April 21, 1870. ] 



JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 



or well-being, it will be absolutely required in a manure in- 

 tended for their production if they have no natural source of 

 supply— i.e., if they cannot procure it from the air and soil in 

 sufficient quantity. If glass were scarce, the windows of a 

 house might cost more than the bricks and timber, and would 

 be as necessary to a comfortable dwelling. My second objection 

 is that food containing nitrogen is necessary to the formation 

 of muscle in an animal, though it breathes the same atmosphere 

 as the plant, consisting of four-fifths nitrogen, thus proving the 

 animal is " placed in a medium necessary to its existence with- 

 out the power to assimilate it." 



Then, again, as the effect of an application of nitrogen in any 

 form is to darken the green foliage of plants and promote their 

 growth, I think the good effect of such application can hardly 

 be referred to the base combined with it, or to the solvent 

 powers of such nitrates or other substances contained in the 

 soil. There surely would be more difference seen in the effects 

 produoed by hydrogen, soda, or potash if these were the active 

 principles. Then, again, if the increased greenness of vege- 

 tables manured with ammonia be due to the hydrogen of that 

 compound, why is the same effect seen to follow the applica- 

 tion of nitrate of soda or nitrate of potash, which contains no 

 hydrogen ? If the nitrates are compounds of weak affinity, 

 and thus act H solvents, or act chiefly by their bases easily set 

 free, how will the action of sulphate of ammonia be explained ? 

 Are not the sulphates, generally, very stable compounds ? If 

 nitrate of soda is so valuable as a manure, how on these prin- 

 ciples is not carbonate of soda equally valuable ? Though 

 carbonate of soda is a more stable compound than nitrate of 

 soda, yet as carbonic acid is a weak acid, it must readily give 

 up its soda to plants, particularly, one would think, in presence 

 of quicklime, or some stronger acid in the soil or plant. Com- 

 mon salt is a solvent for lime. Is no soda set free in this case ? 

 I ask for information, for I have never investigated the subject. 

 If it be so, ought not an application of common salt on well- 

 iimed land to be followed by more marked effects ? As few 

 3oils are completely barren from the total absence of some 

 principle necessary to vegetation, and yet few are found to 

 which an additional quantity of one or more of such elements 

 does not conduce to a great and marked increase of production, 

 is it not possible that the minimum quantity of ammonia or 

 nitric acid necessary for a plant's healthy growth may be fur- 

 nished by rain water and the air ? But if that plant is to be 

 stimulated to increased productiveness, or if a larger number 

 of such plants are to be grown in a given space than it would 

 naturally maintain, an additional dose of nitrogen may be 

 necessary. Knowing as we do that food containing no n-itrogen 

 can only make fat, that manures appear to act quickly and 

 effectually in proportion to the nitrogen they contain, one can 

 hardly be brought to look upon nitrogen as of small account. 



I offer these crude remarks more to induce Mr. Peach to 

 reconsider the subject, or draw out some other capable corre- 

 spondent, than with the idea of maintaining any theory my- 

 self. — J. R. Pearson, ChV.icell. 



EXPERIMENTS ON GRAFTING VARIOUS SORTS 

 OF FRUIT 



ON DIFFERENT KINDS OF STOCKS, MARCH 1867. 



These experiments were conducted at the Royal Horticultural 

 Society's Gardens, Chiswick. 



Grown. Failed. 



Cerasus Mahaleb, grafted with Cherry, Elton none . . all 



Morello none . . all 



May Duke none .. all 



Plain, Prince of Wales 1 strong . . 3 



Mitchelson's none . . 5 



Green Gage started . . all 



Laurel, Portugal (grafts bad) none . . all 



Common none . . all 



Common Cherry, grafted with Cherry, Elton none . . all 



Morello .' weak .. 2 



May Duke 3 ..2 



Plum, Mitchelson's none .. all 



Prince of Wales 2 .. 1 



Green Gage none . . 5 



Laurel, Portugal none . . (i 



Common none . . all 



CRAT.£aus speciosa (weakly-^rowinglvarietv). 



