January 19, 1871. ] 



JOURNAL OF HORTICULTITBE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 



45 



own nursery, into which I introduce them at 1 foot, will, of 

 course, have their lower branches compressed by such cradles ; 

 but I do not find that this interferes with their growth. The 

 same may be said of Hollies, and other evergreens. If larger 

 cradles are desired, the netting may be obtained of any width, 

 and the width must bo three times the diameter required for 

 the cradle. Bibbits are more likely to jump inside the larger 

 cradles, which should, therefore, be higher. Much additional 

 protection is obtained by putting pieces of Gorse or Thorns 

 inside the cradle, and reaching over the top of it. I tried this 

 year tying Gorse twigs with the bushy end resting on the 

 ground about 2 feet up the tree. This appeared to answer until 

 the late snow, when the rabbits ate first the Gorse, and then 

 the tree. Thorns out up into short pieces are a much better 

 protection. A few handfuls of these placed round the tree to a 

 width of a foot and a height of 18 inches, seem as good as the 

 wire cradles, and cost less. 



I warn jour readers not to be misled by lists of trees and 

 shrubs which it is said that rabbits will not eat. I have tried 

 nearly all, and the only evergreens I find untouched are Tew, 

 Bos, and Rhododendron. My plantations are mostly narrow, 

 bounded by grass or arable fields, and I keep no more rabbits 

 than I am obliged to do in justice to the foses, that these im- 

 portant animals may earn an honest livelihood, and not be 

 driven to rob the farmyards. 



Larch is the worst of all trees to get up amongst rabbits. 

 They bark it even in summer, and eat it quite down. Spruce, 

 Silver Fir, and Scotch Fir, are all eaten down in severe weather, 

 especially when rabbits can reach to the top of them, though 

 their bark seems less attractive. Do not, however, confuse the 

 work of rabbits or hares with that of squirrels, which bite olif 

 the leaders of young Spruce, apparently to exercise their teeth, 

 as they leave the tops on the ground. Squirrels must be killed 

 if Spruce are to be reared. Oak, Spanish Chestnut, and nearly 

 all forest trees are liable when first planted to be barked by 

 rabbits, and should be protected as directed above. Of Holly, 

 Privet, and common Laurel, rabbits and hares eat both bark 

 and leaves. Broom hares bite quite down, even when of large 

 size, and eat the young twigs. Barberis Aquifoiium and Portugal 

 Laurel are amongst the last shrubs touched, but in the present 

 severe weather the rabbits are attacking young plants of both, 

 biting the leaves ofi the former, though they do not seem to eat 

 them, and barking the latter, though to no great extent. I have 

 not spoken of choicer Conifers, but I find that Abies Douglasii, 

 Gupressus Lawsoniana, Wellingtonia, and probably most of 

 the others suffer more or less. 



I may conclude by saying, that where cover for game is the 

 chief object, nothing answers bo well as the common Bramble 

 or Blackberry, and the varieties of Briar or Dog Rose, including 

 Sweetbriar. These take readily to any soil, require no nursing, 

 grow very fast, and as shelter are far preferred by pheasants to 

 the smooth-leaved Berberis, and to Rhododendrons. — C. W. D. 



ANONYMOUS CRITICISM. 



I HAVE read the article, "New Year's Hopes," by "Wiltshire 

 Rector," in No. 510 of The JouKNAi of Hokticultuee for 

 this year, an article beaming with truth and kindliness. But 

 I fear the medal has its reverse, and we should not, I think, 

 refuse to look on the other side if by so doing we can effect 

 further good. 



^ After reading that article I was led to reflect on horticultural 

 literature in general, and on the anonymous part of it in par- 

 ticular. For my present purpose I will divide our writers on 

 horticulture into two classes. First, those who sign their 

 names and addresses to their writings, and secondly, those who 

 write anonymously. It is to the latter anonymous writers 

 that I would now specially address myself. 



I do not condemn anonymous writing altogether. What we 

 call "leadtrti" may very properly be published anonymously, 

 because in that case there is a clear and acknowledged editorial 

 responsibility. Many good things have also been written 

 anonymously, which, probably, never would have been written 

 if the writer had been compelled to complete them by attach- 

 ing his or her signature. But I think if a writer says any- 

 thing that is derogatory to the productions of another, he is 

 bound in honour to attach his name to his opinion. I will 

 state a ease which I think those who regularly peruse our hor- 

 ticultural periodicals will admit not to be an imaginary one. 



