Febr uary 3, 1892.] 



Garden and Forest. 



51 



on large limbs, and in the immediate neighborhood I have set 

 many thousands under similar conditions ; and yet, with all the 

 breaking- of the trees by ice, storms and loads of fruit, I have 

 never known a well-established union to break away. And 1 

 have had tlie same experience with Cherries and Pears. I 

 have lately tested the strength of the union in a diltereut way. 

 A few days ago I cut two "stubs" from an okl and rather 

 weak Apple-tree, which had been cleft-grafted in the spring of 

 1889. These stubs were sawed up into cross-sections less llian 

 an inch thick, and each section, therefore, had a portion of 

 foreign wood grown into either side of it. These sections 

 were now placed on a furnace and kept very hot for two days, 

 in order to determine how they woulcl check in seasoning, for 

 it is evident that the checks occiu' at the weakest points. But 

 in no case was there a check in tlie amalgamated tissue, show- 

 ing that it was really an element of physical strength to the 

 plant. A similar test was made with yearling Mulberry-grafts, 

 and with similar results ; and this case is particularly interest- 

 ing, because there were three species intergrafted— the com- 

 mon Russian I\Iulberry, Morus rubra and M, Japonica. 



From all these considerations it is evident that, admitting 

 that hundreds of poor unions occur, there is no necessary rea- 

 son why a graft should be a point of physical weakness, and 

 that the statement that "grafted plants of all kinds are open 

 to all sorts of accidents and disaster" is not true. 



b. Are grafted plants less virile — that is, less strong, vigor- 

 ous or hardy — than others ? it is evident that a poor union or an 

 uncongenial stock will make the resulting plant weak, and this 

 is a further proof that indiscriminate grafting is to be dis- 

 couraged. But these facts do not prove the affirmative of 

 my question. There are two ways of approaching the general 

 question — bv philosophical considerations and by direct evi- 

 dence. It is held by many persons that any asexual propaga- 

 tion is in the end devitalizing, since the legitimate method of 

 propagation is by means of seeds. And this notion appears to 

 have found confirmation in the conclusions of Darwin and his 

 followers that the ultimate function of sex is to revitalize and 

 strengthen the offspring by the miion of the characters or 

 powers of two parents ; for if the expensive sexual propaga- 

 tion invigorates the type asexual propagation would seem to 

 weaken it. It does not follow, however, that because sexual 

 reproduction is good, asexual increase is bad, but rather that 

 the one is, as a rule, better tlian the other, without saying that 

 the other is injurious. We are not surprised to find, therefore, 

 that some plants have been asexually propagated for centuries 

 with apparently no decrease of vitality, although this fact does 

 not prove that the plant might not have positively increased in 

 virility if sexual propagation had been employed. The pre- 

 sumption is always in favor of sexual reproduction, a point 

 which I suppose will be admitted by every one. And right 

 here is where grafting has an enormous theoretical advantage 

 over cutting or any other asexual multiplication ; the root of 

 the graft springs from sexual reproduction, for it is a seedling, 

 and if the union is physically perfect — as I have shown is fre- 

 quently the case — there is reason to suppose that grafting be- 

 tween consanguineous plants is better than propagating by 

 cuttings or layers. In other words, grafting is really sexual 

 multiplication, and if seeds have any advantage over buds in 

 forming the foundation of a plant, graftage is a more perfect 

 method than any other artilicial practice. It is, in fact, the 

 nearest approach to direct sexual reproduction, and when 

 seeds cannot be relied upon wholly, as they cannot for the 

 reproduction of many garden varieties, it is the ideal practice, 

 always provided, of course, that it is properly done between 

 congenial subjects. It is not to be expected that the practice 

 is adapted to all plants, any more than is the making of cut- 

 tings of leaves or of stems, but this fact cannot be held to in- 

 validate the system. 



It has been said in evidence that grafting is a devitalizing, or 

 at least a disturbing, process, that grafted plants lose the power 

 of independent propagation. IVIr. Burbidge writes that "any 

 plant once grafted becomes exceedingly difficult of increase 

 except by grafting." I have never known a case in which this 

 is true. We are now forcing wood from both budded and 

 cutting-grown Roses, and cuttings grow equally well from 

 both. AH our fruits grow just as readily from seeds from 

 grafted as from seedling trees, and I have never heard of a 

 well-authenticated case of a plant which grows readily from 

 cuttings becoming anymore difficult to root after having been 

 grafted. 



