’ vs 4 ’ 2 146 REPORT ON THE leaves and pink and white flowers, was brought by several exhibitors. | Schomburgkia is a fine genus which was not at all represented It seems strange that such showy plants as some of the species are should be so unpopular. Sophronitis was out of flower, but a plant in fruit was shown by Mr. Veitch in the collection of fruiting Orchids. It will be referred to further on. VANDEX. The few Cymbidiums that are in cultivation were in many cases out of flower, but several species were shown, of which C. Lowii was most conspicuous, several splendid plants being exhibited. C. Devonianum (Lindley) was shown by Mr. Lee, and cut spikes of C. eburneum (Lindley) and C, sinense ( Willd.) were sent by Dr. Paterson. _ The last-named exhibitor sent also sprays of Ansellia Africana (Rehb. f.), one of the few African Orchids shown. A species of Grammatophyllum, which appears to be undescribed, was exhibited by the Plant and Bulb Company. It bore a loose raceme of rather large green flowers with brown spots, somewhat like those of G. multiflorum. The Polystachyas are not as a rule remarkable for showiness, and have been but rarely introduced into cultivation. One species, undoubtedly the finest of the genus, viz., P. pubescens, a native of Africa, was sent from Kew Gardens, where it has flowered for several years. The flowers are larger than in most species, of a bright yellow, and marked with brown streaks The genus is an interesting one in many ways. In the first place, it is one of the few epiphytic genera which extend to both hemispheres ; and, indeed, some of the South American species are closely allied to Madagascar and Indian ones. The structure of the flowers, too, is very curious. In the bud the lip is covered with short hairs, which, when the flower is open, break off and form a loose, powdery mass on the lip. That these bear some relation to fertilization by insect agency seems highly probable, but in what way is less easy to discover, as the flowers are reversed, or, to be more correct, are right way up, which is rarely the case in Orchids, so that the face of the lip looks towards the ground, the result of which is, that when ‘the flower opens, most of the powdery mass of hair must fall to the ground. — i eM ORCHID CONFERENCE. 147 The genus Eriopsis consists of three or four South American species, rarely seen in cultivation. FE. biloba was shown by Mr. Roberts, of Gunnersbury Park. It bore two erect spikes of the curious pendant flowers, buff-coloured, with darker edges to the sepals and petals. Two or three species of Anguloa were shown, including A. Clowesti (Lindley), with four of its strongly-perfumed flowers, exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, and A. uniflora var. maculata, by the Duke of Devonshire. There was also a plant of what seemed a new species, shown by Baron Schrider. It had a single white flower tinted with rose, and an orange lip with a thick callus in the centre. The curious brown-flowered Houwlletia odoratissima (Lindley) was shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence, who also brought one of the two known species of Scuticaria, viz., S. Hadweni. This Brazilian plant was formerly referred to the genus Bifrenaria, but from its habit and almost cylindrical leaves, it is evidently more closely allied to the Guiana species, S. Steelii. Of the true Maxillarias, several were shown, including M. Turnerii, by J. Southgate, MM. luteo-alba and triangularis from Kew Gardens. There was also a spray of M. aurea var. flava among the cut flowers shown by Dr. Paterson. In quite a different style was M. Sanderiana (Rchb. f.), exhibited by Baron Schréder. This species bears some resemblance to Lycaste Skinnerit, with large whitish flowers spotted with purple. It obtained a first-class certificate. Perhaps one of the most striking Orchids in the show was a fine plant of Luddemannia Lehmanni, shown by Sir Trevor _ Lawrence, with two long pendant spikes of closely-packed yellow-brown flowers. The genus is an exceptionally interesting one, on account of its relation with Acineta, as is set forth ina note communicated at the Conference by Professor Reichenbach. Bifrenaria was represented by the well-known B. Harrisonie (Rehb. f.), often called Mazillaria Harrisonie. Plants were shown by Mr. Brymer. Colax jugosus (Lindley) was exhibited by the Duke of Devon- | shire. This beautiful and uncommon plant has been placed with the only other species of the genus under Lycaste by the authors of the ‘‘ Genera Plantarum.” Professor Reichenbach in the ‘‘ Xenia Orchidacea’”’ keeps it distinct, considering it related to Zygopetalum. The species shown, with its beautiful white flowers marked with purple, is far the finest of the two. 148 REPORT ON THE Trichopilia is a small genus of which almost, if not all, the species have been in cultivation in England or on the Continent. Three species were shown, viz., 7. coccinea and T. tortilis and T. crispa. Of the Rodriguezias or Burlingtonias, but few are showy enlough to be deemed worthy of cultivation ; cut sprays of one of the best species, B. fragrans, were shown by. Messrs. Ireland and Thomson. ery The genus Cochlioda has been aptly described by Mr. Bentham as having the flowers of an Epidendrum with the pollinia of one uf the Vandezx, and the species which he includes in it have been variously ranked as Odontoglossums and Mesospinidiums. Three species were shown, CU. sanguinea (Benth.), from B. 8. Williams ; C. rosea (Benth.), shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence ; and C. vulcani- cum, cut spikes of which were brought by Dr. Paterson. The true Zygopetala are distinguished from the other species referred to, the genus by Mr. Bentham by their tall, many- flowered spike. Several examples were shown, including Z. Mac- kayi (Lindley), Z. mawillare (Lindley), and the hybrid between these two species, Z. Sedeni (Rchb. f.)- The section Warscewiczella was represented by W. velata - (Rehb. f.), a plant of which, shown by Sander, bore numerous beautiful violet blooms. The larger-flowered Pescatoreas are referred by the authors of ‘‘ Genera Plantarum” to the same section. P. Lehmanni was shown by J. Southgate, and a flower of P. Gairiana, was shown by Messrs. Veitch. The Promeneas, including Kiefersteinia, form a section charac- terised chiefly by their smaller size. P. citrina (Lindley), with bright yellow flowers, was shown by Baron Schdder ; and Kiefersteinia graminea (Rehb. f.), with curious green flowers with red spots, was exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence. Three species of the section Bollea, including B. Patini and Lalindei, not yet in flower, were shown by Mons. Vervaert, of Ghent. Lycaste Skin- nert (Lindley) was shown in plenty and in every variety, the white and rose colour of the flowers being very variously dis- tributed in the different forms. A beautiful series was shown by Mr. H. Little. More interesting, botanically, was L. Lawrenceana (Rehb. f.), shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence, with green mottled petals and sepals, and a fawn-coloured lip with a white edge. The genus Acineta was represented by A. Humboldtii, shown by the Duke of Devonshire. The Odontoglossums vied with the Cattleyas in obtrusiveness ORCHID CONFERENCE. = 149 at the show. All sections were represented, and the number of specimens of some of the species shown was very large. Of these none were more extensively exhibited than O. crispum (Lindley), alias O. Alexandre, Bluntii, &c. _ This ever-popular plant was to be seen with every variety of colouring and under innumerable names, and afford an excellent example of the difficulties of a systematic botanist in dealing with an easily- grown and variable plant, the synonomy of which is already very extensive and is still on the increase. No genus requires more revision than this one. At present it is credited with up- wards of one hundred species, many of which are probably mere cultural varieties, or natural hybrids. 0. Pescatoret (Lindley), a near relative of O. crispwm, was also extensively exhibited, and is equally overloaded with nomenclature. Even more critical are the brown and yellow-flowered section, cf which O. triwnphans (Rchb. f.), Hallii (Lindley), and hebraicum - may be taken as types. Very many of these were shown, form- ing a bewildering study to the systematic botanist. Among the rarer and more interesting species were O. pulchellum, leve coronarium, and facetum, shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence, O. Oerstedit (Lindley), and Cervantesii (Lindley), by J. Southgate ; and there were plenty of specimens of O. Rossii and citrosmum, and the acuminate-petalled O. gloriosum, nevum, and cirrhosum. There were no Miltonias shown, but the connecting links between that genus and Odontoglossum, in the shape of the broad-flowered odontoglots, O. vevillariwn and its allies, were very plentifully exhibited. The Oncidia were almost if not quite as numerous as the Odontoglossa. Of the cyrtochilwn section were shown O. Kienas- tianwm (Rehb. f.) by Rev. J. B. Norman, superbiens (Lindley) by J. Southgate, serratum (Lindley) and macranthum by Mr. Cor- tauld, and several other species. The terete-leaved section was represented by O. juncifoliwn, referred by Dr. Lindley to a variety of UO. cebolleta (Swarz), one of the most widely dis- tributed of Oncidia. It was shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence, | who also sent O. bifolium (Lindley). Other interesting species were UO. Edwardsii (Rheb. f.), of which several plants were shown with large panicles of the small purple flowers; O. pul- chellum (Lindley), with small white and rose-coloured flowers, was shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence and Baron Schréder ; O. concolor (Lindley), Marshallianum, sphacelatum, and cucullatum oS > ae 150 REPORT ON THE were also exhibited. Perhaps the most aberrant species of the genus is O. papilio (Lindley), of which two or three plants were shown. It is a variable plant, and more than one variety has received a distinct specific name. Apart from the unique form of the flower, it is very interesting on account of its mimicry of a butterfly, such as one of the heliconii of its native forest. Unlike most species in the genus the flowers are solitary, which adds to the illusion. The only parallel instance of real mimicry of an insect known to me is in the well-known genus Ophrys. In both cases the resemblance is more suggestive than exact. The beautiful monotypic Ada aurantiaca (Lindley) was represented by several well-flowered plants and cut spikes. The Brassias were not at their best, but specimens of three or four kinds were shown, including sprays of B. verrucosa (Lindley) from Messrs. Ireland and Wilson, B. Lawrenceana (Lindley), by Dr. Paterson, and a plant of B. Keiliana, one of the finest species, was shown by Mr. Smee, as one of a group of plants which had been grown for nearly four months, from July to October, 1884, in the open air without detriment. Like the rest of the group, which comprised Odontoglossum crispum and Rossii, it appeared quite strong and healthy. The beautiful and delicate Lonopsis utricularioides (Lindley) was shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence and by the Plant and Bulb Company. Phalenopsis was rather past its prime, but several interesting plants were exhibited, including the rare P. tetraspis (Rchb. f.), from the Himalayas, shown by Mr. Cobb; P. Parishit (Rehb. f.), a very beautiful miniature species with small rose and white flowers, few leaves and remarkably broad flat green roots, came from Kew Gardens. P. Luddemanniana was shown by Mr. Brymer. A plant of Renanthera coccinea (Lindley) was exhibited by the © Duke of Devonshire, but it was not yet in flower. Sarcochilus Hartmanni (Fitzg.) was one of the few Australian Orchids shown. It is and was the sole representative of the genus, unless we follow Mr. Bentham and include in it the beautiful Camarotis purpurea (Lindley), of which a fine plant was shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence. ) There were several species of the beautiful genus Aerides, including A. Veitchii, Lobbii, and Houlletianum, shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence, the latter also by Mr. Lee, and sprays of A. roseum, rubrum, and Fieldingii, were among the cut flowers of ORCHID CONFERENCE. 151 Dr. Paterson, and A. Warneri among those of Messrs. Ireland and Thomson. The allied genus Saccolabium was also well represented. Plants of S. ampullaceum (Lindley) were shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence, J. Southgate and Mr. Brymer. The latter showed also S. retusum (Lindley). S. gemmatum (Rehb. f.), a narrow- leaved plant with slender spikes of very small rose-coloured flowers, was sent from Kew Gardens. 8S. premorswm (Lindley) was shown by Mr. Cypher. The genus Cleisostoma consists for the most part of some- what insignificant looking plants. One species, C. crassifolium, was exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence. The Vandas were not numerous as regards specimens, but several species were shown, including, V. swavis, insignis, and tricolor, V. caerulescens, shown by B. §. Williams and Baron Schréder, and belonging to the same section ; the curious white- flowered V. Denisoniana was represented by several specimens. Two plants of V. teres (Lindley) were shown by Siu Trevor Lawrence and Mr. Brymer. The large genus Angrecum was but poorly represented. Probably there is not sufficient variety in the species to make them welcome to the cultivator, for although at one time or another a considerable number of kinds have been introduced, but few are able to hold their own against the more showy genera. It is true, moreover, that most of the early species were out of bloom, and the later ones, such as A. Ellisit (Rehb. f.), were not yet in flower, the result of which was that the only species shown was A. sesquipedale (Thouars), flowers of which were shown by Dr. Paterson. NEorTtTIEeEs. But few plants of this section of Orchids have been in cultivation, and fewer still are popular in these days, when brilliant and large flowers are the prevailing fashion. The group contains, however, a number of beautiful foliage plants, such as the Anectochili and Dossinia. These were entirely absent from the exhibition, perhaps because on account of the difficulties attending their cultivation they have been supplanted by easier grown foliage plants of other orders. The genus Sobralia is almost the only other popular one of the section. It was, how- ever, hardly in bloom at the time of the exhibition, and so was 152 _ REPORT ON THE not represented. Specimens of two genera were shown, viz., Ponthieva and Vanilla; fruits, leaves and flowers of the latter were exhibited by Mr. Cookson among the fruiting Orchids. The pods were large, and of a fine dark brown or chocolate colour and deliciously scented. A plant of Ponthieva maculata (Lindley) was sent from Kew Gardens, where it has been cultivated for some years. This is the showiest of the genus, and is remarkable for being probably the hairiest plant of the order. OpHRYDE® Is another unpopular section, for which also the season was rather too early. Four genera, however, were represented. Lady Howard de Walden, of Mote Park, Maidstone, exhibited several species of Serapias from Italy, including S. lingua (Lindley) and cordigera (Lindley), and a plant of S. parviflora (Parl.) was sent from Kew. The above-mentioned lady showed also Ophrys Ber- toloniit, one of the most beautiful and curious of the Insect Orchids. These plants had flowered for two years in succession, but, perhaps owing to the colder and duller climate of England, the flowers of the Serapias were rather pale in colour. From Mr. Ware, of Tottenham, came Orchis papilionacea (Lindley), a beautiful and interesting South European plant, which forms a connecting link between the genera Orchis and Serapias, having indeed been successfully hybridized with the latter genus. Two or three plants of the largest flowered of all Ophrydee, Disa grandiflora (Lindley), were exhibited, but not in flower. CYPRIPEDE. There are few genera more popular than Cypripedium and Selenipedium, almost all the species known having been in cultivation at one time or another, and most at the present day. The cypripediums proper are most naturally divided into those of temperate and those of tropical regions. The former are easily recognized by their leafy stems, the latter having a rosette of leaves from which arises a naked scape bearing usually a single flower. Of the temperate species, Messrs. Paul and Son showed C. pubescens (Lindley), a North American speci¢s resembling, but rather inferior in colouring to, our British species C. calceolus (Lindley), which was shown by Mr. Ware, together with C. parviflorus (Lindley), also a North American plant: ORCHID CONFERENCE. 153 The tropical species were, however, the most extensively shown, upwards of twenty species and numerous hybrids being ~ exhibited. The most highly admired was the new C. Godefroye (Rehb. f.), a beautiful plant, allied to C. nivewm (Lindley), but with a larger and broader flower, white spotted with purple. It is a native of Cochin Ching, and was exhibited by Baron Schréder and Mr. Lee. Both its allies, C. niveum (Lindley) and concolor (Hook), were also shown. C. Druryi (Beddome), with its curious yellow flowers, is interesting, as being one of the most western of the Old World tropical species, being a native of Southern India. Another Indian species is the well-known C. insigne (Wall.), of which numerous specimens and varieties were shown. Other species were C. Dayanum (Rehb. f.), ciliolare, shown by Sir Trevor Lawrence and Mr. Low; Hookert, Lowti, levigatum and its ally Stonei, with the curious variety platytenium, shown by Mr. W. Lee; C. Argus, from Mr. Williams; C. Parishii, from the Plant and Bulb Company ; and several other well-known plants and many hybrid forms, of — which the best series were those shown under the class for hybrid Orchids, by Messrs. Veitch. Of the South American genus Selenipedium, there were shown numerous specimens of S. caudatum (Rchb. f.) and its variety roseum, S. longifolium (Rchb. f.), and Schlimit (Rehb. f.), and, most curious of all, Cropedium Lindeni, which it seems hardly possible to doubt is a persistent monstrosity of S. caudatum. The reduction of the lip to a petal-like organ is not a very un- common malformation in Orchidee, occurring at times all through the family, and it seems in some instances to be persistent—e.y., in Paaxtonia rosea (Lindley), a monstrosity of a species of Spatho- glottis, and in the Uropedium. There were a few special exhibitions which call for some remarks. A number of drawings in water colours and oils, and a few photographs, by various artists, were shown, mostly representing, however, common or well-known plants. The best were by Miss Woolward, and included the picture of an apparently new species of Masdevallia, belonging to the unequal- petalled section, but with small flowers. Mr. Smee showed a series of Orchids which had been exposed to the open air for four months in the autumn, apparently without injury. Among them was Dendrobium Devonianum with a pseudo-bulb six feet and a-half in length. When it is remembered that several of the E 154 REPORT ON THE Odontoglossa ascend the Andes almost to the snow line, and that the little HEpidendrum conopseum can endure the cold winters of Georgia and Louisiana, we may yet hope in time to obtain epiphytic Orchids which can be grown in the open air, at least in our south-western counties. A very interesting series of Orchids in fruit was shown by Messrs. Veitch. The study of the forms of the capsules of Orchids has been hitherto too much neglected, and, indeed, the fruit of many even well-known genera have not yet been described. One reason for this is to be found in the fact that botanical collectors rarely obtain complete specimens of Orchids with both fruit and flowers, and without the latter it is almost impossible to identify the plant, and, furthermore, the fruits are a good deal injured by pressing, and their form rendered difficult to make out. The capsules of most Orchids consist of six valves in two whorls, the outer ones are narrow and barren, while those of the inner series are broad and bear on their inner service the placentas with the minute circles. These valves bear, usually, ridges running down the middle, and commonly the outer valves are reduced to the ridges only, in the form of slender ribs alternating with the broad seed-bearing inner valves. Some- times the valves and their ridges are nearly equal and sometimes the ridges are absent. Besides variations in these respects, the first varies in shape and outline, it may be long and narrow as in the Vanilla, or short and thick as in Cattleya. Usually the placentas do not run the whole length of the capsule, but between their termination and the base of the column is a larger or shorter portion, which is generally narrower than the body of the capsule and forms a kind of beak. These various forms were well illustrated by the exhibits of Messrs. Veitch, Smee and Cookson. The long, narrow, pod-like form was represented by the fruits of Vanilla planifolia, almost cylindrical, with no ridges and only grooves to mark the six- partite origin of the fruit. | They were quite soft and pulpy, of a rich chocolate brown, and deliciously scented. Phalenopsis Schilleriana has also a long pod, about four inches in length, cylindrical, thicker and shorter than that of Vanilla, and with more distinct grooves. Cypripedium has also a sub-cylindrical elongate fruit. Sophronitis grandiflora has an elongate fruit with distinct ridges and a very conspicuous beak. Se ee ey iy - = ORCHID CONFERENCE. 155 In Oncidum Forbesii, the fruit is somewhat like that of Sophronitis in shape, but thicker and with more distinct ribs and a shorter beak. Chysis bractescens has a thick sub-cylindric capsule with thick blunt ridges. In Vanda insignis, the fruit is straight and thick, six-sided, with no beak. The fruits of Odontoglossum Pescatorei and O. radiatum have rather indistinct ridges, being elongate and triangular in section. Angrecum sesquipedale has a rather long pyriform fruit, with indistinct ridges and no beak. In Dendrobium Findleyanum the fruit is rather long-shaped but has no beak, and the ridges are somewhat obscure. Aerides quinquevulnera and Masdevallia tovarensis have each a short thick beakless fruit, that of the former being rather large in proportion to the flower. _ The Cattleyas and Lelias have pendulous thick and short fruits with distinct beaks, and the ridges prominent and blunt, nearly equal, with deep and broad depressions between them. Those of Cattleya Triana, Laelia anceps, and albida were shown. Very similar in form are the fruits of Lycaste; the ribs, however, were stouter and blunter in the species shown, viz., L. Skinneri and Deppii. W. Macdonald, Esq., of Perth, sent a plant of Phalenopsis Stuartiana (Rehb. f.), on the roots of which three young plants had appeared. This is not the first time this very unusual phenomenon has appeared on a Phalenopsis. Professor Reich- enbach mentions an analogous case in a communication read at the Conference, and a similar specimen was grown a short time ago by Major Lendy. This method of reproduction is more common in dicotyle- donous plants, especially in tree or shrubby plants, and is the rule rather than the exception in some trees, such as the Balsam Poplar. H. N. RIDLEY. W. 5. JOHNSON, “ Nassau Steam Press,” 60, St. Martin’s Lane, Charing Cross, W.C. ft ee | JOURNAL’ - OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. Nou. Vita NOL: THE REPORT ON THE PRIMULA CONFERENCE, SOUTH Lain ; On APRIL 20th and 21st, 1886, ORCHID NOMENCLATURE CONFERENCE, LIVERPOOL Gray Herbarium On JUNE 30th, 1886. 4a Universit NIVERSITY HERBARIUM. 6% ‘A, ADVERTISEMENTS. POU Eas ICHTHEMIC GUANO, © (CRADE MARK,) The most Useful and Economical Fertilizer that can bg used for either Frame, RD OE or Window Plants. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS By Messrs. CANNON § NEWTON, 18 § 19, Fenchurch Street, E C., July 29th, 1886. Phosphoric Acid- - 5°11 = Trib, Phosp. of Lime 11117 Nitrogen - - - 885 = Ammonia -~ ~- 10°76 It is not a chemical production, but a purely natural Guano. Is unequalled as a fertilizer for quick and certain effect. Its marvellous action is clearly visible in seven to ten days, It may be applied _ with safety to the most delicate plants, for it is a veritable plant food, superior to the best Peruvian Guano, and invaluable for every variety of growth. It has no deleterious effect on the soil to which it is applied, but permanently enriches it. Use it for Chrysanthemums, Primulas, Poinsettias, Solanums, Plants for Table decoration, Vines, Ferns, Grass, and all kinds of Fruit and Vegetables. PURE ICHTHEMIC GUANO is useful everywhere alike, in the Flower Garden, Conservatory, and Greenhouse, for Frame and Window Plants, and for the Kitchen, Cottage or Market Garden. It produces large bright blooms, grand foliage and richness of colour, full rich ripe frurt, and the very perfection of vegetables. In Packets, l-lb. 6d., 2-lbs. Ls. Postage Extra. ALSO IN BAGS— 7-lbs. 14-Ibs. 98-Ibs. 56 Ibs. 112-Ibs. 2s. 6d. 4s. 6d. 7s. 6a, 12s. 6d. 20s. Od. Carriage Paid. May be obtained of all Florists and Seedsmen, or direct from Ipswich.. ee) WILLIAM COLCHESTER, IPSWICH. London Depét :—36, SOUTHWARK STREET, 8.5, See that you get the genuine, bearing the trade mark and name in full, WILLIAM COLCHESTER. THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. Vou. VII.—No; 2. THE REPORT ON THE PRIMULA CONFERENCE, HELD AT SOUTH KENSINGTON On APRIL 20th and 2lst, 1886, AND ON THE ORCHID NOMENCLATURE CONFERENCE, LIVERPOOL On JUNE 30th, 1886. 1886, et a ON Ca ee as a s~ > W. §. Jonnson—“ Nassau STEAM Press,” 60, ST. MaRTIN’s LANE, ; +m g CHARING Cross, W.C. ‘= = J . : 4 ‘ ’ ' 6 sd 4 Fe fie cc _ ¥ . ‘ Z m= 4 a =: “a - . 'G ee \ i 2 j ~ 7 j ' a ‘@ b CONTENDS: oo THE PRIMULA EXHIBITION AND CONFERENCE. PAGE INTRODUCTION F “ - ne ae ar 8 save Spl THe Exnipirion— I. Primroses in General .. be os “es on xy IE List oF EXHIBITORS .. ne a2 ve - i - awe Ete AWARDS ae we 176, 180 II. Special Bak of the National iuieetd Soaiagy, Southern Section .. ae =: < sf Rie 5B <9 y THE CoNFERENCE— Introductory Address by the Chairman .. a < at MES Report of the Secretary to the Conference ue A: -- 189 Objects exhibited .. ue oe Mi ox wie 189, 213 Short Communications .. we a is ‘a 189-190 Seeds distributed .. . we £69 Mr. Shirley Hibberd on the : a cin ee Fae of the Florist’s Auricula” .. * dy ro ia ae SE Discussion— Sir Joseph Hooker .. Kp “- a “a wise 1 Mr. J. G. Baker... et Ns ze 4 vz = 308 Professor M. Foster Bis a ma yn a ie Mr. Lynch .. di wa :. cis ies <3) 22S Mr. Douglas .. we Ae x o% wis ee Mr. Bolton .. ae y - is re Sui eee Mr. Fraser... oo ce 2 ay at fe. 26 Mr. Potter .. Bh , di 1 ae eee Mr. Hibberd’s Hoply: f a: ; a a ane Mr. Churchill on the ‘“‘ Origin of the Auricula”’; (Paper Con- tributed to the Gardeners’ Chronicle subsequent to the Meeting of the Conference) .. es ee ae ot See Rey. Francis D. Horner on ‘Improvement of the genus _ Primula.” Read in abstract by Mr. Bolton a sri Cae Discussion— The Chairman we + yp ak ws -» 230 Mr. Burbidge. . + . a sé a6 sigs Ca 160 Mr. Bolton .,. iS ay ie Le ae oo Warmos Mr. R. Dean .. * ad aR a3 a me Mr. J. G. Baker—‘ Synopsis of the European Species of Primula, with their Distribution ” * } 233 Dr. Masters on the “ Root Structure and Mode cf Growth ai Primulacee, in relation to Cultivation” .. as -. = ee Discussion— The Chairman ee = at ae ok 75 ane Mr. Jenkins .. ‘> “ Lal Be — .» See Mr. G. F. Wilson .. ee pie oe en nn Mr. F. Moore Eb an ah “i o% -» 258 Mr. George Paul... v¢ ae Ze os os ae Rev. C. W. Dod as a ta i ie -. 259 Mr. Fraser .. ae oe af ve = sie SARS Votes of thanks me = oe ert sa as a eee APpPENDIX— Diseases of Primula, by Mr. W. G. Smith a3 = vs mee Mr. Stein’s List of Cultivated Primroses. . - = st), ee New Chinese and Tibetan Species, by M. Franchet .. a ate New Classification of Primula, by M. Van Tieghem .. “~ Bae Synonymic List of all Known Species and Recognized Forms of the Genus Primula, by Mr. Daniel Dewar bs + ate THE ORCHID NOMENCLATURE CONFERENCE. Introductory Address by the Chairman .. a ie os aoe Mr. H. N. Ridley on “‘ Orchid Nomenclature” .. ue o- Lane Discussion — Dr. Masters .. of ay ae a. She - eae Mr. Enoch Harvey .. ms i. fe ee -. 304 Mr. Shirley Hibberd. . a vy vi ae -- 305 Mr. Goldring .. ik te a # ry -. 306 Mr. Ridley’s Reply .. Hy Lt a ae oe Bol Professor M. Foster .. te =s iB ‘4 ax ET Mr.Lynch «. ; ; ie a .. 09 Concluding Remarks sy the President ti = o- ee Yoteof Thanks _,, Se A +e “ -« | ane INTRODUCTION. THE PRIMULA CONFERENCE. Tuts Meeting, held on April 20th and 21st, 1886, in one of the crush rooms of the Royal Albert Hall, adjoining the Conservatory of the Royal Horticultural Society, was one of a series of meetings designed for the purpose of collecting and diffusing information on various branches of Horticultural science and practice, and of interesting the lellows and the general public in the work of the Society. Previous meetings of a similar character had been devoted to the Exhibition of Apples from all parts of the empire (sce “British Apples, Report of Committee,’’ Macmillan, 1884), to a similar display of Pears, to Exhibitions of, and Conferences on, the species and varieties of Narcissus. A similar Exhibition of Orchids was held in associa- tion with a public meeting, whereat Papers were read and a discussion held on points of scientific and practical importance in connection with the cultivation of this popular class of plants. (See Journal Royal Horticultwrai Society, Vol. vii., Part 1.) All these meetings proved successful from the point of view of practical Horticulture, and created considerable interest among the public. With a view of doing yet further service, the Council of the Society decided to avail themselves of the occasion of the Annual Exhibition of the National Auricula Society to hold a conjoint Exhibition, in which not only should Auriculas and other ‘‘ Florists’ Flowers” of like character be represented, but also as complete a collection formed as could be got together of species and varieties of the genus Primula and its near allies. With this view the following ‘programme was issued, and communications were opened up with cultivators of these plants at home and abroad :— Crass I1.—The Auricula. = I1.—The Primrose and Polyanthus. ; 111.—Varieties of Primula Sieboldi. IV.—Varieties of Primula sinensis. 162 Crass V.—European species, varieties and hybrids of the genus Primula. ,, WlI.—Himalayan and other Asiatic ditto ditto. », WiI.—Chinese and Japanese ditto ditto. », WIII.—American ditto ditto. », LX.—Plants allied to the genus Primula, such as Cyclamen, Dodecatheon, Androsace, Cortusa, &c. (of these species only, not garden varieties, will be admitted). e X.—Primulaceous Plants grown to illustrate special modes of culture, &c. », X&I.—Specimens, Models, and Drawings, illustrative of the structure and mode of growth of Primulaceous Plants. The first four classes were more especially provided for by the Committee of the National Auricula Society. For the purpose of carrying out the latter part of the programme (Classes V. to XI.), and for organizing the Con- ference, a Committee was formed, consisting of the following gentlemen :— President of the Conference. Chairman of Committee. John T. D. Llewelyn, F.L.S. | Dr. Michael Foster, F.R.S. Corresponding Foreign Secretary. Secretary to the Committee. Dr. Maxwell T. Masters, F.R.S. James Douglas, Great Gearies, Ilford. Committee. . Barlow, Samuel. Godman, F. du Cane, F.R.S. : Baxter, W. H. Henderson, Andrew. . Baker, J.G., F.R.S. Hibberd, J. Shirley. Backhouse, Jas., Jun. - Hogg, Robert, LL.D., F.L.S. Beddome, Colonel, F.L.S. / Horner, Rev. F. D. Boyd, Jas., Jun. Hill, E. ’ Brockbank, William, F.L.S. | Jeykll, Miss G. | Burbidge, F. W. Loder, Edmund Giles. . } Cannell, Henry. Latham, W. B. Clarke, Col. R. Trevor. - Laing, John. | Clark, L. Lawrenson, Mrs. Churchill, G. C., F.L.S. Lindsay, Robert. Dean, R. Lynch, R. Irwin. Dod, Rey. C. Wolley. Macleay, Sir George. Ewbank, Rev. H. Maw, George, F.L.S. Elwes, H. J., F.L.S. McIntosh, James. Franklin, T. M. Moore, Thomas, F.L-S, Fraser, John. Moore, F. W. Fraser, Patrick Neill. Owen, Miss C. M, 163 Paul, George. Veitch, Harry J., F.L.S. Poé, J. T. | Walker, A. O., F.L.S. Rolt, H. A. | Ware, T.S. Sharman, C. H. Waterer, Anthony. Sutton, Arthur. | Worsley, Philip. Turner, Harry. | Williams, B.S., F.L.S. Tyerman, J. | Wilson, Geo. F., F.R.S. Tymons, Rev. F. ) The co-operation of the following foreign and colonial botanists and cultivators was also requested, and many of them favoured the Society with their assistance in various ways :— Prof. Dr. Eichler, Berlin. M. Otto Férster, Scheibbs, Austria. Prof. Dr. Wittmack, Berlin. M. Froebel, Zurich. Prof. Dr. Engler, Breslau. Prof. Caruel, Florence. Herr Inspector Stein, Breslau. Mr. Groves, Florence. Herr Inspector Max Kolb, Munich. M. Witte, Leiden. Herr Max Leichtlin, Baden-Baden. | M. Krelage, Haarlem. Prof. Dr. Henriquez, Coimbra. Dr. E. de Regel, St. Petersburg. Prof. Dr. Lindberg, Helsingfors. Prof. Dr. Kerner, Vienna. Herr F. Maly, Vienna. Prof. Dr. Willkomm, Prague. Prof. Dr. Peyritsch, Innspruck. | M. Boissier, Valleyres. Herr Dr. V. Borbas, Buda. - | M.A. de Candolle, Geneva. Prof. Dr. Kanitz, Kolozsvar. Prof. Asa Gray, Harvard, Mass. Prof. Crépin; Brussels. Dr. Lawson, Halifax, N.S. Prof. Lange, Copenhagen. Dr. Thurber, New York. Prof. Max Cornu, Paris. Prof. Meehan, Philadelphia. M. Naudin, Antibes. Dr. George Watt, Calcutta. M. H. de Vilmorin, Paris. Dr. King, Calcutta. Prof. Planchon, Montpellier. Dr. H. Trimen, Peradenyia. M. Correyon, Geneva. Dr. Treub, Buitenzorg. As to the Conference, it was arranged that the following Papers should be prepared and read at the meeting, and that a discussion on them should be invited, such discussion being facilitated by the circulation beforehand of copies in proof among those most likely to take part in the discussion :— 1. “The Origin and History of the Florists’ Auricula.” Introductory Paper, by Mr. Shirley Hibberd. 2. **In what directions should efforts be made with the view of improving the Florists’ Flowers belonging to the genus Primula?” Introductory Paper, by Samuel Barlow, Esq., J.P. 8. ** The Nomenclature of Alpine Primulas.”’ Introductory Paper, by Mr. J. G. Baker, F.R.S. 4. “Culture of Hardy Primulas.” Introductory Paper, by Dr. Maxwell T. Masters, F.R.S., on root-structure, and mode of growth, as affording indications of the probable best methods of culture. 