A cultivator, after years of thought and labour, succeeds in 

 raising something different from what has gone before. It is 

 exhibited, and obtains a mark of honour, and he sees, or fancies 



he sees, a pecuniary as well as an honorary reward looming in 

 the distance, when lo I some anonymous critic starts up, and 

 by faint praise or subtle insinuations produces a state of 

 scepticism in the public mind, which causes his novelty to fall 

 flat in the market. The motives for this line of action are 

 doubtless various. I need hardly pause to speak of those who 

 from prejudice reject a good new thing, because they are 

 punished severely enough by finding their neighbours' gardens 

 or tables rejoicing in the possession of gems or viands which 

 their warped judgment has rejected. The anonymous critic 

 may be some brainless man, who cannot distinguish between 

 a good thing and a bad one. He may be brainless, and envious 

 in addition ; himself incapable of producing anything superior, 

 he endeavours from sheer envy to lessen the value of what 

 others more skilful or persevering than himself produce. Or 

 he may be a rival in trade — one of the sharks of society, who 

 knows full well that if he can only induce the public to wait 

 until he has purchased and raised a large stock of the novelty, 

 he will reap a larger share of the profits. 



I was told by a nurseryman of respectability and position 

 not many months ago that the loudest declaimer against a new 

 plant of his — a plant of rare merit — was the largest purchaser 

 of it ! And after this declaimer had purchased and raised a 

 largo stock of it, knowing that its merits must in time become 

 known and cause a large demand, coolly changed his opinion, 

 recommended it, and pocketed considerable profits. Now this 

 was an injustice to the public, because everyone is anxious to 

 possess a good thing as soon as possible ; and it is a still 

 greater injustice to the raiser or introducer, for it deprives 

 him of the fair reward of his knowledge, skill, and labour. It 

 is worse than the infringement of a patent — it is cowardly as 

 well as dishonest, because here the patentee, so to speak, has 

 no redress at law. 



I think I have said enough to show that this is a blemish in 

 our horticultural literature which calls loudly for a remedy. 

 I admit that many indifferent, nay, worthless, things are con- 

 tinually palmed on the public by dint of puffing ; but even 

 here, as the puffer usually attaches his name, it would be more 

 manly to question their merit by an open than by an anony- 

 mous attack 



Let me then, in conclusion, deferentially and kindly, but 

 earnestly, entreat my brother writers in horticulture not to 

 abstain from expressing any adverse opinion they may hold 

 on any new thing, but to place their names manfully in sup- 

 port of their opinions, that the public may know what weight 

 to attach to them, and that those opinions may be fairly and 

 honestly canvassed. — William Paul, Waltliam Gross, N. 



CHRYSANTHEMUM CULTURE. 



I ASSUEE Mr. Castle that I have no wish to disparage his 

 mode of growing the Chrysanthemum, my object in writing 

 being to elicit a few practical truths. I do not believe a Chry- 

 santhemum grown from a cutting will in one season ever pro- 

 duce too much wood to form a specimen, and it is a well-known 

 fact that some varieties will not produce enough under the 

 most favourable circumstances. A point in favour of the use 

 of liquid manure is the production of good foliage, which I con- 

 sider contributes much to the beauty of the plant ; and if 

 vigorous wood and foliage be grown, large flowers will be the 

 result. I cannot conceive why the plants should require ad- 

 ditional nourishment after the flower buds are formed, as I 

 think there must be a greater demand on the resources of the 

 plant during the formation of the buds than in the development 

 of the flowers; but I am not surprised that Mr. Castle's plants 

 require additional stimulus by that time, for I am convinced 

 that plants not plunged will require watering once, and in hot 

 weather twice a-day, and I am of opinion that such frequent 

 waterings with clear water for several successive months must 

 greatly impoverish the soil. I must confess to never having 

 seen a Chrysanthemum die through being overwatered ; and 

 were such a case to come under my observation I should at 

 once assume the cause to be insuificient drainage, and not the 

 too frequent use of the watering pot. 



In plunging I make a practice of placing a piece of brick or 

 an inverted flower pot under each plant for the purpose of 

 drainage, and to prevent the roots from protruding through the 

 bottoms of the pots. I still maintain that it is absolutely 

 necessary to plunge pots in the open air to protect the roots 

 from the vicissitudes of heat and cold. As regards the extra 

 skill required in watering, I should hope there are very few 

 men employed in gardens who have not intellect enough to 



