JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
January 13, 1881. ] 
give reasons, until one of the Court who did not lay claim to that 
title thought he would weigh it, and then he found the king had 
only been “ poking fun ” at them all. A little weighing and 
waiting will do no harm now-a-days.—D., Deal. 
VARIATION IN TOMATO FRUITS. 
Having seen a plant of Vick’s Criterion Tomato at Norris 
Green bearing both smooth and corrugated fruits, Mr. Cox 
(page 8) has arrived at the conclusion that “ fruits can be gathered 
from the same plant and exhibited as distinct varieties without 
much fear of disqualification.” This deduction I consider doubt¬ 
ful, but in other respects his remarks are correct, as nearly all 
the medium and large-sized varieties are given to “ variations and 
peculiarities,” and the stronger and better they are grown the 
more apparent will this be. Propagating by cuttings, as Mr. 
Bardney suggests, will not atfect the true characteristics of the 
variety beyond the first few fruits. The first bunches of blooms, 
both on seedlings and plants raised from cuttings, are often par¬ 
tially lost owing to a check—by late potting, perhaps, in the 
first case, and the process of striking in the other—being given 
to their development. The most forward blooms, and on some 
varieties frequently the next two or three that follow, on each 
bunch, are invariably much the strongest, the pistils frequently 
being fasciated ; and from these result the fruits objected to by 
so many. Remove these blooms and the others will be benefited 
thereby, though by no means can the fruits be induced to grow 
so large as the mis-shapen fruit. 
Unless I am much mistaken the lowest fruits on Mr. Bardney’s 
plant were set from the last few blooms on the bunch, and the 
plant, having been considerably strengthened by good culture, 
produced stronger successional bunches, which in tbeir turn 
bore some larger and corrugated fruit. If all the fruits were 
corrugated Mr. Bardney is not growing the true variety. To 
stage these corrugated and smooth fruit as distinct varieties would 
show either inexperience or but a poor opinion of the qualifica¬ 
tions of the judges, who are acquainted, or at all events ought 
to be, with the eccentricities of the Tomato. Trophy and Stam- 
fordian, which differ but slightly, are prone to produce ill-formed 
and handsome fruits, but no experienced person would think of 
sending the two examples as distinct varieties to the Fruit Com¬ 
mittee of the Royal Horticultural Society. The handsome fruits 
might certainly be staged as Improved Trophy ; but this will not 
avail, and properly qualified judges ought to be as expert as the 
majority of that Committee. Disqualifying is a disagreeable 
necessity, and it is not wise to give the judges an opportunity for 
resorting to it. 
In conclusion it must be understood that these remarks are 
written in no controversial spirit—quite the cpntrary ; and are 
simply offered to set Mr. Cox right and others who may think as 
he does.— W. IggulDen. 
PRUNING GOOSEBERRIES. 
From my youth I have been told by gardeners that Gooseberry 
trees ought to have their centres cut out, and ought to be trained 
outwards, low down, to produce the best and heaviest crops. 
Some six years ago I was taken ill and so affected that I could 
not stoop sufficiently low to gather Gooseberries from low bushes, 
so I determined to try and induce the trees to grow higher. 
I obtained some strong hazel rods, to which I had the leading 
shoots tied of each alternate Gooseberry bush. Next season 
every tied shoot produced a crop of Gooseberries hanging on it 
as closely as a rope of Onions. 
The result has astonished many of my friends who have seen 
the trees in bearing, and I am now training upwards all the inter¬ 
mediate trees, for I find the side shoots “ follow the leader,” and 
in two or three years the bush becomes pyramidal and gives a 
much heavier crop for the ground occupied than when grown on 
the usual system. My bushes are now 4 to 5 feet high, and if 
I had not trained them upwards I should have had to cut out or 
remove a great many of them.—G. O. S. 
MEYENIAS. 
Acanthaceous plants are as well known in our stoves and 
greenhouses and as much admired as the members of several other 
large natural orders in the same division of the vegetable world, 
which contribute to the attractions of such structures and of 
borders also. It is only necessary to mention the names of Aphe- 
landras, Justicias, Eranthemums, Libonias, and Thunbergias in 
support of this observation, for they all include species of con¬ 
siderable general value, easily grown, and characterised by brightly 
coloured flowers. To these may be added the small genus Meyenia. 
25 i 
which, though less popular than the others, is only so from the j 
merits of its species being less widely known. It is closely allied 
to Thunbergia. One of the species is especially near to it both j 
in habit and structure, but the other two are distinguished by 
their shrubby non-climbing habit. It has already been stated 
that the cultural requirements of the Meyenias are few ; and it may 
be added that if a light rich compost of fibrous loam, peat, leaf 
soil, and a small proportion of well-decayed manure be employed, 
carefully draining the pots, and growing the plants in a brisk 
moist stove temperature, very little difficulty will be experienced 
in obtaining vigorous specimens that will flower satisfactorily. 
A position well exposed to light, and yet sufficiently shaded in 
hot sunny weather to prevent the foliage being scorched or the 
colour of the flowers deteriorated, is beneficial, with abundant 
supplies of water to the roots and over the foliage while growth 
is active. The plants have sometimes a tendency to become rather 
Fig. 6.—Meyenia erecta. 
straggling without a little attention is given to pruning the too 
greatly extended or bare shoots, but this is a matter that is very 
easily accomplished. As regards increasing: the stock cuttings 
are readily obtained, and, if judiciously selected, usually strike 
readily in an ordinary propagating frame. The moderately firm 
wood should be choseD, as the tender extremities of the shoots 
are rather liable to damp off. 
A few descriptive notes will suffice to indicate the respective 
characters of the species, commencing with the one represented in 
fig. 6, namely— 
M. erecta .—A handsome plant of shrubby habit, with dark green 
leaves and fine axillary trumpet-shaped flowers, the corollas of 
which have a pale yellow tube, a throat of deeper yellow, and a 
rich pnrple limb. As the name implies it is erect in habit and has 
none of the climbing tendency which characterises the last-named 
species. It is a native of western Africa, where it was found near 
Cape Coast Castle by Dr. Vogel, after whom one of the species is 
named. Seeds, it appears, were sent to this country about 1855, 
from which plants were raised in several establishments and thence 
distributed. It is a really useful plaDt, as flowers are produced 
nearly all through the year—a quality which distinguishes it from 
the other forms. One variety is known in cultivation named 
M. erecta alba, which has white flowers with a yellow tube, re¬ 
sembling the type in other respects. 
M. Vogeliana .—A species from the island of Fernando Po, in the 
Gulf of Guinea, whence it was imported about twenty years ago 
It is very nearly related to the preceding species, but has large. 