164 It was originally arranged that the second paper on the list should be prepared by Mr. Rarlow, of Stakehill, near Manchester; — but that gentleman being precluded by other engagements from undertaking the task, the subject was treated of by the Rey. Francis D. Horner. The following pages comprise an account of the Exhibition, a report of the proceedings at the Conference, together with a list of the species cultivated in British gardens, drawn up by Mr. Dewar, of the Royal Gardens, Kew, and other documents connected with the nomenclature and literature of the genus Primula. The Council of the Royal Horticultural Society are under great obligations to the Exhibitors, to the Readers of Papers, and others, who contributed to the success of the meeting, and to Mr. Churchill for his kindness in revising the botanical lists. They desire to tender their special thanks to the Proprietors of the Gardeners’ Magazine and of the Gardeners’ Chronicle for the use of the illustrations, and to Dr. Masters, of the Gardeners’ Chronicle, for his very valuable assistance in connection with the publication of this report. THE ORCHID NOMENCLATURE CONFERENCE. At the Orchid Conference, held at South Kensington on May 13th, 1885, a discussion took place on the subject of ‘ Orchid Nomenclature,” in which several well-known Horticulturists took part. At the close of the discussion, which is published in the Report of that Conference, p. 62, it was agreed to defer further consideration of the question to a future date, chiefly with a view to obtain the opinions of Professor Reichenbach on the subject. It was hoped by the members of the Committee that on the occasion of the Liverpool Horticultural Show that the Professor might be induced to come over to England and to go into the question in a systematic manner. Unfortunately they were again disappointed, as Professor Reichenbach was unable to visit England at that time. This being so, it devolved upon the members of the Orchid Nomenclature Committee during the discussion to point out a few of the difficulties of the 165 subject, and to call attention to the irregularities in naming which have been creeping in, especially during the last few years, and to suggest various means by which they might be ameliorated. There was a very fair attendance at the Con- ference, and an interesting discussion took place, which is now printed im eatenso. The thanks of the Council of the Royal Horticultural Society are due to Mr. H. N. Ridley, B.A., Assistant Keeper, Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, for his valuable assistance in connection with this subject. WILLIAM LEE, Secretary, Royal Horticultwral Society. SoutH KENSINGTON, . October, 1886. hiked ie 7% Al Ca A) i yh ited : Soke 7 NONE wv : ® j ; } th : v j adi ie , , . y tua =f of if ; ‘ = ‘ ; : Ay i an > J ; | — . j ” | c ; ‘ f m ' . og @ " . é * « - } : } ‘ d ‘ § ' > » - n ' 5 ¥ * A 2 A % 4 Ps ris ; I } 7 : — P 5 “fy , : j ’ \ é Pe. } . c* ' 5 ; 4 ; ’ Ti ; - y Ne x 4 | ‘ <4 ‘ 1 ( 4 =) i ‘ : ‘ ; ’ ‘ r * a : ‘ ¢ ‘ * “7 + - 4 : : ¥ ” FP fm THE EXHIBITION. PRIMROSES IN GENERAL. (Crasses V.—XI.) Tue Exhibition was large and varied, although the cold, which had been so prevalent in this country and on the Continent shortly before the Exhibition, exerted an unfavourable effect on the plants. Living plants from the Continent especially were scantily represented, while some sections, as of the Chinese Primrose, were inadequately or not at all represented. This was the more unfortunate, botanically, for while in Auriculas the enormous amount of variation is due to the intercrossing of different species and varieties, the numerous forms of P. sinensis are all derivatives from one uncrossed species, and therefore better adapted to show the limits of variation. The best show, among British Exhibitors, was made by the veteran Alpine plant growers, Messrs. Backhouse, of York, whose collection as a whole was ahead of the others, and which was enriched by many rare species. Next to this, so far as size of plants was concerned, may be placed that from the Edinburgh Botanic Garden, and then came the collection from the Royal Gardens, Kew—the nursery trade being well represented by Messrs. Paul and Son, The Old Nursery, Cheshunt ; Mr. T. Ware, Hale Farm, Tottenham ; Messrs. J. Veitch and Sons, Chelsea; and Mr. Dean, Ealing. The exhibits made by private growers were not numerous, but, consisting as they did of the more popular kinds in good flowering condition, they made a more generally attractive show than some of the larger collections. Botanic GARDENS. Royal Gardens, Kew.—This was a most interesting collection, reflecting great credit on Mr. Dewar, the foreman of the hardy 168 REPORT ON THE plant department, but the plants were later than most others. The rich collection of Primulas shown numbered in all, including species, varieties and hybrids, no fewer than 118, a large percentage of which were nicely in flower. Of the more imposing species, such as the sweet-scented Primula verticillata var. Boveana, P. obconica, P.japonica, P. involucrata, &c., large groups were staged, as well as few fine healthy pans of P. cortusoides var. ameena, P. rosea, &c., which much enhanced the appearance of the collection as a whole. Among the principal forms to attract attention, taking them mainly in alphabetical sequence as in Mr. Dewar’s list, were the handsome P. admontensis, a cross between P. Clusiana and P. Auricula, which appears to be an easily grown plant, and from its free-flowering propensity one likely to take the place of the first-named parent, which is very uncertain in its flowering ; P. algida, represented by a good specimen; P. Allioni by a remarkably deep rose-flowered form; the hybrid P. alpina, P. Auricula, and the var. Balbisi. A form of P. auriculata, with deep rosy flowers, attracted considerable notice; the specimen had a dozen flower-heads of good form. P. calycina was a healthy plant not then in flower; P. carniolica, an excellent plant for show, had three flower-heads ; and worthy of notice were a few fine forms of P. denticulata, with the varieties cashmiriana, Henryi, pulcherrima, and erosa, which latter received a first-class certificate. Its flowers are like those of P. denticu- lata but larger and deeper in colour; P. Dinyana, a cross near to integrifolia, with lovely dark flowers, was shown in excellent condition. A few forms of the Oxlip, some of which were very curious, were also exhibited. A fine piece of P. Facchinii (minima x spectabilis), with large rosy flowers, with a white ring round the eye, and two forms of P. scotica were in good condition, as also was P. floribunda. A few fine specimens of P. Goblii, a hybrid (superauricula x villosa), of a beautiful and striking colour, and P. integrifolia, typical, from the Pyrenees, excited much interest, as did also two healthy specimens of P. longiflora, one with an unusually long tube; and a fine pan of P. longiscapa luteola, just opening its buds, the plants very robust. Four very distinct forms of P. marginata, P. media, a hybrid between officinalis and elatior ; minima, a fine strong patch, just showing flower ; mistassinica, a small North American PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 169 species in the way of farinosa; mollis, a charming Himalayan species ; Muretiana (subintegrifolia x viscosa) ; Obristi, a yellow- flowered hybrid between P. Balbisii and P. Auricula, but nearer the former, with long flowerstallks, and charming clear yellow flowers, were all deserving of note. P. Olge is a new Turkestan species of special merit. P. Peyritschii (subauricula x graveolens), known in gardens as viscosa major, is an excellent garden plant of free growth. P. Porte (subauricula x daonensis) is also an acquisition, it is to all appearance a handsome form of pubescens. P. rosea, and the variety grandiflora, large pans of which were shown, were both in excellent condition, the variety is remarkable for the larger size and colour of its flowers. P. Rusbii, a new species from Northern Mexico, said to be hardy, was also shown. P. sikkimensis, P. spectabilis, with its varieties Clusiana and Wulfeniana, P. Stuartii and var. purpurea, P. suffrutescens, a shrubby species from California, P. tyrolensis, P. venusta, a most charming hybrid ; P. viscosa, the typical plant collected by Mrs. Dyer in the Pyrenees, with its varieties ciliata, commutata, decora, hirsuta, latifolia, pedemontana, and an excellent pan of the beautiful white-flowered P. viscosa var. nivalis were all worthy of comment. A large pan of the common Primrose was not the least beautiful feature of the group, which also included an interesting cross between the Oxlip and the Primrose. In the Synonymic list drawn up by Mr. Dewar, and printed at the end of the Report of the Conference, those species and varieties which were exhibited from Kew are marked with an asterisk(*). Glasnevin.—Preparations had been made to send a good set from the Glasnevin collection, but the late season, followed by a severe hailstorm, rendered it impossible to send a representative collection. Amongst those sent, numbering eighteen, were several species of interest, such as Primula erosa, of which only one other plant was exhibited ; P. integrifolia, P. Dinyana, P. calycina, P. spectabilis, P. Wilieniniin, P. Goblii, P. pubescens, a pretty variety of P. emarginata, a fine dark form of P. cashmiriana, and a nice pan of P. ciliata purpurea. There was also a good plant of the somewhat scarce blue Polyanthus. Edinburgh.—This collection, brought by Mr. Lindsay, the Curator of the Gardens, ranked second in point of merit, com- a) bal 170 REPORT ON THE prising, as it did, a great variety of rare forms, and of older ones that were well flowered. There were P. prolifera syn. imperialis, P. Kitaibeliana (var. of P. spectabilis), a rare Croatian species, with a star-like lilac-coloured bloom; a fine seedling form of P. obconica, P. ciliata var. Balfouriana, with crimson- purple flowers—a gem ; an unnamed species of Primula from the Himalayas, which received a first-class certificate ; P. rotundifolia, and P. mollis. The following is a list of the species and varieties shown in his fine collection :— Primula acaulis var. Primula nivalis, seedling » Allioni cs Polyanthus (good seedling) » auriculata (4) » Parryi » Ciliata purpurata » Peyritschii 2 » seedling (2) 7 prolifera - » Balfouriana (2) a rosea » Clusiana »» purpurea » decora, = Arctotis, Kerner - denticulata erosa » denticulata purpurea (6) a. scotica a i rosea a similis » elliptica » Stuartii » floribunda - Steini » grandiflora rosea a viscosa » graveolens - » nivea »» helvetica a Warei » inflata » Wulfeniana » integrifolia (2) No. 177. Himalaya » intricata Mr. Calder’s (Canonmills, Edin- » Kitaibeliana burgh) seedlings from P. » minima viscosa » mollis Androsace carnea (2) » marginata r eximia = Ms var. vy foliosa » minutissima Bi Laggeri obconica var. Normandi (raised by G. H. Nor- mand, Esq., Whitehill, Aberdour, Fife) a rotundifolia macrocalyx Soldanella montana NURSERYMEN. Messrs. Backhouse and Son, York.—This collection was an admirable one, and included among others the following :— Primula marginata in various forms, viz., the typical form, P. m. coerulea, the nearest approach to a blue colour in Primulas, a rose-coloured form, and two others. All of these were full of flower, and being early were in good condition. Of rare;kinds were P. Allioni, with sturdy rosettes of roundish spatulate leaves, and bright purple flowers, borne on very short PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 171 stems; P. Balbisii, a species with yellow scentless flowers ; P. Facchinii, very dwarf, with rosy flowers; P. minima, to which the previously named species is allied; P. glaucescens, with rose-coloured flowers and glossy leaves; P. spectabilis, a fine rock plant, with rosy flowers and glabrous entire leaves ; P. coronata (minima x spectabilis) ; P. Floerkeana, with blush flowers; and the Himalayan P. floribunda. P. farinosa, and P. f. acaulis, the stemless variety, are both pretty on the rockwork, as they pro- duce masses of bright pink flowers. P. japonica is now well known as a border plant of a showy kind. Several varieties of P. denticulata were shown, as well as P. Dinyana, P. Goblii, a variety of P. Auricula to which great interest attaches as a possible source of the florists’ Auricula ; the fine North American P. Parryi, with magenta flowers on tall stalks; P. pubescens, similar to P. ciliata but with larger heads of pink flowers; P. Auricula var. marginata, an interesting variety with white- powdered leaves having a pale white margin and bright yellow flowers in clusters; P. admontensis x, and P. Kitaibeliana. Many other species and varieties of Alpine plants were shown by Messrs. Backhouse and Sons. Messrs. Paul and Son, The Old Nursery, Cheshunt, showed mainly species and hybrids of European origin, such as P. viscosa in several forms, as found on the Swiss, Italian, and Pyrenean mountains; P. acaulis, the wild Primrose, a purplish-coloured variety; P. integrifolia, a pretty purplish-rose; P. Facchinii, P. villosa, with large rose-coloured blooms; P. Clusiana, with carmine flowers on stalks five inches high; P. Churchilli; P. intermedia; P. Obristi, yellow, with mealy foliage ; P. elatior ; P. Auricula purpurea, with glaucous foliage, flowers brownish-red ; P. latifolia (graveolens, hort.), with rosettes of serrate pubescent leaves bearing rosy-purple flowers; Androsace villosa, white ; A. Laggeri, pink; A. ciliata, pink; and A. Chamejasme, white ; several varieties of Primula denticulata, and an Indian species of Primula, unnamed, well furnished with stout peduncles carry- ing heads of purplish flowers. Mr. f. Dean, Ranelagh Road, Ealing, showed a small group of Primulas, among which was a very large and partially double flower of an Alpine Auricula named Evolution, the anthers being represented by abortive petals; the colour was of two shades of purple, dark in the centre portion, running off into a paler colour ss, ray eA 172 REPORT ON THE as the margin was approached. There were also in this collection various forms of P. viscosa, P. marginata ccerulea, P. ciliata, P. Polyanthus, Crimson Beauty, Jackanapes, and Cloth of Gold. Messrs. J. Veitch and Son, Chelsea, had a nice collection, consisting of P. obconica, so useful for blooming almost all the year; the flowers are white, shaded with lilac; P. denticulata var. pulcherrima, with fine round heads of shaded lilac flowers ; P. involucrata, a slender grower, with umbels of white flowers, and glaucous foliage; P. rosea, with fine clumps of bright rose- coloured flowers; P. vulgaris, double, in yellow and pink; Polyanthus, Colnbrook Park Beauty, a fine showy regular flower with yellow eye and primrose petals; several other good forms of Polyanthus were included in the exhibit. Mr. Thomas Walkden, Marsland Road, Sale, Manchester, showed a hybrid Primula with flowers of a pale flesh-colour with a sulphur-coloured eye. Mr. T. Ware, Tottenham, staged a good collection, comprising P. rosea, P. farinosa, P. floribunda, P. mollis, P. grandis, a strong grower with noble foliage, with yellow flowers on a drooping panicle; P. Sibthorpii, a variety of P. vulgaris, several forms of P. acaulis, as rubra plena, alba plena, lilacina flore pleno, and platypetala; P. suaveolens, a variety of P. officinalis; P. brevistyla, a hybrid between acaulis and officinalis; P. elatior ceerulea, P. denticulata, P. media, a hybrid between P. elatior and P. officinalis; P. cashmiriana, with flowers of violet-purple ; P. auriculata, with long strap-shaped leaves, and bright purple flowers; P. Fortunei, P. Peyritschii, P. Arctotis and P. Kerneri. Mr. Ware also exhibited a good miscellaneous collection of spring flowers. | AMATEURS. J.T. D. Llewelyn, Esq., Penllergare, Swansea, whose exhibit is further alluded to in the Report of the National Auricula Society, and who was awarded the first prize, showed some well-grown clumps in pots of P. japonica, P. Sieboldi, P. obconica, P. verticillata syn. involucrata, P. cashmiriana, P. Auricula from the Swiss Alps, P. cortusoides, P. denticulata, P. erosa, pale mauve, P. rosea, P. viscosa, P. intermedia, P. acaulis rubra plena, &c. John Poé, F'sq., sent some nice cut Polyanthuses from Nenagh, PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 1738 Ireland ; and G. F’. Wilson, E'sq., Weybridge, showed Polyanthus hybrids, Scott Wilson and Alice Wilson, together with specimens of P. denticulata. Dr. R. Hogg showed the Bardfield Oxlip, P. elatior, Jacquin, and the common English Oxlip, brevistyla, together with seedling varieties from it. Dr. August Kanitz, of the Royal Botanie Gardens, Kolozsvar, Transylvania, showed a pan of Primula carpatica, with a slender scape of yellow flowers, but robust foliage. This species flowers in the Transylvanian Alps from June till August; but having been grown under glass at Chiswick since March, its flowers were produced in April. P. J. Worsley, E'sq., Rodney Lodge, Clifton, showed P. denti- culata, P. hirsuta, from the Upper Engadine; P. carniolica, dwarf and compact, with rosy-purple flowers; P. pubescens, P. nivea, a variety of P. viscosa (with white flowers), P. integrifolia, P. viscosa (from the Upper Engadine), and P. Facchinii. The Hon. and Rev. J. T. Boscawen, Lamorran, Probus, Cornwall, sent a most charming collection of wild Primroses taken from the open air in woodlands around his house. The tints were chiefly pink and yellow, two colours that blend most harmoniously, but which are rarely seen together, except in Nature’s handiwork. ‘The plants were robust and full of bloom. Miss G. Jekyll, Munstead, Godalming, exhibited a mound of moss dotted over with border Primroses in white, crimson, yellow, and red, that had a pretty effect. E.. G. Loder, Esq., Floore, Weedon, showed a collection of about sixty species and varieties of Primula. Professor M. Foster showed a flowering plant of the little- known Kaufmannia Semenovii with a spike of pale-greenish yellow pendulous flowers. MiscELLANEOUS. Mr. B. 8. Williams, Upper Holloway, exhibited a table full of mixed stove plants and Orchids. From Mr. Llewelyn’s garden at Penllergare there came some species of Himalayan Rhododen- drons, as Thompsoni, Hookeri, ochraceum, arboreum album, Wallichi, campanulatum and ciliatum. The flower masses of these were small, owing to their having grown in the open, but N REPORT ON THE they were compact and uninjured. There were a Nar from the same garden. | A capital group of bush and trained standard Roses of wel known kinds was exhibited by Messrs. Paul and Son, | ( Nurseries, Cheshunt. A good collection of Narcissi was by Messrs. P. Barr and Sons, and Messrs. Pearson and Sons, Chilwell Nursery, Beeston, Nottingham, contributed a stand of zonal Pelargoniums of enormous proportions. Messrs. Cheal and Sons, Crawley, Sussex, showed sixty-five dishes of very well preserved Apples, many of them being quite early kinds. PRIMULA CONFERENCE, 175 c by f i” LIST OF EXHIBITORS. (Cuasses V.—XI.) Boscawen, Hon. and Rey. J. T., Lamorran, Probus, Cornwall— Wild Primroses. Backhouse and Son, James, The Nurseries, York—Group of Primulas. Bunyard and Co., G., Old Nurseries, Maidstone—Hose-in-hose Polyanthus. Douglas, J., Gardener to F. Whitbourn, Esq., Loxford Hall, Ilford—Collection of Auriculas. Dean, R., Ranelagh Road, Kaling—Group of Primulas. Elphinstone, W., Gardener to E. M. Mundy, Esq., Shipley Hall, Derby—Double-flowered Primulas. Francis, A. W., Ravensden, Bedford—One Primula. Foster, Professor, Shelford, Cambridge—Kauffmannia Semenovii. Gray, Professor Asa, Primula mistassinica. Hogg, Dr., F.L.8., 99, St. George’s Road, Pimlico—The Bard- field and Common Oxslip, with seedlings. Jekyll, Miss, Munstead, Godalming—Collection of Border Primroses. Kanitz, Professor A., Kolozsvar, Hungary—Primula carpatica. Loder, E. G., Floore, Weedon, Northamptonshire—Group of Primulas. Llewelyn, J. T. D., Penllergare, Swansea—Group of Primulas. Maccoun, Professor—Primula mistassinica, dried specimen. Owen, Miss C. M., Knockmullen, Gorey, Ireland—Green Prim- rose. ; Lee, George, Clevedon—Primula cashmiriana. Merritt, G., Gardener to Lord Dacre, Kimpton Hoo, Welwyn— Abyssinian Primulas. Paul and Son, Old Nurseries, Cheshunt—European species, Himalayan and other Asiatic, and plants allied to the genus Primula. Poé, John, Nenagh—Polyanthus. nN 2 176 REPORT ON THE Regel, E. Von, St. Petersburgh—Primula algida. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew—Group of Primulas. Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh—Group of Primulas. Royal Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin—Group of Primulas. Royal Horticultural Society, Chiswick—Group of Primulas. Sendtner, Herr, Munich—Collection of Water-colour Drawings. Sutton and Sons, Reading—Series of Hybrid Primulas. Veitch and Sons, James, Royal Exotic Nursery, Chelsea—Group of Primulas. Veitch and Sons, Robert, New North Road, Exeter—Two Varieties of Primula acaulis. Walkden, T., Marsland Road, Sale—Hybrid Primula. Ware, T. S., Hale Farm Nurseries, Tottenham—Group of Hardy Primulas. Wilson, G. F., F.R.S., Heatherbank, Weybridge Heath—Seed- - lings of Primrose ‘‘ Scott Wilson,” cut flowers, and Primula denticulata from open border to show growth. Worsley, P. J., Rodney Lodge, Clifton, Bristol—Species of Primula. AWARDS. (See also page 180.) In addition to the Prizes specified in the Schedule, First Class Certificates were awarded to— Primula mistassinica, from Professor Asa Gray, through Messrs. J. Veitch and Sons. Primula denticulata erosoides, from Messrs. J. Veitch and Sons. Primula denticulata erosoides, from Royal Gardens, Kew. Primula Sp. No. 2 (Himalayas), from Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh. Primula Sp. No. (Seedlings of P. viscosa), from Mr. Calder, Primula Sp. No. 4 Edinburgh. Primula hybrid (between P. Auricula and Auricula ‘“ Potronalla a5 unnamed, from J. T. D. Llewelyn, Esq. Primula rosea seedling var., from J. T, D. Llewelyn, Esq. PRIMULA EXHIBITION. 177 NATIONAL AURICULA SOCIETY (SOUTHERN SECTION). (Cuasses I.—IV.) A series of prizes was offered by this Society, but owing to the exceptionally cold weather during the three first months in the year there were not so many exhibitors from the North of England as usual. Out of a total of seventeen prizetakers, three only exhibited Auriculas from the north of the Trent, viz., Mr. Potts, of Hoole Hall, Chester, Mr. W. Bolton, of Warrington, and Mr. Walkden, of Sale, near Manchester. The type of Primula Auricula, classed as show Auriculas, are not delicate in constitution as plants. Frosts would not injure them if they are kept dry at the roots, but the flowers are very delicate, and if they are caught by a frost during the period of expansion they do not open out, but become what the fanciers term ‘‘ set,’’ and in this state their delicate markings are not shown to the best advantage. To minimize the danger of the flowers being injured by frost, the owners of valuable plants place them in heated houses in January; but the heating apparatus must not be used, except to keep out frost. This was done with our collection at Great Gearies, in Essex, and the plants were justin good flower for the Exhibition. In ordinary seasons with the same amount of artificial heat they would have been in flower much earlier. The Rev. F. D. Horner, who is the owner of the most valuable collection of seedling varieties in the United Kingdom, has his garden at Burton-in-Lonsdale, Yorkshire, and has his collection usually in flower at the time of the Southern Exhibition ; but owing to absence from home for a period of three weeks before the Exhibition, the plants did not receive that amount of artificial heat needful to force them into flower, and when Mr. Horner was able to attend to them, about . ten days previous to the Exhibition, he was unable to get them up to time, and missed by five days only. The absence of this famous collection was a great loss to the Exhibition. 178 REPORT ON THE r The Avricuta Socrery provided one hundred and sixteen prizes for competition, which were divided amongst all classes of fanciers. The owners of small collections do not compete against those who have larger resources, unless they wish todo so, and they sometimes do so when they think they are likely to be successful, It was generally thought that the quality of the plants was not above the average, but my own experience (and I have attended all the Exhibitions ever held by the Society) was that they were fully up to it. The collection of twelve show varieties which gained the first prize contained some very good specimens, notably the grey-edged George Lightbody, which was awarded the first prize as the best Auricuia in the Exhibition, The white- edged Smiling Beauty (Heap) was also very fine. Special mention should also be made of the plants exhibited by Mr. Henwood and Mr. Phillips, of Reading. These exhibitors attend to their plants in their spare evening and morning hours, and grow them remarkably well. A plant of Ellen Lancaster (Pohlman), exhibited by Mr. Phillips, a dark self Auricula, was the finest of that variety ever exhibited in the South. The Atrre section of Avricutas was well represented. Mr. Turner, of the Royal Nurseries, Slough, has always held the leading position for these plants, and he retained it on this occasion. Many persons greatly prefer the Alpines: they are much more hardy in their constitution, and the colours of some of them are of the most brilliant description. They are as regards hardiness fitted for out-of-doors culture, and are well adapted for certain positions in the rock garden. In Mr. Turner's collection, some seedlings, exhibited for the first time, attracted considerable attention, notably the variety named Charles Turner, very distinct and beautiful; it had the usual rich yellow centre, anda dark edge shading off to cerise. Another good seedling Alpine named Sceptre had also a fine golden centre and shaded edge. Another class of Auricula which has recently attracted some attention is that comprising the so-called fancy varieties. The show Auriculas have green, grey, white or self edges, and in the case of the green, grey and white-edged varieties there is also a dark zone of maroon or some other rich a bic PRIMULA EXHIBITION. 179 colour ; but the fancies had the peculiar edge of the show varieties, and the zone of maroon was substituted by one of yellow, the flowers reverting in fact to their primitive colour, yellow with a white centre. The above were represented by a collection from Mr. Douglas and one from Mr. Bolton. The old-fashioned type of what is now termed Lacep Potyan- THUSES was represented by growers from Manchester, London, and Wales. The quality of the flowers was not so good as usual owing to the absence of one or two Northern growers of note, their flowers not being sufficiently advanced. The more modern type of Polyanthus and the varieties of the common Primrose were well represented by Mr. Dean, of Ealing. This exhibitor has long been famous for his Primroses, and on this occasion they lacked nothing in fine form and brilliant colours, some of the Primroses, such as Ellen Terry, of a charming rosy- pink colour, being much admired. The prizes offered by the Society for species of Primuta brought out three competitors. Mr. Llewelyn, of Penllergare, Swansea, exhibited by far the best collection; one plant of P. rosea exhibited by him was one of the greatest attractions to visitors. An interesting feature of the Auricula Exhibitions is con- stituted by the new seedlings exhibited for the first time. This year they were not so numerous as usual. The only noteworthy example, in the green-edged class was a specimen of Abbé Liszt (Douglas); the plant was not of large size, but the truss of flowers was very neat, and the pips of considerable refinement. There was nothing very remarkable in the grey-edged class, but in the white-edge a first prize was awarded to Snowdon’s Knight (Douglas); the flowers of this variety had one fault, they were not so flat as they should be, but the plants and truss were of full size, the edge of the flowers very pure white, and the centre tube a clear yellow. In the self-edged class, the first prize was awarded to Mrs. W. H. Rawson (Bolton), a dark self, very smooth and flat, with a lemon-coloured tube and white circular paste. The second award was given to Mrs. Wilson (Bolton), a bluish self with a very well-formed flower, the paste circular, pure white, and lemon-coloured tube. 180 REPORT ON THE Mr. H. A. Rolt, of Wimbledon, exhibited a green-edged Auricula with a red ground ; quite a novel flower. As a further proof that the Exhibition was quite up to the Northern standard, a plant of John Simonite, white-edged Auricula, which was exhibited in London, was carried home to Chester, and seven days after gained ‘ premium ” as the best Auricula of any kind at the Manchester Exhibition. This was also a further proof of the enduring nature of the flowers, which are supposed to be fugacious in their character. CuinEsE Primroses were poorly represented, but Mr. Alphinstone, of The Gardens, Shipley Hall, Derby, exhibited four very fine double white forms, each plant about 20 inches across, and well grown. AWARDS. The following is the List of Awards, with the most notice- able features of each exhibit :— AURICULAS. Crass A.—Twelve Auriculas.—Five prizes offered.—There were two competitors only, the first prize being awarded to Mr. Jas. Douglas, gardener to Francis Whitbourn, Esq., of Great Gearies, Ilford; the second to Mr. Chas. Turner, of the Royal Nurseries, Slough; the most prominent varieties in both collections being Verdure (Douglas), a very pure green edge, but rather rough as shown; Prince of Greens (Trail) ; Colonel Taylor (Leigh), still a good old green edge, was highly esteemed fifty years ago; The Rev. F. D. Horner (Simonite), one of the best recent green-edged varieties. George Lightbody (Headly), the best of all show Auriculas; Mabel (Douglas), a good new grey-edged variety; Prince Henry (Turner), a new green-edged kind, edge rather narrow ; Conservative (Douglas), a new white-edged kind of great refinement; Acme (Read), a superb white edge, and easily grown ; Duke of Albany (Douglas), the darkest new self edge; and Pizarro (Campbell), the best of the old selfs. Crass B.—Six Auriculas.—Five prizes offered.—In this class there were four competitors, Mr. J. Douglas was first; Mr. Chas. Turner, second; John T. D. Llewelyn, Esq., of Penllergare, third; Mr. G. W. Hardwidge, of 1, Martineau Road, Highbury PRIMULA EXHIBITION. 181 Hill, fourth; the best varieties exhibited being Prince of Greens (Trail), Abbé Liszt (Douglas), a new green-edged variety shown for the first time, George Lightbody (Headley), Mabel (Douglas), Smiling Beauty (Heap), a very splendid white-edged variety ; Duke of Albany (Douglas) and Lord of Lorne (Campbell) were the selfs. Crass C.—Four Auriculas.—Five prizes offered.—There were nine competitors. The first prize was won by Mr. T. E. Henwood, of Earley, near Reading. Second, Mr. C. Phillips, Earley, Reading. Third, Arthur Potts, Esq., Hoole Hall, Chester. Fourth, Mr. W. L. Walker, Reading. Fifth, Mr. A. J. Sanders, gardener to Viscountess Chewton, Bookham, Surrey. The plants shown in this class were of excellent quality. Lancashire Hero (Lancashire) was in fine form, George Lightbody (Headley), Conservative (Douglas), Sapphire (Horner), and Ellen Lancaster (Pohlman), the last-named was never shown better in London. Crass D.—Two Auriculas.—Five prizes offered.—There were ten competitors—A. Potts, Esq., was first; Mr. C. Phillips, second; third, Mr. H. A. Rolt, 170, Hartfield Road, New Wimbledon ; fourth, Mr. C. Orchard, gardener to J. Glasworthy, Esq., Kingston-on-Thames; fifth, Mr. Walker. One variety exhibited in this class by Mr. Potts, named ‘‘ New Green,’’ was very pretty, and the white-edged Acme was a good companion to it. ©. J. Perry (Turner), a violet-coloured self-edged variety, was very pretty. Lancashire Hero, George Lightbody, and the old Sykes complete, was also well shown. Crass E.—Green-edged Auriculas; one plant.—Seven prizes offered.—This and the next three classes were open to all competitors, consequently the, entries were very numerous. Sixteen exhibitors competed for the prizes. In E, Mr. Turner was first and second with George Lightbody (Headley) and Lancashire Hero (Lancashire), Mr. Douglas third and fourth with Prince of Greens (Trail), Mr. Henwood fifth with Colonel Taylor (Leigh). Cuass F.—Grey-edged Auriculas; one plant.—First and fourth, Mr. C. Turner, with George Lightbody and Richard 182 REPORT ON THE Headley (Lightbody); second and third, Mr. Douglas, with George Lightbody; fifth, Mr. Walker, with Richard Headley (Lightbody); sixth, John T. D. Llewelyn, Esq., with Grey Friar ; seventh, Mr. C. Phillips, with George Lightbody. Cuass G.—White-edged Auriculas; one plant.—First, Arthur Potts, Esq., with John Simonite (Walker), a charming plant, which gained ‘“‘ premium” as being the best Auricula exhibited at the Northern Sections Exhibition at Manchester seven days after; second, Mr. Douglas, with Acme, and third with Conservative; fourth and sixth, Mr. C. Turner, with Acme and True Briton; fifth, A. Potts, Esq., with Beauty (Trail) ; seventh, Mr. Henwood, with Acme. Crass H.—Self-edged Auriculas.—First and fifth, W. Bolton, Ksq., with Black Bess and a Seedling ; second, Mr. Henwood, with Pizarro; third and sixth, Mr. Turner, with Pizarro and Lord Lorne; fourth, Mr. Sanders, with Topsy; seventh, A. Potts, Esq., with Lord Lorne (Campbell). This is a very showy reddish-crimson self-edged Auricula. Crass I.—Fifty Auriculas.—Four prizes were offered, but there were only two competitors. Mr. Douglas gained the first prize, and Mr. C. Turner the second. The best varieties selected from both collections were green-edged Prince of Greens (Trail), Lycurgus (Smith), Admiral Napier (Campbell), grey-edged Lan- eashire Hero, George Lightbody, Mrs. Moore (Douglas), Ajax (Horner), Marmion (Douglas), Colonel Champneys (Turner), Mabel (Douglas),Confidence (Campbell), Squire Chilman (Wilmer), Charles EK. Brown (Lightbody), white-edged Dr. Kidd (Douglas), Beauty (Trail), Silvia (Douglas), Conservative (Douglas), Re- liance (Mellor), True Briton (Hepworth), John Waterston (Cun- ningham), self-edged Sapphire (Horner), Garibaldi (Pohlman), Duke of Albany (Douglas), C. J. Perry (Turner), Lord of Lorne (Campbell), Eliza (Sims), Mrs. Smith (Smith), Petronella (Headley), Vulcan (Sims), Topsy (Kay), Bessie Bell (Spalding), Sultan (Turner). AupIngE AURICULAS. This class of Auriculas is very much admired, and for border culture, or planting in the rock garden, they are of great value. When it is intended to exhibit them, they are grown PRIMULA EXHIBITION. 183 in pots and placed under glass to keep the flowers clean. To Mr. John Ball, one of the foremen in the Royal Nurseries, Slough, belongs the credit of bringing the Alpine Auricula through its various stages of improvement up to the high state of perfection it has now attained. Thirty-five years ago he commenced with two varieties, Brilliant and Conspicua. He was then in the service of the late Mr. Charles Turner, and he is now in the firm trading under that name at Slough. Crass K.—Twelve Alpines.—Four prizes were offered, but only two exhibitors presented their plants. First, Mr. C. Turner; second, Mr. J. Douglas. To save repetition, I would remark that all the varieties named below, with the raiser’s name left out, were raised by Mr. Turner. The best varieties were Charles Turner, Sceptre, Mrs. Thomson, Sensation, Unique, SirH. Darvill, Athlete, J. T. Poé, J. J. Colman, Edith, Princess of Wales, Miss Mollie (Douglas), Rosamond Fellowes (Douglas), Diadem (Gordon), Lady Howard de Walden (Douglas), Princess of Waldeck (Douglas). Crass L.—Six Alpines.—Five prizes and five competitors. First, Mr. C. Turner; second, Mr. J. Douglas; third, Mr. R. Dean, Ealing; fourth, Mr. C. Orchard; fifth, Mr. A. Spurling, The Nest, Blackheath; the best varieties being Mrs. Ball, Progress, Mrs. Pope, Paragon, Love Bird (Douglas), Unique, &c. Crass M.—One Alpine, with gold centre.—Six prizes.— First and fifth, Mr. Turner, with Pantaloon and John Bull; second and third, Mr. Douglas, with Rosamond Fellowes (Douglas) ; fourth, Mr. R. Dean, with Mrs. Thomson. Crass N.—One Alpine, with white centre.—Six prizes.—First and third, Mr. Turner, with Columbine and Miss Taplin ; second, Mr. R. Dean, with Tenniel; fourth and fifth, Mr. Douglas, with Lady Howard de Walden (Douglas). PoOLYANTHUS. Crass O.—Six Polyanthuses, gold-laced.—F our prizes.—The only competitors in this class were Mr. Douglas, who gained the first prize with William IV. (Sanderson), Prince Regent (Cox), George LY. (Buck), John Bright (Barlow), Henry I. (Sanderson), 184 REPORT ON THE Lancashire Hero; and Messrs. Paul and Sons, The Old Nurseries, Cheshunt, Herts, but their plants were pin-eyed, which is a disqualification. Crass P.—Three Polyanthuses, gold-laced.—Four prizes and four competitors. First, Mr. T. Walkden, Sale; second, Mr. Douglas; third, Mr. Dean; fourth, J. T. D. Llewelyn. Cheshire Favourite, Prince Regent, John Bright and Exile were the best varieties. Cuass Q.—Single specimen gold-laced Polyanthus.—Six prizes.—First and second, Mr. Walkden, with Cheshire Favourite; third, Mr. Dean, with George IV.; fourth and fifth, Mr. Douglas, with Prince Regent and Lancer (Bullock). Cuass R.—Twelve fancy Auriculas.—Three prizes.