198 



THE CANADIAN HORTICULTURIST. 



to be a thoroughly good rose and well 

 worthy of a place in any collection. 

 Frederick Mitchell. 



Innerkip, Aug. 7, 1886. 



• THE THRIP OR BEETLE HOPPER. 



Dear Editor, — In my communica- 

 tion on roses, published in the August 

 number of our magazine, you note that 

 my remarks on the Thrip and its place 

 of advent in the spring is not in accord 

 with accepted Entomological teaching. 

 In making the statement I did, that 

 the Thrip came out of the bark of the 

 rose, I did not do so in any way in a 

 spirit of controversy or criticism, or 

 \ with the idea that I was starting any 

 new theory, but merely stated what I 

 believed, and still cannot help but be- 

 lieve, to be a fact. All that I can say 

 is that the rose-shoots for some days in 

 the spring are as I described them to 

 be; the Thrip standing out on some 

 very thickly at right angles to the bark 

 and in all stages of forwardness. This 

 any one can, if they take the trouble, 

 verify for themselves at the proper sea- 

 son. I have also taken up roses that 

 have passed the summer in the open 

 air, and potted them in entirely fresh 

 earth, and placed them under glass 

 when the Thrip has made its appear- 

 ance in the winter in just the same 

 manner as it does on the outdoor plants 

 in the spring. In all statements that 

 I have ever made in the Horticulturist 

 I have tried to be very guarded and 

 state nothing but what I knew to be 

 facts. I trust that it will prove that 

 I have not made a lapse in this case. 

 In reply to a question from me, Mr. 

 Webster, of Hamilton, one of our lead- 

 ing rose-growers and an enthusiast in 

 rose culture, writes as follows: — "As 

 regards winter quarters of the Rose 

 Thrip, it is in the larvse form and in 

 the bark of the rose. They can be 

 seen working out with the naked eye, 



but much easier with a glass. I know 

 this to be a fact as I have seen it, and 

 I have no doubt but that many others 

 have done so too." 



I have also written an eminent Ento- 

 mologist on the matter and when he 

 replies I will, if he permits me, send 

 you his opinion. 



F. Mitchell. 



Innerkip, Aug. 7th, 1886. 



FRESH STRAWBERRY NOTES. 



BY T. C, ROBINSON, OWEN SOUND. 



Parry — This has proved moderately 

 productive of exceedingly handsome 

 large fruit. With hill cultivation 

 doubtless the fruit would be very large, 

 but all the young plants were not re- 

 moved and the weeds got in, so that I 

 cannot say much more about this fa- 

 mous variety except that it seems to 

 require clean cultivation with runners 

 cut. The quality is inferior to that of 

 Jersey Queen and of Prince of Berries, 



Woodruff — Is abundantly productive, 

 even in weedy matted rows, of large 

 rich -looking fruit; of good quality. 

 But the berries are a little soft for 

 market, and the shape is irregular. 



Dollar — Is a large and very hand- 

 some berry, of excellent quality, and 

 firmer, I think, than any other straw- 

 berry I have seen, but it does not bear 

 well with me. 



Sucker State — Grown in matted rows, 

 gives a great abundance of good-sized, 

 uniform, and otherwise handsome fruit, 

 of good quality. I think this variety 

 well worthy of a better name and fur- 

 ther attention. 



Daisy (Miller) — This is a miserable 

 weed on my grounds. The berries are 

 few, small and sour. 



May King — I had hoped a great deal 

 from this variety. It joroved about as 

 early as its parent the Cresent, the ber- 

 ries rather firmer, of good size, very 

 smooth and handsome, and the quality 



