188 Retrospective Criticism. 



tivators, that there is no necessity of making any distinction in regard to 

 the sexual character of the plants, when forming beds. The idea of male 

 and female tioweis, (first originated we believe with Mr. Longworth, of 

 Ohio), is now considered exploded." I am at a loss to imagine what the 

 new light ip, that has so suddenly changed your views on this subject. 

 Mr. Downing, of Newburgh, fully sustains me, as does a late English 

 writer. The same is true in the communications of Huntsman, Coit, and 

 Bayne. How do you dispose of the conclusive evidence furnished by Mr. 

 Coit. He says, " Mr. Huntington for two years had standing in contigu- 

 ous and parallel rows, the Methven Castle, Warren's Seedling Methven. [?] 

 Hautboy and Hovey's Seedling, all female plants, and that neither kind 

 had produced fruit, unless indeed a very little and that defective." He 

 further states, " the female Methven standing near the Wood strawberry, 

 which had the male organs perfect, still bore no fruit. I have never seen 

 a white or monthly strawberry but what had both the male and female 

 organs perfect in the same blossom, (when this is the case the fruit is 

 always small,) and the reason why the Wood would not impregnate the 

 Methven female is, that they are a distinct species. 



In these back woods, we naturally look to the East, and to Boston in 

 particular, for correct views of botany and religion. As an evidence of 

 the latter, witness our ready credence to the truth of Millerism. So great 

 is the faith of some of our citizens, that they sell their best notes, when 

 not due till April, at fifty cents on the dollar. Judge my surprise, then, 

 to find iTiyself represented as " first originating the idea." It is doing me 

 too great an honor. The doctrine is as old as the days of Linnaeus, and 

 is advanced by every botanist who has written on the strawberry since his 

 day. Tell it not in Gath, that this fact is unknown to the horticulturists 

 and botanists of the East, or the hoosiers of the West will deem lightly of 

 their botanical knowledge. If thev will turn to Ree's Cyclopcedw, article 

 Frafjaria, they will find the principle established by the cotemjorary of 

 Liunseus, Duchesne, and by Duhamel. Martyn and Haller. 



I state explicitly, that pistillate plants never become staminate by run- 

 ning. Your correspondent, Mr. Huntsman, says, " I think it is well 

 estaldished, that tlie pistillate Hudson, and your seedling, will bear well 

 without staminate plants near them. The gentleman, in selecting the 

 Hudson, is particularly unfortunate. Your seedling will produce some 

 defective fruit ; but an acre of pistillate Hudson's, will not produce even 

 an imperfect one. For twenty-five years I have kept a small patch of 

 female Hudson's, at a distance from all others, to make new beds from, 

 and they have never borne even an imperfect berry. Some male plants 

 bear no fruit : others produce more or less fruit, and in favorable seasons, 

 the female organs develop strongly and produce a middling crop ; but a 

 portion of the blossoms produce defective fruit, and a part none. It has 

 been much disputed, whether 'here are distinct species of the strawberry. 

 I consider this question settled by the fact, that there are cases where one 

 kind will not impregnate the other. The Lafayette strawberry, which 

 has been much lauded of late, is a staminate plant, but more or less of the 

 blossoms perfect fruit. My gardener, Mr. Sleath, suggested to me yester- 

 day, that this would be a good kind to cultivate to impregnate the female 

 Keen, Hudson, and other varieties of that class. This I disputed, con- 

 tending that the Lafayette was a distinct species from the others. I know 

 not how many quires of paper we might have wasted, nor bow many of 



