1885.] 



AND HORTICULTURIST. 



221 



but one point. He could not understand how 

 there could be three Gods wholly independent of 

 each other, and yet only one God ; that the three 

 different persons were really but one individual 

 person, though taking three different forftis of 

 development for special purposes or occasions. 

 In order to explain more clearly what he meant 

 the Saint is said to have taken some trifoliate leaf 

 in illustration, which so satisfied the poor heathen 

 that he gave up all opposition and was baptized. 

 The good man's logic was of course at fault, for 

 one leaflet of a clover is not equal to the whole 

 leaf, but it served the purpose, and it is the event 

 that is commemorated, and any one trifoliate leaf 

 is as good as another. It was not long after the 

 event is believed to have occurred that it was 

 made public and celebrated ; and the clover leaf 

 was taken as the plant Saint Patrick employed. 

 But as the knowledge of botany developed it be- 

 came certain that the white clover was not a 

 native of Ireland. It had only been introduced, as 

 it had been into America, after commercial rela- 

 tions with the main continent of Europe com- 

 menced. That was subsequent to St. Patrick's time. 

 Therefore the plant could not have been white 

 clover. So the moderns have had to guess at another 

 plant, and as the only trifoliate plant at all likely 

 to attract observation at that early period was 

 Oxalis Acetosella, abundant everywhere in Irish 

 woods and places where St. Patrick was likely to 

 meet with the original wild Irishman, it has been 

 concluded that this must have been the only 

 plant that could have been employed. 



Just what the word Shamrock means, we should 

 be very glad if some of our friends versed in the 

 now almost obsolete Irish language could tell. — 

 Ed. G. M.] 



GiDDiNGs' Nurseries, Danville, Illinois. — 

 It was not those miserable compositors this time, 

 but the naughty Editor that located Giddings' 

 nurseries at Danville, Indiana, instead of Danville, 

 Illinois. But after all what business has Illinois 

 with a Danville ? Is the catalogue of names so 

 fully exhausted that a wide awake city must seize 

 that which has been appropriated by another? 

 If we were about to found a city, we would rather 

 call it Blunderbuss, Boomerang, Monkeyville, or 

 any circus name in the wide world than Danville, 

 Smithville, or any other pre-empted one. If not 

 altogether in sackcloth and ashes for our mistake, 

 we can at least drop a tear over the loss of 800 

 panes of glass to friend Giddings by the hail storm 

 of June 5th. 



The Lawson Pear. — Mr. John S. Collins says : 

 " I notice in last monthly, under the heading of 

 ' The Comet Pear,' an opinion of the Editor of 

 the Gardeners' Monthly which I do not con- 

 sider correct. It would no doubt have been pro- 

 per for the owners of the farm on which the old 

 pear tree had grown to have named it, if they had 

 done so in a reasonable time and let the name 

 been known to the public. The person now most 

 interested in having the name of pear called 'Law- 

 son,' states in his circulars and catalogues that 

 the tree was probably grown before the time of 

 ' John Lawson the Elder,' and that the Lawson 

 family have always ' guardedly secluded ' it from 

 the public. They neither raised the tree or intro- 

 duced it to the public, although they owned the 

 tree for generations. 



" I think there are several reasons stated in en- 

 closed circular why the Comet is the proper name 

 for the pear." 



[We have no desire to be the umpire in any 

 personal quarrel between two business firms. The 

 fact for an Editor is that two firms have two names 

 for oije thing, and the public will ask the Editor 

 which name is to be used. 



The only facts for the Editor are simply these : 

 The owner of a farm has a pear tree that came 

 up on the land he owns. He gives a neighbor, as 

 a compliment, a few grafts. After this the owner 

 of the tree concludes to put the tree into commerce. 

 He sells the whole stock in his possession to a 

 nurseryman and tells that nurseryman its name is 

 Lawson. Will it be contended that he shall be 

 estopped from his undoubted right to call his own 

 property what name he pleases, because a friend 

 who received a few complimentary grafts chose to 

 forestall him by giving one of his own ? 



We are told that Mr. Lawson never " uttered a 

 protest against" the extraordinary liberty of a 

 stranger naming his own property without con- 

 sulting him in any way in the matter, and we do 

 not know that he was called on to protest. If 

 the owners " guardedly secluded " the tree from 

 the public, they had the right to do so. 



As an Editor, called on to decide this delicate 

 question, we can only say that it appears that the 

 owners of the tree have distributed the pear under 

 the name of Lawson ; they never consented to its 

 being called anything but Lawson ; and as, under 

 pomological rules, "the owner of a tree has the 

 right to name it," we cannot see that we have any 

 discretion but to accept Lawson as its legitimate 

 name.— Ed. G. M.] 



