bloom. As, however, they are chiefly grown as ornamental plants in pots, it is better to keep them in pots from the first, and change them from time to time to larger pots, and proceed as directed. Although there are many plants said to be very constant from seed, it will be always found that, however true they may seem, some will be more robust than others, some more dwarf or tall than others; so that, when a favourite plant is easily propagated from slips or parting of the root, few, if any, attempt raising from seed. Those, however, who are partial to new varieties, will do so, and therefore you must proceed, first, to save it by planting out a strong plant into a rich open border in the early part of the spring, as soon as danger of frost is over, and well attend to the watering of it. When the flower-stems rise, cut away all but one or two, and fasten them loosely to a stake each, that they may not be confined, but may be supported against the wind. Continue watering all through its growth and bloom, and you will have plenty of seed. The lower seed-pods, must be turning yellow before you pick off any, and then you may continue to pick them day by day, as they turn yellow or brown. These may be laid by in the dry during the winter, and in May rub out the seeds and sow them thinly in boxes, pans, or pots, of loam, peat, and decomposed dung, and cover very lightly. See that they are kept moist, and as soon as they are large enough to handle well, they may be pricked out into pots four or five in a pot, or into a bed made up on purpose, in a sheltered situation. In the autumn, when they are pretty strong, you may select such as you like for potculture, or you may for the first year let them stand out, throwing a little loose litter over them by way of protection in case very severe frost should occur. When you see, from their habit of growth and flower, which you care to save, you may cut down the decaying flower-stem, pot them up into twenty-four sized pots, as the most convenient for keeping through the winter, and afterwards treat them as before directed for established plants. GARDENS AT ALDERSHOT. All were OUR readers know that we exerted ourselves to get leave to convert five hundred acres of barren waste into highly productive land, the means-the offal and sewage of the campbeing on the spot. We were well received among the officers, and particularly by the commandant. pleased with the project; all agreed that the plan was feasible; none could see an objection; even the common soldiers were delighted at having a garden to work in; but, notwithstanding all this, as in most other improvements proposed to Government, something stops the way. First the Medical Board made an order that all the offal of the camp should be moved daily a mile beyond the precincts, on sanitary grounds. Second, a contract for its removal had been intered into, and was then existing. Medical men may be clever in their way, but to pretend that this would be one jot better than burying a foot thickness at the bottom of a trench, and putting two feet of soil on the top, which could have been done on five hundred acres of waste land, and converted every square in a comparatively short time into garden that would produce vegetables for a hundred regiments, is ridiculous. The Standard gives us a rebuke by showing us what the French have been doing, and it is a reproach to the Medical Board which prevented us doing the same at a tythe of the expense, like every thing else where science without practice prevails. The Medical Board made a job for contractors, who have been reaping all the benefit from a fertilizing material worth thousands on the ground, and prevented the adoption of a project that would have given amusement and occupation to hundreds of soldiers, and vegetables for the camp. We urged many years ago the expediency of providing gardens for all our barracks. But at Aldershot there was the labour, the ground to spare- worthless in its present state-and fertilizing material which no money could buy. The Standard says:-"In the late encampment at Chalons which has been broken up during the past week, we learn that his soldiers have been encouraged to rear and cultivate vegetable gardens all around the camp, on a plan tried, experimentally, on a limited scale, some two years back. So successful have the present arrangements proved, that they are to be forthwith followed out in all the garrison towns of France. It is computed that there are certainly one hundred towns where there is a military depôt, and accordingly, the order has gone forth for the establishment of one hundred vegetable gardens for military use. Under the direct superintendence of the minister of war, adequate preparations to execute this order are to be commenced immediately. From the experience of this season at Chalons, the superfices of vegetable garden 'is five acres for each regiment, and each allottment has this year produced vegetables to the value of £60 in four months.' We certainly trust that these trite, but important details, will have been noticed and pondered over by our own military authorities. Five acres are reported to produce 300 hectolitres of potatoes, at four shillings the hectolitre, a measure which is about equivalent to twenty-two gallons, and of course there are cabbages, onions, and carrots in proportion. From a distribution by the commissariat department of 60,000 cabbage plants, there was raised produce enough for 24,000 men, calculating the