January 27, 1892.] 



Garden and Forest. 



39 



were also conspicuous. The collection of grasses and sedges 

 was particularly in fine condition. As showing' the care and 

 troulile which is in some cases taken in the attempt to secure 

 the hest conditions for the rarer plants, it may be mentioned 

 that specially constructed beds are allotted to the Myricas, 

 Andromedas, Vacciniums, the moisture-loving Kalmias, etc. 

 The foundations of these beds are made in the form of large 

 flat tanks, with double sides, lined with cement. These tanks 

 are filled with good-looking peaty soil, surrounded by and 

 saturated with water. Yet, with all this care, the plants look 

 miserable and do not seem to thrive, and, undoubtedly, most of 

 them would do much better under ordinary garden cultivation 

 in a good mixture of peaty soil and sand and with some slight 

 shade from the direct rays of the sun. The plants here were 

 suffering from want of drainage, for, although they like mois- 

 ture, they do best when placed within reach of water by the 

 roots, instead of being planted in it. 



Several acres in the garden are set apart as an arboretum, 

 or, at least, are specially devoted to trees and shrubs. There 

 are no trees remarkable for size or rarity, and many of the 

 shrubs suffer from the effect of being planted in grass in- 

 stead of in beds under cultivation. A very good collection of 

 wild Roses particularly suffered from this treatment. This 

 custom of planting isolated specimens of shrubs in the turf 

 prevails in a number of German gardens, but in none of those 

 seen did it seem to be satisfactory, except with such kinds as 

 were of vigorous, coarse growth. It may be argued that they 

 grow among grass or herbage in a wild state, but those who 

 use this argument lose sight of the fact that in nature these 

 shrubs and other plants flourish well only where they have 

 congenial soil, situation and neighbors. Moreover, they often 

 grow in considerable masses or clumps together,' thus afford- 

 ing mutual assistance and protection in shading the ground 

 and keeping down weeds and other possible intruders. Ex- 

 cept under very exceptional conditions and among the strong- 

 est-growing species, wild Roses and other plants of similar 

 habit are certain to suffer from having grass growing closely 

 about their roots and stems ; certainly to see these plants, as 

 isolated specimens dotting the turf, produces anything but a 

 natural effect, while the bushes lose the great advantage which 

 is gained by even a very slight cultivation. In rich soils and 

 in turf composed of some of the more slender kinds of grasses 

 they may do better than any I saw. 



It seemed singular not to find any conifers among the trees, 

 and to see our Pines, Spruces, Firs, etc., growing in pots or 

 tubs, as though they were tender sub-tropical or tropical ex- 

 otics. The smoke and soot of the city are said to cause the 

 death of these evergreen species in a comparatively short 

 time if left in the open air during the winters. Every autumn 

 they are brought into cold houses or pits for protection. I do 

 not know whether protecting the plants by canvas caps, or 

 otherwise, and allowing them to remain out, has ever been 

 tried, but it would seem to be worth while making some ex- 

 periments in this direction, because the item of storage of the 

 . plants is considerable. The only evergreen conifer in the 

 garden, permanently growing outside, was a poor, forlorn- 

 looking specimen of the Austrian Pine, which was sixteen or 

 eighteen feet in height. 



In labeling the plants some small porcelain or enameled 

 labels are used ; but most of the permanent labels are made 

 of galvanized iron, zinc or wood, cut into oval shape and fas- 

 tened to wooden or flat bar-iron stakes. The surface of these 

 labels is painted white, and the lettering gives both the Latin 

 and a best-known German popular name. ^ ^ ^ , 



Arnold Aiboietum. /• '-'■ Ji-T-CK. 



Is Grafting a Devitalizing Process? — I. 



PROFESSOR L. H. BAILEY, of Cornell University 

 read a paper on this subject before the Peninsula 

 Horticultural Society at its meeting last week in Dover, 

 Delaware. A portion of it is printed below, and the re- 

 mainder will follow in a subsequent issue : 



To the popular mind the process of grafting is akin to magic, 

 and entirely opposed to the laws of nature. It is mysterious, 

 and seems to represent the extreme power which man exer- 

 cises over natural forces. And yet the operation is very sim- 

 ple, and the process of union is nothing more than the healing 

 of a wound. It is in no way more mysterious than the rooting 

 of cuttings, and it is not so unnatural if by this expression we 

 refer to the relative frequency of the occurrences of the phe- 

 nomena in nature. Natural grafts are by no means rare among 

 forest-trees, and occasionally the union is so complete that the 

 foster-stock entirely supports and nourishes the other. Cut- 



tings, however, are very rare among wild plants ; in fact, I 

 know of but one instance in which cuttings are made entirely 

 without the aid of man, and that is the case of certain brittle 

 Willows whose branches are easily cast by wind and snow into 

 streams and moist places, where they sometimes take root. 