—Mr. Douglas was first, and, Mr. Bolton second. The fancy Auriculas are varieties that cannot be admitted into other classes, some of the varieties being distinct and very pretty. Cuass §.—Twelve fancy Polyanthuses.—Three prizes.—Two competitors. First, Mr. R. Dean, with a very choice selection, comprising Sulphur Gem, Conqueror, The Bride, Yellow Bedder, Chancellor, Cloth of Gold, Crimson Gem and seed- lings. Messrs. Paul and Sons were second. PRIMROSES. Cuass T.—Primroses, double or single.—Three Prizes.—Two competitors. First, Mr. Dean, with Royal Purple, Clarissa, Ellen Terry, Fire Queen, The Mikado, White Queen, Salvator, Kthel, Double White, and three seedlings. Messrs. Paul were second. Crass U.—Twelve Primulas.—Three prizes.—Three com- petitors. J. T. D. Llewelyn, Esq., easily gained first and second prizes in this class. He exhibited the best grown examples ever seen at South Kensington. Primula rosea, exceptionally fine as a plant and variety; P. obconica, a splendid plant with twenty fine trusses; P. erosa, pretty ; P. viscosa nivea; P. japonica, a handsome plant; P. viscosa, P. cortusoides, P. denticulata, P. Sieboldi, and P. verticillata. Mr. J. Douglas was third, and an exhibit of interesting species came from Messrs. Paul. PRIMULA EXHIBITION. 185 MiscELLANEOUS. Crass V.—Premier Auriculan—Mr. Douglas, for George Lightbody. Two prizes for Seedling Auriculas, green-edged.—No com- petition. Two prizes for grey-edged.—Second prize, J. T. D. Llewelyn, Esq., for C. Warmington. Two prizes in white-edged.—First, Mr. J. Douglas, for Snowdon’s Knight. Two prizes for Selfs.—Both first and second awarded to Mr. Bolton. Two prizes for Alpines, gold centres.—First, Mr. Turner with Sunrise, and second with Athlete. Two prizes for Alpines, white or cream centres.—First, Mr. Turner, with Marguerite. The prizes offered for Laced Polyanthuses did not bring any competition. The judges were Messrs. W. Bolton, Shirley Hibberd, H. Polhman and John Laing. Jas. Doveuas. », whe eqieepariat f s mas fires NO { § 4 oa “+ - vi ‘Re | Yb s A of ee) rN r . ‘ 3 7 j an rT ee 7. va? 4 aa ° 4 f af + Lt id t y — ‘3 Fra rl .\ Li ‘piri vine 1:04 A aE ap mat Py 7 : As Noe tls “s mo $45 heed Ce a aaasa oo mis t ae tS ents il a Ry oa ; \ . Eons a Is hes bee Py ae : toll fats Sha Gly eer Beak: ic 6 "pei wii ag * av ~e ’ ee ; Shemtdihe valsitel” retin lh OE Meade (ea it ag esiine) Lhe big ante Ta at) ae : ha ; rt 4 iy ~- THE CONFERENCE. This meeting was held on Wednesday, April 21st, 1886, in one of the crush rooms of the Royal Albert Hall, adjoiming the Conservatory. J.T. D. Llewelyn, Ksq., presided. Dr. Masters acted as Secretary, and the numerous auditory comprised a large number of gentlemen and ladies interested in the culture of the various species of Primula. The Onarrman, said: I will introduce the business of the meeting by first of all referring to the pleasure we experience in having such a capital show, and by expressing my conviction that the public, who came here to see the florists’ flowers, as well as the wild species. we have been able to bring together, appreciate, not only the beauty of the exhibition, but the scientific part of it as well. You must have observed how some lovers of flowers devote their attention to the florist sections, while others take up the wild originals ; but there is ample room for us all, florists or botanists, to admire what we like. Many people have been first of all attracted to the study of flowers by seeing to what a degree of beauty and development they can be brought by the art of the florist. This leads them to examine the wild originals from which these developments have come. On the other hand, there are the botanists who have seen the originals growing in their native habitats, and who have seen what nature does in the way of hybridizing these plants and in the production of forms which are intensified in beauty. In either case I can say there is ample room for all classes of flower-lovers, both for the florist and for the botanist. I am one of those who think we have a great future before us, and that we may yet develop forms of beautiful primroses from the Himalayan Alps, and elsewhere, and which may furnish the florist flowers of the future. Ido not in the least think that we have yet arrived at finality in our standard of beauty. Further progress may be made by a little careful work and observation on the part of hybridizers and gardeners. I think that by means of these Conferences, in which we meet together and compare notes, we 188 REPORT ON THE shall arrive at the best way of producing different varieties and making the improvements that I have hinted at. Some of the papers that are going to be read are directly concerned with the hybridization of flowers, and their im- provement by cross-breeding, and this leads me to say how sorry I am that Mr. Horner is not here to read his own paper, This is, I think, the first time for several years that he has missed our Auricula Show, and I am sorry to hear that through the death of a relative he is compelled to be absent, Iam sure, however, that he is with us in spirit, and that he will feel it a great disappointment that he is unable to be present. With regard to the other papers that are to be presented to you, we have the writers here, and I look forward with great pleasure to their reading their papers; or, if they prefer it, giving us the gist of their papers. Proof copies of the papers have been placed in the hands of several, but not of all of you; therefore, I for one shall certainly protest against any of them being “taken as read”’ unless the writers place before the Conference orally the salient points of their papers, and then allow the discussion to take place upon that introduction. If they do not do that, certainly I should then prefer that the papers should be read in full, because they will be found to be of very great value and interest. Before I sit down may I say one word with regard to these Conferences in general? It has been a very great pleasure to most of us to attend them. Take the Narcissus Conference, a couple of years ago. I suspect that everyone who attended that Conference left with a pleasurable recollection of what took place ; I fancy everybody must have learned something from it, and even if they learned nothing; the public had the opportunity of seeing avery pretty exhibition. I hope that in our turn, we shall go away from this meeting having learned something more than we knew before, and with the hope of spreading our information amongst our friends who have not the privilege of coming to these Conferences. I trust that we shall carry our observations into practical experience after we get home, in improying on the many forms that are now shown. I think, myself, you have only to go amongst the Narcissi shown here to-day as accessories to the Primrosges, to see that there has been a development of those flowers since and as a direct consequence of the Narcissus Conference. I think we may reasonably look forward to a similar PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 189 result from this Conference on the Primula. Therefore, I con- sider that these meetings are of very great value, and I for one shall hope to see them continued in the future, and whenever an opportunity occurs I shall be glad to give my vote in favour of the continuance of the Conferences. Tnowcall on the Secretary toread some letters which I think he has to read, and then we will go on with the business of the meeting. Dr. Masters (Secretary): I have a letter from the Hon. and Rey. J. T. Boscawen, who regrets that he is not able to be present, but who has sent us a very splendid collection of varieties of the coloured Primrose, found wild in Cornwall. Then there are other matters to be laid before the Con- ference that deserve notice. First and foremost I should place the List of all the Species and Varieties of Primula, drawn up by Mr. Dewar, of the Royal Gardens, Kew. (See Appendix, p. 275.) Mr. Stern, the Director of the Botanic Gardens at Breslau, has sent, for distribution, a similar list, not so complete as Mr. Dewar’s, being devoted to the European species only, which are cultivated in the Breslau and other Botanic Gardens of Germany. These, also, have been distributed, as far as their numbers permitted. (For abstract of Mr. Stein’s list see Appendix, p. 268.) A very valuable collection of seeds of Himalayan Primroses, from the Calcutta Botanic Garden, has been sent by Dr. Kine and others from Dr. Durst, of Saharunpore, and Dr. Warr. These came previous to the meeting, and have been distributed amongst the leading Primula growers, as far as their numbers permitted, as these seeds comprise many species hitherto unknown in English gardens. There is a very beautiful collection of accurate water-colour drawings, sent by Mr. Srmnptner, of Munich. Some of these are, through the courtesy of the Director of the Royal Gardens, Kew, exhibited in frames, and represent an extremely interesting series of our Kuropean Primroses. Many of them are the more interesting because they are taken from plants collected by the artist himself and cultivated in his own garden. M. Francuet sends a short communication of considerable interest to botanists, as to the native country of the Chinese Primrose. Tull lately, we have had no more than hearsay evidence that it grew wild in China. M. Franchet now tells us that the m ile |. oe ek bed ee ~ iy : 190 REPORT ON THE Abbé Delavay has collected and sent home specimens of the Chinese Primrose. They were found on calcareous rock, on the borders of the Blue River, in the gorges of Y-Tchang, in the Province of Ho-Pé. We have also received an interesting note from the Director of the Hone Kone Botanic Garpens with reference to the culture of this same Primula sinensis in China. ‘‘ We manage to grow the cultivated variety of P. sinensis in Hong-Kong during the cold season, but they invariably damp off when the hot weather setsin. They have not even time to mature their seed. We have therefore to get a fresh supply from England every autumn.” From Canada we have received a number of dried specimens of P. mistassinica from Lake Mistassini and other localities in Canada. It isa little plant very nearly allied to our farinosa. Among the specimens Professor Maccoun has sent there are some that seem intermediate between the two. A living specimen of the same species has been sent by Dr. Asa Gray through Messrs. Veitch. Dr. von Rucet, of the St. Petersburg Gardens, has sent through Messrs. Veitch a living plant of Primula algida, and has also sent at the same time a series of dried specimens from Western Turkestan. [Subsequently presented tothe Kew herbarium.—HEpb. | Professor Wittkomm, of Prague, regrets exceedingly that he is unable to be present, but is desirous of calling attention to two species figured by him in his “ Illustrationes Flore Hispanie.”’ Primula vulgaris var. balearica, tab. 35, has pare white flowers and leaves tapering into an unusually narrow stalk, and which Professor Willkomm now considers to be specifically distinct from the common Primrose. The second plant to which he calls attention is Cyclamen balearicum, from the Balearic Islands, tab. 5, and which looks very different from any ordinary Cyclamen. _ Professor Kanrrz, of Kolozsvar, Transilvania, has sent flowering specimens of Primula carpatica. The Cuarrman: The third item on the Agenda is that the Chairman should propose a vote of thanks to the various botanists who have contributed specimens, and in other ways contributed to the success of this meeting. I have the greatest possible pleasure in proposing that, and I feel sure you will carry it by acclamation. It has been of great assistance to us to have had the co-operation of foreign botanists, although, I am PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 191 afraid, but few living plants from abroad have been received, but we could not expect more in such a season as this. We have, however, what is very valuable to us, and that is a quantity of seed of various species. As far as my experience shows, there is but one of that batch of seed alluded to by the Secretary that we have not been able to cause to germinate, and that is Primula Elwesiana. If this Conference had been held this time next year perhaps we might then have a great many new things to show out of that batch of seed ; I merely mention its receipt now as one of the practical results from which we may hope much interest in future. I have the greatest pleasure in proposing a vote of thanks to the several foreign and colonial botanists who have contributed in any way to the success of our Conference. Professor Micuarn Foster: I suppose, coming from the chair, the motion hardly needs seconding, but I imagine that the ~ Secretary to the Conference will send up the resolution to the Council, in order that it may be transmitted to the foreign botanists in a formal manner. The resolution was agreed to [and formal votes of thanks were subsequently sent.—Ep.]. The Cuarrman : I now call on Mr. Shirley Hibberd to read bis paper on the “ History of the Auricula.” Mr. Sumuey Hieserp, before entering upon the subject of his Paper, laid before the Conference, on behalf of Mr. Dewar, an interesting series of drawings and tracings of various species of Primula, forming a valuable collection of illustrated memoranda concerning these plants. This duty discharged, Mr. Hibberd proceeded to give orally the substance of his paper, the full text of which is subjoined :— On THE Origin and History or THE Forists’ AvRIcULA. By Suretey Hiszerp, Esq., F.R.H.S. In treating the origin and history of the Florists’ Auricula, in the interest of the Primula Congress, it is a matter of plain pro- priety to remark that I discoursed on the same subject in this place on the 25th of April, 1882, and the text of my thesis was published in the horticultural papers. With the present import- ant task before me, I have again reviewed the history of the flower that takes highest floral rank amongst the Primulas, and 0 2 192 REPORT ON THE shall endeavour to submit to your consideration matters that are possibly of importance, and that, I hope, will at least prove interesting. It will be convenient to dispose of established truths in the first instance in order to obtain a proper basis for specu- lations on things unknown. ‘The origin of the Auricula we will, for the present, assume to be unknown, but we have at command much of a trustworthy character in relation to its history during Fig. 1—CARNIOLIAN PRIMULA, Primula carniolica (Flowers purple or violet). the past 300 years, and it will be a safe, even if a dull procedure, to rummage the books and set forth a few of the more promising facts and figures before tackling the portentous question of the origin of the flower. fey "a +. aG PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 193 A direct hint as to what to avoid as well as what ‘to attempt may be derived from the reference to the Auricula in Beckmann’s ‘‘ History of Inventions.’’ He quotes from Weismantel’s ‘‘ Des Blu- misten” to the effect that Ovid, Pliny, and Columella knew the flower. Well, those writers were also acquainted with garlic, barley, and figs; but we pay no attention to them until they offer some special information illustrative of the arts, customs, or necessities of the times in which they lived. It is somewhat to the purpose, perhaps, that Pluche, in ‘‘ Spectacle de la Nature” (11. 49), states that the Auricula was carried from Switzerland to Brussels by Walloon merchants. The second volume of this work was published in 1738, and it gives no clue to the date of the carrying. But the statement is of importance in connection with the general belief that the Auricula was cultivated in the Netherlands long before it was introduced into this country ; and that the garden varieties of the flower were introduced by refugees from the Low Countries about the year 1570. We find mention of the flower in the works of Fuchsius, Matthiolus, Clusius, Turner, and Dodoens. But the sixteenth century botanists were but little better informed on the subject than the writers of the later Roman period; and it would be waste of time to attempt to formulate their scraps of information. Matthiolus figures the true Auricula admirably at page 706 of ‘‘ De Plantis Epitome” (1586). In the superb edition of Dodoens, printed at Antwerp by Plantin, it is very badly figured at page 148. By both it is described as Auricula ursi, and by this name of bear’s ears it was generally known amongst the sixteenth- century botanists and gardeners. But the “ Florists’ Auricula ” was by them unknown, for it came into existence after their time. In the year 1570 many artizans, driven out from the Nether- lands, settled in this country, and they brought their favourite flowers with them, including the best of their Auriculas. We begin business at the old shop, for Gerarde, who published his ‘* Herbal’’ in 1597, described and figured half-a-dozen varieties. On page 640 the contrast between the yellow and the purple beares ears, although shown in drawings that are truly execrable, is full of instruction in respect of the question before us. The other figures are of little consequence, but the two that lead the way speak emphatically of the distinction between the true 194 REPORT ON THE Auricula and the flower known to us as the Alpine Auricula. In plain truth they were as distinct then as they are now, and John Gerarde’s bad drawings hit the truth admirably. It is important also to note the remark of Johnson in his edition of Gerarde, published 1638, to the effect that there are divers varieties, differing in the leaves, which are green or hoary, and in the flowers, which are white, yellow, red, and purple; the gardens of Mr. Tradescant and Mr. Tuggie being well furnished with such. These things prepare us for what the immortal John Par- kinson has to say. In his ‘ Theater of Plants’ (1640) he copies the bad figure from the Antwerp Dodoens, and describes twenty- six kinds of Auriculas. It is of the highest interest to note that amongst them occur a ‘“stript purple,’ which he describes as singularly changeable; also a parti-coloured red and white, ‘‘heard of but not seen.’’ The Collie, that he describes as ‘‘ somewhat sad but very lively,” and the ‘ Purplish Blew,” appear both to have been of the class known to us as selfs, while ‘‘ Heavens Blew,” ‘‘ Paler Blew,” and ‘‘ Bright Crimson,” were of the class now known as Alpines. Of yellows he says there were many, but so mixed ‘‘I cannot expresse them.” This is just what might be expected, and it may be fair to add that, as a matter of course, they were the least valued, because not far enough removed from the wild flower of the mountains, for the opinion appears to have prevailed that there was only one kind of wild Auricula. In the “ Paradisus ” there are twenty varieties described, a few of which are admirably figured. Of these nine had green leaves without meal, and the remainder were more or less mealy. The flowers are presented as varying in colour, and some have a centre of the kind we call ‘‘ paste,” while others are without it. The colours are just such as we find in border Auriculas of the present day, comprising shades of red, purple, violet, marone, yellow, and white. We are certainly in the midst of Auriculas, not only of the mountain, but also of the garden. It appears that we have in the ‘ Paradisus,’”’ inexhaustible treasure as it is, the fountain of diversity as revealed to the penetrating eye of ‘* Thine in what he may,” the author of what he himself in his dedication designates ‘‘ this speaking Garden.” This paper should be something like a catalogue of evidences, PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 195 and I invite your attention to the description of ‘the great straw-coloured Beares eare,” at page 238 of the book last men- tioned. ‘This hath almost as mealy leaves as the last, but nothing so large; the flowers are of a faire strawe colour, with ca \¢Z wp PHISH, Fig. 4.—WILD AURICULA, Primula Auricula (Flowers yellow). 202 REPORT ON THE of the Alpine section. As regards the yellow of the show flower, it does not appear in its true proportions to the casual eye; but if you will carefully wash away the paste, you will find that it is laid upon a yellow ground. It seems to be the function of paste to play a game of deception. Kerner’s views have been partially approved by Mr. J. G. Baker, of Kew; but he appears to lean to Primula Balbisi as a prominent progenitor, and he associates the edged flowers and the Alpines as at least not specifically distinct. The Rey. F. D. Horner, who combines experience as a raiser with knowledge of species and a fine faculty of observation, reckons Primula farinosa, P. scotica, P. marginata, P. intermedia, and P. viscosa as concerned in the parentage ; and probably he would separate the edged flowers from the Alpines as of different origin. Finally, I propose to you that we may with advantage regard the edged or show Auricula and the Alpine Auricula as, for present purposes, specifically distinct. The general agreement of the Alpines is with P. commutata and P. pedemontana, the last named being emphatically reflected in it. On the other hand, P. ciliata of Moretti may be associated with P. Auricula as con- cerned in the formation of the florists’ flower. But, after all; this is like arguing ina circle. The two that I have selected as begetters of each group are specifically one or two at the discretion of the botanists, as they may take broad or narrow views. We are in the same plight as regards the Pri- mulas as we were in regard to the Daffodils before the Congress operated, when, as you will remember, a great reduction of the Species was carried into effect. I will venture now to say, that the employment of names in the expression of our ideas as to the origin of the Auricula, must be subject to the possible reduction of names by the Revising Committee. I can find a dozen or more so-called species that are possible parents of the Auricula, but as I question their specific independence, I do not feel that making a catalogue is, in this case, the solution of a problem in biology. As for Palinuri, I cut short the connection by dismissing it as a possible progenitor of Auriculas. Let us now make a brief study of an Auricula with reference to the facts that are before us. In certain characters it is con- stant. The leaves are stout in texture, often leathery, sometimes slightly cartilaginous. The flowers are always in a many-flowered visible umbel, never, like those of the Primrose, appearing singly PRIMULA CONFERENCE, 2038 from a concealed timbel. The floral bracts are short, never like these of P. calycina, longer than the flower stalks. The corolla is distinctly contracted below into a tube, and expanded above into a salver ; it is never contracted into a cup or goblet, as in P. sikkimensis. The dusting with protective meal is not a distin- Fig. 5—CILIATED AURICULA, Primula ciliata (Flowers yellow). guishing feature; but its abundant appearance as a decorative character of the exhibition flower is strikingly characteristic, and though it may be said that by long-continued crossing and select- ing, its appearance there may be regarded as the work of the 204 REPORT ON THE artist called Man ; yet his work is limited, not only by the capa- bilities but by the disposition of nature. The powder belongs to Fig. 6—-ALPINE AURICULA, Primula pubescens (Flowers purple). the face of the flower, although its quantity and arrangement may be an exaggeration of nature's intentions. The show of PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 205 yellow in the colouring of the flower is a constant character. This is a colour wanting in many of the supposed parents. It should be borne in mind that the flowers of highest quality re- present long-continued and severe selection ; and therefore in an exhibition, or even in the general stock of the cultivator, we do not see the entire character and possibilities of the flower. The seed-bed offers the raiser many that he will simply destroy, because of their nonconformity to rules, and amongst the con- demned will be many of the so-called fancy flowers, that have no body colour, and approximate to the species. It should be remembered too, that all the edged flowers have green edges ; for although classed as green, grey, and white, it is only the relative density of the meal that makes the difference. It has been boldly declared that this green colour isa monstrosity, indicative of a re- turn ofthe flower to the status of a leaf, but we will defer the serious consideration of that proposal until we see the flower take the form of the leaf in addition to a touch of colour, which, from the florists’ point of view, is one of its distinguishing beauties. It would be more reasonable, perhaps, to regard the green colour as a remainder of the original colour of the flower, for, according to the doctrine that has found general acceptance, the flower should be first green and then yellow, with the potentiality of changing to red and ultimately to blue. Considering Professor Kerner’s proposal in connection with these facts, it may not be irreverent to say that it leads us no- where. We are to derive two groups of plants that differ by larger degrees than many that are recognized as distinct species, from a parent plant that is a reputed hybrid, and that possesses only a few of the characters required. We are assured that the purple and marone colours that are so prominent in the edged Auriculas, cannot be derived from a species known as affording only shades of yellow. Those who make the declaration evidently forget the wide range of colouring of the common Primrose, wherein we have almost every colour except true blue. Linneus erouped Primroses, Oxlips, and Polyanthuses as forms of one species ; and that view, though for long repudiated, is now gene- rally accepted, and the point is especially insisted on by Bentham in his ‘‘ Handbook of the British Flora.” Between yellow and blue there may be somewhat of a gulf fixed, especially in the variations of a species; but from yellow to shades of red and purple is a P .. 206 REPORT ON THE transition far from uncommon. We have examples not only in the Primrose, but also in the Chrysanthemum, Hyacinth, Tulip, Pansy, Carnation, Hollyhock, and Antirrhinum. If you wander about in search of a source of the red and purple tones in show Auriculas, you will never find means to account for the brilliant violet-blue body colour of the variety known as Colonel Champ- neys, whilst others may be found that are apparently equally far removed from the possibilities of the botanical colourist. The truth appears to be that the colours we cannot by direct descent account for are in reality self-evolved, and belong to the category of changes that accompany and follow cultivation. In other words, these colours, with other characters that might with equal reason perplex us, are in a certain sense laid on by the hand of the cultivator. It is the fear of the botanist, who cannot re- cognize any merit in his brother the florist, that prompts him to find in this or that flower that the hand of man has left un- touched the sources of properties that the florist has developed by long-continued cultivation in view of an ideal model, towards the realization of which he is ever striving but never attaining, though happy in the endeavour, and justly though quietly proud of what so far has been actually accomplished. ‘To obtain the two great classes of Auriculas from Primula pubescens is a greater extravagance on the part of Professor Kerner than any florist has ventured on as yet; but the florists have discovered long since that seeds derived from show flowers do not produce Alpine varieties ; and, on the other hand, it is all in vain to hope for edged varieties from the seeds of the Alpine section. The general acceptance by the botanists of the proposal of Professor Kerner, shows how much they need in their researches the aid of men who have acquired experience in the raising of new varieties of garden flowers, and in the management of garden plants generally, Parkinson, 250 years ago, had a green flower with a purple elge. That must have been in existence long anterior to the writing of the ‘‘ Paradisus.” It is not extravagant to entertain the supposition that it had been in existence hundreds or thousands of years before. In the same collection were striped flowers, and these appear to have increased until in the early part of the eighteenth century they abounded. Then, again, we hear of an edged flower, called Honour and Glory, in the year 1782, when Sir PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 207 Thomas Moore described it. Since then the edged flowers have increased in number, and now constitute a race that has all the needful characteristics of a species. The green has proceeded outwards to the margin and settled there ; the stripes have moved in the same direction and formed a ring within the margin ; and the farina has accumulated around the centre to form what is Fig. 7.—VARIABLE PRIMULA, Primula commutata (Flowers rosy red). termed the paste; while a rich tone of yellow marks the centre, and gives accent to the green of the primal flower, the result being an arrangment of colours in four orderly masses, three of them in circles of definite geometrical proportions. The Carnation offers a nearly parallel example, for here we see the flakes of the flower moving outward to the edge to fashion the Picotee. It is p 2 208 REPORT ON THE like the action of centrifugal force, the colours appearing desirous of moving off into space. What is termed the thrum does not appear to demand special notice in connection with the origin of the flower, but I shall not seriously interrupt the study of the subject by remarking that Charles Darwin found the short styled flowers the most productive of seed, and thus the taste of the florist in this respect is in strict accord with the frugal notions of nature. The rich yellow of the thrum is another feature favourable to the flower, which is as hardy and vigorous as any of its kindred, although commonly represented by the traducers of the florists as a debilitated thing that requires a man and a boy to hold it up. : The Auriculas naturally divide into two groups, the Alpines leaning to Primula villosa, the Auriculas to Primula Auricula. There does not appear to be any necessity for the admixture of Primulas that has been hypothecated for the formation of these flowers. The facts of history suggest that in all their more dis- tinctive forms these two sections represent only two species, and that each in its essential characters is self-contained and self- containing. We have no proof at any time of distinct hybridity, but it must be acknowledged as a fact favouring the view of a considerable range of parentage, that the allied species breed freely together. The Primulas that most often come into contact with man are like him of a sportive nature. The laced Polyanthus might perplex us with its golden edge, and there are many edged Oxlips in the present exhibition, and some that display stripes and incipient edgings, and that are probably in a condition of change corresponding with the Auriculas of Gerarde and Parkinson. Sir Josepu Hooxer, at the conclusion of Mr. Hibberd’s paper, and at the invitation of the Chairman, said: I am most unex- pectedly called upon to say a few words with respect to the paper we have just heard. I need not say it is an easy task, for I have rarely heard one that has given me more information or pleasure. I may truly say that I knew little about these Auriculas until what I have heard to-day from my friend Mr. Hibberd. I was par- ticularly glad to see this Auricula (pointing to a specimen of the wild type) brought into prominence to-day, because I think it was in the Botanical Magazine that my friend Mr. Baker figured the true origin and source of the Auricula. Speaking generally, I regard these Conferences as of the greatest importance, both PRIMULA CONFERENCE. _ 209 from a botanical and horticultural point of view. If they remind me of one thing more than another, it is of the pleasant days I used to spend more than 50 years ago at the horticultural meetings in Regent Street. I have always longed that such days might come again. ‘They were presided over by Dr. Lindley, and we met the most celebrated horticulturists of the day, all ready to speak on the subject that they knew best. Ican conceive no more useful work for the Horticultural Society than a series of Con- ferences like this, and I should only be too glad to see them held more frequently. I invite the fellows present to return a hearty vote of thanks to Mr. Shirley Hibberd for his most interesting and instructive communication. Mr. J. G. Baxer: I really have little right to speak on the matter, because I am not in any sense a Primula specialist. I endorse, in the first place, most cordially everything that Sir Joseph Hooker has said about the great interest of Mr. Hibberd’s paper. We are very much indebted to him for the pains he has taken to work out the history of this matter. Amongst the most interesting poimts in botany are the questions of the origin of these doubtful garden plants. There are many com- mon garden things of which we do not know the history, and there can hardly be any more useful task for a Society like this to undertake than to lend the weight of its influence to those engaged in the endeavour to work out the questions, such as the history of the Potato and the history of the cultivated Auricula. These are really among the most interesting problems that we can possibly deal with, and I have looked forward to this Con- ference with very great interest, because it was likely to lead the way toa solution of the matter, so far as the Auricula is con- cerned. Mr. Hibberd has treated the question most fully and admirably from a florist’s point of view, and if in the remarks I am going to make I simply dwell on those points in which I differ from him, I am sure neither he nor you will suppose that 1 wish in any way to undervalue his paper. As I came up in the train I jotted down one or two points to which I felt inclined to take exception. The first was this. He speaks of the botanist as not recognizing any merit in his brother the florist. Of course that may be only a mere casual re- mark, but to that I wish to enter, as I am sure Sir Joseph Hooker and all botanists here will, a most decided protest. 