supply of 100 cabbages daily for each regiment; and the entire cost for seed and labour not exceed £2 for each regiment." We can urge nothing new, so far as Aldershot was concerned, where our project was highly popular with officers and men; five hundred acres were pointed out-a perfect waste, without vegetation enough to feed a caterpillar— upon which the good work could have been began. Part of the labour would have practised men in trenching, and long before this a considerable portion have been in cultivation. All we regret is that the work was not carried out. In all probability some more lucky adviser than we have been will have the credit that belongs to the establishment of gardens for the military, when the example of France awakens a sleepy Government and shames it into action. G. GLENNY. HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY'S SHOWS. VERY few real florists's pay much heed to the shows of the Royal Horticultural Society. The fortunate winners of the prizes, whether it be Mr. Turner or Mr. Keynes, to whom the first and second prizes appear always to belong, is of small consequence; but on the tenth Mr. Keynes was first with 48 blooms, Mr. Turner being second, and Mr. May, of Bedale, was a sort of interloper, but was allowed to be third. The following were the winning flowers, some of them very shakey as to centres:- Lord Derby, Golden Drop, Imperial, Magnificent, Juno, John Harrison, Lilac Queen, Donald Beaton, General Jackson, Pandora, Cherub, Bob Ridley, Mrs Dodds, Leopard, Hugh Miller, Chairman, Duke of Wellington, Pauline, Andrew Dodds, Lady Pennant, Baron Taunton, Mrs. Bush, Mr. Chritchell, Peri, Lord Wiltshire, John Keynes, Earl of Shaftesbury, Oscar, King of Sweden, Black Prince, Perfection, Jenny Austin, Beauty of Hilperton, Model, Sir George Douglas, Lord Palmerston, Charles Turner, Mrs. Trotter, Norfolk Hero, Pioneer, Goldfinder, Le Premier, Umpire, Souter Johnny, Lady Elcho, George Brown, Mrs. Waters, Criterion. In twenty-fours, Mr. Turner was first. Turn and turn is fair play; his flowers were:-Mutabilis, George Brown, Mrs. Bush, Model, Delicata, Earl of Shaftesbury, Umpire, Chairman, Mrs. Stocken, Beauty of Hilperton, Lilac Queen, Golden Drop, Lord Derby, Cygnet, Norfolk Hero, Lady Popham, Madge Wildfire, Captain Harvey, Hugh Miller, Peri, Sidney Herbert, Criterion, Chieftain, Lord Palmerston. The first amateur prize was won by Mr. J. T. Hedges, Esq., of Colchester, with :-Madame Guite, Mrs. Crawford, Heroine, Madge Wildfire, Cherub, Emperor, Juno, Commander, Alice Downie, Standard Bearer, Inaccessible, Admiral Dundas, Pandora, Lady Popham, Criterion, Lord Palmerston, Neville Keynes, Beauty of Hilperton, Norfolk Hero, John Keynes, and Chairman. The first prize for twelve was won by W. P. Barnard, Esq., of Dorlington, with:- Lilac Queen, Mrs. C. Waters, Marquis of Beaumont, Lady Popham, Beauty of Hilperton, Jenny Austin, Chairman, Mrs. P. Bailache, Lord Derby, Lady Pennant, and George Elliott. In fancy Dahlias, Mr. Keynes was winner, with :-Queen Mab, Conqueror, Carnation, Triomphe de Roubaix, Lady Paxton, Gem, Starlight, Mary Lauder, Pauline, Souter Johnny, Garibaldi, Le Premier, Patent, Confidence, Norah Ereina, Harlequin, Baron Anderson, and Reliance. Mr. Corp won the first amateur prize for Pansies, with: -Lady Paxton, Mary Lauder, Gem, Confidence, Garibaldi, Pauline, William Corp, Queen Mab, Reliance, Elegans, and Harlequin. Seedlings exhibited :-Charlotte Dorling Bellona, Patent, Le Premier, Serenity, the Bride, Charles Turner, Countess of Shelborn, Lord Dundreary, and others. Of these two or three were promising, and several good enough to get certificates, although not good enough to buy at full price. Hollyhocks were shown well, especially those from Mr. Chater, and Downie, and Laird, the former showed : Mutabilis, George Brown, Miss Bush, Model, Delicata, Earl of Shaftesbury, Umpire, Chairman, Miss Stocken, Beauty, Miss little, King, Beauty of Mitford, Rose Celestial, Imperator, and Lady King. There was nothing else very interesting to Florists; for the other flowers, we have seen better at Alnwick and other provincial exhibitions. PHLOX. THE varieties among the perennial race of this fine hardy flower are so great, that it would be quite useless to attempt their enumeration. Some are very tall, others remarkably dwarf, and varying in colour from pink to lilac and purple, and some of a clear white. They require some arrangement as to their heights when grown in collection, nor must the season of bloom be neglected, for some are early, others very late. Many of the varieties only have botanical distinctions; a few sorts, that are strikingly different from each other and very showy, are very desirable in a flower-garden, and every year produces novelties. Of late there have been introduced striped flowers-new varieties raised from seed that have great claims for their superiority. P. Vanhoutii is of this description, and others are constantly appearing. Ordinary garden soil will bring these forward well; any kitchen garden mould will be found well adapted for their culture. They require to be planted a foot apart. They are propagated by parting the root, and may be raised from seed; the former perpetuates any approved variety, the latter gives us a chance of obtaining new ones. In choosing Phloxes, those which are most dwarf and most abundantly bloomed should be selected, with individual flowers quite round and large. These should be planted where they are to remain two