January 5, 1882. ] JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 3 
tilted a little at first, but gradually lifted back and front to allow 
a free circulation of air amongst the plants night and day. Thus 
whilst the tops are virtually in the open air the roots are en¬ 
couraged by the bottom heat, which will gradually cool down 
until nearly cold. By this treatment they will soon become strong, 
short-jointed, and sturdy, with abundance of fine foliage, and 
without such you cannot obtain extra large bracts. Each batch 
of cuttings is treated in the same manner. The result is, that those 
struck first are the tallest, the second the next, and so on, thus 
securing plants suitable for all purposes. About the middle of 
September, when the nights become cold, the plants are removed to 
a cool house and placed as near the glass as possible to prevent 
them being drawn. Care must be taken not to allow the soil 
to become dry, or the plants will soon lose their lower leaves. 
Towards the middle of October they will show flower ; that is the 
time to assist them. Remove them to the stove, and give them a 
liberal supply of liquid manure. We employ guano about 2 ozs. to 
a gallon of water, with which we water them three times a week. 
The result is, as I have before stated, heads of bracts are obtained 
16 to 18 inches in diameter, the largest I have measured this 
season being 19 inches. A few old plants may be pruned close 
back in the spring, and after they have started into growth turn 
them out and reduce the balls, again potting in the same sized pots, 
using the compost as recommended above. These can be grown 
in any convenient place. About the beginning of September the 
tops may be taken and struck as recommended above ; they must 
be afterwards kept in a stove close to the glass. These form 
bracts when from a foot to 18 inches high, but will not be so fine 
as those struck earlier, but are, nevertheless, very useful for room 
decoration. 
Another method I have tried successfully is, when pruning in 
spring to cut the old wood into lengths containing two or three 
eyes, inserting them thickly in 5 or 6-inch pots, and striking 
them in any warm house. They are afterwards hardened off and 
kept in a cool frame until September, not having been divided. 
We then transfer them to pots three or four sizes larger, care being 
taken not to disturb the ball or injure the roots, and they are 
plunged in bottom heat. These make grand bushes. We have one 
specimen thus treated bearing twenty-two heads, but not so fine 
as those grown singly. —Wm. Plant. 
[The head accompanying this communication was very fine, 
the colour of the bracts unusually rich, and the leaves large 
and healthy.—E d.] 
THEORIES IN VINE CULTURE. 
I have not the least objection to state all I know on any point 
raised in this discussion, even though some of such statements 
may be used in argument against me. First, then, I can assure 
“ Single-handed ” and others, if there are any others to be 
assured, that roots do correspond to the top growth, and that 
anything you do to one end of the plant affects the other. Gross 
top growth generally produces gross roots, and the other extreme 
likewise produces corresponding results. That your correspondent 
should say this “ is one of the most singular things he ever heard 
of,” is very singular to me, for the thing is so palpable that 
argument in its favour is waste of time and space. 
In the next paragraph your correspondent takes exception to 
my assertion that “ thin foliage which cannot be acted on by the 
light assists to manufacture crude material which it cannot assist 
in elaborating.” Does any man deny that every leaf which has a 
particle of green in it assists in the manufacturing of supplies ? 
And again, is it reasonable to suppose that a leaf which is not 
acted on by the light, which is consequently deficient in chloro¬ 
phyll and other essentials, should produce such perfect material 
as those leaves which are more favourably situated ? I cannot 
afford to wait for what your correspondent is pleased to call 
science on such points as these, but I use such common sense as I 
happen to be possessed of, and if I am successful I have no fear 
but that science will follow. The fact is, science as applied to 
horticulture has been rather laggard in our day, necessitating 
some practical men to move out of the beaten track and to make 
their own science in a great measure. 
Your correspondent denies the analogy between training Vines 
and training children. I may tell him that the comparison is not 
new, and was first made by a cleverer head than mine. Because 
I do not carry the comparison to the point of decapitation, is no 
argument against the first part of the training recommended ; 
but I can go further than I have done if it will please your corre¬ 
spondent, and say that people used to gorge themselves to the 
extreme and then resort to the nearest surgeon or village barber 
for relief. But that time is over ; people now eat and drink 
more moderately, and the village barber consequently needs one 
accomplishment the less. This good time is not come to the Vines 
and fruit trees yet ; they are still fed up by many people merely to 
be hacked about, but it will come in spite of “ Single-handed.” 
