DECEMBER MEETING. 229 



to ])roducc its fruit/' Our next chapter is on " 'J'riinspluiiting," Avliicli is not 

 sjioken of separately at all by Miller, but here is the lirst place Avhere I find an 

 absolute dillerence of ])ractice between the two authors. Downinpj recommends 

 to take up the trees so as to save as many as })ossiI)le of the small and delicate 

 libers. Miller, on the other hand, while rccomniendinf? to secure all the roots 

 possible, directs that these small fibers should be cut off. Both authors disap- 

 prove of much cutting back of the to]). 



Chap. VII., on "Soil and Aspect," presents nothing different than what is 

 scattered through Miller, but he has nothing to correspond to Chap. VIII. on 

 "Insects," nor can I find that he makes any mention of insects, worms, or 

 bugs, altiiough the apple -worm must have been known, for in a book published 

 thirty years before, I find it is recommended to set a candle in each tree to de- 

 stroy the moths which produce these worms. 



Chap. IX. is given to the special consideration of the apple, but I can find 

 but little difference between the two authors ; both want good, -well-drained 

 soils, thoroughly prepared by deep culture before setting the trees. That the 

 trees should be well set, and thoroughly cultivated in fallow crops until they come 

 into bearing. Both disapprove of much pruning after the trees have come into 

 bearing. The only difference I can find between them is that Downing says 

 "Grafting is usually done when the stock is about one-half inch in diameter," 

 while Miller wishes the stocks to grow to be five or six feet high. [May not 

 this difference account for Miller's preferring the scions from the first bearing, 

 while Downing prefers those from the leaf-bearing branches of the trees ?] 

 Downing says the trees should bo set thirty or forty. Miller, fifty or sixty feet 

 apart. These we believe are the only essential points of difference. To sum 

 up then the imj)ortant difference of the two authors as the net gain of the 

 century, we have — 



1st. The introduction of systematic efforts to originate ;;ew varieties, the 

 result of which is a vast increase in the number and perhaps in the quality, of 

 varieties in cultivation. 



2d. Some difference in practice, in selection of scions, and in age and size of 

 stocks for grafting, in which we think the older author nearer right. 



3d. Root-pruning, to induce fruitfulness. 



4th. Difference in practice in paring off small fibres at transplanting, and 

 in view of the tendency to regard the fibres as annuals, it is quite possible that 

 the older practice is the correct one. 



5tli. Systematic warfare against insect enemies. Of these, the most impor- 

 tant are the production of new varieties, and destruction of insects. Now, I 

 think that the credit of the first belongs, really, to the botanist, who, in the 

 course of his scientific investigations, discovered the sexual character of the blos- 

 soms, and I am sure that the credit of the insect warfare belongs not to the or- 

 chardist, but to the entomologist, thcd crach-brained chap who imshes hare- 

 headed across the field after a little gray miller, Avhen practical men are busy at 

 work tiuit amounts to something. Throwing out these, or even giving, if vou 

 choose, all tlie credit to the liorticulturist, isn't it rather a poor showing for a 

 body of men, who boast of exceptional intelligence, to make for the century 

 that has seen other human occupations go forward with such gigantic strides? 

 Cannot we say of horticulture as the Irishman did of his sick wife, "Faith, 

 but she gets no better very steady?"' If we have gained so little in the past, 

 what can wo hope iix the future? Before attempting to answer let us look 

 for a moment at the horticultural history of the typical pomologist of to-day. 