But is there direct evidence to show that " grafting is always 

 a makeshift"; that it is a "toy game" ; that " grafted plants of 

 all kinds are open to all sorts of accidents and disaster " ; that 

 "own-rooted things are in all ways infinitely better, healthier 

 and longer-lived " ? These statements allow of no exceptions ; 



they are universal and iron-bound. If the question were to be 

 fully met, we should need to discuss the whole art of grafting 

 in all its iletails, but if we can find one well-authenticated case 

 in which a grafted plant is as strong, as hardy, as vigorous, as 

 productive and as long-lived as seedlings or as cutting-plants, 

 we shall have cslal)lished the fact tliat the operation is not 

 necessarily pernicious, and shall have created the presumption 

 that other cases must exist. 



Some forty years ago my father took Apple-seeds from his 

 old home in Vermont and planted them in Michigan. Upon 

 my earliest recollection the resulting orchard was composed of 

 some hundred or more lusty trees, but as most of the fruit was 

 poor or indifferent, it was decided to top-graft the trees. This 

 grafting was done in the most desultory manner, some trees 

 being grafted piecemeal, with some of the original branches 

 allowed to remain permanently, while others were entirely 

 changed over at once ; and a few of them had been grafted on 

 the trunk about three or four feet high when they were as 

 large as a broomstick, the whole top having been cut oft" when 

 the operation was performed. A few trees which chanced to 

 bear tolerable fruit, scattered here and there through the 

 orchard, were not grafted. The orchard offers, therefore, 

 an excellent test in this matter. Many of the trees in this 

 old orchard have died from undeterminable causes, and it was 

 an interesting fact that fully half, and I think even more, of the 

 deaths have been seedling trees which were for many years 

 just as vigorous in every way as the grafted trees ; and of the 

 trees that remain the grafted specimens are in every way as 

 vigorous, hardy and productive as the others. And some of 

 these trees have two tops, one of which was grafted shoulder- 

 high in the early days, and the other grafted into the re- 

 sulting top many years later. And those trees which contained 

 both original branches and grafted ones in the same top show 

 similar results; the foreign branches are in every way as vig- 

 orous, virile and productive as the others, and they are proving 

 to be just as long-lived. Here, then, is a positive experiment 

 compassed by the life-time of one man, for my father is still 

 living-, which shows that own-rooted trees are not always "in- 

 finitely better, healthier and longer-lived" than grafted plants. 

 And, furthermore, cases like tins are by no means rare, nor 

 are they confined to fruit-trees. In the case of l^eaches I liave 

 had a similar experience. The first orchard upon my father's 

 place was composed entirely of seedlings, yet the trees were 

 no longer-lived than budded trees, and they were attacked just 

 as seriously by the yellows. And in this connection I will cite 

 the fact that the old seedling orchards which still remain to us 

 about the country are much more uneven, contain more dead 

 trees or vacant places, than the commercial orchards of even 

 the same age. This is due, as I have pointedout upon another 

 occasion (On the Longevity of Apple-trees, before Kansas Hor- 

 ticultural Society, 1890), to the struggle for existence in the old 

 orchards by which the weak trees have disappeared, while the 

 grafted orchards, being made up of selected varieties of known 

 virility and hardiness, have remained more nearly intact. And 

 if the seedling orchards have suffered more than the grafted 

 ones, it must be fiecause they have had more weak spots. 



f contend, also, that the universal favor in which grafting is 

 held in America is a strong presumption in its favor. We 

 differ among ourselves as to the best methods of performing 

 the operation, but I have never' heard an intelligent American 

 condemn the system as necessarily bad or wrong. In 1890 

 there were growing in the United States nurseries 240,570,- 

 666 Apple-trees, 88,494,367 Plum-trees, 77,223,402 Pear-trees, 

 and 49,887,894 Peach-trees, with enough other species to 

 make the total of fruit-trees 518,016,612. All of these will 

 go as grafted or budded trees to the consumer, and he will 

 accept none other. It is true that half of them may die before 

 they reach bearing age from various causes, but grafting itself 

 plays a small part in the failure, as may be seen in the case of 

 Grapes and small fruits, which outnumber the tree-fruits in 

 nursery stock, and of which less than one-half probably reach 

 maturity, and yet these are all cutting-grown plants. It is in 

 nineteen cases out of twenty the carelessness of the grower 

 which brings failure. 



f have drawn my arguments and illustrations from fruit-trees, 

 because I have had a more extended familiarity with them, 

 and it has been-my desire to determine if grafting is of itself 

 necessarily pernicious, rather than to discover its merits in 

 specific cases. I am sure that others can corroborate my con- 

 clusions on various ornamental plants, and I could myself cite 

 many instances. 



It is impossible, if one considers the facts broadly and can- 

 didly, to arrive at any other conclusion than this ; Grafting is 

 not suited to all plants, but in those to which it is adapted — 

 and they are many — it is not a devitalizing process. 



