458 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ Juna 4, 1885. 
Relative to the subject of Grapes splitting, I am glad and not sur¬ 
prised that Mr. William Thomson admits the action both of endosmose and 
exosmose “ when circumstances favour that action.” It is just a question 
of circumstances, and I have still to say that moisture passing through 
the skins of fruit has caused ten times more injury than has yet been 
generally admitted. As I have never said it is the sole cause of the 
jupturing of fruit, Mr. Hugh Henderson’s criticism on page 422 falls 
Jight »3 a feather. I actually had observed that Grapes and cut 
flowers with their stems in water really do draw a supply through 
the “ ordinary channels,” and possibly Mr. Mclndoe has observed 
the same interesting phenomenon. But supposing Mr. Henderson, in¬ 
stead of inserting the cut stem of a lateral bearing a bunch of Grapes 
in water, leaves the stem outside and immerses the Grapes in water 
ot vapour, and then they imbibe too much for the resistance of the skin, 
will it be through the “ ordinary channels ? ” Does he seriously imagine 
that moisture cannot pass through the skins of fruit ? If that is his 
notion he must have some original ideas on fruit shrivelling. Again, if 
he plunges a handful of Fern fronds in a vessel of water, leaving the stalks 
outside, and these fronds remain fresh longer than a similar handful with 
their stems alone in the water, what about the “ original channel” then ? 
Water passes through the roots, stems, leaves, flowers, and fruit under 
favourable circumstances ; and if he will put a Cucumber in water with 
the stalk protruding in the driest of air, he may find that moisture passes 
through the skin of the fruit fast enough, and it is the same with French 
Beans. I think I have followed him fairly through the main points in 
his argument, and must leave the subject at present with thanks for his 
contribution. 
u Scientia ” is rather hard on bonemeal on page 417. Because it 
did not improve his lawn the first season he concludes it is not of service 
to plants grown in pots for one year. I think that it is a fair way of 
putting it. While there cannot be a doubt that such rapid stimulants as 
aitrate of soda and sulphate of ammonia are far more effective than bone- 
meal for such plants as Balsams, Cockscombs, and the like, also for 
Cucumbers, Lettuces, Onions, and similar shortlived crops that have no 
“ wood ” about them, it does not follow that it is not of benefit to Chrysan¬ 
themums, Pelargoniums, and Cinerarias, and a year’s experiments on a 
lawn is totally inadequate for proving the contrary. 
I WAS once puzzled with the results of a similar experiment instituted 
for an agricultural purpose. The bonemeal on grass was particularly 
inoperative. The next year it was tried mixed with soil in which grass 
was sown and grown in pots, and there it proved useful the same year. 
The difference was due to the constant presence of water in the soil, which 
dissolved the gelatinous matter of the bones, more water being given than 
would fall on the same area of lawn in two years. The winter rain was 
aecessary to liberate the phosphate of lime in the bones that had been for 
much more than half their time dry on the lawn through the summer. 
Bonemeal is good for all plants of a ligneous nature that have time 
enough to produce woody stems, such as Vines and Chrysanthemums, in a 
»eason, but it is not the best to rely on it alone, and an ammoniacal manure 
should be used as well, not only becanse it is good in itself, but because 
of accelerating the action of the phosphatic. The two in combination are 
more effectual than either used separately. Before the use of bonemeal is 
proscribed this view of the matter—the combination of manures—must 
have due consideration. 
“A Reader” asks me to say something more about Liliums and the 
effects of stem roots on the future bulb. The letter of your correspondent 
on page 433 indicates that the writer of it knows at least as much about 
Liliums aDd their culture as I do, and I consider he has contributed one 
of the most suggestive and useful articles on the subject that has appeared 
for many a day. He does not write so confidently, not to 6ay dogmati¬ 
cally, as Mr. E. Jenkins does when he pronounces the dictum that 
“ surface roots arc only produced when the proper roots are defective,” as 
“mere fiction.” I am one of those who believe there is as much of 
fact as of fiction in that statement when its full significance is compre¬ 
hended. 
The word “defective,” as I use it in connection with this subject, is 
aot limited to the paucity of roots, but to the inability of the roots, 
whether few or many, to extend freely in a suitable medium, and derive 
all the sustenance that is required for the support of the plant. The roots 
of Liliums in pots are necessarily restricted, and the obstacles they 
encounter conduce to the production of supplementary roots from the 
stem. 
Let anyone take two dozen bulbs from a bed in October, plant a 
dozen of them at once in free soil 2 feet deep, resting on a moist base, and 
keep the others out of the ground till June, as I have done, and pot them. 
The probability is that the former will produce no stem roots, but it is not 
possible, in my opinion, to get spikes from the latter and support flowers 
on those spikes without stem roots. And again, experiments and obser¬ 
vation have led me. to the conclusion that, however good a bulh may be, 
and however well grown in a pot, the plant proceeding from it is far more 
likely to produce stem roots than a similar bulb planted out, because the 
roots of the pot are cramped, small, and defective in foraging capacity in 
aomparison with others that have an unrestricted range, and can obtain 
all the support required to perfect the plant and future bulb. 