210 REPORT ON THE In the selection of questions like this, the only hope of arriving at any definite solution is from the co-operation of botanists and horticulturalists. The value of the Royal Horticultural Society les in the fact that it furnishes common ground on which botanists and florists can meet together, and put before a meeting like this the contributions that we have to make to our knowledge of the subject. When I wrote a few words in the Gardeners’ Chronicle, June 13th, 1885, p.757, on this very question a yearago, I expressly said that the reason why we as botanists could not come to a conclusion on the matter was that we needed to have laid before us and consider fully the evidence the florists can give. Of course in a question like this the florists can tell the botanists far more that the botanists can tell the florists. With regard to the historical point of view, I think, however, that I can tell Mr. Hibberd a few things that are not contained in his paper. In the first place, there is an excellent figure of an Auricula of an earlier date than that to which he refers in the New Kreu- terbuch book of Matthiolus, page 408, published in the year 1563. He gives an excellent though rough figure of an Auricula. That is the earliest figure which I know of, and no botanist could see it and read the remarks without agreeing that it represents the wild Primula Auricula of which we have been speaking. From the ‘‘ Stirpium Adversaria Nova,” of Lobel and Pena, published in 1605, we find that at the beginning of the seventeenth century purple, rose, and white-flowered Auriculas were known in cul- tivation. The next statement by Mr. Hibberd to which I take very decided exception is this. ‘‘ But the sixteenth century botanists were but little better informed on the subject than the writers of the later Roman period, and it would be waste of time to attempt to formulate their scraps of information.” Now Mr. Hibberd was never more mistaken in his life than he was in making that statement, and I am sure Mr. Churchill will back me up. The fact is that Mr. Hibberd has dealt with the early books, and taken great pains with them, but too much on the plan of the Irishman who said that one man was as good as another and a great deal better. The fact is that those early books are just like recent books, exceedingly variable in their value. Some are mere slipshod compilations ; some contain a fund of original observation ; and the one book of all others which furnishes full and clear information bearing upon this PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 211 subject is the book which I hold in my hand—* Rariorum Plantarum Historia,” by Clusius (1601). That book Mr. Hibberd dismisses quite casually, but that book really contains the key to the whole question. If I could have got hold of Mr. Hibberd before he wrote his paper, I should like to have locked him up for a morning that he might settle down and fully study that book before committing his remarks to paper. Clusius knew extremely well the ground with which Mr. Churchill is now so familiar, the Alps of Austria and Styria, and in this book he describes in full detail the Primulas of the Austrian and Styrian Alps. He describes eight of them and gives figures of six, which are admirable, and which can be easily recognized as being plants that we know perfectly well at the present day. That is, in fact, the basis of the whole thing, and the characters of these eight species and the figures of the species were thoroughly worked out by the end of the sixteenth century. There is a figure and a description of Primula Auricula, which Clusius calls ‘‘ Auricula ursi.” The serration in the leaves is rather exaggerated, but there cannot be any question or doubt that it is the true Primula Auricula of botanists, as found at the present day. The second figure which Clusius gives is Primula pubescens, which he calls ** Auricula ursi 2.” Clusius says that he himself introduced the Primula pubescens into cultivation, but that the first one was already widely spread in the Beigian Gardens and had been in cultivation before his time. The other six, four of which are figured, do not specially concern the present question. Now, Mr. Hibberd brings Gerard in evidence. In the first edition of Gerard, published in 1597, there are two figures given bearing upon the present subject, and comparing those two figures all the value which we get from them is this. The figure of the true Auricula is simply an exact copy from the figure of Matthiolus in 1568, and the other is a perfectly ideal figure which dvces not agree with anything whatever—Gerard evidently evolved it out of his own con- sciousness. Mr. Hibberd goes on to speak about Johnson’s edition of Gerard. Now the figures in that edition, with one slight exception, are simply of no value whatever as bearing on the subject, because every one of them is taken bodily from Clusius, so that we may leave Gerard and Johnson entirely out of court. What 1 suppose to be the history of the Auricula is something 912 REPORT ON THE like this. There is no mention of it whatever in Turner’s ‘‘ New Herball” (1548), but by 1563 the yellow Auricula was widely spread in cultivation and well known. Forty years later, in the time of De l’Obel, it had put on a large amount of variation in its flowers. The principal Alpine species were well known, thoroughly characterized, and well figured before the end of the sixteenth century ; so that I think that florists are not to be trusted entirely to decide these matters without having botanists to look after them. I think that this Exhibition will furnish us with an exceedingly good opportunity of fully settling the question that Mr. Hibberd puts, but to which he does not really give us any definite answer. ‘Two theories have been propounded. One is Kerner’s theory of the matter, and the other is my own. Mr. Hibberd seems to doubt whether these Alpine Primulas are hybridized to any large extent; but look at the way in which the common Cowslip and the Primrose hybridize. You cannot go into any field in the north of England without seeing that they do hybridize most fully. Now, Kerner, of all men, has investigated this question most fully. He is the greatest authority on this subject. He is well qualified to speak for himself, and we are fortunate in having the presence here to-day of the Englishman, Mr. Churchill, who knows more about these matters than any other living Englishman—one who knows Kerner’s writings most thoroughly, and who has worked over the ground that Kerner has dealt with. It is not for me, when Mr. Churchill is here, to say anything about Kerner, who is the great authority upon the question of hybrid Primulas, and Mr. Churchill is the great English authority upon the botany of the Tyrol; and I hope he may be induced to give us his opinion on the subject.. All I have to do is to say a few words in defence of the theory which I myself brought forward. I have come to this meeting direct, and have as yet had no opportunity of verifying that theory by comparison with the vast mass of material accumulated in the Exhibition below, so that I really do not know any more about the matter than when I wrote a short paper in the Gardeners’ Chronicle a year ago. I do not accept Mr. Hibberd’s version of my theory as a complete one. All that he says is, that I, to a certain extent, endorse Kerner. My theory is, that the great mass of these garden Auriculas originated from the wild species, PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 213 Primula Auricula, which is widely spread in Switzerland and Austria, and throughout all the Alps of Europe, and from its varieties or hybrids, Balbisii, venusta and Gdblii. This is the Linnean type (alluding to a specimen on the table). The characteristic of all the forms of this Primula Auricula is an amount of meal upon the leaves, spreading up the leaves, the stalks, and the peduncles, and extending to the calyx. The variety Balbisii differs from the type Auricula (it still keeps its yellow flower) in its more hairy leaves and more toothed leaves. Then there is a third plant which has been supposed to be a hybrid, but may be a mere variety of Primula Auricula, namely, Primula venusta. I do not see any specimens on the table, and Ido not know if there are any down below, but it is in reality one of the plants we ought to look to, because it has an intensely purple flower, and I think it is extremely likely that it is from that that the purple colour of many of the garden Auriculas has come. But the plant which most nearly matches the common garden Auricula is Kerner’s Primula Goblii. It is said to be a wild type. P. Géblii may be a hybrid or it may be a variety of P. Auricula, but I find no difficulty in supposing the mass of garden Auriculas have come from this, from venusta, from Balbisii, and from typical P. Auricula. What cultivators call the Alpine Auricula I believe to be substantially Primula pubescens, which is a plant which Kerner writes about. The way in which I differ from Kerner is that instead of supposing this Primula pubescens to be the parent of all the garden Auriculas, I consider that Goblii, venusta, Balbisii, and typical P. Auricula, are the ancestors of the common garden Auricula, and pubescens the progenitor only of what gardeners call the Alpine Auricula. Primula pubescens is a plant which Clusius introduced into cultivation 200 years ago. There are in the Alps of Switzerland a number of forms nearly allied to pubescens. Whether they are hybrids or true species does not matter much. There are plenty of them in the Alps of Styria and Switzerland, and I think if you compare your culti- vated specimens with the wild types—which there is abundant opportunity to do—you will agree with me, I believe, that this theory fully meets the facts of the case. Mapame Mertan’s Drawines. Before resuming his seat, Mr. Baker said that he had been 214 ; REPORT ON THE asked by Professor Oliver to exhibit a sheet of drawings made by Madame Merian, which date back to a much later period than the end of the sixteenth century. The artist died in 1716, and of course we have no knowledge of the period when these drawings were made, but they are very valuable and interesting. Professor Foster: I rise with great diffidence, but my chief object in so doing is that I may, if possible, bring Mr. Churchill on to his feet, because I think it is very undesirable that we should not have the advantage of his words, as we have undoubtedly the advantage of his presence. He will, at any rate, kindly correct me when I make mistakes in what I am about to say. I imagine the case stands somewhat in this way. There can be no doubt that P. pubescens is a hybrid between P. Auricula and P. hirsuta. That is a fact which we may take as settled. I think it is also a fact that Clusius (and I am sure everyone will join with Mr. Baker in a vote of admiration for the writing of that great man) sent from the Alps to Belgium numerous Alpine Primulas, but he says that his friends complained that they most of them died. The two that lived were P. Auricula and P. pubescens. That is a second fact. A third statement I have to make is in the nature of a question. Is there evidence that Primula Auricula by itself, without the admixture of any foreign pollen, ever sports ? Against the idea of its sporting is the fact that it has spread widely, but has, in spite of its wide distribution, still the same characters. That is against the idea of any tendency in the plant to sport. On the other hand, P. pubescens shows indirectly its hybrid origin by sporting. I think I am right in saying that you may in the same place gather as many as nine different colours and varieties of P. pubescens. I have seen it stated somewhere as a matter of common note that pubescens is an Alpine Primula which sports very largely. Put these facts together ; first, the fact that to Belgium, whence obviously the Auricula sprang, there were sent a number of Alpine Primulas, and of those Alpine Primulas the two which flourished were P. Auricula and P. pubescens; secondly, the fact that P. pubescens, in itself a hybrid, sports largely, while P. Auricula by itself does not sport largely ; and it seems to me the probability is that your Auriculas, either the ordinary Auriculas or the Alpine, have come, not from P. Auricula only, but from P. pubescens also, possibly crossed back again with PRIMULA CONFERENCE. | 915 P. Auricula, I do not see any other way out of the history. Seeing that the Auricula was started early, though it has progressed since that time, it is extremely unlikely, though it is possible, that other Primulas were subsequently added to the plant ; but we have a possible origin, a source of complicated blood in P. pubescensandin P. Auricula. Ido not know whether Mr. Baker will consider this as a union of his theory with Kerner’s. I find a difficulty in accepting Mr. Baker’s theory, because I cannot recognize any known tendency in P. Auricula itself to sport ; therefore I imagine thatin all the Auriculas there is some foreign blood, and from what we know of its history, and from what we know of the blood itself, that foreign blood seems to me derived from P. pubescens. Mr. Lyncu: I would suggest that some experimentalist should take up the subject and study it synthetically. By hybridizing those forms mentioned by previous speakers it is quite possible that a plant which may be considered to represent the Auricula could be obtained. I should myself expect to get at the origin of the Auricula within narrow limits, because when the Auricula became established there was nothing known about artificial hybridization. Possibly some characteristic plants were gathered in a garden, seeds were raised and a_ selection made, and thus the Auricula became established. I think very highly of Mr. Hibberd’s view, that a great deal of what we see now in the Auricula has been evolved artificially. So much has been evolved that we cannot now see what the original was. I do not know that a comparison of the seeds has been made, but I know that in some allied kinds they vary very considerably, especially the Indian kinds, and _ possibly some light may be thrown by a comparison of seeds, but it is one that I have not been able to make. Professor Fosrrer: With regard to the seedling which Mr. Hibberd showed—am I to understand that thatis a seedling from the wild Auricula ? Mr. Dovexas: No, Mr. Hibberd made a mistake in that; it was not a seedling from the wild Auricula. I consider it to be a reversion. Mr. Botton: Asa florist I may express the opinion that I have formed with reference to the origin of the Auricula. What I first read about the Auricula was that it was originally 216 REPORT ON THE raised from Primula Auricula, but I never could find any trace of resemblance to that species except in the meal. I have raised many thousands of seedlings at various times, and I have found forms amongst them as much like the original species as those that have been exhibited to-day. I could have brought one exactly similar to the last one put forward by Mr. Baker that has been raised from my own crossing. I have taken very great care that there should be none but Auricula-edged flowers in the place, not a single other Primula on the premises. We have had Cowslips from the laced Polyanthus, and consequently I think a great deal as to the origin of the Auricula from the Primula Auricula is mere conjecture. Mr. Fraser: I have little doubt that the forms which we have in the gardens have all originated by a long process of selection. But where do we get the various colours from? We see the type is yellow. That different colours have been found in the wild state I do not deny. Then, if we take P. veris, - we find a great number of variations of colour; and also in the garden forms of Polyanthus. I ask where the colours come from? Possibly I shall be told they arise from hybri- dization one with another. But the original form is yellow. I maintain that all these colours simply arose from variation by selection. When once you get a plant to vary, you can increase the tendency by selection. All these plants have been in gardens so many years that they have been simply selected through the influence of man’s tastes and through his desires. Then if we ask how they originated in the state of nature, we find that all the most predominant forms are yellow. I consider that these yellow colours lend themselves, very generally, to different insects that effect the processes of fertilization ; so that we find other colours have originated by a process of selection, a kind of specialization. The yellow and pale colours would confine themselves to fertilization by night-flymg moths, and the shape of the corolla tends to point to the same thing. The yellow, being the predominating colour, would lend itself to the greatest number of fertilizing insects ; and when other colours arise, we can imagine these to have been specialized from common forms by insects. So, in the same way, under a state of cul- tivation, all the forms can be traced back to the original; and PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 217 we see that they have simply arisen by reason of a long course of selection through centuries of cultivation. Mr. Porter: I think P. Awricula is a variable plant; and I believe, if we could trace it back, we should find that Primula pubescens is a hybrid between P. hirsuta and a form of P. Auricula. In pubescens the absence of the meal is to be noted. Mr. Hisserp: It will be prudent, I think, to say a very few words, because the discussion has taken such a course as this, that when one calls black white, the other one asserts it to be black, and the different speakers have corrected one another. They seem all to have come to the same conclusion as myself, and although my brother Baker disapproves of my cavalier way of treating the old botanists, I consider them of little value when considering edged flowers. He considers the Primula Auricula as the parent of the edged flower. There is this difference between Mr. Baker’s story and mine, that he gives more importance to P. pubescens in reference to the Alpine section. Now my paper says that the edged and the Alpine are two distinct classes, differing in their origin. I have satisfied myself of that by endeavouring to breed one into another, and they won't do it, so that the differences amongst us are very slight. We have before us a fine business proposal from Mr. Lynch—that it should be now treated syn- thetically. We have been pulling it to pieces, and we ought perhaps to build it up. I know of no man so competent to undertake that task as Mr. Douglas, because he is not only a cultivator, but a thoughtful, observant man, who would not trouble us with any mistake, and if once more the variations to a certain extent can be obtained from the wild plants, then we should have something solid to stand upon. The best part of our business this morning has been to record our opinions; but permit me to say, if my friends will allow me to do so, that with respect to that, my opinions and all other people’s opinions are of very much less importance than demonstrated facts. Mr. Caurcuitt oN THE ORIGIN OF THE AURICULA. [Since the discussion on the subject of the origin of the Auricula took place, Mr. Churchill has been good enough to con- tribute to the Gardeners’ Chronicle the following statement of the 918 REPORT ON THE main points contained in Kerner’s ‘‘ History of the Auricula.’’— Ep.] Mr. A. W. Bennett published a summary of it in the Gardeners’ Chronicle, Vol. iv. N.S. (1875), p. 806; still, a restatement may be desirable now, apropos of Mr. Hibberd’s paper. Kerner’s article appeared in the sixth volume of the Zeitschrift der Deutschen und Oesterreichischen Alpenvereins, Munich, 1875, and was published also as a separate pamphlet of sixty-four pages 8vo, at Innsbruck. For clearness I will number the different points of the history. 1. About the year 1570, the Emperor Maximilian II. possessed a large garden in the neighbourhood of Vienna, which Clusius repeatedly refers to, containing a great number of species, to which both Italy and the eastern Mediterranean supplied a rich contingent. 2. A passion for gardening had seized upon the noble Viennese ladies and others of that period; and the peasantry used to bring down to the Viennese markets for sale specimens of many kinds of Alpines—among others, Primula Auricula, L., P. Clusiana, Tsch., and P. farinosa, L. 3. The Belgian L’Ecluse (Clusius), who was the greatest botanist of his day, was in 1573 invited by the Emperor to Vienna, and received the honorary title of Court Botanist. 4, In his Vienna garden, Clusius had a special portion devoted to Alpines, and cultivated as many as fifty species, with the object of making them ‘permanent ornaments of a garden. 5. He had an especial preference for the Alpine Primulas. 6. Others, as Professor Aichholz, in Vienna, who in 1576 made excursions in Styria; Camerarius, of Nuremburg, in the Alps of Salzburg and Tyrol; and Schlick, of Kaufbeuren, in the Rhcetian Alps, brought down, like Clusius, for cultivation, numerous Alpines. . 7. When Clusius left Vienna to settle in Frankfurt-on-the-Main, he commenced a most active correspondence with Viennese and other ladies, noblemen, landowners, priests, apothecaries, and others, upon botanical matters; and in this way was continually receiving both living and dried specimens of Styrian, Carinthian, Salzburg, Tyrol, Bavarian, Swiss, and Venetian Alpines, as well as plants from Belgium, England, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Crete and Constantinople. 8. Clusius bewails the difficulty he meets with in “taming” these Alpine Primule; and especially laments his want of success with the ‘*blauen speik” (P. glutinosa). Two only, P. Auricula, Linneus, and P. pubescens, Jacquin, responded to his efforts to cultivate them. 9. Of the latter Primula, which he calls Auricula Ursi II., he says that he saw it first in the garden of his friend Prof. Aichholz, in Vienna, who had received it from a noble lady, but did not know whence she obtained it. He had sought for it in vain in the Austrian (Archduchy) and Styrian Alps; but, later, learnt from his friend that it was found in the Alps near Innsbruck. In confirmation of this I intercalate the next paragraph. [10. In Amthor’s Alpenfrewnd, Vol. x., p. 178, it is stated that a certain Countess Trautsmannsdorf, who passed her ‘‘Sommerfrisch” at Schloss Trautson, near Matrei, on the Brenner Pass, sent the P. pubescens to Clusius for his Alpine garden. | PRIMULA CONFERENCE, 219 11. About 1582 Clusius s2nt from Vienna to his friend Van der Dilft specimens of P. Auricula and P. pubescens. 12. Their cultivation spread so rapidly that they appeared in most gardens in Belgium, Germany, England, and Holland by the middle of the seventeenth century; and in the year 1664 several cultivated forms of P. pubescens of different colours were known. They were also tried in Italy but without success. 13. P. Auricula, not yielding varieties, gradually disappeared from culti- vation, while the other increased them continually until more than a thousand forms were in cultivation. 14. After Clusius’ time the knowledge of the original habitat of P. pubescens gradually faded away. 15. But between 1774 and 1794, the P. pubescens was again found in Tyrol by Wulfen, not on the Alps near Innsbruck, but in the peasants’ gardens at Windisch-Matrei. The peasants, on being interrogated by Wulfen as to its origin, would probably reply that they came from the neighbouring mountains. Wulfen, however, never saw any wild specimens, but sent specimens of the cultivated plant to Jacquin at Vienna, who gave it its present name. 16. Since then, although the Iselthal Mountains from Windisch-Matrie to Pregraten, and all the neighbouring Alps, have been by later botanists most diligently searched, no wild specimen has ever been found. 17. Not only in the gardens near to Windisch-Matrei however, was it grown, but also in many of the valleys of the Pusterthal, and also in North Tyrol in the Innthal. 18. In the year 1867, however, Kerner, who was accustomed to spend his summer holidays in the Gschuitzthal, discovered the P. pubescens (super- auricala x hirsuta, All.) growing with its two parents, and another hybrid (subauricula x hirsuta, All.), P. arctotis, in the upper end of the valley in the neighbourhood of the Tribulaun, a dolomite peak. 19. Kerner adds that, as far as he knows, the Auricula (through P, pubescens) is the only Alpine plant that has become a generally cultivated florists’ flower. I think that to many minds the above paragraphs will be convincing as to the origin of the Auricula. I have seen in herbaria specimens of P. pubescens (wild of course) with much more of meal and of dark maroon colour than appeared in any living specimen produced at the exhibition. But there are two other points that Mr. Hibberd did not call attention to, and these were, Ist, the occasional great size and variation in form of the bract ; and, 2ndly, the deep and narrow denticulation of the leaf of some of the Auricula forms. I think he might well have asked how those two points could have been evolved from P. pubescens. But if he would deign once more to cast a glance at wild specimens of the despised P. Palinwri, he will find that it possesses by far the largest bract of any European Primula, and that its denticulation is deep and close, more so than that of P. Auricula, and in exact correspondence with the leaves of some of the forms of the florists’ plant. In addition it will supply a golden-yellow for the flower, and abundance of meal, if it be thought that P. Auricula be too pale and too bare of meal to supply enough to P. pubescens. This conjecture, indeed, has already been made by Stein in his List of Primulas, 1882. I think it very plausible. It is possible that another hybrid still may have assisted in the formation 920 REPORT ON THE of the florists’ flower, P. Géblii (superauricula x villosa, Jacq.), originating in Upper Styria, and first named by Kerner, in 1875, in his paper ‘‘On the Hybrid Primulas of the Alps,” Vienna, 1875, offers meal in abundance. Anyone who saw the splendid specimen exhibited by Messrs. Backhouse of this wild hybrid, would see the close resemblance exhibited by it to the “‘ tamed ”’ plant, and it must be remembered that Upper Styria was one of the regions searched by Clusius and his friends ; and as the butterflies were no doubt as busy in the work of fertilization in those days as now, P. Géblii may well have existed then and been brought down into lowland gardens by Clusius or others. I have been on the ground, but was only successful in finding the other hybrid (subauricula x villosa, Jacq.), viz., P. Kerneri, Stein.—G. C. CHURCHILL, in Gardeners’ Chronicle, May 1st, 1886, p. 562. Mr. Botton then, on behalf of the Rev. F. D. Horner, read the substance of the following paper :— On tHE LypROvVEMENT OF THE Genus Priva. By Rey. Francis D. Horner. I only take up this question at the direct request of my brother florist, Mr. Samuel Barlow, of Stakehill. The subject could not have been in better hands than his, nor associated with a name more known and honoured among florists. There is, however, this one thing to temper my regret, that I must take his place, and to add value to my paper, that the question I am to introduce is a very old and interesting one between Mr. Barlow and myself. Through all the years of our intimate friendship have we stood together over the Auricula in bloom, and taken careful thought as to the yet richer development of this highly- cultured flower, a favourite with us both from boyhood. Mr. Shirley Hibberd, in his introductory paper, historical and descriptive, will have given some definite idea of what the florists’ Auricula is; so that I shall not here be using technical terms altogether strange to those not conversant with the pro- perties of the flower, some of which had not been acquired in the dawn of its culture some 300 years ago, nor are even dimly visible in the simplicity of its supposed wild ancestry. If any of the points for improvement should seem minute—perhaps fanciful—I can only say that the highest qualities have, as a rule, been gained only by such gentle gradients and slight curves as these. It is often some delicate touch, small in itself, but great in its effect, that raises a flower at once above the inferior or commonplace. To the accustomed eye the Auricula has an intense individuality, and very slight variations of feature alter an expression, and enhance or detract from a type of beauty. PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 291 In a breadth of its brilliant bloom, there is the effect as of many eyes turned steadfastly upon their admirers; and there are faces in the flowery crowd on which one may read many expres- sions of a life and character super-floral. Like as in a bed of Pansies there are many comical casts of countenance, expressive of astonishment, anxious inquiry, perplexity, and brown study ; so here, in an exhibition of the Auricula, as representative of its beauty as can possibly be made, the flowers look all gentleness, candour, honesty, simplicity, and refinement. Glaring faults that impart a low and evil look are all absent here; and hence I am not able to submit to you how impudent and barefaced is the ‘‘ pm-eyed” flower, wherein the stigma, protruding from the hollow throat, is like a tongue thrust out. Neither, how loose and vacant is the expression of the inordinately large tube ; and how cunning and cold that of one too small. Nor how lack of breadth, in the eye or ‘‘ paste” of the flower, is like that in other eyes which cannot look you in the face; and how narrow ground colours betoken indecision and want of thoroughness. ‘‘ Edges” have their own expression, too; something like meanness when too narrow, and akin to bounce in over-breadth ; for excess of edge is often concurrent with excess of size, and coarseness, almost inseparable from immensity in the Auricula, is one of its gravest faults. Had it been practicable, a representative collection of failures in desired qualities would have formed a very clear illustration of mistakes. Yet I would not say it would be convincing; for invariably the uninitiated friend who comes to tell you which of all you have he likes the best, settles his admiration upon some- thing that has set at naught all proper principles, and he does violence to your feelings by approving of it. But the greatest ordeal of praise I ever had was the remark, transparently inno- cent, of an old country parishioner, ‘‘ They almost come up to artificials, sir!” The question in what direction efforts should be made for improving the florists’ flowers of the genus Primula resolves itself, descriptively, into the statement of the shortcomings more or less prominent and obstinate ; prospectively, into what the possibilities are of which hopeful shadows in faint shape are cast before; and practically, in what system of experiments we should seek to overcome the faults, and win into reality the Q at 222, REPORT ON THE promise of fresh beauties that a flower, inexhaustible in its powers of variation, naturally affords us. As an experimentalist I will adhere to the practical: use bare description as little as I may, and bring young hopes downstairs from the nursery realms of imagination as considerately as I can. PROPERTIES. Form.—The first property to be worked for in the Auricula is, | submit, the perfection of that form upon which the colour- attributes of the flower will be the most effectively displayed. Colour can always be worked up to, and the florist may tarry patiently for this until he has the form of grace whereon to call it into play. I always choose as the maternal parent of Auricula seed the best flowers I have in breadth, circularity, flatness, sub- stance, and smoothness of petal; while for male parentage I do not depart further than must be from form. Petals cannot be too broad, so long as they will expand equally and kindly. If they do not meet through narrowness or roughness the beautiful design of the colour zones is interrupted by vacant spaces signi- fying nothing. The edged classes and the selfs have each their own type of error in respect of form. In the ‘“ edges” it is generally a pointedness of petal ; in the selfs a central notch or heart-shaped depression. In the edged flowers the fault has long been noticed and regretted, and has now been brilliantly overcome, especially from the appearing of Lancashire’s Lancashire Hero in 1846 onwards ; but among the selfs until recent times there was hardly an exception to the rule of notch. The indented petal of the self seemed silently allowed to pass as the typical petal of the class. Selfs—For improvement of the self Auricula, my experience convinces me that the best results are to be obtained through entirely self parentage. I would not say that a correct self flower has never come from edged parents, for Mr. Campbell believed that his brown self Pizarro, the best flower in the class at the time, was raised from a green-edged parent, and Mr. . Simonite that a good blue self of his was obtained from a white- edged seedling. Certainly, however, my own best selfs have sprung from purely self parents, and latterly from a self descent comparatively PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 28 ancestral. Selfs haye generally a shorter duration of bloom than the edged flowers, which possess greater stoutness of petal, and in which the green, whether pure or mealed, is a colour of greater and more leaf-like vitality. It might be theoretical to suppose that, if selfs were crossed with these a greater substance of petal would be transmitted. In practice, however, it is found that all seed from purely edged parents produces a majority of self varieties, and vast numbers of these are notched, and frilled, and flimsy flowers. I have never had wilder flights of seedling selfs than from that grand erey-edge, George Lightbody. It would almost seem that an “edge” did not know what a good self ought to be. I think that for selfs we should work patiently among them- selves, advancing in substance as we certainly are by sure if slow degrees, and not weakening the newly acquired and most supreme point of the “‘ rose-leaved’” or perfectly rounded petal. Another point to aim at in the development of the self is the addition of some that would be constitutionally later in blooming than most of those we haye. Campbell’s Duke of Argyll (rich crimson, but deeply notched) might transmit this habit, and be overruled in this fault. The Auricula bloom in a collection loses much of its power and beauty when the quiet yet emphatic selfs are gone. It is like the beginning of the end, as when in the fading summer the swallows take their flight. Edged Flowers.—With reference to improvement in form in the green, grey, and white edges, I would remark that in these, good form, beyond its intrinsic value, has an influence inductive of other good properties. Rounded petals are associated with roundness of the white-mealed circle termed the ‘‘ paste ;”” while with the pointed petal the paste is often, as by a kind of sym- pathy, drawn into corresponding irregularities; which only intensify the serious fault of an angular appearance. For form’s sake, naturally, such flowers as have the roundest, broadest petals will be selected; and such a variety as George Lightbody, among those well known and distributed at present, will serve as a type. If good form in both parents should justify it, my conclusions are that edged flowers should be crossed with their class fellows ; for one line of improvement in the Auricula certainly lies in Q2 294 REPORT ON THE doing all we can to intensify and magnify the class distinctions, gaining green edges as deeply green as possible, and wh.te edges as densely mealed. The ‘undecided edge,” too green for grey, and too grey for a pure green, is not desirable. Still the Auricula is so very sportive that some decisive edges will be obtained from parents dissimilar in class; and the experiment is justified, of course, if there be no alternative, and if some marked improvement in form may be hoped for from it. Petals.—Connected with form, in addition to the roundness and level disposition of the petals, may be mentioned their num- ber. This is variable, even in different flowers on the same plant. Five is probably the normal number, for beyond this the Auricula will take a playful liberty with the proprieties of its Linnean order, Pentandria, always producing just as many stamens as there may be petals; and if one be of inordinate breadth it is accounted as two, and decorated accordingly with two stamens. This may be a botanical misdemeanour, but is not an offence under florist bye-laws. ~The same is noticeable also in the florist Tulip, which is required to have petals neither less nor more than six, but is occasionally misformed with four or five, and seven or eight, when there is always one attendant anther for each. In the Auricula five or six petals are sufficient for a broad, round flower, and more than eight begin to look narrow and laboured. Colour.