THE ORCHARD AND FRUIT GARDEN. 
377 
tain all the sorts really worth cultivation. He 
has admitted none but varieties of the highest 
character, and such as will repay the cultivator 
for his trouble and expense. The selections 
have been made for the latitude of London • 
planters will therefore make the necessary 
allowance, if they live in a higher or lower 
latitude." — Pp. iii. iv. 
Here we can tell Mr. MTntosh he has not 
relied on his own practical knowledge ; he has 
derived some of his information from sources 
not at all in accordance with the experience 
which dictates his own portion of the work. 
In the early part of the volume we are informed 
that — 
" The earliest notice of British Pomology 
is that by Richard Arnold, a citizen of London, 
who published his 'Chronicles' in 1502, in 
which work he dedicates a chapter to ' The 
crafte of graffynge and plantynge and alter- 
ynge of fruits, as well in colour as in taste? 
The art of grafting, including the amelioration 
of fruits, is the subject principally treated of 
in this work — a proof that the science had 
attained some degree of advancement even at 
this early date. 
- " Arnold, as a Pomological author, was fol- 
lowed by Sir Hew Piatt, Mascall, Gerard, 
Lawson, Parkinson, Tusser, Bacon, Hartlib, 
Coles, Austen, Beales, Evelyn, Drope, Lau- 
rence, Langford, Facio, London and Wise, 
Switzer, Bradley, Miller, Langley, Justice, 
Hitt, Abercrombie, Gibson, Boutcher, Pres- 
ton, Speechly, Forsyth, Salisbury, Knight, 
G. Lindley, Lyon, flayward, Harrison, Dr. 
Lindley, Rogers, and last, but certainly not 
least, Mr. Robert Thompson, of the Horticul- 
tural Society of London, who has done more, 
particularly in the arrangement of the nomen- 
clature of fruits, than all the others together. 
" It will naturally be supposed that among 
so many authors an immense mass of infor- 
mation must have accumulated on this subject. 
This is to a certain extent true : but prior to 
the publications of Speechly, Forsyth, and 
Salisbury, little can be gleaned which is found 
of practical utility to the Pomologist of the 
present time. Knight, Lyon, Hayward, and 
Lindley, have treated the subject physiologi- 
cally; and to the former of these in particular, 
every horticulturist is deeply indebted."' — Pp. 
1,2. 
Now, we do not admit half so much as do 
authors who are going to quote their brethren. 
As in duty bound, when they mean to tax any 
one for a page or two, they must begin with a 
compliment ; and it happens frequently that 
the passage quoted is worthless, if not mis- 
chievous ; and the compliment paid, wrong, if 
not ridiculous. The synonymes of fruit, like 
those of flowers, create disappointment and 
confusion ; and next to this, the starting out 
new fruits very like the old ones, makes bad 
worse. The author does not complain at the 
right place, nor of the right persons, or he 
would not subject himself to the dilemma 
which strict criticism would place him in. 
The professional gardener, and the cultivator 
for amusement, are alike ignorant of the value 
of a thing bought without a distinct character; 
and the sellers and raisers of fruit have been 
as bad as those of flowers, in turning out so 
many kinds so nearly like each other. Our 
author very properly says — 
" The botanist has permanent and highly 
marked characters, by which he can describe 
and distinguish different species of plants from 
each other ; but the shades of difference be- 
tween fruits are in general so slight, and these 
so liable to be changed by soil, situation, cli- 
mate, and cultivation, that it is often difficult 
to find sufficiently permanent characteristic 
marks by which one fruit may be distinguished 
from another. ' Some individuals,' as Mr. 
Loudon very justly observes, 'who have cul- 
tivated, fruited, or studied extensive collections 
of apples, pears, or plums, may know at sight 
a considerable number of varieties ; but in 
general only a very few sorts are known by 
one individual ; and in the great majority of 
cases, a gentleman's gardener can speak with 
confidence regarding those sorts only which 
are under his care. The reason of this is, 
that the shades which distinguish varieties are 
so fleeting as not to be retained in memory, 
or only retained to a very limited extent. An 
apple may be distinguished from twenty other 
apples all very much alike, when the whole 
twenty are placed together before the eye ; 
but any one of the twenty, taken apart, and 
delineated and described, however perfectly, 
will hardly present any marks sufficiently dis- 
tinctive to be remembered, and by which it 
may be recognised with any degree of cer- 
tainty.' "—P. 2. 
All fruit, as well as all flowers, ought to 
have distinctive characters. Gardeners have 
no business to be taxed to find the names of 
twenty things, all nearly alike ; and if we have 
any fault to find with Mr. MTntosh, it is that 
the fruit lists are too long for the thousands, 
though they may be right for the gardener in 
a large establishment. It is to us especially 
objectionable; but, as the descriptions are for 
the most part fair, we may be told that a per- 
son need buy no more than he wants. We, 
however, had much rather have seen about 
thirty-six sorts of apples, and they all of the 
best and most striking, than one hundred and 
thirty-six sorts, which Mr. MTntosh has given 
us to choose from. But we grumble at having 
flowers under a dozen different names ; what 
have the fruit-growers to do, then, with their 
hosts ? Read the following facts as a sort of 
