94 



Without entering into so extensive and intricate a question 

 as the above (which, liowever, might lead to many interest- 

 ing details), let us see what the objections of so judicious a 

 writer as Miller are, to the transplanting of trees of consid- 

 erable magnitude ; because, if we either admit those objec- 

 tions as relevant, or obviate them as unfounded, it will pave 

 the way for some rational theory of the art. 



The objections, brought forward by Miller, seem to be 

 three in number. The first and radical one, as above noticed, 

 is to the lopping or cutting off the tops or side boughs, or both, 

 at the period of removal, as utterly ruinous to trees. This 

 objection, he says, is obviously so well founded, that no one 

 will stand up for the safet}^ of the practice, who is acquainted 

 with the way in which the circulation of the sap is carried 

 on ; for, in that case, he must know, that branches being or- 

 gans just as essential as roots to the nourishment of trees, it 

 must be doubly destructive to mutilate both, at one and the 

 same time. If any one, he adds, doubt the fact, let him try 

 the experiment on a healthy subject of the same age not in- 

 tended for removal, and he will find, that mutilation will so 

 stint its growth, that it will not recover till after several years, 

 if it recover at all ; and it will never attain the same size and 

 figure, or produce the same sound and perfect wood as others, 

 on which the branches have been left in an entire state. Or 

 otherwise, let him make the trial on two trees of equal age 

 and health, and cut the boughs from the one, while he leaves 

 them, at the time of transplanting, on the other ; in that case, 

 the latter will be found to succeed far better than the former. 

 Or, let him practise the same thing on two permanent trees 

 of equal health and appearance ; and the tree, of which the 

 boughs are lopped, will not be found to make half the pro- 

 gress of the other, nor will the bulk of the stem increase, in 

 nearly the same ratio.* 



* Note II- 