—When we turn from improvement in form to views of improvement in colours, both in richness and variety, a very wide field of development lies before the florist. Possibilities peep out but half concealed or only in the rough, revealing them- selves in the rare combinations of colours that a few seedlings crudely show; and these beckonings need but to be followed to obtain in time some new and beautiful combinations. The Auricula is a most richly endowed flower, possessing already, singly or combined, all colours of the rainbow—yviolet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red; and further still and rarer, that negation of all colours, black. In edges we do not look for a gift of other than the green, grey, and white, now so well known and fixed, while the colours of the paste and tube are con- stant and common toall. There remains but one more colour zone upon the flower, to give variety and play, and that is the ring or belt of velvety surface known as the ‘‘ ground” or “* body”’ colour. PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 925 Disposed between the green or powdered edge and the white- mealed “paste,” it is a solid band along its inner edge ; while on the outer it flashes in lively pencillings, bold and blunt in some varieties, sharp and delicate in others, towards, but not dashing through to the petal edge. It is this lively characteristic of the body colour that entirely takes away any tameness or monotony, hardness or fixity that a series of strict concentric circles might be supposed to have. The body colour should most certainly have a good solid foundation before it begins to feather off, because a few slight pencillings only have a very feeble and scratchy effect, while a bold and rugged style of its outer edge is massive and handsome in the extreme. But by an expressionless ring of black, dreary as a black hatband round a white hat, I would not advocate taming the Auricula down to the miniature similitude of an archery target. Such a picture of - utter and unbending primness (for which the botanical equivalent is not Primula), as a series of severe circles, may indeed have been in old time perpetrated in hard diagram ; but this was only as the bare skeleton which Nature in real life shall clothe with all fulness, softness, and grace and vivacity. The body colour is the ‘‘ iris” of the flower’s eye, and black is at present the most settled colour. A good black is very safe and true, lasting well upon the flower, a most important point ; and hence it has been a favourite colour, especially with florists in the north, and the more encouraged, pursued, and developed. Indeed other body colours were regarded with marked disfavour by old Lancashire florists, though if other colours had been worked up to the truth and steadfastness of the black, there is nothing but local fancy or prejudice to make them less valuable and less beautiful. Little encouraged in such variety, the Auricula has shown a capability, if only initial yet, of giving both blue and crimson as the ground colour in edged flowers. These will of course require cultivating up to intensity and steadiness, and I submit this as a very interesting new path of improvement. One marked difficulty so far has been that of transmitting to any flower, whether self or edged, the all-important feature of a rich gold tube, if that flower has tints of violet or blue. Their tubes are pale or greenish-yellow, always a colour of low vitality and weak endurance. Some seedling blue selfs, however, by 226 REPORT ON THE pollen from gold-tubed varieties, are better in this respect than the old blues. Memories come back to me here of some old flowers that might have been helpful towards new combinations of colours that are faint and timid, and wavering yet. Such were Moore’s Violet, a green-edged flower, with violet body colour, and a green edge of Traill’s (Rev. George Jeans), in which the ground colour was of a lilac tint. In white edges were Ashton’s Bonny Lass, with beautiful violet, and Maria, richer in colour. These, however, and others of like colour, all were weakened by a pale and watery tube; and further, the eround colour was not of one uniform steadfast shade, which it decidedly ought to be in both edges and self Auriculas. Red or crimson as a ground colour of edged flowers has not yet been obtained of any intensity. Lightbody’s Fairy Queen and Star of Bethlehem, and also Smith’s Waterloo, were green edges, in which the body tints were a shade of red-plum, and a white edge of McDonald’s was lighted up with a brighter red. Chocolate-brown is another possible change in ground colours worthy of being followed up. It occurred in Lightbody’s white edge Countess of Dunmore, and in Smith’s Ne Plus Ultra. These red and brown ground colours are happily not associated sa ip weak tube colours of the blues. r. Simonite, in his Heather Bell and Aurora, has better ae pine white edges than the old ones, and the tubes, though not of a strong yellow, have more stability. An offer of a red-grounded green edge occurs in a rather erratic seedling of Mr. Rolt’s. The edge is pure but insignificant, and the red ground colour brightens with age, but is too broad, and runs wildly out at the petal edges. Such a flower would be worth crossing with some green-edge seedling of fine form, in which existed the fault of a ground colour much too slight and narrow. In new types of colour in selfs the last great acquisition came through Mr. Campbell’s success in his efforts to produce a true crimson self. Some fifteen years ago he sent out, as the result of many years’ work abounding in failures, two intensely crimson flowers—the one better than the other both in its colour and its rich gold tube, but both of them notched in petal. These flowers have transmitted their colour well to seedlings of better petal. | PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 227 Within the last two or three years another new and very beautiful break in self colours has occurred among both Mr. Simonite’s seedlings and my own, showing yet another direction in which we may seek to enrich and improve the Auricula. This new colour is a very lovely and decided pink. The flowers have happily been nearly always gold-tubed, and the petal is a fully rounded type. This young colour, however, is not easy as yet to obtain solid—i.e., unshaded and steadfast. Some have failed by growing slightly paler with age, or in losing with age the surface of the petal; so that what is velvet at first is calico at last. There is no doubt, however, that the true pink self is a coming flower, and I name it as one illustration more of the direction in which the Auricula may be improved. I have spoken of the failures of this newly-won colour—the successes must speak for themselves when they can. Adolescence.—There is something very curious in the blooming character of the first three years’ life of an upgrown seedling which it is important to mark and allow for, because it certainly is connected with the practical part of our question. It is not an invariable rule, but it is a frequent occurrence for a seedling, that blooms with brilliant properties in its maiden year, to flower the second year in much inferior if not loose character. This is oftener the case with the complex-edged flowers-than with the simpler selfs. At the third year the flower may either return to its early promise, or go again astray. I do not know how to account for it, but it is a noticeable feature in a long experience. It would seem as though the plant were affected by some unseen change or turning point in passing from its seedlinghood to becoming an established variety. Certainly some seedlings that show brilliant properties the first year never afterwards display them ; and occasionally others, that one has gladly given away to friends with garden borders, have, like the “ ugly duckling” of the story, developed into very swans of excellence. 1 mention this, not only that joy over some sudden acquisition may be tempered with gravity, but also that doubt may be not unlighted with hope. I do not cease to feel some anxiety for a brilliant seedling, and some hope over a rather disappointing one, till I have seen a . & varies” ie or _ " pal Pg. [or a 238 REPORT ON THE them at their third bloom. Some faults are decisive, such as the pin eye, the pale tube, the angular paste, the notched or pointed petal. Of such there is no hope. But if properties of tube and paste and petal are fine, I do not discard the seedling because, at its maiden bloom, the proportions and other qualities of the ground-colour and edge may not be correct. There may be a good flower in disguise. ALPINE AURICULAS. I pass on now to a brief notice of that other division of the . Auricula as a florist flower, which is technically known as the Alpine. These very beautiful flowers possess, as features of distinction from the edged classes and selfs, a perfectly unmealed centre or eye, and petals richly shaded from the deepest to the lightest tints of that one colour which the flower has adopted. That shading cannot. be in tints too numerous or too pie blended. The tube of the Alpine so closely follows in colour the re of the flower that it should have an expression in form all the more marked, because there is the less power of contrast with the centre by colour. It is a great point of beauty in all Auriculas that the mouth of the tube should be well defined, and rise fully to the level of the flower’s face, otherwise there is the appearance of a weak and sunken eye. The Alpine Auricula is divided into two sections, distinguished by the golden, and the paler, almost primrose-coloured centre. The golden centre is the higher type. In the Alpine, as in the edged flowers, it is again the flowers possessing violet or bluish colours that exhibit the palest yellows in the tube and eye. Flowers would no doubt be very highly valued in this class . of violet shades if they could be obtained wine the rich golden eye of those with crimson. THE POLYANTHUS. I must not close this paper without including the florist Polyanthus, a lovely sister of the Auricula, and in sore need of reinforcement in sterling varieties. Some of the very best Polyanthuses, like Kingfisher in the red ground flowers, are lost to cultivation ; and among black grounds of high merit, Lord Lincoln seems all but gone. Many garden strains of Polyanthus PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 929 are termed ‘ gold-laced,’ but they are a far remove’ from the florist flower with its cultured properties. The resemblance in most of them looks nearest when seen at the greatest distance. The decision, purity, and refinement of our Polyanthus are not in them, Mr. Barlow’s success in raising both black and red ground flowers of very high character, perhaps in red more especially, is a proof that though the flower may not be more ready than its radiant sister, the Auricula, to give the properties we would have, still it will repay all good care bestowed in judicious crossing. I do not think that any foreign blood of strains outside the florist pale, however proudly spoken of, should be introduced under the plea of giving vigour, which the standard old sorts have, alas! too often lived to lack. From such extraneous source of robustness will come much unruliness. A more safe return to soundness of constitution will be naturally obtained through seedlings, because seedlings naturally possess it, and happily young blue blood is no exception to the rule. For suggestions of improvement in the Polyanthus, I can but briefly state the properties that require to be exemplified in as many living representations of their beauty as we can obtain. The two brilliant extremes of class colour will be a black ground, or a scarlet ground within the lacing of bright yellow. Whatever the body colour be, it must consist of one rich uniform shade ; and the yellow, which is best when a clear lemon-gold, must be free at the eye or centre from any other shade of yellow. The gold of the lacing must exactly match that of the eye, and the lacing itself must be of exquisitely smooth edge and even width. It must both completely edge the petal and strike down through the centre of it to meet the golden eye. The central line of lacing is frequently broader down the middle of the petal than round the edge, but the nearer it is of the same width the better. {tis characteristic of the Polyanthus petal to be deeply notched in the centre, so that the circular edge of the Auricula petal is not looked for here. The centre or eye of the Polyanthus should occupy a wide circular space upon the flower. It can hardly be too wide, and is often not wide and circular enough. The mouth of the tube should be extremely well defined, and 230 REPORT ON THE even most slightly raised above the level of the centre. As in the Auricula, the tube should be filled with bold anthers up to the surface, with the stigma almost sessile below; and all flowers should expand equally and well. These are the points to be attained and strengthened in the improvement of the florist Polyanthus; and it will readily be seen how far these lines of beauty, which give such brilliance, purity, and refinement, he beyond the comprehension of the common garden border strains, and how far too few are the beautiful florist Polyanthuses we have that fulfil this standard. The Cuareman: I shall now be glad to invite discussion on Mr. Horner’s paper. These papers have been most carefully prepared, and it is most interesting to us in a conversational way to exchange our experiences with regard to the crossing of Auriculas. One thing Mr. Hibberd said just now—I think I must have misunderstood him—that the Alpine Auriculas were not derived from the edged Auriculas. . I think I must have misunderstood him, but those are the words I think he said, and if so, it is quite contrary to my experience of them. I know when I spoke to Mr. Horner himself as to the difficulty of raising good seedling florist Auriculas without a very careful selection of parentage and fertilization, because of the probability of the edged Auricuias producing something like an Alpine Auricula, he said it was most necessary that there should be no Alpine Auricula anywhere near the place, for fear the bees and wind should carry the pollen from the Alpine Auricula with its strong pollen and supply the florist Auricula. He said it was necessary to entirely separate the Alpine section clear away from the florist section. My experience has been unquestionably with the florists’ Auriculas, Colonel Champney, for example, and I have known the Alpine Auricula good enough to take its place in Standard 12. I think, therefore, probably you will be able to see that the Alpine Auriculas must not be placed too near the florist Auriculas, or a very bad strain of seed will be produced. That gives a clue to the way in which we may, in the future, improve the florist Auricula, and also by which we may by- hybridization get new strains of florist flowers. There is one thing in florist flowers we should always aim at and desire to see maintained, and that is PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 931 proportion, because if the centre, or the body colour, or the edge, are in the smallest degree out of proportion, then the beauty of the flower to the florist’s eye in our view is gone. Proportion seems to me to be almost the very first characteristic, and next to get what we call a good colour, an absolutely white paste, a sound body colour and clear edge, with no undecided margin. I think such a man as Mr. Douglas should be able to give us his views, because he succeeded in producing the best flowers of the show. I think he showed the champion flower among the florists’ Auriculas, and I think he might give us some idea of what he is working upon in producing the best forms of florists’ Auriculas. There is one particular variety, George Lightbody, which seems to have been the parent of almost all our best recent endeavours in that way. I cannot speak from experience in that way. Ihave raised one or two flowers that have gained certificates, but Mr. Douglas has raised some scores. Mr. Bursinez: There is one little point I should lke to allude to in connection with hybridizing generally, that is, that I do not think we should look entirely to the flower itself for the colour. If you get the desired colour in any other part of the plant—even in the root—it is possible that you may get that colour in the flower by seeding and by crossing—by crossing especially. Take for example the common Primrose. If you look at the foot-stalks of the leaves you wiil notice a delicate pink colour in them. It is indicated in Dr. Masters’ large diagram on the wall, and it is really in nature brighter than it is represented there. That colour we might expect to get in the flower as well as at the base of the leaves. In the room below there is a very interesting collection of wild Primroses from Cornwall. Those Primroses have varied from a yellow colour just as one might expect them to vary from the amount of pink in the root of the plant. I do not think we get new colours so often as we imagine in hybridizing, but I think we have got the power of developing the colour found in one part of the plant and causing it to appear in another situation. Mr. Borvon: I should like to say that we rarely get two seed- lings of a similar colour. In reference to colour we look out for what we call in Lancashire deep, solid colours. We throw out 932 REPORT ON THE everything that is watery-looking. If we want a black, we want a velvety black, not a dirty black; if we want blue, we want a deep blue; if we want scarlet, we want a bright scarlet. We like the black of the body ground of an Auricula for the very simple reason that it is the most difficult to be obtained. Take a green-edged plant. It may open black, as brilliant and pure as can be, but in the course of afew days, when the flower gets flat, it runs to pink and changes to red, and gets china-body-grounded. In reference to a few other matters in this paper, I understood that the paper was on the improvement of the genus Primula; but it treats of the Auricula and Polyanthus, and it will be a matter for gardeners to say how to treat other Primula forms. Take the fancy Polyanthuses. We look upon those as the best that give us decided colours, and which have a brilliant effect in the garden, and we want something that is a distinct advance on anything before known. We have plenty of seedlings equal to the sorts in cultivation, but we discard them, as in the Auricula, if we find we have not a decided advance in reference to the habit, colour or freedom in blooming. We cross greens together or cross two greys; we very seldom treat a grey with a green except in the case of a matter of very slight grey, when we want to get a rounded-edged petal. But, as a rule, all these crosses taken together in that direction bring us nothing of any consequence, we do not get a single step further. It is simply when we get tc treat with a plant like ‘‘ John Simonite”’ that we get a distinct advance in the white edges. I cannot understand that plant coming with a white body ground. I think every flower that came out of that pot of seed had a yellow body ground, and ‘“‘ John Simonite”’ is generally jet black, but it will change to a reddish blue. All the Auriculas are generally seen in their best character here. If in some years we had a bad tube and a bad paste. they would be thrown out; in fact, they would not be kept at all. The Cuarrman: There was one passage which I am sure was extremely interesting in Mr. Horner’s paper. I should like to ask a question of Mr. Bolton with regard to it. Mr. Horner says, ‘* Within the last two or three years another new and very beautiful break in self colours has occurred among both Mr. Simonite’s seedlings and my own, showing yet another direction in which we may seek to nourish and improve the PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 238 Auricula ; this new colour is a very lovely and decided pink.” ‘“‘ There is no doubt, however, that the true pink self is a coming flower, and I name it as one illustration more of the direction in which the Auricula may be improved.” The question I should like to ask Mr. Bolton is, whether there is any knowledge of whence that new colour has been derived, and how it has been obtained ? Mr. Botton: In reference to the pink colour, it is something like the pink of the Primula rosea, a very beautiful soft pink. We have been trying for years to see if we could not produce a scarlet, or get a scarlet body ground on the green and the white edges. I think these pink selfs have been the result of a cross between ‘‘ Duke of Argyll” and a few of Mr. Horner’s seedlings. It has given what you may call a weak kind of red, but the pink has not been watery. The ‘‘Duke of Argyll” has no paste at all, and we have tried to improve that portion of the flower, and it has caused us to get into some more distinct colours. | (Mr. Horner has contributed the following note on this subject: “The pink selfs originated among seedlings from a violet self of Mr. Simonite’s raising. He and I have seen in this parent, very occasionally, a violet petal with a streak of pink in it.—F. D. Horner.’’] Mr. R. Dean: I will intrude on this meeting only a minute or two to state that in the paper which has been read the author alludes to the green-edged seedling with a red body colour instead of the black. In breeding for green edges, florists hitherto have endeavoured to get the deepest black body colour possible, but in the case of this particular flower you will observe the body colour has become red instead of black, and I think it possible, in course of time, we may have a distinct race of green- edged Auriculas with scarlet body colour. Mr. Bouton: We have had it in that form, but it is so very bad and the edge flies so much that we have always discarded it. Mr. Baxer then made some remarks on the scope and objects of his synopsis,- printed below :— In my synopsis, said Mr. Baker, I have indicated what I understand to be the European species of the genus Primula, using the term species in the sense in which it is used in Bentham and Hooker’s “ Genera Plantarum,” and in the Kew “ Floras” of different parts of the British possessions. I have not fh ierc es eee eT) ae 234 REPORT ON THE attempted in the present paper to del with the sub-species, varieties, hybrids, and synonyms, which will be found in Mr. Dewar’s catalogue, classified in their relation to these specific types, as here briefly defined. Ina complicated genus like Primula it is much the best plan to begin by learning thoroughly the clearly distinguishable species, and afterwards to work out the subordinate types, and to attempt to classify them in their proper order in relation to the primary types. In those difficult genera, with which horti- culture has so largely to deal (such as Narcissus, Primula, Lilium, Iris, Crocus, Pelargonium, Fuchsia, Odontoglossum), unless this be done, and the different grades of individuality according to the rules of systematic botany be kept | distinct as far as possible, we soon slide into confusion. A Synopsis oF THE European Species oF PRIMULA, WITH THEIR DisTRIBUTION. By J. G. Baxer, F.R.S. Me Group I. PRIMULASTRA.—Young leaves revolute, never mealy beneath. Calyx strongly ribbed. Flowers yellow. 1. P. vulgaris, Hudson (Primrose).—Leaves narrowed gradually to the base. Umbel sessile; pedicels long. Calyx-teeth lanceolate. Corolla-limb large, pale yellow.—Distrib.: Throughout Europe, except the Mediterranean region. 2. P. elatior, Jacquin (true Oxlip).—Leaves narrowed gradually to the base. Peduncles elongated; pedicels short. Calyx-teeth lanceolate. Corolla- limb large, pale yellow; throat without folds.—Distrib. : Throughout Europe, except the Mediterranean region. Differs from the hybrid Oxlip by its more villose calyx and paler corolla, not plicate at the throat. 3. P. officinalis. Scopoli (Cowslip).—Leaves narrowed suddenly at the base to a winged petiole. Peduncles elongated; pedicels short. Calyx-teeth deltoid. Corolla-limb smaller, deeper yellow; throat plicate (with folds).— Distrib. : Throughout Europe ; rare and not typical in the Mediterranean region. Group II. ALEuRITIA.—Leaves often mealy beneath, revolute when young. Calyx not ribbed. Flowers lilac. 4. P. farinosa, Linnzeus.—Leaves small, crenulate, mealy below. Pedicels and calyx also mealy. Calyx-tube campanulate; teeth as long as the tube. Corolla-tube short.—Distrib.: Northern and Central Europe, mountains of Spain. 5. P. stricta, Hornemann.—Differs from farinosa by leaves not mealy beneath, pedicels and calyx not mealy, flowers fewer.—Distrib. : Mountains of Scandinavia and Northern Russia. 6. P. sibirica, Jacquin, var. finmarchica, Jacquin.—Leaves broader than in farinosa, entire, not mealy beneath. Pedicels longer. Calyx-tube oblong ; teeth munch shorter than the tube. Corolla-tube short. Flowers few.— Distrib, : Mountains of Scandinavia. The type known in Siberia only. . 7. P. frondosa, Janka.—Leaves large, thin, not mealy beneath. Calyx-tube campanulate ; teeth lanceolate-deltoid, as long as the tube. Corolla-tube short.—Distrib.: Mountains of Thrace. Very rare. 8. P. longiflora, Allioni.— Leaf like that of farinosa, usually mealy beneath. Calyx longer, both tube and teeth. Corolla-tube 1 inch or more long. Corolla- limb 3—# inch in diameter.—Distrib.: Mountains of Central Europe. PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 235 Group III. AURICULASTRA.—Young leaves involute. Calyx short, both tube and teeth. True Auriculastra.—Leaves, calyx and pedicels not viscose. 9. P. Auricula, Linnzeus.—Leaves large, entire or minutely toothed. Under side of leaves, pedicels and calyx mealy. Bracts small. Flower pale yellow.— Distrib. : Mountains of Central Europe. 10. P. Palinurt, Petagna.— Differs mainly from the large forms of P. Auricula by its constantly inciso-crenate leaves and larger foliaceous bracts. Flower pale yellow.—Distrib. : Promontory of Palinurus, Naples. 11. P. marginata, Curtis.—Much dwarfer than Auricula, with strongly inciso-crenate leaves with a white mealy margin. Flowers fewer, lilac.— Distrib.: Alps of Dauphiné and Piedmont. 12. P. carniolica, Jacquin.—Leaves oblong, thin, entire, not at all mealy. Flowers lilac.—Distrib.: Alps of Austria and Lombardy. Erythrodosa,—Leaves, pedicels and calyx viscose. 13. P. viscosa, Villars.—Leaves obovate, strongly inciso-crenate. Pedicels twice as long as calyx. Calyx-teeth nearly as long as the tube. Flowers few or many, lilac.—Distrib.: Pyrenees and mountains of Central Europe. Many varieties (villosa, Wulfenius, latifolia, Lapeyrouse, &c.). 14. P. daonensis, Leybold.—Differs from dwarf few-flowered forms of | viscosa in its narrower leaves, shorter pedicels and much smaller calyx, with very small obtuse teeth.—Distrib. : Granitic Alps of Switzerland and Austria. Group IV.—ARTHRITICA.—Young leaves involute; calyx long; tube cylindrical or infundibuliform. Flowers always lilac. Corolla lobes shallowly bifid. 15. P. calycina, Duby.—Leaves large, entire, acute, with a distinct white mealy edge. Bracts large, linear. Calyx 3 inch long; teeth lanceolate, as long as tube.—Distrib. : Alps of Lombardy. 16. P. spectabilis, Trattinick—Leaves large, entire, obtuse or subacute, with an indistinct pale edge. Bracts smallerthan inthe last. Calyx 1—1inch long ; teeth much shorter than the tube.—Distrib.: Alps of Central Europe ; several varieties ; was included by Linnzeus under integrifolia. 17. P. integrifolia, Linnzeus, e« parte.—Dwarfer than spectabilis, with smaller leaves and only 1—3 flowers.—Distrib.: Pyrenees and mountains of Switzerland and Lombardy. 18. P. Allioni, Loiseleur.—Dwarf, 1—2 flowered, with very short peduncle and pedicels. Leaves obovate, very obtuse, subentire, viscose.—Distrib.: Alps of Piedmont, very rare; and a geographical variety (P. tyrolensis, Schott) in the Tyrol. Corolla-lobes deeply bifid. 19. P. minima, Linneus.—Very dwarf; leaves small, obtuse, sharply toothed, not viscose ; flowers 1—2; peduncle and pedicels both very short.— Distrib.; Mountains of Switzerland, North Italy, Austria, and Turkey. 20. P. glutinosa, Wulfen.—Leaves obtuse, denticulate, viscose Flowers many, in a dense umbel, with an elongated peduncle, and large oblong obtuse bracts ; pedicels absent.—Distrib.: Mountains of the Engadine, Lombardy, and Austria.—J. G. Baker. It was then agreed that in order to saye time, and give 7. eed Dee 236 : REPORT ON THE longer opportunity for discussion, that Dr. Masters’ paper be taken as read. The paper itself is appended :— On tHE Root-Srrucrure anp Mope or Growrs or PrimvuLace® mv Revation to Currrvation.* By Dr. Maxwett T. Masters, F.R.S. For practical purposes it is very serviceable to consider a living plant in the light of a piece of mechanism, constructed and put together to do certain work as efficiently and as economically as circumstances permit. The comparison may serve our purpose without it being necessary to point out where it fails, and wherein lies the great difference between a living machine begotten of its predecessors, and which had the like structure and endowments with itself, self- sustaining, supplying its own power from sun and air and water, built up and adapted by its own energy, and one constructed by the art of man, dependent on artificial means for its support and its power, and with no innate faculty of self-adjustment to varying circumstances. Availing ourselves, therefore, of the comparison we may proceed to discuss what it is our machine is called on to do, how it is enabled by its conformation to do what is required of it, and, incidentally, how we as cultivators may help or marits action. The Primulacez will afford us as good illustrations of these matters as any other family of plants. It is the group which is expressly selected to furnish a text for these remarks, and which, moreover, are, as prescribed, to be limited to a part only of the machine —the root. Itis permissible, however, on such an occasion to use the term **root’’ in the broad sense in which it is usually employed by gardeners, and not in the more accurate and strictly limited sense in which it is made use of by physiologists. THE REQUIREMENTS. What, then, is our machine—the root—called on to do? In all cases to lay hold of the soil and secure the plant mechanically. How it does this will be sufficiently though incidentally illustrated later on, and is not a subject on which we as cultivators need linger long. The plants we have now to deal with may be lifted out of the ground by frost, but they are hardly likely to be washed away by floods or uprooted by winds. To pot firmly and press the crown firmly into the soilin transplanting are lessons which common expe- rience teaches, lessons which the conformation of the root, to be presently noted, do but accentuate. Another universal duty imposed on the root is to feed the plant. There is soil-food and there is air-food. The leaves, stimulated by light and heat, collect and transform the one ; the roots, influenced by heat, absorb and digest the other. How they do these things is beyond the purpose of this paper to explain, but reference to any modern botanical text-book, and in particular to the truly marvellous revelations contained in the chapters on root movements in Darwin’s “The Power of Movement in Plants,” will supply the information and affords indication of the processes of absorption, of solution, of fermenta- * For the communication of numerous specimens illustrative of these notes Iam specially indebted to Mr. Dewar, of the Royal Gardens, Kew; Mr. Barron, of Chiswick ; Mr. Correvon, of Geneva; Mr. Douglas, and other friends. For some of the drawings I have to thank Mr. Sandgren, lately of the Royal Gardens, Kew. For observations on the development and conformation of the flower of Primulacew, see Masters, in Transactions of the Linnean Society, second ser., vol. 1., June 7, 1877, p. 285, tab, 38—41. =e PRIMULA CONFERENCE. ; 237 tion, of transformation, which, with or without the agency of minute Bacterian organisms, constitute each root-tip, each root-hair, a laboratory and a work- shop. Each root-tip, each root-hair, moreover, is as sensitive as a nerve, not only responding to a touch, but transmitting impressions from the spot touched to adjoining celis. It is as mobile as a muscle, turning towards what is useful to it, bending away from what is noxious or obstructive, threading its way through the soil, and adapting itself to circumstances as if it really possessed intelligence. It acts like the brain, says Darwin; and truly as a sentient organ, receiving and transmitting impressions and directing the course of growth and movement, it would be hard to say wherein its inferiority to the nervous system of the lower animals consists.* In the case of annual plants, which live their life within the compass of a few weeks or months, there is little else for the root to do than to secure the plant in the ground and to go in search of food and turn it to account when found. But in the case of perennial plants, such as most of our Primulacex, another duty becomes incumbent—that of providing a store-place for water and for food. The food so stored, principally starch and allied substances, is not absorbed directly by the root and packed away, but, partly by root-action and soil-food, partly by leaf-action and air-food, is manufactured in the leaves and afterwards transferred and deposited in the root or in the root-stock. A similar formation of starch takes place in annual plants, but the starch is used up in the process of growth, or stored in the seed to be turned to use by the seedling plant when it begins life on its own account. In any case the storage requirements of an annual are small in comparison with those of a perennial. To ascertain how and in what manner the food is obtained, transformed, stored, and employed, is surely to put ourselves in possession of information, of any that could be named, the most important for cultural purposes. Another phase of work which it falls to the lot of the root (sensu latiori) to achieve is that of propagation, and by observing how this is effected spon- taneously we may surely obtain some useful hints for our own artificial procedures. Such, then, in very general terms, is the nature of the work to be done ; such, in merest outline, are the requirements of the case. THe MEcHANISM. In the following remarks it is proposed to give a few illustrations of the machinery by means of which the work just alluded to is done, for while the work is in all cases the same, the machinery by which that work is accomplished is manifold in detail. * Since this paper was written, further additions to the marvels of root-action have heen made known by MM. Van Tieghem and Douliot (see Bulletin Soc. Botan. France, 1886, p. 252). Roots, as is well-known to botanists usually originate in the deeper tissues of the plant, and hitherto they have been considered to force their way outward by mechanical pressure during growth. The two Botanists above-mentioned have, however, ascertained that the growing root-cells secrete some fluid which enables them to soften, ultimately dissolve, feed on and digest the cells with which they come in contact, much in the same way that the same roots, when they have accomplished their escape from the inner substance of the plant, fed on the particles of soil with which they come in contact. Messrs. Van Tieghem’sand Douliot’s observations were largely made in Primroses of various kinds. R 238 REPORT ON THE ANNUALS. Very few cultivated Primulaceze come ‘under this head. Some of the Androsaces and Anagallis are annuals; but speaking from a cultivator’s point of view, they might be passed over if it were not for one circumstance, frequently ignored or overlooked, though one of great importance—the fact that seedling plants even of those species destined to be perennial are, to all practical intents, annuals. Barring the slender resources stored up in the seed, the seedling plants have little store to draw upon, and thus, like the annuals, they must have good food within easy reach, and be provided with rapid means of utilizing it, else they wither away.* Centunculus minimus.—A weed no cultivator would bestow a thought upon, unless it were to compass its destruction, may, nevertheless, serve as a useful illustration (fig. 8). It sends down into the soil a slender tap-root, Fic. 8.