or three seasons, for they are the better for spreading out a little. P. omniflora, white, is the very best of all the bedding-out sorts, blooming from April till August. P. Drummondii, an annual species, is one of the greatest acquisitions we have had of late years in the list of popular flowers. It deserves all the pains that can be taken with it, and forms one of the most showy of potted flowering plants. The colours vary a good deal, because there is no dependence on any seed bringing plants similar to the parent; but the general form of the plant is maintained, and its pretty habit and abundant bloom are apparent at all times. Let the seed be sown in heat of some kind in March or April, and as soon as the plants are large enough to prick out, let them be placed an inch apart in wide-mouthed pots for three or four weeks, to save room while room is an object; they may be kept in the greenhouse. When they have grown till they touch one another almost, they may be potted separately in sixty-sized pots (three inches across), and placed under a garden. light, where they can be covered against frost. Here they may remain with all the air that can be given on mild days, until their roots fill the pots, when they must be removed to forty-eight-sized pots (four and a half inches across), changing them without breaking the balls of earth; they may be replaced in the frame unless the chances of frost have gone by; if there is no danger on this ground, the pots may be placed in the open air. By giving them all the air we can, the plants are kept from drawing up tall, and they may either be allowed to bloom in these pots, or be shifted once more, whichever is preferred; some may indicate fine growth, and be worth another change. They will all flower well, and form pretty objects among potted annuals. They do well if planted out in beds of rich light earth towards the end of May. THE PROPER CUT IN PRUNING. in pruning, although this is a point not often thought about It is exceedingly important to know how to make the cut by the uninitiated, who are apt to consider that it is more important to know where to cut than how to cut; the knowledge of both is, however, essential. No matter what the subject may be, the cut should be made just above the bud, and in the case of plants which produce some buds that expand only leaves, and others that expand flowers, it is essential to cut just above a leaf-bud. When a plant produces these two kinds of buds, the leaf bud may be known from the blossom-bud by its form; the latter being always of a rounder, blunter figure than the former, which is more elongated and pointed. The cut should be made at about an angle of forty-five degrees, commencing at the back of bud; when cut thus, the wound is rapidly covered with the bud, and coming out on the other side just above the new wood as soon as the bud pushes, and consequently soon HELIANTHEMUM (SUN ROSE). THESE are small evergreen shrubs, mostly trailing, and among the prettiest ornaments of rock-work; they are immediately related to the Cistus family, but are altogether smaller. The genus comprises more than a hundred species and varieties, some requiring a frame, but the greater part nearly hardy; thirteen or fourteen of the varieties are hardy annuals; thirty and more are frame plants; and the rest hardy shrubs and trailing plants. They are various in colour, very fragile, grow chiefly upon rocks and rockwork, and therefore require hard, dry, and poor ground. The annuals may be sown thinly on the ground of the common border. The others want but little care, except so far as potting the tender, and planting out the hardy sorts. It is very desirable that the few of those that are at all necessary in a garden should be selected while in bloom, that the purchaser may know what he is about. There is so little difference in many of the so-called varieties, that ordinary people would not detect it. The vast majority are yellow, a few are white and red, but the shades are all between the red and yellow. The poorer the loam in which these plants are grown the better; or a mixture of loam and peat is as good as anything: they are, however, best on rock-work and banks. In raising them from seed the same kind of soil is used, and the seed is to be sown in wide-mouthed pots; the plants must be pricked out three or four in a small pot, as soon as they are large enough, and when they have grown to fill these pots, let them be planted singly in small pots, to be changed as the roots again reach the sides. Let them then be placed in the borders, or on rock-work or banks. The shrubby kinds may be struck from cuttings. It is a good plan to keep a stock in small pots for facility of preservation during the winter, when the exposed plants are sometimes killed. RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW. LINDLEY'S VEGETABLE KINGDOM. THIS work professes to give us the structure, classification, and use of plants, illustrating upon the natural system a system which Professor Lindley was the fittest of all men to explain and demonstrate, because he had already condemned that of Linnæus as a 66 once popular but superficial and useless system "-and therefore was, as it were, bound to supply us with the best exposition and application of that which was intended to supersede it. Our notions are, that most of the objections to the natural system applied to the carelessness with which different subjects were classed together, rather than to the use of a natural