362 THE FLORIST. 



soils, to give them a fixedness and prevent waterings. . . . This 

 treading in many cases is preferable to mulching, inasmuch as it does 

 not intercept the sun's rays from the border." 



As regards soils for borders, rich unctuous loam, free of manure, is 

 very properly recommended by the author (page 5); but afterwards, at 

 page 9, in introducing the opinion of a "friend" on Peach culture, and 

 which the author endorses, it is stated, " But to return to the Peach ; 

 after pruning, cleaning, dressing, and tying the trees, and slightly 

 loosening the surface soil, I have, for the last few years, covered the 

 borders with fresh cow dung, to the depth of two or three inches, and 

 covered that with a thin coat of soil;" and then he goes on to say, "The 

 trees do not want this until the end of May, and by that time it is 

 sufficiently decayed for them to enter it freely." Now, what must be 

 the state of a Peach border, which has had an annual covering of two 

 or three inches of cow dung,"after half-a-dozen years ; we may imagine 

 pretty correctly, if the trees could stand the rich dressing so long without 

 dying of gum and canker. At page 12, in recommending standard 

 trees to dwarfs for walls, it is stated that, " The atmosphere, so near 

 the surface, is always some degrees colder than four feet up the wall;" 

 in my simplicity, I thought that the warmest part of the wall if 

 unshaded. I say nothing of whether dwarfs or standards are the most 

 preferable trees to plant, but merely differ from the reasons given why 

 dwarfs should be given up. I might quote other passages, which, 

 if not objectionable, yet produce no information satisfactory to the 

 reader ; and, in submitting the above to you, as you have recommended 

 the work, merely ask how you can reconcile such advice with the 

 contradictions contained in the work. 



J. B. 



[We are in duty bound to give publicity to our correspondent's 

 remarks. The work in question was reviewed by one of our contributors 

 without our having read it ourselves, and is certainly open to some of 

 the objections named by our correspondent ; but clever practical men 

 are not always clever writers, and such may be the case with the present 

 work. — Ed. Florist.'] 



ROSA DEVONIENSIS. 



I AM so much a lover of my country as to be glad of the discussion 

 that has arisen on the origin of this Rose, because such points are only 

 settled satisfactorily where there is discussion, and that before it is too 

 late, before the facts are forgotten, or the actors passed from the scene. 

 Whether any more evidence will be forthcoming I cannot tell, nor am 

 I anxious that there should be, though I shall gladly receive it if there 

 is. The object of this communication is to show that, if not, the 

 common notion of its being an English Rose must be accepted as the 

 true one ; and that though no doubt it would be desirable that Mr. 

 Foster or his representative should state positively that the plant sold to 

 Messrs. Lucombe, Pince, & Co., was a seedling, and thus supply the 