—CcENTUNCULUS MINIMUS. Adult plant to the left; germinating plant to right, with branched radicle, sessile cotyledons, and single stem. which speedily ramifies, just below the surface, branches and branches again till it, as it were, invades a considerable area of soil. ‘There are no great ‘ hold-fast” roots—none are needed, but on the other hand, there * “Some [seed] fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: and when the sun Llgd ll they ey scorched: and because they had not root, they withered away.”— a xiii. 5, 6. - PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 239 is a great multiplication of small fibres, and a consequent extension of absorbent surface. Notice, too, that there is no caulicle; in other words, the radicle comes straight away from beneath the two cotyledons without there being any perceptible internode (stalk between the base of the seed leaves and the top of the root). In a seedling Primrose may generally be observed the radicle, giving off branches, then an erect Fic. 9.—PRIMULA GERANIFOLIA, Fic. 10.—PRIMULA FLORIBUNDA; SEEDLING Showing radicle, lateral roots spreading —- ; horizontally, caulicle, and stalked The line to the right indicates the real size. cotyledons. cylindrical portion bearing the cotyledons or seed-leaves, but sometimes reduced to very small dimensions; this is the caulicle or tigellum. Above the two seed leaves is the plumule, consisting of the first leaf or leaves above the cotyledons. In these seedlings it is curious to see how, whilst the primary roots descend vertically, the pecans ones pass off horizontally (figs. 9, 10), R 240 REPORT ON THE It is quite clear that the seed in Centunculus was not buried deeply, for the caulicle is a minus quantity. It is clear also the soil for such a plant should be light, open, rich, well drained. Contrast this with the Fig. 11.—PRIMULA KINGII, Showing radicle, a lateral horizontal rootlet, the caulicle, and two cotyledons, one just disengaging itself from the seed. The line to the left shows the real size. germination of Prinvwla reticulata, in which not only is the tigellum very long, but the two cotyledons are also raised on long, erect, or ascending stalks, PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 241 as if the plant grew in the clefts of the rocks, and had a long distance to thrust its seed-leaves into the light and air (fig. 12). The requirements of seedlings are, it need hardly be said, of the same character. We all know the care that is requisite to secure the germination and the rearing of these delicate organisms. **In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand.’ Eccles. xi. 6. Fia¢, 12.—GERMINATION OF PRIMULA RETICULATA, Showing radicle, caulicle, long-stalked cotyledon, c, plumule, Pp, and an adventitious root springing from the stem above and between the cotyledons, an indication of the speedy decay of the primary root. The mode of growth of the Androsaces is similar. They are, it is true, for the most part not annuals, but in their roct-growth some of them (the czespitose 942 REPORT ON THE species) follow the mode of annuals. The seedling plants have roots of the annual character, with a long radicle giving off numerous branches (fig. 13). Fig. 13.—ANDROSACE ELONGATA. The adult plant has little provision for storage, but consists of a dense tuft of leaves, from the axils of some of which proceed long slender runners, like those of a Strawberry, and which bear at their ends a tuft of leaves like the parent from which they sprung. From the under-surface of this tuft proceed roots like those of the Centunculus, and, like them, destined not for any lengthened use, but only for a temporary purpose; no long time indeed elapses ere the tuft throws out new runners, and thus repeats in another generation the process of its own genesis (figs. 14,15). It would seem from this peculiar mode of Fic. 15.—ANDROSACE LANUGINOSA, With a side-bud produced on the runner. lf pegged down roots will be produced from Fié, 14.—ANDROSACE VILLOSA, this part. PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 943 growth that the Androsaces speedily exhaust the area in which their roots spread, and having done so, haste— ** To-morrow to fresh woods and pastures new.” Milton, Lycidas, t. 193. Whether this isnot an indication of value tothe cultivator I leave to others who have had more experience to decide. My own want of success with these plants cannot in fairness be attributed only to neglect of that indication. Fic. 16.—PRIMULA CAPITATA, Showing long rhizome giving off numerous horizontal branches. PERENNIALS. In these, as for annuals, there is need for daily supplies during the growing period, and further, there is the necessity for replenishing the stores. It is 944 REPORT ON THE necessary, therefore, to consider the root-growth of these plants from two points of view—that of food-collecting and that of food-storage. The actual absorption of water is, of course, effected in the same way in the roots of perennials as in those of annuals, but the perennial habit allows more time wherein to work, and frequently secures a wider root-range than is possible in an annual. In a perennial, ceteris paribus, the roots can travel further, or penetrate deeper in search of food, than in the case of an annual. In an annual the roots, as gardeners say, “ keep at home,” and there is not much necessity for a system of conduits to convey the water from its source to the stem; but in perennials it often happens that the best food supply is at some considerable distance from the stem, and the consequence is that the fibrous roots collect the liquid from the feeding-ground, and convey it in so Apes: Wy Et a . Naas: - \ Ai} pS ty 4) J Fic. 17.—R0O0OT SYSTEM OF PRIMULA ROSEA. many conduits tothe stem. The thicker root-fibres have, as every one knows, ‘little or no power of absorption, that faculty being mostly limited to the thinnest extremities of the root-fibres, and to the root-hairs (where present). Of course the number, length, and degree of branching of the roots depend very greatly on the physical nature of the soil in which the plant happens to be growing— ** Pinguibus he terris habiles, levioribus illz.” But when due allowance is made for these circumstances each plant has more or less its own distinct character. The roots of most species of Primula, for instance, are very different from those of Androsace, and indicate different requirements. [See Irmisch, in Journ. Hort. Soc. London, vol. viii. (1853), p.217.] But even in thesame genus we get variations in this respect. In the PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 945 common Primrose and Polyanthus, in P. cashmiriana, P. capitata (fig. 16, p. 243), P. amena, P. Auricula, P. denticulata, P. nivalis, P. longiflora, P. cortusoides, &c., the roots are generally rather thick and fleshy, descending more or less Fig. 18.—GERMINATION OF ANDROSACE, Showing radicle, caulicle, sessile cotyledons, and primary tuft of leaves. = 246 REPORT ON THE vertically for some little distance without branching, and then giving off short nearly horizontal branches with few root-hairs (except in P. Auricula in which, in some cases at least, the roots are covered with a velvety coat of hairs. Such roots are not surface-feeders, but are capable of penetrating to a considerable depth in search of food, while their succulent habit and reserve store of water obviate the necessity for that dense network of fibrous roots that other species present. Primula rosea (tig. 17, p. 244), P. Kaufmanniana, P. involucrata, and Cortusa Matthioli, afford instances of this densely matted and com- paratively superficial root development. They have few if any large root or conduit fibres; but, on the contrary, an intricate mass of fine fibrous roots, penetrating in every direction, and availing themselves, as it were, of every scrap of soil within reach. Surely we have here an indication of the necessity in cultivation of supplying these plants with ample depth and breadth of light, rich, moist, not to say wet soil. The utility of a mulch in hot dry weather is also indicated as a means of preventing the drying up of the surface roots. In some of the Androsaces we find provision for keeping the roots moist and free from the risk of drought. In seedling plants of A. elongata, for instance, the caulicle is very long and the slender radicle descends vertically for a long distance without branching, and then gives off near its tip a leash of much branched fine filaments (fig. 13, p. 242). In Soldanella we have a tuft of rather thick fibres, which descend vertically into the soil, aad are unbranched till near the points, where they give off numerous relatively short horizontal fibres. STORAGE AND REST. In perennials we have specially to consider the arrangements for storage of food in convenient places for use when required, and the modifications of structure associated with the periodic alternations of active growth and relative rest. Of a Primrose, whether “‘ by a river’s brim,” or elsewhere, whether a yellow Primrose or one of other hue, it may be said that at one season its constant care is to increase its store, while at another its aim is to make all snug for winter. Of course the Primrose is not peculiar in these matters, but we may perchance profit somewhat if we make use of it as an illustration of general application. THE ROOTSTOCK. The body which emits roots on the one side or beneath and throws up leaves and flowers on the other is the ‘‘ rhizome,” or rootstock. It is usually subterranean, and so gets called a root, but inasmuch as it produces leaves, buds, and offsets, and has the internal structure of a stem, botanists will not admit its claim to be considered a root, for a root, under ordinary circum- stances (exceptis pretermissis), does none of these things. It is a development of the plumule or of the caulicle, or of both together. Usually it is more or less horizontal in its direction, as in the Primrose, in other cases it is vertical, as in the Auricula, where it thrusts itself above ground, and gives off buds or offsets in such a way that no one can mistake it for a root. Horizontal or erect, it throws down feeding-roots into the soil, and these roots are usually fleshy, serving, indeed, not only as feeders, but as storeplaces as well, thus sharing the office of the stock itself, At the free end of the stock is a bud, or rn MMA UMLL Wey micens'ot Which tho pleat: grows (Ses. 19, 25): Front these buds up spring the leaves and the flowers. Fic. 19.—POLYANTHUS, Showing branching rootstock with numerous spreading roots and terminal and lateral buds. 248 REPORT ON THE POLARITY OF THE STOCK. Owing to this position of the buds the stock grows at one end, and extends and pushes itself into new territory, while the other end of the stock, having yielded up its store of water and starch to the growing bud, gradually decays. Fig. 20.—PRIMULA VERTICILLATA, Showing the branching and spreading secondary roots (the original radicle has already perished), the two seed-leaves and the tufted many-leaved plumule. pe SaaS EE2a—E SSS —~ TSS $#F?|§®°|£#14 B22 -rw¥ 2 ES PTA SSS << AG D SS SSE NS = : ZA SSS SS SSS™ SIF LZ Fic. 21.—RHIZOME OF PRIMULA CORTUSOIDES VAR. AMCNA. HALF REAL SIZE. Thus the plant effects very quietly and gradually a change of residence—an indication of the desirability of occasional transplantation. This progressive decay at one end suggested to old Auricula growers the “‘ removal of the end of the Carrot,” and there was nothing to be said against the process pro- vided their surgery was confined to dead portion only, and did not include the healthy and (potentially) active roots also, In such a case the stock would be PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 249 put to the trouble of making new roots, which, to say the truth, it would not fail to do speedily under propititious circumstances. The progressive growth at one end associated with progressive decay at the other, is a very marked feature in Primulacez. Moreover, it is often manifested from the earliest period. The root apparatus of the seedling plant seems destined for the use of the seedling only (which is thus, as before noticed, practically an unnual), and when the plumule developes gradually into a permanent stem with its leaves and potential flowers, new roots are thrust out from the plumule, as may be seen in the illustration of Primula reticulata (fig. 12), P. elatior (fig. 22), and in P. verticillata, (fig. 20). Fic, 22.—PRIMULA ELATIOR,. A, Seedling plant; c, Stalked cotyledon at the top of the caulicle, from which also protrude numerous roots; 1, 2, 3, 4, Plumulary leaves. sB, Winter bud arising from the decay of the stock and the detachment of the bud. Cc, the same, enlarged; r1,r 2, Roots; f1, 2, Leaves; g, Side buds (after Warming). In Primula sinensis, however, the primary root does not decay, but forms a permanent tap root, which thickens as it grows, like the woody stem, and sheds its bark in consequence. 250 REPORT ON THE \ Fic, 23.—PRIMULA VULGARIs. A, Shows the radicle tapering downwards, the cylindrical caulicle above the radicle and supporting the two cotyledons, between which is seen the first leaf with its revolute edges; B, Further stage of the same; the line by the side indicates the real size; c, Stage still further advanced; roots are being given off from the base of the plumule. PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 951 The development of the tufted stem from the plumule is well exemplified in the case of the Cowslip, as pointed out to me some years since by Mr. Holland. The seedling plant germinates in the usual way, but after a time the weight of the rapidly-growing plumule causes the caulicle to bend downwards and become more or less horizontal. Adventitious roots are then thrown out from the base of the plumule, the caulicle and primary root gradually decay, and thus the young plant becomes independent. (Henfrey’s ‘Elementary Course of Botany,” Ed. 4, p. 654.) ' PROTECTION. One other provision with reference to the rootstock may here be noted, and that is the manner in which in most species, notably in P. latifolia P. graveolens, P. Palinuri, the deeply descending rhizome is protected from loss of heat, as also from mechanical injury, by the dense covering afforded by the remains of the old leaves. Contrast this state of things with the way in which Auriculas thrust themselves out of the ground, their rootstocks showing little or no trace of the leaves beyond the scar, which indicates the place whence they have fallen. It would be interesting to ascertain whether these peculiarities in the Auricula may not be connected with the development of offsets (buds) from the side of the rhizome (fig. 24). Fic. 24,—AURICULA. Vertical rhizome; the scars indicate the places whence the leaves have fallen. 952 REPORT ON THE Fig. 25.—ALPINE AURICULA, With vertical rootstock pushing above-ground and devoid of leaf-scales. TUBERS. The tuber of a Cyclamen (a development originally from the caulicle or tigellum) is essentially the same as the rootstock, differing only in its more or less globular form. It throws off feeding roots from its base or its sides, and it forms a bud or buds at the top. Its fleshy tissue is laden with starch and building material for new growth. ll PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 253 WINTER BUDS. In Primula rosea, P. involucrata, P. farinosa, and P. rotundifolia (herbarium spec.), and probably in many other species, we find what may be termed winter buds. In point of fact the stock in these cases decays away almost entirely, leaving only the buds which form at its extremity, or at the ends of its branches. These buds are made of dilated leaf-stalks densely packed one over the other, like the similar parts in a ‘‘ head of Celery.” They are furnished at the base with numerous root-fibres, very fleshy in P. involucrata (fig. 26), fibrous in P. rosea, and which serve to supply sufficient Fic. 26.—WINTER BUD OF PRIMULA INVOLUCRATA, WITH THICK VERTICALLY DESCENDING ROOT-FIBRES. moisture in the dry season. Carefully stowed away in the centre of the leaves is the inflorescence, whose tiny pearl-like flowers may be seen securely nestling, even in mid-winter, beneath their protective wraps exactly as in the case of bulbs, or Cabbages in which the leaves “turn in” well. P. denticulata is not so fortunate. In this plant the leaves spread widely and do not close up to cover the inflorescence, the consequence of which is the latter is apt to be Ss 954° REPORT ON THE stimulated by the capricious and unseasonable gleams of sun that we get in— some winters, and bursts into bloom at a time when “a frost, a killing frost,” is only too likely to damage the blossoms, or, if this does not happen, the flowers are liable to be rotted with wet or snow. Of course this is, to some extent, prevented by laying a Fir branch or other protection over the plant. The formation of a thick rootstock, of tubers, of fleshy roots, or of large winter buds, may all be taken as indicative that the plant is thrifty enough to lay by a provision for the future, and, moreover, that it adapts itself to falling temperature and other untoward circumstances, and goes to rest. To afford such restin our uncertain climate is, as all gardeners know, occasionally a difficult matter. In my own experience, which, if personally small, is vicariously large, I find much virtue in a covering of Fern, straw, or a Fir branch. The foregoing remarks apply to plants growing in the open air, or with no other protection than a cold frame in winter. Under glass the require- ments are somewhat different, and the conditions likewise. The plant is grown for some special purpose, and the gardener considers not so much the natural “habit” of the plant under normal circumstances, and the way in which he may promote its welfare, as the manner in which he can induce it to adapt itself to his requirements, and the conditions he offers. He may even find it requisite or advantageous to invert the natural course of things—to force when the plant, left to itself, would go to rest, to check growth when the natural tendency would be to progress. For instance, the formation of the Cyclamen tuber is an indication that the plant, under natural cireum- stances, has a season of rest; and before Cyclamen culture had reached such a pitch of perfection as it has now attained, growers were wont to give the tubers an enforced rest by drying them off. Now, that practice is quite reversed ; and that such an amount of rest as the old growers gave the plant is not necessary under artificial conditions is shown by the fact that the foliage of the Cyclamen is persistent, and no deficiency of food to sustain this prolonged season of growth is to be feared, for food the gardener can give freely and at times when Nature herself might close her stores. This justifies the treatment of the Cyclamen as if it were a bulb with evergreen foliage. Servile imitation of Nature—such imitation, that is, as we can compass !— is, to say the least, not very much better than mechanical routine. The wisdom of the gardener is shown first in his knowledge of plants and their ways, and next in the skill and judgment which he brings to bear in inducing or helping the plant to adapt itself to unnatural conditions, and to the fulfilment of artificial requirements. Whether from the point of view of the physiologist, or from that of the cultivator, a thorough study of the life-history of plants is absolutely essential to complete success. It is not given to any to reach the highest standard, but it is a satisfaction to know that every step in the way is a real gain—a link in the chain of true progress—a progress which, at least as far as the community at large is concerned, knows no counter-march.* The Cuarrman: There are one or two questions that have cropped up in talking to friends about the culture of the Prim- * The publication of MM. Van Tieghem and Douliot’s paper on the “ Anatomy of Primroses,” in the Annales des Sciences, July, 1886, vii. ser., vol. 3, p. 292, may lead to inferences of value to the cultivator. In that paper the authors detail the varied anatomical structure and mode of growth of the species of Primula,revealing differences of structure which are probably co-related with differences of growth. (See p. 273.)—M. T. M, PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 255 roses, and more especially those new Indian Primroses' of which we have not had much experience, and they are so important that I do not like to let the opportunity go by of asking one or two questions. The plant having died down, as we know most of the Himalayan Primulas do in the autumn-time, a bell-glass may be put over it to protect it. That may or may not be necessary. I dare say it will be found, when we come to experience, that it is quite sufficient to have a little leaf-covering to protect it through our winter, and if the plant has done this for itself in the way mentioned by Dr. Masters, it isa very good hint. So far as the Indian Primroses goI take it that what they want is the power to help themselves to water whenever they like, not to wait for our watering, but to put them in such a place that they can help themselves to water whenever they choose. That is not always easy to combine with safety to the crown of the plant in winter. We want to see all these new Indian Primulas grown to the perfection to which I have not the least doubt we are coming. I should like to know what Dr. Masters has to tell us with regard to the root structure of species growing in boggy ground where they are frozen. Mr. Elwes has seen Primula sikkimensis, and he tells me the finest he ever saw were growing on the banks of a stream ; that they had three feet or more of roots which went down into the flowing stream. We must remember that these things grow under complete protection by the snow in winter, and when the snow is melted they are subjected to the full blaze of the sun and an abundance of water from the melted snows above. Wecannot give them that condition of things in this country, because what we call snow is slush, and does more harm than good. It is well to remember what nature has done for them in their own country, and give them as near that condition of growth as we possibly can. I am confident with regard to giving them a great abundance of water. Most undoubtedly it does suit those of the Himalayan species with which we are best acquainted, therefore I think it is very probabie it will be found to suit many of the others, too. I should like to ask Dr. Masters with regard to the early manage- ment of this young plant, because I think he can tell us something about the root structure in the early stage which may save some s 2 ; ’ 256 REPORT ON THE of our favourites before they have become strong enough to plant out. Dr. Masters: With reference to these bog-loving Primroses, I have found that the roots are almost invariably extremely divided, or if not, then that they are provided with a large number of somewhat fleshy undivided roots. [Dr. Masters exhibited a specimen to show the great difference that may exist between two different plants growing in the same soil. The one was a clover with a long, relatively unbranched, woody root, and the other a grass, with a dense mass of fine roots. Both were taken out of the same chink of rock, feeding on the same food, and yet see how different the means by which they secure the food.] To sum up,as far asI know, there are two principal types of roots in these boggy plants, one extremely fibrous, which begins to form new fibres when the spring comes, and not till then, the roots being dormant in winter; the other, with very thick, fleshy fibres, which probably remain active during the winter. In the latter case, however, it does not so much matter whether there is any water just at hand, because they have it stored up in their own tissues. In my paper I have alluded to the periodicity in the action of the root, and shown how sometimes it is quiet and at other times at work, and how it is necessary to consider these plants as having more or less of annual character for the purposes of cultivation. Whether a plant lives for ten or for a hundred years, it is often necessary to consider it in its growing stage as if it were only an annual plant. The plant comes to bloom at certain definite times and then rests, therefore to all intents and purposes it is an annual and you must so treat it. Mr. Jenxtns: I should like to add one or two remarks about the Primulas of the Himalayas, and with regard to their culture. I have been a somewhat successful cultivator of some of them for many years, and I think I can fully endorse the Chairman’s remarks and Dr. Masters’s observations with regard to many of them. With regard to P. sikkimensis, I think the whole secret of its culture is deep, boggy soil and abundance of water. With regard to the remarks of the Chairman about sending down roots to a great depth, that I can endorse from my own experience. As to those that are covered with snows for a large part of the year, I think we can only imitate that condition by one thing, PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 257 that is covering with coal ashes or cocoa-nut fibre during their resting period, especially in the case of the deciduous species, which if so treated will suffer less from the frequent atmo- spheric changes that occur in the lowlands; but as soon as the resting period is over, I think we should deluge them with water as far as lies in our power. With regard to the soils, I consider that it is not so much a question of the nature of the soils in many species as it is of the altitude in which they are found in their native habitats. In my own experience, I have found Primula minima has succeeded very well under most opposite conditions to those which it grows in its native home. In our English lowland homes it is one of the most difficult plants to grow, but in the higher grounds of Scotland we find it growing— I might almost use the word—rampantly. It grows most luxuriantly ; it flowers freely, and in fact from a remark which I heard from a friend of mine recently, it is planted in ordinary soil and grows without any trouble whatever. That is a point we should give some consideration to. Then, again, I would mention P. capitata. That is one of the so-called ‘“ miffy”’ Primulas, but in Mr. Dod’s garden, at Malpas, it thrives wonder- fully. I think Mr. Dod has confirmed my remarks by his com- ments on some of the species in some of the horticultural papers. That species in some cases is the most fastidious to deal with—it dies off without any warning. I have had great difficulty in overcoming this tendency. That many plants of this species go off in this remarkable manner has been a subject of consideration and lament to a great many lovers of Primulas, and it does not bear out the view that many people have of the soil being all in all as regards the culture of these ‘‘ miffy” species of Primula. I think for my own part, that altitude, and the thick covering which they get in winter during the resting period, have far more to do with the successful culture generally than all the soils we have in the lowlands. Then, of course, there is the melting of the snows in spring, which supplies them with abundant water during their growth. I do not think they get any special benefit from granitic or caleareous soils; at any rate, many of them do yemarkably well on other soils. I think I have grown some twenty-five so-called species, and I have treated them with soils composed of about two-thirds of a rich maiden yellow loam, which I procured from Epsom Downs, one-third manure, and a 258 REPORT ON THE very liberal dressing of sand, and leaf-soil if possible. Others that I thought required calcareous soils I supplied with old mortar rubbish or crushed bricks. In that way I have found my mode of culture successful, in nine cases out of every ten, with the so-called species of Primula. I think none of those are more. difficult to manage in English gardens than the Fairy Primula (P. minima) ; I have flowered that species with unwonted success, and I must say that abundance of water, liberal drainage, and a dry, airy atmosphere during the winter, are the only means I have used to bring about success. Mr. Witson: I understood Mr. Jenkins to say he found Primula capitata a ‘* miffy” Primula. Mr. Jenkins: It is so regarded by some growers. Mr. Witson: I have grown a great many of them in many situations in my own garden, and I find the only conditions they require are to have rather a moist soil, shade and shelter. The Cuarrman: Are we speaking of the same capitata ? Mr. Witson: I am talking of the true capitata. Those are the only two conditions it requires. It lives through the winter and makes fine plants. Mr. Jenxiys: That bears out my remark. With regard to its being a ‘‘ miffy” plant, I regard it as a good plant on certain soils, but I consider that it is more a question of altitude than of soils. It is not a question of being fed from below as much as altitude. Particular descriptions of soil may be supplied in any locality, but without necessarily ensuring success. Mr. F. Moore (Glasnevin): As to Primula capitata, Mr. Wilson has said that it requires shade and moisture to attain per- fection. In Ireland I find the Primula capitata must have exposure to the sun, and the more sun it gets the richer it comes. Tallude to the intense blue of its flowers, different from any other of that section. Asto P. sikkimensis and cachemiriana, I can grow both these far better in a shady place and a moist soil. I have a cachemiriana now, with eight large heads, grown in the shade, perhaps larger than any I have seen in this Exhibition. I have a smaller plant of a similar colour grown in quite as moist a situation, in full exposure to the sun, and it is not nearly so good in its colour nor so vigorous in its growth. To get the glorious yellow colour in P. sikkimensis, which no other Primula possesses, you must grow it in moisture and shade. That is my experience, PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 259 but I am sure there are many people here who have quite a contrary experience. I think we should try plants not only in various soils, but in various positions. Mr. Grorce Pavuu: I can very much endorse what has been said, but I do not think it is entirely a matter of shade or exposure, provided they have sufficient moisture at the root. They seem to want moisture even when growing in a natural bog; and if they are exposed to full sunlight, I do not think it matters a bit so long as they have a continuous supply of water. The one thing that has caused them to be unsuccessfully grown is the absence of a continuous supply of water. So far as my experience has gone, some species rejoice in a bog, in a full exposure to sunlight, but they must have a continuous supply of water. Your bog may be so formed that you can regulate the supply a little, and keep the channels open in winter, so that they may not be smothered with water. But there is no difficulty about that. I have tried a great many species, including also P. minima, and they seem to require the same conditions. Mr. Jenxins: There is one remark I should like to add with regard to P. sikkimensis. Iam strongly of opinion that it should be grown as a biennial to bring about the best results. In its native home it covers some acres of ground, the roots extend to a considerable extent, and we never get such good flowers after the second year. +I am of opinion that it would well repay growing in a bog by itself, having the bog well under control, as Mr. Paul remarks, so that you can flood it or drain the water off at your pleasure, and so keep up a continual supply of water. In a deep bog with two feet of peat I have had it two feet six inches in height, which is very rarely excelled in this country. I believe that in its native home, the Sikkim Himalayas, it is about two feet high on the average. I think it is one of the most glorious of the Primulacee if we give it attention. Nothing can surpass the beautiful soft yellow, andthe number of flowers, sometimes as many as 20 or 30 in one umbel, it produces under good culture. Mr. Paut: I think the general impression among cultivators is that all these Himalayan Primroses are better treated as biennials. , Rev. C. Wottey Dov: The Himalayan Primroses are plants to which Iam beginning to give attention. I came here more to learn than to speak, because I have not had much experience on the 260 REPORT ON THE subject. Although we can imitate many of the natural conditions in the soil, we cannot possibly imitate the atmospheric con- ditions, and I think that will be the cause of failure in many of these Himalayan species. Speaking of the Himalayan species as a whole would be misleading, because the habits of the different species are so very various, and the results obtained so very different, that every one must be dealt with separately to do it justice. P. sikkimensis is a species with which I have been very successful. My plants grow usually two feet high in deep and moist soil, but I find they cannot stand even the poor sunlight that we get in Cheshire. Last year (1885) June 4th was an abnormally hot day, 82° in the shade, and in my climate all the plants that were exposed to the sun were burnt up completely, and failed to ripen seed in consequence. I find that a north aspect is desirable for them. As regards P. rosea I find it is prolific to any degree. A seedling flowering this year for the first time by next year will attain such development that by pulling it to pieces I can with the greatest ease make fifty plants of it. Primula rosea is one of those plants that we can increase from the stock; but with regard to someI find it very difficult to do so. I have never succeeded in dividing P. sikkimensis or P. capitata with’ any good results. Some, however, such as the species of the denticulata section, are so hardy and enduring that I find that all that is wanting is to emcourage their flowering at the right time, which they do not do in our climate; they try to flower in winter; but if we take them about the beginning of autumn and cut the crown into bits, not dividing the separate crowns into crowns, but cutting each crown into half-a-dozen pieces with a knife, having a bit of top and a bit of root; then it has well developed, sufficient to carry them through the winter, and flower about April, when the climate is suitable for them. That remark applies to that section only. I have not tried it with any other. Then with regard to P. purpurea, of Royle, and some of the others, I find the tendency is for the crown to rot off in winter with excess of moisture in our climate. I suppose they feel the want of the covering of snow and the freezing up which they get in their native home. By Professor Foster’s advice, I tried last autumn putting a bell-glass or an inverted pot over it night and day with very good results. I found some Primula Stuartii flower a second es 6 PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 961 time, which they had never done before, and Primula purpurea had two grand heads of flowers, fifty upon each. I think if we can successfully deal with it, it will be a very desirable Primrose for cultivation. At the same time, I am sorry to say, lam afraid we must only deal with a great many of these Primroses as biennials. We have a great many in hand now. I think ten or twelve species have been sent to us by Dr. King and Dr. Duthie, and an abundant supply of seed, and all seem to have germinated well, with one exception, Primula Elwesiana. Then we have to proceed tentatively with these. My advice is to everyone—sow your seed as soon as you get it; rear as many seedlings as you can. When they are fit to deal with, plant them in as many kinds of soil and in as many positions as possible—facing north, facing south—try both rocky soil and boggy soil, and let us know - where they do best. Gardening is a very practical pursuit, and I confess for my own part, I have a great deal more faith in practice than in theory in gardening. We may try to imitate natural conditions as much as we please, but there is always