system. Indeed, the author of the "Vegetable Kingdom" admits the want of information on the subject. He says: "In our own language there was nothing whatever; and the natural system of arranging plants, although occasionally mentioned as a something extremely interesting, was currently regarded as the fond speculation of a few men, with more enthusiasm than sound judgment: and this, too, was the opinion expressed by persons who stood at the head of English botany, in the estimation of many British Naturalists." Speaking of what he felt personally, he says. "The author had himself severely experienced the want of some guide to this branch of natural history, and he felt anxious to relieve others from the inconvenience which he had encountered." Nor was his complaint confined to the deficiency of works in the English language only; for he says, "At that time too, there was nothing of foreign origin which could be advantageously consulted; for Bartling's Ordines had not reached England; Perleb's Lehrbuch was unknown, and both it and Agardh's Classes were of too slight a texture to be generally useful to any except botanists themselves." It does not appear to us that a natural system would be objectionable; but the early blunders committed by placing plants in the wrong groups, and the seeming incongruity of the members of different (so called) families, besides the doing and undoing among the early friends of the system, created objections among the learned, to say nothing of the unlearned students of botany, who saw in the then unexplained arrangement, plants of opposite natures placed in the same orders, some of which comprised subjects apparently not at all allied-the only seeming affinity being some trifling subordinate feature. The reconciling of these differences, or the reconstruction of the families, was properly the work of an advocate of the system; and while we object to the kicking down of the ladder by means of which botany attained a considerable elevation, we do not deny that a well arranged natural system, founded on unerring principles, will be far more comprehensive. Many popular writers opposed the natural system of Jussieu upon very superficial grounds; but it was the vagueness of all that could be read about it, and of a good deal that was taught about it, that raised up so many enemies; nor were the arguments adduced in its support at all calculated to create respect for it as a sound available system, but there is little question that Linnæus and Jussieu were at one time party badges, and neither of the systems were pursued with half the ardour they deserved to be. The natural system of Jussieu was denounced by Rennie as an "unnatural system," and its faults were pounced upon, as if they were necessarily a part of the system itself, instead of a misapplication of its principles. The plain matter of fact is, that Linnæus settled the several claims of all his families by the organs of generation. Jussieu decided by examining all the points in their structure; the former could not furnish families nor distinctions sufficient for the proper placing of all the novelties, and the latter could make room for as many families as there were plants; Dr. Lindley says:— "The great obstacle to the adoption of the Natural System of Botany in this country was the supposed difficulty of mastering its details; but of that difficulty it may be observed, in the first place, that it is only such as it is always necessary to encounter in all branches of human knowledge; and secondly, that it has been much exaggerated by persons who have written upon the subject without understanding it." These, it seems, were the motives for publishing the "Introduction to the Natural System of Botany" in 1830, which may be regarded as the first of this work, and the author avows that it was written in illustration of the popular system of De Candolle; "but," he says: "Daily experiences showed the insufficiency of that system, and the necessity of forming subdivisions of the primary groups of plants, higher than their so-called natural orders, became so appparent as to lead to serious attempts to carry out a plan of alliances, in imitation of a few continental writers." These attempts were embodied in a second edition of the work, under the title of "A Natural System of Botany." A considerable portion of the preface in the present volume goes to the admission that the classification in the second work was not like that of the first, and the Professor takes credit for not persevering in error; but it must be remembered that it was these errors alone that gave the opponents of the then called Natural System, the opportunity of criticising and even condemning it. If the arrangements so generally complained of have been changed, it is only fair to presume that those who condemned before will recognise that change; nobody complained of the Natural System as it might be, they only condemned it as it was. But it has been doomed and the title is more comprehensive. The arrangements to further changes. The volume before us is the third edition, are again changed; and in anticipation of the critical reader's conclusion, the author says, "he is not conscious of having ever pretended that it even approached permanency." Perhaps not, but authors are, nevertheless, supposed to mean what they write, and therefore one does not look for a pretence or a declaration to such effect. However, let the author speak for himself: he says,— "In fact, there is no