 But the mere unnaturalness of any operation has no importance 

 among phenomena attaching to cultivated plants, for all culti- 

 vation is itself unnatural in this ordinary sense. 



Nor is the union of cion and stock any more mysterious or 

 unusual than the rooting of cuttings ; in fact, it has always 

 seemed to me to be the simpler and more normal process of 

 the two. A wounded surface heals over as a matterof protec- 

 tion to the plant, and when two wounded surfaces of consan- 

 guineous plants are closely applied nothing is more natural 

 than that the nascent cells should interlock and unite. In other 

 words, I do not see why two cells from different allied stems 

 should refuse to unite any more than two cells from the same 

 stem. But why bits of stem should throw out roots from their 

 lower portion and leaves from their upper portion, when both 

 ends may be to every human sense exactly alike, is indeed a 

 mystery. We regard healing as one of the necessary functions 

 of stems, but rooting cannot be so regarded. 



I have said this much by way of preface in order to free your 

 minds of any feeling which you may possess that grafting is in 

 principle and essence opposed to nature, and therefore funda- 

 mentally wrong. A large part of the discussion of the philoso- 

 phy of grafting appears to have been random because of this 

 assumption that it is necessarily opposed to natural processes. 



It does not follow from these propositions, however, that 

 grafting is a desirable method of multiplying plants, but that 

 the subject must be approached by means of direct and posi- 

 tive evidence. During the last three years the opponents of 

 the system of grafting have made the most sweeping state- 

 ments of its perniciousness. This recent discussion started 

 from an editorial in Tlic Field, an English journal, which 

 was copied in The Garden of January 26th, 1889, with an invi- 

 tation for discussion of the subject. The article opens as fol- 

 lows : " We doubt if there is a greater nuisance in the whole 

 practice of gardening than the art of grafting. It is very clever, 

 it is very interesting, but it will be no great loss if it is abol- 

 ished altogether. It is for the convenience of the nurseryman 

 that it is done in nine cases out of ten, and in nearly all in- 

 stances it is not only needless, but harmful. If we made the 

 nurserymen give us things on their own roots, they would find 

 some quick means of doing so." Profuse discussion followed 

 for a period of two years, in which many excellent observers 

 took part. Some of the denunciations of grafting are as fol- 

 lows ; " Grafting is always a makeshift, and very often a fraud." 

 "Grafting is in effect a kind of adulteration. ... It is an ana- 

 logue of the coffee and chicory business. . . . Grafted plants 

 of all kinds are open to all sorts of accidents and disaster, and 

 very often the soil or the climate or the cultivator is blamed 

 by employers for evils which thus originated in the nursery. 

 ... If in certain cases grafting as a convenience has to be re- 

 sorted to, then let it be root-grafting, a system that eventually 

 affords the cion a chance of rooting on its own account in a 

 natural way." "Toy games, such as grafting and budding, 

 will have to be abandoned, and real work must be begun on 

 some sound and sensible plan." " Any fruit-bearing or orna- 

 mental tree that will not succeed on its own roots had better 

 go to the rubbish-fire at once. We want no coddled or grafted 

 stuff when own-rooted things are in all ways infinitely better, 

 healthier and longer-lived." These sweeping statements are 

 made by F. W. Burbidge, of Dublin, a well-known author, 

 whose opinions command attention. The editor of The Gar- 

 den writes : " We should not plant any grafted tree or shrub 

 so far as what are called ornamental trees and shrubs are con- 

 cerned. There may be reason for the universal grafting of 

 fruit-trees, though we doubt it." 



I have not cited these quotations in any controversial spirit, 

 but simply to show the positiveness with which the practice 

 of grafting is assailed. And as the presumption is in favor of 

 any practice which has become universal, these statements 

 possess extraordinary interest. 



The reasons advanced for these denunciations of grafting 

 are three, so far as I can learn. These are, (i) the citation of 

 numerous instances in which grafting (by which I mean both 

 grafting and budding) has given pernicious results ; (2) the 

 affirmation that the process is unnatural ; (3) the statement 

 that own-rooted plants are better — that is, longeT-lived, hardier, 

 more virile — than graft-rooted plants. 



I. Citations of the injurious effects of grafting are usually 

 confined to ornamental plants, and the commonly cited fault of 

 the operation is the tendency of the stocks to sucker and choke 

 the graft. This fault is certainly common, but, on the other 



