I88i.] EDITOR'S BOX. 303 



]\Ir. Scott is greatly intensified : the soil is rendered loose and friable, 

 the trees are blown about and lose any hold they had on the soil. 

 The expense of the s}steni is also a formidable objection to it. A man 

 will plant a third more by the old sytem than the new. 



\'oar other correspondent, ' Tamas ' advances a singular, and, T 

 venture to say, an untenable argument in favour of ]\Ir. Scott's 

 system. He says: — 'According to his experience, trees planted 

 among grass, unless pared, always died, not so much from being 

 choked as from want of moisture.' Perhaps lie will kindly explain 

 when he reverts to the subject, by what process of reasoning he 

 arrived at this conclusion. I always thought that it was a palpable 

 and undeniable fact that grass or other vegetation tends to prevent 

 evaporation and assists in retaining the moisture in the soil. If this 

 be so, ' Tamas ' will have to find another reason for the death of his 

 trees planted among grass without paring, than want of moisture. 



My strongest objection to the system is, that trees planted in this 

 way are much more liable to be affected and killed by drought than 

 when the surface is left untouched. These observations are directed 

 against the piractice of paring grassy or moderately rough ground. 

 Where the ground is covered by rank heather the case is different, 

 and it is absolutely necessary to clear a space before the insertion of 

 the plant. 



Proprietors who contemplate planting such land would do well fJ 

 take the advice of your other correspondent, ' Sylvestris,' and burn it 

 half a dozen years before planting. It could then be planted at half 

 the cost in laltour and with greater certainty of success. But I can 

 see no advantage in the method of planting advocated by Mr. Scott, 

 and the objections to it I have endeavoured to point out are sufficient 

 to condemn it. Bannockbukn. 



FOBBST ROADS. 



SiE,_I might now well aflbrd to dispense troubling you with any 

 remarks with reference to your correspondent ' Loanleah's' queries 

 auent some recommendations of mine in a recent number ot 

 ' Forestry,' and to which 1 had not time to reply last month. I am 

 much obliged to, and would here take the opportunity of thanking those 

 of your correspondents who in your last issue so well defended me, or 

 rather the recommendations which, from experience, 1 ventured to 

 propound. 



In these monthly notes the recommendations ventilated may not 

 apply to every individual case ; but are given as being, in the opinion 

 of the writer, generally applicable where forestry is pretty extensively 

 and judiciously practised. 