such thing as stability in these All things are undergoing incessant change. Every science matters. Consistency is but another name for obstinacy. is in a state of progression, and of all others the sciences of have, of course, been altered in some respects, although they experienced but little modification in others. This is inevitable in such a science as that of Systematic Botany, where the discovery of a few new facts, or half a dozen fresh genera, may instantly change the point of view from which a given object is observed. The author cannot regard perseverance in error commendable, for the sake of what observation most so. Since 1836 the views of the author is idly called consistency; he would rather see false views corrected as the proof of their error arises.” It were to be wished that matters of difference could be discusssed temperately, because it might be truly said then, that we should live and learn; but uncourteous condemnation frequently shuts the door against improvement, and embarrasses the man who lays a good foundation, and might, as in the case of Professor Lindley, alter and improve the superstructure. In this case the work is almost a new creation, nothing but the foundation is old; it is in every possible way improved, and in almost all things changed. The object of the work, and some of the changes, are thus stated in the preface::"Its object is to give a concise view of the state of Systematical Botany at the present day, to show the relation of one group of plants to another, to explain their geographical distribution, and to point out the various.uses to which the species are applied in different countries. The names of all known genera, with their synonyms, are given under each Natural Order, the numbers of the genera and species are in every case computed from what seems to be the best authority, and complete indices of the multitudes of names embodied in the work are added, so as to enable a botanist to know immediately, under what Natural Order a given genus is stationed, or what the uses are to which any species has been applied. Finally, the work is copiously illustrated by wood and glyphographic cuts, and for the convenience of students, an artificial analysis of the system is placed at the end : "In pointing out the affinities of plants, the opinions of the most judicious systematists have been consulted; among these the names of Arnott, Auguste de St. Hilaire, Bennett, Bentham, Ad. Brongniart, Brown, Cambessédes, Decaisne, the De Candolles, Endlicher, the Hookers, the Jussieus, Martius, Miers, and Richard, stand in the first rank. In addition to the short discussion upon this subject, which always follows the paragraph descriptive of a natural order, there is appended to the list of genera a plan of indicating affinity now adopted for the first time. It consists of printing the name of the order under discussion in capital letters; placing right and left of it, in small Roman letters, the names of those orders which are supposed to be in nearest alliance to it; and above and below it, in italic type, the names of such as are only analogous, or, at least, have a more distant affinity." It is clear, therefore, that those who condemned the natural system for its incongruity, were doing a real service, inasmuch as it called attention to the errors and deficiences, and brought the advocates of the system to a consideration of making some progress to keep pace with the times. The Linnæan system has no desciples of sufficient perseverance to modify, to alter, improve, and illustrate it. It is the same humdrum thing now, as it was in Linnæus's time, while the natural system has been steadily advancing, and when it shall once be brought to perfection, or even to a state bordering on it, will be intelligible to most people who take any delight in botany. The true end of writing is to be understood, and a system to be generally useful must be plain and intelligible to the mass, as well as to those who deeply study. The Linnæan system, up to a certain point, would be understood by most people, but even botanists themselves found great difficulty in referring many novelties to a distinct class and order. The natural system will hardly be learned in a lifetime; but Mrs. Loudon's notions on this subject were excellent. It was that lady's plan of teaching to study one order only, and to continue studying that one in all its bearings, until we became masters of it, and then proceed to another, so that indifferent persons, instead of being disheartened by the apparent quantity of study required to obtain even a superficial knowledge of all, might be delighted with their search after plants of the order they were studying, and become well acquainted with the subject they had in hand, so that in studying the natural orders, persons totally unacquainted with botany would be encouraged by this single-handed study to proceed. The worst thing a young student has to encounter is the jargon of botanical names, and Professor Lindley has really done good service by suggesting improvement in these matters. There can be no question but that the more points we can bring to guide us, in the classification of plants, the more likely we are to be correct; and we can trace the advantage of the natural system, in observing the most ignorant gardener guessing at the family of a new plant not in flower. Not that he may be right; but we, nevertheless, see him turning over the leaf, examining the stem, noticing every