WHY DO PLANTS DETERIORATE. 



willing to undertake. But in this supposition there is much misconception. It is quite 

 true that a competent knowledge of the peculiarities of treatment is required, becau.se 

 they, like heaths, and some families of green-house plants, have fixed habits which can- 

 not be transgressed with impunity; but those fixed laws are few and soon known, and 

 moreover the}' involve no great difficulty in acting upon. European orchid growers have 

 difficulties of climate to contend against that we are free from, and with us their growth 

 is comparativel}' easy. It is an erroneous supposition to fancy that a high temperature is 

 unifornil)' necessary for their successful cultivation. What they do require is a powerful 

 sun at times, and in this country thej'' have it in as considerable a quantity, as many of 

 the most beautiful amongst them have it in their native habitat. 



We hope some of our amateurs will be induce*^ to try a few of the common species, and 

 we doubt not their unlooked for success will induce them to go on with these magnificent 

 jewels of nature's toilet. 



The portions of our exhibition tables devoted to vegetables, have literall}'^ groaned under 

 the weight of the valuable varieties with which they have been covered; and have 

 borne ample evidence of good culture and well directed skill. Still at no exhit)ition 

 that we have attended, has there been any difficulty in detecting the marked difference 

 between the well tended crop, and its less luck}' competitor. The fine clear skin of the 

 full swelled tuber, tells us unerringl}' the tale of its careful and intelligent master's toil, 

 as does the well bloomed geranium. But we must draw our remarks to a close, wishing 

 to all exhibitors, " honor to whom honor is due." B. M. 



WHY DO PLANTS DETERIORATE? 



BY W. ^V. VAI,K, M. D., FLUSHING. 



Tins question has been often asked, and occasionallv we have been favored with an 

 answer; each respondent proposing his own theor}', and sustaining it by such facts and 

 arguments as appeared to him both reasonable and conclusive. By some writers the plant 

 was supposed to exhaust the soil of all its profjcr nutriment, in a greater or less time; 

 consequently, when that failed, it became unheallhj', and sooner or later perished, unless 

 that nutriment was restored. B}' others, the deterioration was not so much charged to 

 the lack of nourishment, as to the elimination of excrementitious matter, the throwing 

 off" of a foecal slime, which then became a .slow or rapid poison to vegetable life. 



Of these two opinions, we give in our adhesion to the latter, because it best agi'ees with 

 our own observations, and is supported by the greatest amount of testimony. AVithout 

 insisting upon the infallibilit}' of our own views, let us see what may be said in support 

 of the excrementitious theory, or that which refers the unhealthiness of plants, in most 

 ca.ses, to their own rejections. 



When first promulged, the opinion that plants discharged this deleterious matter at all, 

 became the subject of a very warm and animated discussion. It provoked a considerable 

 degree of astonishment and disbelief in the minds of cultivators; and not a few eminent- 

 Ij' practical men, under a conviction of its absurdity and fallac}', attempted to refute it, 

 and to expose its numerous inconsistencies. But time has mateiially softened the asperi- 

 ties of this once spirited controvei'sy, and, as the prejudices of different individuals have 

 been subdued or removed, it appears almost needless to bj-ing forward an)' fui 

 ents in its support than have already appeared, moi'e especial!}' as the mos 