In the following paragraph your correspondent denies the 
accuracy of my statement when I say that “ it is not known to 
“Single-handed” that the roots of a healthy Vine continue 
active long after the leaves have fallen.” Now it is quite true 
that your correspondent ought to have a better estimate of his 
stores of knowledge than I can possibly form, but how are we to 
reconcile the statements made at p. 420-1 with those made in 
your last issue ? In the former paper we read “ Until Vines have 
made leaves working roots are not wanted ; they must both work 
together.” And again, “ The idea that Vines when extending 
their shoots in spring need support leads many to apply liquid 
manure to their borders, when neither leaves nor roots are 
working. They do need support, and should be primed with it in 
autumn, and if it is not then available there, it is not available 
anywhere.” Now it appears to me that this justifies my assertion 
quoted above, and I must confess that your correspondent making 
his debut in last week’s issue as an advocate of the plan he con¬ 
demned—nay, almost ridiculed only a month ago, appears some¬ 
what extraordinary ; and unless he can make the two articles 
harmonise better than they now do in my mind, I fear I shall not 
be able to follow him.—W m. Taylok. 
In the reply to Mr. Taylor, at page 581, there is a rather im¬ 
portant printer’s error. I am made to say that “ I do not think 
that the roots of a Vine 20 feet long will differ, except in quality, 
from one 10 feet, if both are in similar soil and equally ripened.” 
Quantity was the word I wrote, which makes all the difference. 
—Single-handed. 
If Mr. Iggulden had carefully read my last communication 
he would have found the Vines to which I made reference had 
been grown on the same principle ever since they were planted, 
fourteen years ago. If their present condition has nothing to do 
with young Vines, it proves anything but the “ unsoundness ” of 
the system, and that Vines thus grown are capable of producing 
crops of fine fruit for a series of years without becoming exhausted 
in their early stages. The growth is also allowed equal liberty at 
the top as well as the bottom. Mr. Iggulden evidently questions 
the soundness of the statement from Mr. Thomson’s book be¬ 
cause he did not fruit the canes to which I alluded. I can, how¬ 
ever, point to a Vine of Madresfield Court planted in April, 1879, 
which was a thin puny cane at the time. The Vine was planted 
in an inside border and the cane taken into the adjoining house. 
To accomplish this the cane had to be left its full length, 8 feet. 
Growth started from the base which was encouraged, and from the 
five eyes inside the house, these were allowed to extend 4 feet and 
were then stopped. The whole of the shoots afterwards extended 
the length of the house, 35 feet. At pruning each of the five canes 
was left 3 feet long. If the statement of restricted growers is 
right, some roots in this case must have died. This Vine was 
fruited in 1880 a little, and this year carried fifteen bunches, and 
I am under the mark when I say 30 lbs. of Grapes. Some of 
these Grapes were staged at an exhibition in July, and were 
awarded a high position. The stem is now 31 inches in circum¬ 
ference. I have watched this Vine with deep interest, and hope 
to do so until it fills the space allotted to it. I now ask those who 
advocate restriction on a far greater and severer scale than Mr. 
Iggulden, if the Vines they grow with 8 or 10-feet canes in a season 
could have carried without injury or exhaustion the same weight 
of Grapes the third year ? if their Vines can, I will at once admit 
that one system is equal to the other, and that we grow wood 
unnecessarily. 
Mr. Iggulden has thrown some light upon the subject, on page 
514, where he says he plants Vines 4 feet apart. It is a wonder 
he had not thought to state this earlier. How can he argue in 
favour of restriction when he does not subject his Vines to re¬ 
strictive principles ? Each Vine being allowed a lateral develop¬ 
ment of 4 feet, therefore each Vine is allowed as much leaf- 
growth as those who have allowed them to extend liberally top 
and bottom. It is but recently we heard of Vines being planted 
4 feet apart, but when only planted 3 feet, as is general, and tem¬ 
porary ones between them, it requires good growth at top and 
bottom to equal the lateral development allowed by Mr. Iggulden. 
Can Mr. Iggulden say that Vines grown as he advocates are 
not as liable (proportionately) to make gross roots as those 
that are allowed more liberty of growth ? If planted in a border 
entirely made at the commencement, and lifted after a few 
years, would they not have long, strong, fibreless roots ? Both 
Messrs. Iggulden and Taylor know well it is the nature of a Vine 
to ramble through the border whether restricted or unrestricted 