point, and, in some cases, deciding, at least in his own mind, that it is like, or unlike, what he has seen before. He may be right in the family to which he assigns it, if his memory be good, or the plant indicates strongly by its habit to which it belongs; whereas, if he depended entirely on the flower, he must wait until he obtains that evidence, and would not trouble himself to look at the foliage or stem. The very man who is, perhaps, thus practically showing the advantage of a well-arranged natural system, would, if he were asked, repudiate it altogether; though he shows, by his own acts, that he is in want of it. The more points, then, that we are acquainted with the better; and the more we are taught to apply the most trifling features in the construction of a plant, to judge of its family, the less dependent are we upon the seasons, or the state of the subject we examine. But, in our opinion, the system itself, improved as it is by Professor Lindley, is but in its infancy, and much has yet to be done. Nor are we to forget that Linnæus, who saw the deficiency of his first labour, commenced the task of forming a natural, as well as his artificial, or Linnæan, system; so that the honour of founding the natural orders is not to be snatched from the great master-mind altogether. The author of "The Vegetable Kingdom" does not omit a fair mention of the originator. He says:— When Linnæus attempted to form a natural system, he merely threw together such genera as he knew into 67 groups, which he called Fragments, and which were equivalent to the natural orders of modern botany. Jussieu advanced a step further, by forming 15 classes, under which he placed 100 Natural Orders. At a later period the name Class was reserved for the three great divisions of Acotyledons, Monocotyledons, and Dicotyledons; and the orders were collected into smaller groups called Sub-classes; and thus, by degrees, the necessity of forming three grades of distinctive characters superior to genera was recognised. But our countryman, Dr. Robert Brown, whose sagacity is not the least remarkable part of his scientific character, long ago pointed out the insufficiency of even this amount of sub-division, and proposed the combination of natural orders into groups intermediate between orders and sub-classes. The necessity of this measure is now universally acknowledged; attempts have been made for some years, by various Botanists, to work out the problem; and I think it must be conceded that a real advance has thus been made, by the efforts of various independent observers, to the accomplishment of so very desirable an object. To such attempts the present work is an addition."-P. xxix. There can be no question but that the author has done much to reconcile the admirers of Linnæus to the more modern and comprehensive system; that he has done no small service in removing difficulties and reconciling differences; and the great question at issue between the two great parties in the botanical world is to be described in a few words-the one decides all things by that which can only be got at in particular seasons; the other, by affinities that are to be found at all times, any of which, in many cases, would enable us to assign a totally strange plant to the family to which it belongs, and, perhaps, to the very branch of its family. But there is one evidence of family connection that must not be lost sight of, as it is unequivocal, and, in practical gardening, comes daily under our notice. We allude to the capacity of fertilization; and when one presumed species will fertilize with another, and the produce will perfect its seed, we have scarcely any right to view them as of distinct genera. They may be very unlike each other in habit, in locality, in colour, and in many other respects, but, looking at nature throughout, they can only be regarded as members of the same large family. A good deal of the introduction to this volume is occupied in the discussion of the question which has been long and often mooted in the animal as well as vegetable kingdom, the difficulty of drawing a line of demarcation between some of the natural orders. may be bloomed in pots, and is a much more interesting object than nine-tenths of the other plants in pots. There is a white variety, and one called C. Elegans, but both very inferior. ANDROMEDA FLORIBUNDA. THIS, of all the shrubs in cultivation, is the most valuable in Professor Lindley proceeds to give an outline of all the a good shrubbery; it is better than Laurustinus, because natural systems. Those of John Ray, 1703, Linnæus, 1751, it is a firm habit, and its snowlike flowers, which come in Jussieu, 1789, Brown, 1819, De Candolle, 1813, Argardh, branching racimes, make it, perhaps, the most elegant of 1825, Perleb, 1826, Dumortier, 1827, Bartling, 1830, John all its contemporaries. There are other species of AndroLindley, 1830, Hess, 1832, Schultz, 1832, John Lindley, meda pretty in their way, but not to be compared with the 1833, Horaninow, 1834, Fries, 1835, Martius, 1835, Brom- subject of this notice, although none of them are ugly. head, 1836, John Lindley, 1836, Endlicher, 1836 to 1840, The many varieties and species of this family render it John Lindley, 1838, Perleb, 1838, John Lindley, 1839, highly useful in the shrubbery, for there are some of all Baskerville, 1839, Trautvetter, 1841, Brongniart, 1843, Meis-habits, some sprawling about the ground, others forming ner, 1843, Horaninow, 1843, Jussieu, jun., 1844, John