grafted with Pear, Doyenne d'Ete.. 3 ..1 



Winter Nelis 2 . . none 



Marie Louise 2 . . none 



Windsor none . . none 



Crat.egus splendens (3trong-growing), Grown. Failed, 



grafted with Pear, Marie Louise . . 1 . . 3 



Winter Nelis 4 ■■ none 



Doyenne d'Ete 1 •• 



Windsor none . . 1 



Crataegus acerifolia, grafted with Pear, , J 3 weak none 



Marie Lonise *|lstrong" 



WinterNelis ^IsTm"^-- none 



Nonvean Poitean 4 good .. none 



Doyenne d'Ete 3 fair .. 1 



Crat.egus coccrxEA, grafted with Pear, Doy- 

 enne d'Ete 3 



Winter Nelis 3 good . . none 



Marie Lonise 2 weak . . 2 



Nouvean Poiteau "Mlweak° " 



Pommeef. de Paradis, grafted with Apple, 



Golden Harvey all . . none 



Old Golden Pippin all . . none 



Dumelow's Seedling all .. none 



Gloria Mundi all . . none 



Mussel Plum, grafted with Laurel, Common 



(made four leaves) 2 . . 8 



Portugal n° ne • • aU 



Amelanchier, sp none . . all 



Prunus Padus none . . 6 



Prunus Damas nofr, grafted with Clierry, 



Morello none .. all 



Elton 1 •• - 



May Dnke none . . all 



Plum, Green Gage 6 . . 1 



Mitchelson's - •■ 



Prince of Wales 4 • • 4 



Amelanchier, sp., grafted with Pear, Marie 



Louise 4 weak . . none 



WinterNelis 4 weak .. none 



Apple, Old Golden Pippin 2 weak . . 2 



Golden Harvey none . . all 



Prunus Padus. grafted with Pear, Winter 



Nelis none . . all 



Nouvean Poitean none . . all 



Doyenne d'Ete none . . all 



Marie Lonise ri° ne • • *& 



Clierry, Morello none . . all 



Elton none . . all 



Mav Duke none . . 2 



Plum, Mitchelson's none .. aU 



Prince of Wales 5 strong . . 1 



Green Gage 2 strong . . 2 



Sorbus aucuparia, grafted with Pear, Marie 



Lonise 8 weak . . none 



Nouvean Poitean 7 weak .. none 



Winter Nelis V weak . . none 



Doyenne d'Ete 3 weak . . 3 



Cotoneaster laxiflora, grafted with Pear, „ J 4 strong j 



Winter Nelis 1 5 weak 



Nouvean Poitean 5 strong . . none 



Marie Lonise 3 . . 2 



Doyenne d'Ete 1 ■• a11 



Cotoneaster frigida, grafted with Pear, 



Doyenne d'Ete none . . all 



Marie Lonise 4 • • ^ 



Nnuveau Poitean 7 good .. 1 



Winter Nelis 4 strong . . 2 



Quince (strong stocks), grafted with Pear, r ( 1 strong nQne 



Doyenne d'Ete (4 weak 



Marie Louise 6 weak . . 4 



Winter Nelis 2 . . 2 



Windsor MiSS"" — 



Quince I weak stocks, grafted with Pear, 



DoyenM d'Ete 4 strong . . 1 



Marie Louise •> weak . . 1 



Nouvean Poitean 7 weak . . none 



Winter Nelis 6 strong . . 1 



Amelanchier, sp. (1 broken by wind) 3 weak . . 

 .Vole- The failure of the experiments in some instances may be due 

 to several other canses besides that of incompatibility of stock and 

 scions, such as imperfect operations or the too greatly advanced state 

 of the stocks themselves before cutting down, as in the case of the 

 Quince, or, as in the case of the Cherries, the greatly advanced state 

 of the bnds on the grafts used. Laurels, again, would, without doubt, 

 succeed better grafted in a frame or some other place with a more con- 

 fined and regularly hnmid atmosphere, while many would perhaps 

 succeed best by budding in the summer season. — A. F. Barron. — 

 {Royal Horticultural Society's Journal.) 



Fungi.— We learn from Mr. Worthington G. Smith, in refe- 

 rence to a recent report of the proceedings of the Woolhope 



