151 



BoniFsfir InfpHigrnrp. 



About the Grape-vine. — The following from 

 a Philadelphia Agricultural journal, the Farm 

 and Fireside, is to our mind worthy of careful atten- 

 tion by progressive Horticulturists, and we extract it 

 entire. 



"A neglected vine, prostrate among the grass, 

 slightly supported by branches trimmed from an 

 adjoining apple tree, was found in S ptember to 

 have some fine, large bunches of grapes of a delici- 

 ous flavor. Personally interested in the matter, I 

 considered this grape too valuable to suffer to re- 

 main in such a condition. Late in the season, with 

 the aid of an experienced vine drc'^ser, I had the 

 vine carefully taken up and transplanted to a good 

 location near the dwelling, both for shade and con- 

 venience. Here it grew profusely, making rather 

 more new wood than to me seemed necessary ; but 

 as a grateful shade over the cistern, I suffered it to 

 spread. It flowered profusely, but not a solitary 

 fruit was developed that season, nor ever after, to 

 I my knowledge. 



Some of my knowing friends, to whom I showed 

 the vine in full bloom, declared it be a male or 

 staminate plant. How came it so ? Previous to 

 transplanting it yielded abundant fruit for some 

 years, as the former owner of the premises declared 

 to me, and my own observation and enjoyment of 

 its fruit confirmed. Stating this circumstance to 

 Mr. Abel Keise, of Manor township, Lancaster Co., 

 Pa., he informed me that he experienced precisely 

 the same result, having found a vine in his fields, 

 supposed to have been carried out among chip-dirt, 

 bearing a most delicious grape. This he carefully 

 took up in the Fall and transplanted it near his 

 dwelling, where it flourished, flowered, but remain- 

 ed barren, a male vine ever since. Why ? 



I have a vine now, raised from a raisin seed, that 

 flowers annually, but never bears any fruit. The 

 parent must certainly have borne fruit, or else there 

 could be no seed ; but it is called a flowering vine. 

 As a counter fact, Dr. Wm. B. Fahnestock, late of 

 Lancaster, Pa., assures me that he had what was 

 called a male grape vine in his yard for many years 

 One summer he had emptied the blood drawn from 

 his patients (bleeding was somewhat in vogue yet), 

 at the roots of the vine ; to his suprise, the vine 

 bore fine grapes after that, and he inferred that 

 bullock's blood, applied to the roots of barren vines 

 would induce them to bear. It nright be worth try 

 ing. I give it as I received it. This latter case 

 (since I cannot doubt the veracity of my informant) 



perplexes me as to the theory I felt inclined to adopt 

 from subsequent microsopic investigations, respect- 

 ing the wood of bearing and non-bearing vines and 

 branches. 



The grape vine is somewhat peculiar, as it yield, 

 often on the same vine perfect flowers, that is, 

 having both pistil and stamens on the same flower 

 (hermaphrodite) ; others of the flowers are stami- 

 nate only ; others again, pistillate only, hence term- 

 ed polygamous, and when only of one kind, either 

 male or female organs, they are termed dioecious. 

 This diversity, I am inclined to believe, is caused by 

 a suppression of one or the other of its organs, by 

 local or accidental circumstances; and that its nor- 

 mal character is that of a hermaphrodite plant. 

 Under this impression, I collected branches bearing 

 various kinds of flowers, cut thin slices from them, 

 and subjected each kind to aclose inspection under the 

 microscope, to see whether I could detect any change 

 of condition in the tissues or woody fibres. I came 

 to the conclusion that those branches which bore 

 perfect flowers had both a healthy pith and medul- 

 lary sheath. The staminate only showed a defective 

 pith or central axis, discolored or rather yellowish. 

 In those that were pistillate only, the medullary 

 sheath seemed discolored ; and branches that bear 

 no flower stalk may be defective both in the pith 

 and medullary sheath, and such I am incHned to 

 believe is the case. 



I will not attempt a discourse on structural botany 

 and the science respecting the floral organs modified 

 or metamorphosed, or the alteration of the floral or- 

 gans, as comporting with the science of Phyllotaxis, 

 when the leaves are opposite or verticillated and al- 

 ternate, on the assumption that the arrangement of 

 the leaves show a spiral formation or discursating 

 in verticals, &c. Nevertheless, it may be interest- 

 ing to some of your readers to know some of the 

 expressions and opinions of men of high repute, as 

 regards the pith of plants and its functions. The 

 medullary sheath, sujTounding the pith, has rays 

 which seem to serve to keep up the communication 

 between the pith and the bark, which, single or com- 

 bined, may bear a certain relation to the science of 

 Phyllotaxis, as well as to the suppression or change 

 in the floral organs, as intimated. 



The pith seems only a modification of the original 

 pulp, and the same hypothesis that accounts for the 

 formation of the one, will apply to the othar, but 

 the pith and pulp, or parenchyma, are ultimately 

 converted into organs essentially distinct from one 

 another, though phytologists have been much puz- 

 zled to assign to each its respective functions. A 

 vulgar error prevailed at one time, that the function 



