156 Retrospective Criticism. 



cession, thereby requiring a regular and uniform number of hands to 

 gather and market the fruit. 



Now, my friends, I would not be understood to be finding fault 

 with your remarks as noted above, well knowing that it is customary 

 in Eni^Iand, and also in this country, with some nurserymen, to swell 

 out a large catalogue of fruits, and 1 have long thought it my duty to 

 publish my opinion on this subject; and your remarks reminded me 

 of it. — Your friend, RobH Sinclair, Clairmont Nursery, near Balti- 

 more, JSiarch, 1842. 



Hybridizing Camellias ivith the pollen of different varieties, (p. 

 42.) — I saw a statement made in some of the late numbers of your 

 Magazine, relative to the liyljridization of camellias in the mode that 

 was adopted by John B. Smith, by mixing the pollen of various kinds 

 before ai)plying them to the pistil: you likewise recommended a trial 

 of it, as Mr. Smith has been so successful in raising the best that 

 have yet been produced. Now, sir, I disagree entirely with the above 

 method: we know that the pistil, at a certain time, is in that state to 

 attract and absorb the pollen, and that the pollen is likewise in the 

 same state; but we are not certain at what precise time they are fit 

 to be api)lied; besides, the mixing of different kinds of pollen is 

 more apt to destroy its fecundity, than when applied singly. It is a 

 mere assumption to say, or even think, that the jiistil is capable of 

 absorbiujj various kinds of pollens at once; if we were to reason 

 from analogy, we would assume the reverse. In my opinion, it will 

 be found the best to apjjly each kind of pollen by itself. Let me not 

 be misunderstood that 1 do not recommend applying various kinds 

 of pollen; it is only individually that I contend they ought to be 

 used. If only one kind and one application was made, it is nine 

 chances to ten that the stigma would not be impregnated at all. 

 Apply different kinds frequently; in case one may miss, another may 

 take, along with a well ventilated house and a clear day: then 

 your chances are good; otherwise it is labor wasted. Our climate, 

 1 think, is much better fur maturing the seed, at least we should 

 judge so from the s|)lendid s|)ecimcns which have already been pro- 

 duced, on such a short trial. Nothing has yet been raised, or per- 

 haps ever can be, better than Smith's Binneyu. If you had sat 

 down and wished what a flower should be, in every perfection, you 

 there find it; even Landrethi few or none can beat; likewise Prattu, 

 besides many others. Even the C var. Chalmerjj will not soon be 

 surpassed. In this vicinity, the march is onward: let every one ex- 

 ert himself, that he may contribute something to the many fine hy- 

 brids of various kinds that have been raised in our country, so that 

 we may not send abroad for new varieties. — >Rn Jimateur, Fhila- 

 delphia, March, 1842. 



rhe Glout Morceaib Pear. — On what authority have the Commit- 

 tee who i)re])ared and superintended the pulilication of the Proceed- 

 ings of the Massachusetts Horticultural Society for 1839, 1840, and 

 1841, altered the commonly known name of this pear, and called it 

 the Gout Morceau.'' The chairman of that committee would confer 

 a great favor by giving his authority for so doitig, and much oblige 

 one who has always considered the authority of the London Horti- 

 cultural Society sufficient to establish the name of any fruit. — A Fruit 

 Grower, March, 1842. 