some one condition that we cannot imitate, and that is the atmospheric ; and even as regards soils I cannot help suspect- ing that there may be some chemical qualities that cannot be shown by analysis. I find that attempts to imitate natural conditions generally fail if we grow them in that way, and that experience is by far a better rule. A person sees a plant doing remarkably well in my garden, and he says to me, ‘‘ Dear me, you have that plant growing under altogether different conditions from what I have seen it growing naturally ; I have seen it in the Alps in sheltered places and you have it in the fullsun.” We must remember that the fullest amount of light we can give them in the West of England is nothing as compared with what they get in a sheltered or half-shady position in their own country. Only think of the tremendous flare of light which the Himalayan plants get in spring, which none of us can imitate. Taking all this into consideration, I think these Conferences of great use for the purpose of enabling us to compare notes as to the way in which these flowers are to be grown, because I am quite sure by so doing we shall attain results which no attempt to imitate natural conditions and no theory (unsupported by actual experiment) could enable us to do. Mr. Fraser: My experience is that various species of 262 REPORT ON THE Primula grow indifferently in various kinds of soil, but the soil most suitable all round is that which is inclined to be heavy, and there must be a continuous supply of moisture ; but if the atmospheric conditions are suitable, the matter of soil is of secondary importance. In the neighbourhood of London the climate is very dry; the rainfall does not exceed on an average 24 inches in the year. The soilin the spring-time may be suitable enough, and the Primulas may do very well then; but the supply of moisture failing after the blooming period is over, these Primulas are apt to die out. Now an important point is that the moisture must be continuous, because in a great many species after the blooming period is over the growth does not stop, but is continued, and by far the largest and healthiest leaves are produced by some species after the blooming period is over; so that instead of being dried up the moisture ought to be continuous. Then, if the atmospheric conditions are suitable, you. may succeed, for I think they are of more importance than the matter of soils. This brings me to _ speak of the Himalayan species, P. denticulata and its varieties. In our climate we find we can cultivate it very well until autumn. It is inclined to show its bloom in the autumn too early for our requirements ; then, if a mild period intervenes in the end of the season, the flowers are too far forward, and if frost and thaw intervene alternately these flowers are destroyed. If we could induce these Primulas to rest at that time we would succeed far better with P. denticulata and P. capitata, and those sorts, than we do at present. Then as to shade, I think that is of secondary importance. It is important from this point of view to prolong the period of bloom, especially if we want those flowers to keep their colours and their particular hue; but if the conditions are otherwise suitable in the open air, I think the shading is not at all important. Vores or THANKs. The Cuatrman: We have now exhausted our prescribed pro- gramme, but before the meeting closes, I should like to propose a vote of thanks to those gentlemen who have prepared papers. The value of these papers is very great indeed, and the least that we can do, I am sure, is to pass a most hearty vote of thanks aw eo PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 2638 to those who have so kindly devoted time and attention to their preparation. Rey. C. Wottey Dop: I have very great pleasure in seconding the motion, which, I am sure, you will carry with acclamation. Mr. Witson: As the votes of thanks were given en masse to the readers of the papers, I wish very much, personally, as a grower of Primroses, who has been trying many experiments, to say what great value the drawings which accompany Dr. Masters’ paper will be tome. I am ashamed to say I had never studied the characteristics of the roots of Primulas as I ought to have done. This paper will be a valuable guide to me, not only as to positions, but also as to the soils in which to place them. The resolution was unanimously agreed to. Mr. Ricuarp Dean: I trust we shall not separate without giving to our Chairman a cordial vote of thanks for the admirable manner in which he has conducted the business of this meeting. I trust, also, that this Conference and this Exhibition may have been to him something in the shape of a refreshment from other work. Mr. Barer: I have great pleasure in seconding that vote of thanks. We have had a most interesting meeting and discussion. Of course, as Mr. Wolley Dod observed, we must mainly rely on practical experience. We have curtailed the formal pro- ceedings of the meeting in order to give members attending here a fuller opportunity of discussing practical matters and of studying the rich store of material which there is downstairs. I am sure all will join in cordially supporting a vote of thanks to our Chairman, who is most emphatically, as a practised cultivator, the right man in the right place on this occasion. The resolution was carried by acclamation. The Cuarrman: I thank you very much for the kind way in which you have proposed and received the vote of thanks. I can only say I have enjoyed the meeting as much as any one in this room can have done. SC yeet''G i i police hi ae ' uk . jl ‘ , 7 . le yh & ‘ ° f n . % i i é : 4 - j § a; 4° pe y.” : » APPENDIX. [The following article on the Fungous Diseases of Primulacee was contributed to. the Gardeners’ Chronicle, by Mr. W. G. Smith, and is here inserted, as likely to be of interest to cultivators. | DISEASES OF PRIMULACES AS CAUSED BY Funer. By WortHineton G. SirH. The members of the natural order Primulacez are attacked by but few fungi, and of these the majority grow on the species Fig. 27.—PrimvuLa DISEASE : PERONOSPORA INTERSTITIALIS. belonging to the genus Primula. In the case before us, as in several others, where the number of species of fungi belonging to any natural order of plants is small, the smallness of the number is counter-balanced by the virulence of one or two of the fungoid species. 266 REPORT ON THE The beautiful Soldanella is often deformed by cidium soldanelle, Hornschuch ; a second pest on this plant is Septoria soldunelle, Berkeley. The Lysimachia is attacked by Septoria lysimachia, West., and Phoma lysimachie, CK.; the Trientalis res a Pw SS) So OE pees Lie x+*400° —- Fig, 28.—PERONOSPORA CANDIDA. Magn. 400 diam. ‘ by Tuburcinia trientalis, Berkeley and Broome; Ascomyces trientalis, Berkeley, and Penicillium abnorme, Berkeley and Broome. JI have noticed no other fungi than the above on the genera of Primulacer, exclusive of Primula. - ~~ |) a Se ee PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 267 Amongst diseases of Primulas, the one caused’by the attack of the fungus named Urocystis Primulicola, Magnus, on Primula farinosa, is a notable one. It was illustrated and described (for the first time as British) in the Gardeners’ Chronicle for August 30th, 1884, pp. 268, 269. Phyllosticta primulecola grows on fading leaves of the common Primrose. The Primulacee have their fair share of species of Aicidium and Puccinia, two sets of fungi which are believed by many botanists to be genetically connected. It happens that the species belonging to the Primulacee have been called Ku-pucciniez, which means that all the spore forms—Uredo, Puccinia, and Aijcidium—are supposed to grow on the same host plant. Beginning with Soldanella, we have Mcidiwn soldanella, - a fungus which was published by Mr. Berkeley in the Fnglish Flora, fifty years ago. As far as I know, the Puccinia, which should accompany it on the same host plant, has kept in the background, for it has not yet been seen in Britain. Puccinia primule, Greville, grows on Primrose leaves from June to September ; cidiwn primule, its supposed second, grows on Primrose leaves in May. The Puccinia is sometimes called Uromyces, at other times, Trichobasis; the last name has recently been most approved. We now come to the two species of Peronospora; these parasites cause great destruction. The larger in size of the two is P. candida, Fickel (fig. 28) ; it forms dense white effused patches on the underside of Primrose leaves in summer and autumn. It is an ally of the Clover Peronospora, and belongs to the group Effuse. The second species is P. interstitialis (fig. 27), a very much smaller plant ; this grows on the underside of Primrose leaves in the sum- mer, and is generally confined to the interstices of the veins; the conidia are often terminal, i.e. one conidium.or spore to a fungus stem. In this simple state it resembles Ovularia. Both fungi produce resting-spores. I am not acquainted with any illus- trations of these fungi other than the two herewith appended, which have been engraved from Nature to the same scale, viz., enlarged 400 diameters. The larger (fig. 28) is P. candida, Fkl., a very handsome, much-branched fungus ; the smaller, P. inter-.- stitialis, B. and Br. (fig. 27). Leaves affected with either fungus should be gathered and shown ‘‘the primrose way to the everlast- ing bonfire,” as the ‘‘ Porter’ says in Macbeth. The abundant 268 REPORT ON THE germs of these two Primrose fungi are of course infectious, cuticle- piercing, and “ putrefactive.”—Worrtuineton G. Surru, Dunstable, in Gardeners’ Chronicle. [For an account of the insects affecting Auriculas, see Gardeners’ Chronicle, May 5th, 1877, p. 570, fig. 92.] CULTIVATED PRIMROSES. [The following List of Speciesis taken from a printed Catalogue, of which copies were sent to the Conference by Mr. Stem, the Curator of the Breslau Botanic Garden. ] Privta L. A.—Sphondylia, Duby. 1. P. japonica, A. Gray. (P. pyramidalis, Siebold, 1862 (?), not known. 2. verticillata, Forskahl. 8. P. Boveana, Decaisne=verticillata hort. P. verticillata var. abysinnica hort. PP. verticillata var. simensis, Masters. P. Courtii, hort., Veitch. 4. P. floribunda, Wallich. 4a. P. prolifera, Wall. = P. imperialis, hort., nec. Junghuhn. B.—Auganthus, Schott. 5. P. sinensis Lindley = P. prenitens, var. 5a. P. sinensis X officinalis, Wittmack, verisimiliter erratum. C.—Cortusina, Schott. 6. P. cortusoides, L. . P. gracilis, Stein (P. cortusoides x Sieboldii). . P. Sieboldii, Morren, P. amena, hort. nec Marshall v. Bieberstein ; P. cortusoides amena, hort. 9. P. mollis, Nuétall. i 10. P. Kaufmanniana, Regel. D.—Sredinskya, Stein. 11. P. grandis, Trautvetter. E.—Primulastrum, Duby, partly, 12. P. inflata, Lehmann, P. macrocalyx, Bunge, P. uralensis, hort. 13. P. officinalis, Jacquin. 14: xmedia Peterm. (unicolor, Lange, P. officinalis x elatior, Muret). OI NHN HWW PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 269 . P. intrieata, Grenier and Godron. . P. carpathica, Fuss. . P. ameena, Marschal v. Bieberstein. . P. elatior, Jacquin. . P. suaveolens, Bert.=P. columna, Tenore, P. Tommassinii, Grenier and Godron. . xbrevistyla, D.C.=P. variabilis, Goupil (P. subacaulis x officinalis, A. Kerner), P. anglica, hort., P. elatior, hort. plur. . Xflagellicaulis, 4. Kerner (P. superacaulis x officinalis, A. Kerner). . P. digenea, A. Kerner (P. elatior x acaulis, Reuter, P. acaulis x officinalis, Muret.). . P. vulgaris, Hudson, 1762 (P. grandiflora, Lamarck, 1778, P. acaulis, L., 1778. . P. Sibthorpii, Reichenbach (P. altaica, hort., Angl.) F .—Aleuritia, Duby. . P. pendulifiora, A. Kern, MSS., P. stkkimensis, hort. nec. Hooker. . P. involucrata, Wallich (P. Munroi, hort.) . P. speciosa, Don. (speciosa, Gusmus = P. farinosa). . rosea, Foyle. . Jaeschkeana, A. Kerner. cashmeriana, Royle. . elliptica, Royle. . fimbriata, Wallich. . denticulata, Smith, et var. amabilis, Leichtlin. . capitata, Royle. Fortunei, Vatke (P. erosa, hort). Parryi, A. Gray. altaica, Lehmann (P. undulata, Fischer). davurica, Sprengel. . mistassinica, Micha. . sibirica, Jacquin. . borealis, De Candolle. . longiscapa, Ledebour. . magellanica, Lehmann. lepida,‘ De Candolle. 45.° P.’frondosa,*Janka. 270 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54, 55. 67. REPORT ON THE P. farinosa, Linneus, P. vratensis, P. speciosa, P. stricta, P. denudata, all of Gusmus; are all considered slight (unwesentliche) forms of farinosa. | P. Warei, Stein. P. scotica, Hooker. P. longifiora, Allioni: P. auriculata, Lamarck (P. longifolia, Curtis). P. pyenorhiza, Ledebour. P. luteola, Ruprecht (P. auriculata, hort. plur. non Lamarck). P. Stuartii, Wallich. P. purpurea, Royle. P. nivalis, Pallas (P. speciosa (Gmelin non Don). var. longifolia, Regel. var. turkestanica, Regel. The plants generally cultivated as nivalis are white or whitish-flowered forms of P. hirsuta or P. villosa. . P. algida, Adams. G.—Arthritica (Duby p.p.), Schott. . P. calycina, Duby (P. glaucescens, Mor.). . P. spectabilis Traitinick (P. Polliniana, Mor.). . P. Clusiana, Tausch. P. intermedia, Portschitz (P. Clusiana x minima, A. Kerner, not in cultivation ; the plant so-called in England is a form of P. alpina, Schleicher). . P. Wulfeniana, Schott. . P. integrifolia, Linn. (P. Candolleana, Reichenbach, P. incisa, Lamarck. . P. Kitaibeliana, Schott. . P. angustifolia, Torrey. . P. Fachinii, Schott (P. subminina x spectabilis, Stein). . P. Dumoulini, Stein (P. superminima x spectabilis). . P. Muretiana x, Moritz (P. subintegrifolia x viscosa, A. Kerner). D. Dinyana x, Lagger (P. superintegrifolia x viscosa, A. Kerner). P. Heerii (P. hirsuta x integrifolia, Briigg), P. Escheri, Brigg, (P. Auricula x integrifolia, Brigg), P. Hugueninu, Brigg (P. integrifolia x glutinosa, Brugg), are mentioned by Stein as not having been seen by him in gardens, 68. P. glutinosa, Wulfen. 69. PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 271 H.—Cyanopsis, Schott. J.—Kablikia, Opitz (Chamecaulis, Schott). P. minima, Linneus. P. serratifolia of Gusmus is noted as a slight variety. 69a. P. suffrutescens, A: Gray. 70. 7. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. P. Floerkeana x Schrader (P. superglutinosa x minima, A. Kerner). P. biflora x Huter (P. Floerkeana x minima, var. P. Salisbur- gensis X minima, A. Kerner). P. Huteri, A. Kerner (P. Floerkeana x glutinosa, var. P. Salisburgensis x glutinosa, A. Kerner. P. Salisburgensis x Floerke (P. subglutinosa x minima, A. Kerner). P. Forsteri, Stein (P. superminima x hirsuta, Stein). P. Steinii, Obrist. (P. subminima x hirsuta, Stein). P. pumila, A. Kerner (P. minima X cnensis, A. Kerner). P. truncata, Lehmann = P. Sturii, Schott (P. minima x villosa, Schott), is mentioned by Stein as possibly not in cultivation, the plant offered for it being a high Alpine dwarf form of P. villosa, Jacquin. K.—Rhopsidium, Schott. . P. Allionii, Loiseleur. . P. tyrolensis, Schott (P. Allioni, Koch, non Schott). . P. Venzoi, Huter (P. venzoides, Huter, olim, P. tyrolensis x Wulfeniana, A. Kerner). L.—Erythrodosum, Schott. . P. enensis, Thom., 1852 (P. daonensis, Leybold, 1854). . P. confinis, Schott, optima species. . P. pedemontana, Thom. . P. villosa, Jacquin, P. incisa, Gusmus, non Lamarck. . P. hirsuta, Allioni (P. viscosa, Villars nec. Allionii, P. villosa, Koch partly, P. ciliata, Schrank, P. nivalis, hort., P. pallida, Sch. Syll., P. decora, Sims). . P. Bernine x, A. Kerner (P. Salisii, Briigg, P. hirsuta x viscosa, A. Kerner, P. graveolens x villosa, Christ.). P. Plantae, Briigg (P. hirsuta x cnonensis, Briigg), is supposed not to be in cultivation. f T 2 272 REPORT ON THE 86. P. viscosa, Allioni (P. hirsuta, Villars, non Allioni, P. gra- veolens, Heg., P. latifolia, Lapeyrouse). 87. P. commutata, Schott (P. Nelsoni, hort., Angl., near P. hirsuta). 88. P. pubescens, Jacquin (P. superauricula x hirsuta, 4A. 89 90 91. Kerner, P. rhatica; Gaudin, P. helvetica, Don.). . P. Arctotis x , A. Kerner (P.subauricula x hirsuta, 4. Kerner). . P. Goblii, A. Kerner (P. superauricula x villosa, Stein). P. Kerneri, Gébl et Stein (P. superauricula x villosa, Stein). 92. P. alpina, Schleicher (P. superauricula x viscosa, Stein, P. rhetica, Koch, non Gaudin, P. intermedia, hort. Angl., non Portschl.). 93. P. Peyritschii x, Stein (P. subauricula x viscosa, Stein, 94 95 P. viscosa major, hort. Angl.). . P. discolor x, Leybold (P. superauricula x cenensis, A. Kerner). . P. Porte x Huter (P. subauricula x cenensis, 4. Kerner). M.—Auricula, Tournefort. 96. P. Balbisii, Lehmann (P. ciliata, Moretti, non Schrank). 97. P. Obristii x, Stein (P. super-Balbisii x Auricula, Stein). 98. P. similis x, Stein (P. super-Balbisii x Auricula, Stein). 99. P. Auricula, Linneus, var. marginata. 100. P. Palinuri, Petagna. 101. P. marginata, Curtis (P. crenata Lamarck). 102. P. venusta, hort. (P. Auricula x carniolica, A. Kerner). P. Weldeniana, Reichenbach, probably a cross between P. Balbisit and P. spectabilis. 103 M. 188 the . P. carniolica, Jacquin, and var. multiceps, Preyer (P. Freyeri, Hladn., P. Jellenkiana, Freyer). Newuy-Descrisep CHINESE AND TrBetTan SpEcIEs. Since the close of the Conference, various species of Primula from Yunnan and from Eastern Tibet have been published by Franchet in the Bulletin de la Société de France, 1885 and 6. The plants have been collected by M. Delavay and by Abbé David. Some of these are enumerated in Mr. Dewaz’s list (see post), PRIMULA CONFERENCE. 273 but the following were only published subsequently to the prin- ting of that catalogue. These are :— . Davidii, Franchet, E. Tibet. . Forbesii, Franchet, Yunnan. . incisa, Franchet, E. Tibet. . malacoides, Franchet, Yunnan. malvyacea, Franchet, Yunnan. membranifolia, Franchet, Yunnan. moupinensis, F’ranchet, EK. Tibet. nutans, Franchet ex Delavay, Yunnan. oreodoxa, Franchet, E. Tibet. . ovalifolia, Franchet, HK. Tibet. . Poissoni, Pranchet, Yunnan. HHH New Persian Species. P. heterochroma, Stapf., Persia. This is described by Stapf. in Botan. Erbgenisse Polak. (1886), p. 70. It is described as like a Primrose, but with leaves white on the under surface. New CuassIricaTIoN OF PRIMULA. Professor Van Tieghem has subjected to minute anatomical scrutiny many of the species of Primula, including several of those collected in Yunnan, and described by M. Franchet. M. Van Tieghem’s remarks have been published in the Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France, tom. xxxiii, pp. 95, 126, 1886, and in conjunction with M. Douliot in the Annales des Sciences, ser. 3, tom. 3 (July 1886), p. 285, et seq. As M. Van Tieghem’s characters are not likely to be turned to practical use in gardens, it will suffice to say that his classi- fication is based purely upon anatomical details, and that the species are grouped under two genera, Primula and Auricula, thus :-— | Central cylinder of the stem provided with pith, undivided, but spreading out into a concentric ring of fibro-vascular bundles . . . . Paruza, Linneus. Central cylinder of the stem, without pith, slender, and breaking up into a number of more or less detached fibro-vascular bundles . . . . Avricuxa, Tournefort. 274 REPORT ON THE PRIMULA CONFERENCE. atch Primula is further divided as follows :— . Tap root persistent—§ 1., iae ein 6.6358 sinensis. Tap root transitory— Bark of root ultimately sf off—§ a3 cortusoides, e.g., P. cortusoides. — : Bark of root persistent—-S 8., officinales, e.g., P. b ftoinabiat ‘ Auricula is divided according to the number, form and _ arrangement of the groups of fibro-vascular bundles ( = steles). y Stele solitary, undivided—S 4., reptantes, ¢.g., A. reptans. Steles numerous— | Steles circular (or cylindric)—§ 5., ursine. ; Steles flattened (arranged in arcs)—§ 6., farinose, e.g., A. farinosa. e, Steles fused into a ring, from the outer side of which the © i roots are given off—§ 7., japonice, e.g., A. japonica. SYNONYMIC LIST OF THE SPECIES AND FORMS OF THE GENUS pee ews LD oy ADs BY DANIEL DEWAB, ’ FOREMAN OF THE HERBACEOUS DEPARTMENT, ROYAL GARDENS, KEW.t mann ne nn eee acaulis, Jacq.,—vulgaris. * x admontensis, Gusm. Clusiana x Auricula, Gusm. Churchillii, Gusm. ‘ alba, Hoffmsg., — viscosa var. *algida, Adams, Siberia, &c. auriculata var. sibirica, Ledeb. Bungeana, C. A. Meyer. caucasica, M. B. farinosa, M. B. glacialis, Willd. longifolia, M. B. algida, Janka,—frondosa. *Allionii, Losi. Maritime Alps. glutinosa, All. non Wulf. Alluoniit, Auct.—tyrolensis. alpestris, Schur—elatior var. t In the following List, Synonyms are indicated in italics, Hybrids by the affix of ax. An Asterisk (*) is prefixed to the names of those species and varieties which were exhibited at the Primula Show from the Royal Gardens, Kew, 276 SYNONYMIC LIST OF * x alpina, Schleich. super-Auricula x viscosa, Sted. rhaetica, Koch non Gaud. intermedia, Hort., non Portschlg. alpina, Loisl.,—viscosa. alpina, Reich.,—pubescens. alpina, Salisb.,—Auricula. altaica, Lehm.,—longiscapa var. altaica, Pall.,—elatior var. altissima, Don.—reticulata. ambigua, Salisb.,—officinalis. amethystina, Franchet, Yun-nan. amena, Hort.,—cortusoides var. amena, M. B.,—elatior var. amena, Hort.,—vulgaris var. | anglica, hort. Angl.,—elatior var. angustifolia, Torr., N. America. * x Arctotis, Kern. sub-Auricula x hirsuta, Kern. Aucheri, Jaub. and Spach,—verticillata var. *Auricula, Z. Alps, Hur., &c. lutea, Lam. alpina, Salisb *var. Balbisi, Lehm. ciliata, Moret. *var. bellunensis, Venzo. var. dolomitica, Baker. *var. marginata. var. mollis. Auricula, Vill.,—marginata. *auriculata, Lam., Siberia. longifolia, Curtis in Bot. Mag. t 392. macrophylla, Koch. pycnorrhiza, Ledeb. Tournefortu, Rupr. var. glacialis, Boiss. glacialis, Adams. var. polyphylla, Franchet. Yun-nan, Balbisti, Lehm,—Auricula var, a oe THE GENUS PRIMULA. Bayneri, Rupr.,—nivalis var. *Bernine, Nerner. *biflora, Huter. Boveana, Desne.,—verticillata var. bracteata, Pranchet, Yun-nan. breviscapa, Murr.,—vulgaris. * x brevistyla, D.C. - gsub-acaulis x officinalis, Kern. variabilis, Goup. bullata, Franchet. Yun-nan. Bungeana, Meyer,—algida. cadinensis, Porta,—daonensis. calliantha, Franchet. Yun-nan. calycantha, Retz,—vulgaris. *ealycina, Duby. Lombardy. glaucescens, Moret. integrifolia, Wulf. non L. levigata, Duby. Candolleana, Reich.,— integrifolia. *capitata, Hook., Himalayas. globifera, Griff. capitellata, Boiss., Persia. carinthiaca, Gusm.,—Auricula var. *earniolica, Jacq., Austrian Alps. grandiflora, Bastard. integrifolia, Scop. non L. ~ *var, rouiticeps, Preyer. Freyeri, Hladnik. Jellenkiana, Freyer. var. multiflora. Hort. carpathica. Fuss,—elatior var. caucasica, Koch,—algida. cernua, F'ranchet, Yun-nan. Churchillu, Gusm.-—admontensis. ciliata, Schrank,—-viscosa var. ciliata, Moret.,—Auricula var. Clarkei, Watt, Himalayas. Clusiana, Tsch.,—spectabilis var. cachenuriana, Munro,—denticulata var. 4 277 oe > = > ¥ am - pulverulenta, Edgew.,—petiolaris var. — *x pumila, Kern. ee. minima xX daonensis, Kern. W pumila, Ledeb.,—nivalis var. Fa . pulchra, Watt, Himalayas. “a Yes purpurea, Royle,—Stuartii var. | pusilla, Wall., Himalayas. ~ | . hunilis, Steud. by pusilla, Goldie,—mistassinica. ae « pyramidalis, Sieb.,—japonica. a | pyrenaica, Mieg,—Tommasinii. et pycnorrliza, Ledeb.,—auriculata. ae . Reedii, Duthie, Western Himalayas. Wa Reinii., Fr. dé Sav. Japan. 3 reptans, Hook. fil., Himalayas. a ‘reticulata, Wall., Himalayas. altissuma, Don. am speciosa, Don. e | rhaetica. Gaud.,—pubescens. ¥ rhaetica, Koch,—alpina. rotundifolia, Wall., Himalayas, odontophylla, Wail, . THE GENUS PRIMULA. rotundifolia, Pall.,—sibirica. *rosea, Royle, Himalayas, &c. var. elegans, Hook. fil. elegans, Duby. *var. grandiflora, hort. Roylet, Hook. fil.,—obtusifolia var. Rusbyi, Greene, New Mexico. * x salisburgensis, Schott. sub-glutinosa x minima, Kern. Sammana, King MSS,—obtusifolia var. Sandersiana, Royle,—minutissima. sapphirina, Hook. fil € Thom., Himalayas. Suutert, Schott,—minima. saxifragefolia, Lehm.,—cuneifolia. scapigera, Hook.,—petiolaris var. scotica, Hook. ,— farinosa var. secundiflora, Franchet, Yun-nan. sedifolia, Salisb.,—Aretia vitaliana. semperfiorens, Loisl.,—sinensis. septemloba, Franchet, Yun-nan. serratifolia, Franchet, Yun-nan. * x serratifolia, Gusm. minima xX wulfeniana, Gasm. sertulosa, Kickx,—sinensis. sessilis, Royle,—petiolaris. Sieboldu, Morr.,—cortusoides var. *sibirica, Jacq., Siberia. intermedia, Ledeb. rotundifolia, Pall. var. finmarchica, Jacq. integrifolia, Gunn. non L. norvegica, Retz. sibirica, Willd.,—longiscapa. Sibthorpu, Reich.,—vulgaris var. *sikkimensis, Hook., Himalayas. * x similis, Stein. sub-Balbisii x Auricula, Stein. Simsu, Sweet,—viscosa var. simensis, Hochst.,—verticillata var, 289 290 SYNONYMIC LIST OF sinensis, dl. China. premitens, Ker. semperflorens, Loisl. sertulosa, Kickx. soldanelloides, Watt, Himalayas. sonchifolia, F’ranchet, Yun-nan. spathulacea, Jacquem.,—elliptica. spathulata, Hook. fil.,—minutissima var. speciosa, Don.,—reticulata. speciosa, Gusm.,—farinosa var. speciosa, Gmel. Jun.,—nivalis. *spectabilis, T7att., Southern Alps of Tyrol. integrifolia, Sturm. var. calycina, Duby. *Clusiana, Tausch. Clusu, Wiest. integrifolia, Jacq. spectabilis, Koch, pro parte. *var. Kitaibeliana, Schott. *var. Wulfeniana, Schott. integrifolia, Vulp. spicata, Franchet, Yun-nan. Stelviana, Vulp.,—daonensis. Stirtoniana, Wall., Himalayas. * x Steinii, Obrist. sub-minima x hirsuta, Stein. Stracheyi, Hook. fil.,—minutissima var. Stracheyt, Strach. & Wint.,—petiolaris var. stricta, Hornem.,—mistassinica. *Stuartii, Wall., Himalayas. macrophylla, Don. var. lineariloba, Hook. fil. var. macrocarpa, Hook. fil. var. Moorcroftiana, Wall. *var. purpurea, Loyle. x Sturu, Schott. minima xX villosa (Schott). minima var. pubescens, Josch. suaveolens, Bert.,—officinalis var. THE GENUS PRIMULA. — 291 subarctica, Schur. ,—elatior var. *suffrutescens, A. Gray, California. sulphurea, Strach.,—petiolaris var. sylvestris, Scop.,—vulgaris. tenella, King , Himalayas. tenwiloba, Watt,— muscoides var. x ternovania, Kern. acaulis x Columne, Kern. tibetica, Watt, Himalayas. *Tommasinii, G. & G.,—snaveolens. elatior x Columne, Kern. pyrenaica, Mieg. tridentata, Don,—petiolaris. truncata, Lehm.,—minima var.—Sturi, Schott. tschutschorum, Kiell., Arctic Siberia. turkestanica, Regel,—nivalis var. *tirolensis, Schott, Tyrol. Allionu, Auct. wmicolor, Lauge,—media. uniflora, Klatt, Himalayas. undulata, Fisch.,—longiscapa. ' wralensis, Fisch.,—officinalis. vaginata, Watt, Himalayas. variabilis, Goup.,—brevistyla. variabtlis var. offucinalis, Tratt.,—officinalis. * x yenusta, Hort. Auricula x carniolica, Schott. Freyeri, Hoppe. * x Venzoi, Huter. tirolensis x Wulfeniana, Kern. Venzoides, Huter. Venzoides, Huter,—Venzoi. veris var. officinalis, L. veris var. acaulis, L.—vulgaris. veris, Mill.,—vulgaris. veris var. elatior, L.—elatior. vernalis, Salisb.,—officinalis var. *verticillata, Forsk., Arabia, &c, é involucrata, Sweet Cat. var. Aucheri, Jaub. and Spach. *var. Boveana, Decaisne. var. simensis, Hochst. Courtii, hort. Veitch. villosa, Ait.,—pubescens. villosa, Wulf.,—viscosa var. *viscosa Vill., European Alps and Pyrenees. alpina, Loisl. exscapa, Heg. graveolens, Heg. var. alba, Hoffmsq. var. Bonjeani, Huegen. *var. ciliata,*Schrank. *var. commutata, Schott. *var. confinis, Schott. *var. decora, Sims. var. glandulosa, Duby, MSS. *var. hirsuta, All. var. incisa, Gusm. — *var. latifolia, Lap. var. Nelsoni, hort. Angl. *var. nivalis, Hort. var. nivea, Hort. var. pallida, Schott. *var. pedemontana, Thom. var. Simsii, Sweet. viscosa var. major, Hort.— Peyritschii. ) ek * x vochinensis, Gusm., WulfenianaX minima. Carniola. vratensis, Gusm., farinosa var. *vulgaris, Huds., Europe. acaulis, Jacq. bicolor, Rafin. breviscapa, Murr. calycantha, Retz. grandiflora, Lam. hybrida, Schleich. sylvestris, Scop, veris, Mill, SYNONYMIC LIST OF “~ de dl Pes me nie elena apart ye HE GENUS PRIMULA. 293 e ~ veris var. acaulis, L. *var. Sibthorpu, Reich. = amena, Hort. * x Warei, Stein. farinosa x scotica, Stein. * x Weldeniana, Reich. Balbisii x spectabilis (Stein). Wulfeniana, Schott,—spectabilis var. yunanensis, Franchet; Yun-nan. The following abbreviations of the names of Authors occur in the above or other Lists of the Species of Primula :— Adam., Adams. All., Allioni. Andr., Andrews. Auct., Auctorwm (of various authors). Bert., Bertero. B. et B., Boissier and Balansa. Bnge., Bunge. Boiss., Boissier. Brig., Briigger. Curt., Curtis. Dene., Decaisne. DC., de Candolle. Facch., Facchini. ‘Fisch.. Fischer. Fligg., Fliigger. Forsk., Forskahl. Fr. et Sav., Franchet & Savatier. Friv., Frivaldsky. Gilib., Gilibert. Gmel. jun., Gmelin junior. > “We ae De an 4 * | oS ee Lab key “ne. - a a wa aS ee ihe Bi Hladn., Hladnik. SYNONYMIC LIST OF Goup., Goupil. sil Gren., Grenier. G. & G., Grenier et Godron. | oF Griff., Grifith. | See Gusm., Gusmus. So Hamilt., Hamilton. Heg., Hegetschweiler. Hoftmsg., Hoffmansegg. Hook., Hooker. 4 Hook. fil. et Thoms. , Hooker, di. D.,& Thomson. Hornem., Hornemann. -Hort.. Pioricnam or Hortulanorum (of je or of gardeners). Jacquem., Jacquemont. | Jacq., Jacquin. Jaub., Jaubert. ie Jungh., Junghuhn. - Kern., Kerner. ; | Lagg., Lagger. Lam., Lamarck. Ledeb., Ledebours Lehm., Lehmann. Leyb., Leybold. Ldl., Lindley. L. or Linn., Linneus. , Loisl., Lowselewr. M. et B., Moore and Bisset. M. B., Marschall v. Biebersteim, Michx., Michaux. Mig., Miquel. Mill., Miller, y Moret., Moretti. Morr., Morren. Murr., Murray. Pall., Pallas. Pers., Persoon. | | tio aa Rafin., Rafinesque. Rgl., Kegel. ; THE GENUS PRIMULA. ~ Reich., Reichenbach. ~Reut., Reuter. Rupr., Ruprecht. Salisb., Salisbury. Schleich., Schleicher. Scop.. Scopoli. Spreng., Sprengel. Ten., Tenore. Thom.. Thomas. Tomm., Zommassini. Torr., Torrey. Tratt., T’rattinick. Trautv., Trautvetter. Tsch., Tschudi. Turez., Turczaninow- . id Vill., Villars. oe Wall., Wallich. Willd., Willdenow. Rae Wulf., Wulfen. an vt a ORCHID NOMENCLATURE. CONFERENCE AT LIVERPOOL, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 301, 1886. Sm TREVOR LAWRENCE, Bart., Present oF THE Society, IN THE CHAamR. Tue Presipent, in opening the proceedings, said: Ladies and Gentlemen, I must in the first place disclaim any desire, or any pretence of being able to speak with authority in regard to a purely botanical question, whatever that botanical question may be; but there are certain aspects in which the nomen- clature of Orchids especially is affected by considerations more strictly appertaining to horticulture, and, I may say, to some extent to the domain of common sense, and upon which any- body may very fairly give an opinion. The Orchid Conference Committee was appointed at the Conference last year, but it has not been able to do as much work as it might otherwise have done owing to various circumstances into which I need not enter. Some little while ago I wrote to Professor Reichenbach, ex- pressing, on behalf of the Society, the hope that it might be convenient to him to be present here to-day to give us the assistance of his great knowledge and experience; but, un- fortunately, other engagements prevent him being here. I shall call upon Mr. Ridley, who represents a very wide degree of knowledge in connection with Orchids, and who is one of the staff of the Natural History Museum, to give us an account of the present position of the Orchid Committee, and what has been done, and to add to that any remarks that he thinks proper to the occasion. 298 REPORT ON THE On tHE NoMENCLATURE OF OrcHiIps. By H. N. Riwuey, M.A. I do not think that there can be any doubt but that the state of the nomenclature of Orchids at the present day leaves much to be desired in the way of simplification. The immense size of the order, numbering upwards of five thousand recorded species, the intricacy of the synonymy and the rapidity with which the number of known species has been increasing during the last few years, accounts for this in great measure. It has been almost impossible for our orchidologists, few as they have been, to arrange or systematize to any extent, the species of any of the larger genera in an accessible form, on account of the constant and very rapid accessions to our knowledge of the species. The result of this is that every year the difficulties increase, and seem likely to do so until some botanist shall arise who will devote himself to the humble but important task of sweeping up the scattered works of past generations, and sorting | and arranging them in a simple and easily consultable form. The whole groups of Orchids may be roughly divided into ~ non-cultural and cultural species. By the former I mean plants which, though interesting in themselves, are not considered worthy of culture, and which are, therefore, chiefly known from herbarium specimens. ‘These, as arule, present little difficulty to a systematist, owing to their smaller amount of synonymy and usually more careful description, as well as to the fact that typical specimens are almost always to be found in one or the other of our great herbaria which is not always the case in the matter of the showier plants. Sometimes, however, a few of them half accidently find their way into the houses of our cultivators, often at considerable intervals of time, and, alas! are not unfrequently saluted by a new name on each occasion. These give a good deal of trouble, as they are very soon expelled to make room for more showy plants, and are often, especially in the older works, ill-described, rarely figured, and not preserved as herbarium specimens. What wonder, then, that errors frequently occur in such cases ? But it is specially with cultural Orchids that we have to deal to-day, and these are burdened with a synonymy that certainly requires lightening. Horticulturists’ favourites may be divided into two sections—one in which the species do not vary to any great extent under cultivation, so that he who desires novelties ORCHID CONFERENCE. 