Lindley, noble trees, and others again growing into very handsome 1845, which is the present work. In this list the same authors compact shrubs. There are some kinds fitted for all places. appear when they have made any alterations in their pre- The best of the evergreen trees is 4. arborea, which is vious works. The arrangements of them all differ in some perfectly hardy. The best of the shrubs is A. floribunda ; particulars, and an analysis of their several arrangements both of these do well in beds of loam and turfy peat, like shows, at least, that while Linnæus's artificial arrangement those made up for Americans in general. They are best is allowed to remain as it was, the natural systems have been not only revived by different authors, but they have under-propagated from layers and suckers, and strike root in one gone many changes by the writers themselves, who, as new objects and new facts were developed, saw good reason, we presume, for the variations they have made from time to time. It is but fair to say that among all these systems, Professor Lindley has, in this last arrangement, done all that can be done, to advance in what now appears a right path. The system employed in the present volume is more comprehensive than any of its predecessors. It is altogether different from his own arrangement of 1833, in "Nixus Plantarum." At some other period we may give a specimen of some one order, with its details, but for the present we must dismiss the work, which we acknowledge to have read with considerable interest. In conclusion, we strongly recommend all those who desire to be made acquainted with the merits of the natural system, to procure and carefully peruse this volume. It comprises [all that has been, or that, in the present state of things, can be said upon the subject. The embellishments of each order are finely executed; and it has the merit of being more intelligible and instructive than any other we have seen on the subject. CLINTONIA PULCHELLA. WE set this down as one of the most beautiful of potted plants, for it will grow a few inches high and hang all over the pot, literally covered with remarkable bright flowers, in which blue predominates, but a little black, yellow, and white, enlivens it into a most brilliant object. There are several of the family, but none so perfect as C. Pulchella. No half dozen annuals, in pots, should be without this as one of them. It is very striking as a border flower. It is a slender growing plant, dwarf and wiry, hanging about over the edges of the pots, if grown in pots, but forming a very beautiful object on the ground, being covered with so many blooms as to hide the plant, except the surface of it, which the flowers take possession of. There is not much care required to cultivate this little gem; sow the seed in pots in the month of March, thin them so as to give the plants room, and keep them growing till May; then turn them out in the borders, wherever there is a vacant space, and a patch is wanted; they will very soon flower, and form very pretty objects in the borders. But that a succession of flowers may be provided, some should be sown in the border about April; these will flower about the time the first set leaves off, so that the succession of flowers will be very acceptable. Indeed, many annuals can be managed so as to keep up a succession of bloom during several months, by sowing the same thing at several different seasons. But C. Pulchella season. They bloom at very different periods; the shrub GARDENS IN WINTER. THERE are many reasons why gardens are, in too many places, neglected in winter. One of the most powerful is the carelessness of most people as to what happens out of doors, and their general habit of seeking all their pleasures within. We see the gardens round London in a blaze of flower, with Dahlias pretty late; and the borders are likewise aided in appearance by many late-blooming flowers of a more dwarf kind, beside no small number that, like the Dahlia, keep blooming till frosts cut them off. A frost comes; the gardens, in twenty-four hours, are black and brown and filthy. Thus, in a great many places, the deplorable appearance of things remains for a considerable time. The Dahlias being worth something when taken up, are removed; and the holes they come out of, with the stakes, and decayed plants lying near them, assist in completing the devastation. How long many persons allow this, it is impossible to say, but it is so desolate as to create, in some minds, a thorough disgust Let us look to the geometrical or ornamental beds of the flower garden; the Verbenas that have been worth taking up have been removed; the ground is in hills and holes; the dead haulm of the famished flowers lies about; and the picture of desolation is complete. Now, this state of things should never be permitted twenty-four hours; all the decayed flowers and plants should be removed; the beds dug; the borders cleaned; those plants which live through the winter should be cleared of their decayed parts; the borders forked and laid level and clean; and raked over to remove large stones, sticks, weeds, and other encumbrances. And what then?" Why then comes the management of the winter garden. Provide evergreens, which may be had cheaply enough, and wherever there is too large a space bare, plant some of them. They need not, and should not, be crowded. A border does not look so well any way as when the objects can be seen distinctly, and are not confused. Let the ever |