I have no wish to support “ Scientia,” but when Mr. Jenkins 
observes that 95 per cent, of imported Liliums commence basal root- 
action first, I have to reply that it depends on circumstances. I have seen 
5000 bulbs of L. auratum planted at once, and 95 per cent, of them did 
exactly the reverse, and what is more, 75 per cent, never produced basal 
roots at all, hence decayed ; but the result would have been different and 
very much better if the roots had been started in fibre, as recommended 
by your correspondent, a3 was proved by a number out of the same con¬ 
signment. Mr. Jenkins evidently knows what he is about, but I do not 
know the weight of his evidence for assuming that the writer to whom 
he refers has had comparatively slight experience in “ handling ” Lily 
bulbs, but I rather suspect he is not a novice, though in one respect I 
consider his science is faulty. 
But I am neglecting “ A Reader.” He only asks me one question— 
namely, if the finest Liliums I ever saw that produced no stem roots 
were equally fine the following season. They were, and continued 
similarly vigorous for two or three years, then gradually declined, I 
presume from the natural exhaustion of the soil; but they have not yet 
got weak enough to produce stem roots, though I shall not be surprised if 
some of them produce them this year. I tried an experiment with a 
dozen bulbs this spring. Six of them were embedded in fibre till basal 
roots bri-tled from them, then planted in deep soil; the other six, with¬ 
out any basal roots, were potted in rather small pots. There is not a stem 
root visible on those planted out, but four out of those potted produced 
them before the stems were a foot high. If those planted out follow suit 
I will not fail to record the fact, but I do not expect they will do so, for 
I shall not water them daily to make the surface of the soil and base of 
the stems moist, as the roots can find the moistux-e the plants need below. 
“ A Reader ” significantly observes he does not think the foliage 
of Liliums useless. Certainly it is not useless, and the better it is the 
greater the secretion of nutrient matter in the bulb or the stem. 
It was this I had in mind when I thought “ Scientia ” in error when 
he suggested the removal of stem roots. They are of service when 
produced, but I regard them as adventitious and only produced when 
required for the adequate support of the plant; and I yet await the 
assurance of some authority that they are produced on the best de¬ 
veloped plants in their native haunts. 
Another point, and an important one, demands the thoughtful con¬ 
sideration of readers generally. I previously hinted at the too common 
mistake of drying the bulbs and potting late. “ A Reader ” has said 
what I intended saying, that the right time for repotting Liliums is as 
soon as they cease flowering, keeping the foliage fresh by syringing 
and shading if needed for a time ; there is then no fear of weak root- 
action, nor, under good management, of strong stems and fine flowers. 
—A Thinker. 
BEESON’S MAN ORE. 
This is a valuable manure ; we have been using it for two years, and 
find it not only very stimulating but lasting in its results, and this makes 
it extra valuable, In potting our Strawberry plants last autumn we used 
a peck of this manure to every wheelbarrow-load of soil, and we are now 
reaping the benefit of it in the extra good crops produced. Some old 
Peach trees which were showing signs of weakness had a good top-dressing 
of this manure forked into them last spring; they made fair growth after¬ 
wards, but they are showing the advantage of it more now, as they have 
begun growth stronger, and formed more fruit than we have seen them do 
for a number of years. Cucumbers continue bearing for a surprising time 
when a little of it is mixed with the soil, and Roses are also benefited in 
the same way. Last year was the first season we used it for these. A 
little was given with the soil, and some more was put on afterwards as a 
top-dressing ju3t under the surface of the soil, and cur Roses are more 
vigorous and healthy just now than we ever had them. It may be applied 
with decided advantage to garden crops generally, and no one need be 
surprised at this, as its principal ingredient is bones; and of all manures 
for good and lasting results there are none to equal bones, as they 
always produce substantial growth and never rob the soil.—A Kitchen 
Gardener. 
FRUIT TREES IN SPRING. 
Any good practical article pertaining to hardy fruit culture is 
always appreciated, and the remarks by Mr. Wright at page 409 could 
not appear at a more seasonable time, for at this period of the year 
fruit trees are liable to be neglected, and for this neglect no after 
summer treatment will compensate. The early arranging and stopping 
of strong shoots, or any which may require it, should never be neg¬ 
lected, and I strongly advise a systematic course of treatment, such as 
is described on the page quoted. If the trees are examined once 
or twice a week it is far better for the trees, independently of the 
time saved if the trees are neglected until the summer is far advanced. 
Thinning the fruit is often much more neglected than arranging the 
shoots, but this should not be, for where a superabundance of fruit is 
set on wall trees, as well as espaliers, pyramids, or bush-trained 
specimens, and especially of those varieties which are required for 
dessert, a systematic course of thinning should be carried out, as the 
. fruits will be much finer and be more appreciated than a larger 