299 must seek for new species ; and another group in which one or a few species of a genus are so manipulated and selected that an endless variety of so-called species is the result. Among the former class I should include such genera as Dendrobium and Celogyne. Of these most of the specific names found in garden catalogues really represent more or less distinct species, or at the worst, well-marked varieties. The other section is, perhaps, best represented by the Cattleyas. The number of species belonging to this genus is by no means large. Mr. Bentham, in the ‘‘ Genera Plantarum,” computes them at about twenty species, and I think he is rather over than under the mark. The names, however, in garden books are simply legion, nearly all of which represent mere forms of Cattleya laliata, but which are treated as of equivalent value to genuine species such as C. citrina, C. Forbesti, &&. Some distinction should be made between these forms and the distinct species, and it could easily be done by giving fancy names to the former, and abolishing their classical names. To show the exceedingly inconvenient results of naming these forms in Latin (a language which is not too well provided with suitable adjectives for plants at the best) I may cite the following names from a recent sale catalogue :—Cattleya Mossie superba, C. Mendelii superba, C. Triane superba, C. Triane rosea superba, C. Eldorado superba, C. Gaskelliana superba, all of which are varieties of C. labiata, and quite distinct from the well-known species Cattleya superba, All cultural forms of this nature then should be treated as Auriculas, Roses and Tulips have been for many years, and designated when requisite by fancy names, in any language but a classical one. The chief species to which this applies are Cattleya labiata, Masdevallia Lindeni, Odontoglossum crispum and Pescatoret, Lycaste Skinneri, Cypripedium insigne and barbatum ; but there are numerous other species, of which two or three cultural forms have received classical names instead of the more suitable fancy names. This does not do away with the naming of real varieties, that is with forms of plants which have certain distinguishing characteristics, which remain tolerably constant. ; I take as an example of the kind of revision required the names of varieties of Cwlogyne cristata which I find in a recent garden catalogue. They are: Calogyne cristata, C. c., Chats- worth variety ; C. c. hololeuca, C. c. Lemoniana, and C. c. maxima, 300 REPORT ON THE Now of these there is only one objectionable one, and that is the last, C. c. maxima, for on hunting up the original description I find that its simple characteristics are that it is a little bigger than other forms. Now apart from the fact that the size of the flowers is probably due simply to an extra supply of nourish- ment, and would most likely diminish in the same plant again under unfavourable conditions, the mere size of the flowers is quite insufficient to distinguish one plant from another, unless there is enougl difference to be stated in figures. Thus it might be ten inches across instead of three. This plant probably was not worthy of a name at all, but if it was it should have been a fancy name. The remaining names speak for themselves. C. cristata hololeuca is distinct as a colour variety in the absence of the yellow patch on the lip. C. c. Lemoniana, again (though the error made by its original namer in imagining that Lemoniana meant lemon-coloured may call up a laugh at his vor enh is equally unobjectionable. In naming a new variety, therefore, the namer should think first whether he can specify in a few words the cause of distinct- ness in the variety—thus, Celogyne cristata alba, lip entirely white. If not, and if the difference is really so slight that words will not clearly convey it, as in many, I might also say most of the innumerable varieties of Cattleya labiata, the name given should be a fancy name.. Professor Michael Foster, in a recent article on Iris Cengiali, in the Gardeners’ Chronicle, points out that it is not of importance whether a variety of this value first appears in a garden, or in the native haunt of the typical plant ; but where one plant varies so slightly from another as not to deserve a [Latin] varietal name, and yet requires some title, it should bear a fancy name. ‘These slight modifications, in fact, are not strictly varieties at all, but forms, and one can, if requisite, break them up still lower, into sub-forms, so that a species may be divided, if necessary, into sub-species, variety, sub-variety, form and sub-form. As an example, Cattleya labiata is a species, U. labiata Triane a variety, C. labiata Triane alba, a sub-variety, and anything lower would be a form. Now it seems to me that it would be most advantageous to give all forms of the plant, from sub-varieties downwards, fancy names. It is often suggested that the names of plants should be in ae ORCHID CONFERENCE. 301 some measure descriptive, but when put into practice this is frequently found to be unworkable. Still the namer of any plant should do his best to make the name expressive of some- thing connected therewith, as for instance the discoverer, or the place of discovery, or the colour. Quintinye, in his ‘‘ Instructions pour les Jardins,” dated 1697, suggests, in treating of the names of Pinks, that the fancy names should denote the colours of the flowers. Thus he would call a grey and purple kind, the Grand Provincial, or the Grave Philosopher, or General Peter, the initial letter giving the initials of the colours in the flower. The difficulty of such a plan lies in the fact that namers never will conform to anything of the kind, and that such names are only of use in the country in which they are written. Another very important: necessity is that of regulating the nomenclature of hybrids. They are usually treated as species, and receive classical names in no way denoting their origin. In wild hybrids this is in a measure excusable, as it is frequently very difficult to discover, on finding a plant intermediate between two species, whether it is a connecting link or a natural hybrid, but in garden hybrids, the parents of which are known, it is much to be deprecated. Certain names, it is true, denote the garden origin of the plants, such as Cattleya exoniensis x, and who would doubt that Cypripedinm Sedeni x was anything but a cultural hybrid. The usual way in scientific works of denoting a hybrid is by compounding the name, as Carex axillari-remota. This may be shortened by cutting off portions of the two words and making a compacter name, but the only instance I can recall of this method is that of Philageria, a name invented by Dr. Masters for a hybrid between the two genera Lapageria and Philesia. This plan it seems to me should be always adopted in the case of hybrids between two genera. In some cases it would certainly be rather difficult to get a neat name compounded out of the two, but such names as Catlelia and Sophro-cattleya are not worse than many generic names, such as Cienkowskia, Warscwiczella, &c., with which we have to deal. So confused is the present nomenclature of these generic hybrids that we have known plants of which the parentage is mainly Cattleya called Lelias, as for instance, Lelia Dominiana rosea. This is stated to have been raised from Cattleya exoniensgis x , itself crossed with C. Dowiana ; 302 REPORT ON THE _C. exoniensis being a hybrid between C. Mossie and Lelia purpurata; so that there is actually only a quarter blood of Leelia in the plant, and yet it is called a Lelia. With respect to hybrids between species the matter is more difficult, for though compounded names are possible in some cases they are not so in others, owing to the length and un- wieldiness of some of the specific names. Where practicable they may be used, but in all cases where it is certain that the plant isa hybrid, a cross (x) should be always put after the name whenever printed. Where the same parents produce different forms, a fancy name could be added to the compounded name to distinguish them. I shall be very glad if anyone can suggest anything better for the naming of hybrids. One more thing I would like to men- tion is with respect to the publishing of names. A great deal of confusion and difficulty has been caused by the utter irregu- larity with which some of the names are published. They are published first it may be on a label sent up to the Horticultural Society, and they find their way into a book, but nobody knows from whom they come, or, what is infinitely worse, to what plant they apply. Every plant which receives a name should receive it only after careful consideration and examination ; and it should be published in the Gardeners’ Chronicle, or some other scientific paper, or some well-known and easily procurable book. It is not sufficient that names are published in seed lists, trade catalogues, or such ephemeral pro- ductions, which are difficult to obtain even a year or two after publication. There is hardly a complete series of some of the seed lists, in which numerous plants have been described, in any of the libraries in England, and you will see, therefore, how difficult it is to trace plants whose names have been published in one of those seed lists. I think if some such plan of publication as I suggest were adopted, a great deal of simpli- fication could be attained at once. Discussion. Dr. Masters said that some of them might wonder what possible reason he could have to say anything about Orchids, he laying no claim to any but a general knowledge of the order, and that only from a botanical point of view; but, as a botanist, a ORCHID CONFERENCE. 808 he utterly declined to admit that there was any difference in principle between the nomenclature of Orchids and that of any other plants whatever. He thought one great difficulty in Orchid nomenclature had arisen from people not minding their own business. He hoped they would not accuse him of not minding his own business because he was talking of Orchids, with which he was not specially familiar ; but he might illustrate what he meant. Botanists had a regular code of nomenclature, and there were rules laid down which every botanist obeyed more or less loyally. If they would all only obey them strictly, and act up to the spirit of them, all would be well. They could then find out every blunder, correct it if necessary, always have a reference at hand in case of need, and be as well off as any philological student who had his dictionary or grammar to refer to. But when he came to the gardeners and nurserymen, what did he find? He did not wish to speak disrespectfully of them in other respects, far from it, but he found that they trenched on the botanists’ ground. They did not mind their own business; they gave names. Of course they had a perfect right to do this if they liked, provided their names were cast in such a form as to cause no sort of confusion between them and botanical names. If horticulturists would not adopt asystem, as botanists had done, they should at least mind their own business, and not try to imitate botanical names. He would advocate, for garden plants at least, simply provisional or fancy names, and would urge that nurserymen and gardeners should on no account be allowed to give a Latin, still less a Greek name to a plant, unless accompanied by a properly drawn up description by means of which it could be recognized. If they did otherwise, they were almost certain to tumble into a botanical blunder ; and in all cases they gave rise to great confusion and difficulty, because there was no standard publication in which such names were collected. This brought him to another point. The Royal Horticultural Society had a rule, which he was sorry to say was greatly more honoured in the breach than in the observance, that no plant should be shown before its Committees unless it had been properly named. He took the meaning of that to be this—that if it were considered to be a true species, it should be botanically named, and should not receive in any way the sanction of any one of the Committees until that name had 804 REPORT ON THE been properly authenticated. Of course the authenticator might make a mistake, but in course of time the Committee would be able to find out the mistake and correct it. In the © same way, let the names of garden plants be authenticated by a proper person, or by a Committee acquainted with garden plants, in the same way as botanists were supposed to be acquainted with other plants. If this system of authentication, followed by registration, were adopted, a great deal would be done towards clearing up the confusion which existed in nomenclature. He should be delighted to hear some remarks from Orchid growers present, and must therefore ask the Conference to excuse him for having intruded so long upon their attention. Mr. Enocu Harvey said Dr. Masters had cleared the ground on one main point, in the distinction he had drawn between botanical names and merely horticultural garden names. He thought all must agree that the plan suggested was the right one, namely, that fancy names should be given to mere varieties. Every time a man grew a Carnation a little different from others, he wished naturally to distinguish it and called it by a fancy name. That was right enough. With regard to the dis- tinguishing of species of botanical names, he thinks nothing can be done at present. The time for that will be hereafter. Some time it must arise. It seemed to him that during Dr. Lindley’s lifetime the present plan was the one to which everybody bowed, but at present there was nothing to which everyone bowed, and they had nothing to do with the principles on which Dr. Lindley acted in the new names he gaye to new species. He thought some practical work might be done in the direction Dr. Masters had just indicated. Some of the varieties which were produced were so distinct and beautiful that it was desirable that they should be distinguished ; but what he urged was that there should be some competent authority empowered to name them, and he would suggest that this authority should be a Committee of the Royal Horticultural Society, who should provide themselves with drawings, dried plants, and a careful botanical description of any recognized varieties, and to whom any person growing a specimen, and not knowing to which variety to refer it, might apply for information. This information might be supplied either without charge, or on payment of a small fee. This would put an end to the plan ORCHID CONFERENCE, 805 of everybody who had got a variety to sell putting whatever name he liked upon it. It was a very humble, practical work, which would be a great convenience to horticulturalists. There ought to be some authority which would define and decide the limits of application of each name. Mr. Surrtey Hisserp said reference had been made to the labours of the Society, and they were all interested in the success of the Society as a whole, and in the perfection of the several departments of its work. The Horticultural Society was con- tinually dealing with varieties of Orchids, much more frequently with what might be called garden varieties than with new species ; and it might have occurred to many and had often occurred to himself, and Dr. Masters justified him in his opinion, that with the greater part of these garden varieties, Orchid growers, as scientific men, had absolutely nothing to do. He was glad that Dr. Masters insisted that there should be one rule for all plants, one method, one system, so that a man should not have to go to all the schools of botany. One principle should be applied, and it should be applied resolutely. It had not been applied resolutely ; it had been trified with ; and he proposed to them as an Orchid Conference, as business men, that they should repudiate all garden varieties. If Mr. Blank could find an Orchid with a spot in one corner of a petal, he gave it a name and a money value, and at once sold the plant; and when he had done so, what did it matter to him what value it had in the books or annals of the Society? The Conference might simplify their labours by kicking out all these garden varieties. They could not prevent men giving plants ridiculous names. But he would tell them what they could do, and this concerned them as a Society. They could repudiate these ridiculous names when the plants came before them; and he had proposed, and he proposed again, that the hands of workers should be strengthened by a General Working Botanical Committee, which would have, of necessity, often to deal with Orchids, and to whom a worker could take a plant and say: ‘‘ Is that a good species?”’ If the answer were ‘‘ No,” then he could deal with it as a garden variety. He was afraid they could never have the assistance of a vast museum of tens of thousands of dried Orchids, or a large library to refer to. Supposing they could build up such a museum and library, he 306 PEPORT ON THE didn’t know where they could find the men who could go in at ten o’clock and turn to any page or specimen wanted at the moment to verify a species or variety. He thought the best museum for the Society in that case, and the best library, would be in the heads of the Committee appointed to do the work. They had men in that room who were capable of forming such a museum, and who had it, in fact, already in their heads; and the appeal to the man was better than any appeal to an Alexan- drian library. The Present, having invited further remarks on this, or any kindred subject germane to the main question, Mr. Gotprine asked Mr. Ridley if he considered that the varieties of Cattleya labiata named Gaskeliana, Percivaliana and Triane were mere garden varieties. Mr. Ridley seemed to imply in his paper that he considered them so; but he (Mr. Goldring) did not know where they were to draw the line. He thought they must have a starting point and define the true species, and then name the varieties that had a structural difference—not merely one of colour. He could never believe that very marked sub-species, such as Percivaliana and Gaskeliana were mere varieties. Mere garden varieties they were not; they differed structurally. He was afraid that Mr. Ridley had studied dried specimens too much; and that he would have to go more to the garden. The varieties of Cattleya labiata were very numerous, but it seemed to him that there were about half-a-dozen very marked species or sub-species. With regard to popular names, he thought it would cause just as great a confusion as the popularizing of the names of other plants, which he thought was quite a failure except in well-known names such as the Dandelion. They would have people naming varieties all over the country. With regard to the varieties of Celogyne cristata, he thought Mr. Ridley had studied dried specimens too much. If he would go into the garden he would find structural characteristics. Mr. Ridley, he believed, said that Celogyne cristata maxima was merely a garden form, and that a good grower would grow a small one into a large one. He utterly denied that, because they would find that the bulb was different. One hada truncated form, and the other was somewhat globose, and no amount of growing would turn the latter into a truncated bulb. Then, again, the Calogyne cristata pe peta "7 =" “~.P ‘iy a.¥ » ORCHID CONFERENCE. 307 hololeuca he. thought was almost distinct enough to rank as a species. The flower was different, the column was different, the wings were more widely spread, and the lips were shallower ; and yet Mr. Ridley called that a simple garden variety. Then as regards Celogyne cristata Lemoniana, it was distinct as regarded the colour. These should be named as botanical species. He did not know why Orchids should be singled out as being so very difficult to understand, or as being in such a confusion, because he thought if they would take other classes of plants they would find the same thing, and if they abolished botanical names for Orchids they should abolish them for all. Mr. Riptey said that with regard to the forms of Cattleya labiata, which he thought was the first thing Mr. Goldring mentioned, he followed Professor. Reichenbach. He never meant to say that he considered C. Triane and those distinct varieties as anything but varieties. Professor Reichenbach separated the species of Cattleya labiata into varieties in two ways, according to form and according to colour, so that they might take their choice. He kept the Triane and Mossiea, and one or two others, separate as varieties, and he (Mr. Ridley) was quite prepared to do the same, but he could not consider them species at all, not species in the usually accepted sense of the word. As to the charge that he went simply by dried specimens, he should like it to be known that in the Natural History Museum there were, he was sorry to say, very few specimens indeed of the cultivated forms of Cattleya. He had been trying to get them. Nobody would take the trouble to dry them. They were very difficult to get; the gardeners were rather shy of cutting the flowers to make herbarium specimens. Further- more, he was perfectly agreed with Mr. Goldring in his statement that it was very difficult to make out species of Cattleya from dried specimens. He did not go by them, but by the living plants and by drawings, and, of course, by good drawings one could go almost as well as by the living plant. Professor Micuarn Foster said he felt very great diffidence in speaking on the subject, because he was absolutely ignorant of Orchids; but he also felt that Dr. Masters spoke entirely the truth . when he said that this difficulty with regard to Orchids was one which was met with in the case of all plants which had to be cultivated by gardeners. He also agreed with Dr. Masters that U 808 REPORT ON THE Latin names should not be used for so-called garden forms. He took it that a name was of use in order to denote certain distinctive characteristics. Where those characteristics were sufficiently distinctive, they constituted a species ; where they were somewhat less distinctive, they constituted a sub-species ; when they were less still, they constituted a variety ; and in each of these cases the botanist desired to give a name. But when the differences became still less, the botanist said life was not long enotigh to take note of them, and passed them on one side. For all such differences as deserved the attention of botanists, he thought Latin names should be retained; but there were no two plants which, take them all in all, were actually alike, and for garden purposes they were obliged to appreciate differences less in degree than those which deserved the attention of botanists ; and there came the difficulty. With regard to plants exhibiting these smaller differences, he agreed —and he thought they were nearly all agreed now—that trivial names, or at all events names not Latin, should be used for them, so that whenever a Latin name was used they would know that it denoted differences of a certain magnitude; and when it was not used they would know that those differences were of a magnitude which the botanist said he could not take cognizance of. But he could not go so far as Mr. Hibberd, and say that they should repudiate altogether the task of supervising these trivial names, which were not Latin; he could not do so, because some of them might be of very considerable importance. For, although Mr. Hibberd might be quite right in saying that Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones looked out for a spot on the petal of a plant, and then put the plant into the market, and when he had got rid of his stock, cared no more about it, it might be that Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones, in his effort to do himself good, had produced a thing which remained a joy for ever to succeeding generations. It would be a great pity if that plant had not hereafter a proper name. The name should, if possible, tell them something about it; and he did not think it was outside the powers of gardeners, by adequate care, to select names which would, at all events, tell the world something about the plant, and suggest the direction in which they were to look for its affinities and relations. However, that was a matter of detail. He only wished to make two other suggestions, ORCHID CONFERENCE. 309 somewhat of a practical nature, with regard to the naming of hybrids. He had been driven to use names for his own purposes, and he had adopted Dr. Masters’ plan, making a compound of the names of the two parents, putting that of the mother first. But there was a little change which he had introduced, which he would suggest as being, possibly, useful, since it at once denoted that the plant was a hybrid; and that was to end the name with a consonant, instead of with a vowel. For instance, if Dr. Masters’ Philageria were named Philager they would know at once that it was a hybrid. He quite agreed with Mr. Ridley that when the ear got accustomed to them, compound names might be used, soas not to interfere with the organs of speech—names which could be written down distinctly, and heard with fair clearness. Another point was with regard to the suggestion which had been made as to having a Registration of Plants. Here, again, he was sorry to to say he differed from Mr. Hibberd. He was always sorry to differ from that gentleman, but occasionally he felt himself obliged todo so. Hedid not think it was so utterly impossible as Mr. Hibberd seemed to think that the Society should have a Record and Museum of plants of horticultural value. A dried specimen did not occupy such a very large amount of room, and they had not so much material crowded into their publications that they could not find room for an adequate description and clear diagnosis of any new plant with regard to which they took the responsibility of giving a prize or authenticating a name. A very little space would really suffice for their needs, for it must be remembered that, after the lapse of a certain number of years, certain plants to which names had been given and which had run their day, would have entirely disappeared. He meant that they might have to revise their Herbarium and cast out those specimens which were of no value at all; but they would have during the time of dispute an appeal to a definite record and written description, furnished by the namer of the plant, and to dried specimens; and he ventured to think that it was the duty of the Society to publish adequate illustrations of new and important plants, so that there might be some- thing authentic to appeal to at any subsequent time. Mr. Lyncu said he was very sorry to be under the disadvantage of not having heard all that had been said, but he must say that 310 REPORT ON THE Professor Foster had summed up the situation exactly to his mind. With regard to the naming of garden forms, he would suggest that a drawing should be made of every plant to which a — foreign name was applied, and that its description should be published either in the Gardeners’ Chronicle or in the Journal of the Horticultural Society; and any plant which did not show a difference sufficient to be ascertained by this description should not be recognized at all. One great want in connection with the Society, he thought, was what he might term a Royal Horti- cultural Society Garden Nomenclaturist. He thought there should be a botanist connected with the Society who would devote himself to the naming of plants, from a garden point of view, because a purely botanical point of view was not all sufficient for cultivators’ purposes. They wanted, first of all, some authority to draw out a limitation of the species. He thought it might have a very great effect if the Conference would petition Professor Reichenbach to frame a summary of the work he had done in his lifetime. They would lose a great deal if he did not do it. With regard to the popular names for imported forms of Orchids he would put them on precisely the same grounds as those raised in the country, because they occupied the same position. They had come from seeds, and he thought they also might receive popular names; for instance, Painted Lady, or something of that kind. He quite agreed with Professor Foster’s view of the necessity of the Horticultural Society keeping a register of all these plants. In different parts of the country names were applied; and he would propose that the Society should not recognize names which had been brought to its notice unaccompanied by those drawings which he would recommend. The Presmwent: Gentlemen, I think that although no immediate practical result may come from our conversation and discussion to-day, we have, at all events had placed before us’ more clearly the difficulties of the case than we have had up to the present time, and I think also we have had considerable in- dications of the way in which those difficulties are to be met. With regard to names, I believe men of science have up to the present time, for reasons which are not difficult to understand, chosen Latin or Greek for their descriptive names. How long that will last, I cannot undertake to say. In fact, I have a rather ORCHID CONFERENCE. 311 vague recollection that my friend Professor Foster told me he should not be astonished if before many years Greek were to be no longer one of the necessary parts, at all events, of education at Cambridge, and that leads me to suggest what I may as well say I have suggested to Professor Reichenbach, and that is, the de- sirability that, when a gentleman gives a plant a new name, a compound of the dead- languages, the source from which he takes that name, the words from which it is compounded, and a trans- lation into English, should also be given. We must remember that these names are used to a very large extent by gardeners who have no knowledge of the dead languages. With regard to what fell from Mr. Ridley as to Celogyne cristata, I had a large pan of pieces. We knew that in that pan there were one or two pieces—we did not know how many—of the white variety, which Mr. Goldring thinks so very distinct. They were all separated, and very great care was taken by competent persons to find any indication which would enable us to discriminate between the two. We found it impossible, and we were only able to discriminate be- tween the two when the plants flowered; and, although I do not believe that among Orchids there are no smaller and larger varieties, I think it may be possible to cultivate the one into the other, as it certainly is possible to do the reverse—to cultivate the larger into the smaller. With regard to the reason why all these names appear, I think it is pretty well on the surface. It is the reason to which Mr. Hibberd has referred —the commercial reason ; and 1 am bound to say I think there is a certain amount of fault to be found occasionally with our Floral Committee at South Kensington. I think they have been occasionally guilty, unknowingly, no doubt, of giving two different names and two different certificates to the same plant. Where I think they certainly err is in recognizing names and giving certificates to individual plants—to an individual plant which does, perhaps, exist in any other form except in that one plant. With regard to what constitutes a distinct variety, we have heard reference made to that several times. It is in a great measure a matter of colour, as far as my observation goes, and we are all aware that the ~ natural energy and force which is required to produce varieties in colour is very much smaller than that required to produce varieties in form. With regard to Cattleyas, I entirely agree 312 REPORT ON THE ORCHID CONFERENCE. with Mr. Ridley, that Cattleya labiata is a recognized species. The names of varieties are almost invariably the names of individuals, who will in fulness of time pass away, if they have not already passed away, and we shall be inquiring who those persons were. If we endeavour to ‘‘ kick out” and repudiate these various names, we shall find ourselves in almost greater difficulty than now. I entirely endorse, if I may be allowed to say so, the opinion expressed by Dr. Masters and Professor Foster, that horticulturists should keep to horticulture and botanists to botany. If we hand over thedead languages as a means by which genera, species, and, if necessary, varieties, are to be described by botanists, we shall get a general distinction which will be of great value. You have heard what Mr. Ridley has said about the difficulty of getting flowers for preservation. Now I am most anxious that the perfectly unique Herbarium, which has been collected together by Professor Reichenbach, should still get reinforcements of novelties from this country ; but, at the same time I venture to say, that as patriotic English- men we should do all we can to help our great Natural History - Museum at South Kensington, and the Herbarium of the Royal Gardens at Kew. It is not, after all, a great sacrifice if you have looked at your flowers for three or four days, while it is certainly beneficial to the plants, to cut the flowers; and now that Mr. Ridley has thrown himself, I may say, on the compassion and generosity of Orchid growers, I trust that his appeal will not be made in vain. I shall venture, at all events, to trouble him with more flowers than I have done up to the present time, in the hope that he will throw into the waste-paper basket those which he does not require, and in the hope that there may be something which will be of advantage to him. Thanks haying, on the motion of Mr. Harvey, been cordially voted to Sir Trevor Lawrence for his kindness in presiding, the proceedings closed. W.S. Jonnson, ‘‘ Nassau Steam Press,” 60, St. Martin’s Lane, London, W.C. ; 7 THE REPORT ON THE ORCHID CONFERENCE, Held at South Kensington in May, 1885, may be obtained, Price 2s. each, at MACMILLAN AND CO., Publishers, 29 & 30, BEDFORD STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C., Or through any Bookseller. The next Volume of the Royal Horticultural Society’s Journal will be the FROST REPORT, ON THE WINTERS, 1879-80 AND 1880-81, BY THE REV. G. HENSLOW, F.L.S., F.G.S., And will be Published early in 1887. To be followed by THE REPORT ON THE PEAR CONGRESS. Motte. a he ADVERTISEMENTS. THE GARDENING WORLD SUPPLIES A WANT OF THE AGE. A FIRST-GLASS GARDENING PAPER ONE PENNY, WEEKLY. Each Maker contains, besides First-class Engravings, a well-arranged Series of Articles on Practicai Gardening ; the Horticultural News of the Week ; Reports of the leading Horticultural Societies’ Shows; a specially written Orchid Growers’ Calendar; frequent Contributions on Floricultural Topics; a Report of the London Seed Trade ; and in its Advertising Columns, the Trade Announcements of the leading Nurserymen, Seedsmen, and F lorists. Sold by all Newsagents, and at all Railway Bookstalls. A Specimen Copy sent Free to any Address. SUBSCRIPTION (including Postage), 6s. 6d. per Annum. Foreign Subscriptions, to all Countries in the Postal Union, 8s. 8d. All Subscriptions Payable in Advance. Postal and Money Orders should we made Payable to B. Wynne, at Drury Lane. ~— Oflice, 17, CATHERINE STREET, STRAND, LONDON,W.C. 1SsG— 7. JAS. BAGKHOUSE & SON’S CATALOGUE OF ALPINE PLANTS, HARDY PERENNIALS, FLORISTS’. FLOWERS, With Descriptions and Cultural Notes (64 pp.). PRICE SIXPENCE, Free to Purchasers. Includes an extensive assortment of the finest Primulas exhibited at the recent Conference. JAS. BACKHOUSE & SON, YORE. » ADVERTISEMENTS, CARTERS’ PRIMULA: SEEDS. CARTERS’ HOLBORN PRIZE STRAIN. ADMITTED TO BE THE FINEST IN THE WORLD. Awarded—First Prize, open to England, Crystal Palace, 1884. Awarded—Banksian Prize Medal, Royal Hort. Society, 1883. Awarded—The Highest Prize Medal, Ceylon, 1885. COMPRISING HOLBORN VERMILION. H HOLBORN WHITE. ' HOLBORN MAGENTA. HOLBORN VENUS. HOLBORN BLUSE. | HOLBORN ELAINS. HOLBORN CARMINE. HOLBORN SALMON. HOLBORN PEARL. HOLBORN PURPLE. HOLBORN ROSE, Each Colour separate—price in sealed packets, 2s. 6d., “s. 6d., and 5s. per packet, post free. All Colours mixed—price ls. 6d., 2s. 6d., 3s. 6d., and 5s. per packet, post free. CARTERS’ HOLBORN BLUE PRIMULA. Awarded—First-Class Certificate, Royal Horticultural Society. THE FIRST AND THE BEST BLUE PRIMULA EVER OFFERED. It will be remembered that we were the first to introduce the Blue Primula to public notice, and at the present time we hold a strain that is not only unique, but also infinitely superior to any other so-called Blue Primula in cultivation. When this charming break first appeared,in our hybrids some five years since, the flowers was scarcely larger than a shilling, but as the result of careful selection and in breeding, the strain we uow offer is guaranteed to produce flowers from 1} to 2 inches in diameter, Price in sealed packets, 2s. 6v., 3s. 6d. and 5s. per packet, post free. BEST EVIDENCE OF SUPERIORITY. ‘‘T have a very fine show of Carters’ strain | ‘Carters’ Holborn Group of Primulas of Primulas, over 300 plants, consisting of 30 have been magnificent, I have 120 fine plants; varieties "—Mr. J. VERT, Head Goar- | 40 pl.nts of the White Swan are in full bloom, dener to the Right Hon, Lord BRAY- and are splendid fur buttonholes. My em- BROOKE. ' ployers are more than pleased with them.”— “The Primulas from Carters’ Seed were | Mr. MOSEDALE, Head Gardener to acknowledged by those who saw themasthe | _J,C. GRINDLING, Esq. very finest ever seen about here.”—Mr, T’. “« - é CONNELL, Castletown, oe a ee ‘‘ The Primulas are the admiration of every | i PRARSON _ feack st oF tT one.”—Mr. J. SHANNON, Budleigh. Saalbpetiyan “‘“My Primulas have never been better or **Carters’ Holborn Prize Primulas turned more beautiful.” —F, SIMMS, Esq., | out the best I ever had—there were fitteen Twickenham. varieties, and all good size. They have been “‘The Primulas from Carters’ Seed are now | much admired.”—C, BROMLEY, Esq. in splendid flowsr—they beat all in this part.” | “The last Primulas I had from Carters’ —C. G. B, KENNEDY, Esq.,Stewarts- | a; the best strain I have ever seen.”— town. ‘‘The Primula plants are still im great J. GIBSON, Esq., Southport, beauty, the colour of the blooms most lovely ‘Carters’ Double White Primulas far and admired by every one.”—Mrs, JULIUS, | exceeded my most sanguine expectations.” Downham. | —Mr, T. PITTS. Seedsmen by Royal Warrant to H.M. the Queen and H.R.H. the Prince of Wales. 237 & 238, HIGH HOLBORN, LONDON.