26 JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. t January 12, im. 
while the plants are growing, are the chief points demanding 
attention. 
Vieusseuxia glattcopis. —The woodcut (fig. 5) represents 
one of the best known and most abundant species—namely, the 
common Peacock Iris, a variable but beautiful form first intro¬ 
duced from the Cape of Good Hope about ninety years ago. It 
usually attains the height of 18 inches, producing its flowers in 
spring—April or May. The larger ovate or rounded segments of 
the perianth are pure white, having near the base in the centre 
a circular spot of rich deep blue, the resulting contrast being most 
striking. This form is more generally planted out than most of 
the others ; but unless the soil is naturally light and thoroughly 
drained it is necessary to prepare a position. A compost of peat, 
leaf soil, and sand is suitable, or if very light turfy loam is obtain¬ 
able it may be substituted for the peat. 
Y. pavonia.— A pretty species, but less attractive than V. glau- 
copis. It is the Peacock Iris of Linnceus, and one of the oldest 
known in this country, having appeared about the same time as 
the preceding. The perianth divisions are rounded, and of a deep 
orange hue, with a darker crescent near the base and a bright 
rose central blotch. It is a native of the Cape, and flowers in 
May and June. 
Y. tripet aloides. —A rare species both in its native habitat 
and in cultivation, but distinct in form, though less showy than 
some of its relatives. The lower portion or claw of the floral 
segments is very narrow, the blade or expanded portion being 
oval in outline, and pale blue with a yellow blotch at the base. 
The narrow claw gives the flower a loose appearance, quite 
different from the other species. It is of slender habit and sug¬ 
gestive of some of the Xiphions. It flowers in spring, and was 
brought from the Cape to England about the commencement of 
the present century. 
Y. tricuspis. —This is one of the least attractive of the family, 
but is very free in growth and production of flowers. These are 
small, of dull white colour with a purplish blotch in the centre of 
the segments, and they are produced in May and June. It was 
first discovered by Thunberg at the Cape, and was introduced 
thence to Kew by Masson in 1776. A yellow variety of this, by 
some named V. tricuspis lutea, and by others Y. Bellendeni, was 
obtained from the Cape twenty years later. The floral segments 
are small, rounded, yellow, with a few dark spots near the base. 
V. villosa. —A handsome companion for V. glaucopis, but even 
surpassing that in beauty. Fig’ 6 (page 27), shows a flower of the 
natural size, and well represents the form. The outer perianth 
segments are broadly oval, of a rich purple tint, with a central 
crescent of deep blue and a blotch of bright yellow at the base. 
The larger size of the flowers and the broader leaves render it one 
of the finest in the genus. It is a Cape species introduced nearly 
a hundred years since, and it succeeds well outside in suitable 
positions similar to that noted as required by Y. glaucopis. The 
two forms figured are those especially worth cultivation, and if a 
third is needed, V. Pavonia should be selected.—L. Castle. 
THEORIES IN VINE CULTURE. 
I AM disappointed with Mr. Taylor’s answer to my last, asto¬ 
nished to see him so ready to evade the responsibility of his 
assertions instead of proving them ; certainly not pleased with 
him for so repeatedly attributing ideas to me I never dreamed of, 
and confounding statements in no way connected in order to 
make me, if possible, inconsistent. I will not enter further into 
a discussion which has degenerated so much, except in defence of 
myself, and will only refer to one or two instances to show that 
the discussion has become unfair. I cannot think Mr. Taylor has 
read what I have written attentively enough to understand me, 
for I know enough of him to believe that he would not mis¬ 
represent auyone. However, in this case he has done so grievously, 
which he w T ill see if he again goes carefully over what has been 
written by me. While doing me injustice, he also wrongs himself 
a great deal more. Instead of giving your readers the in¬ 
formation asked, he, seeing he has gone much too far, restates his 
case in such a way that amounts to owning himself wrong. 
For instance: He now says that “gross top growth generally 
[why generally?] produces gross roots;” but this is different 
from saying particular modes of pinching tops alter the roots 
from fleshy to fibry, and this much he said before. He now says 
that “ roots do correspond to the top growth but who, except 
Mr. Taylor, ever said anything else ? He now asks if any man 
denies “ that every leaf which has a particle of green in it assists 
in the manufacturing of supplies.” There may be one such, 
though we never heard of one ; but this is not giving us proof 
that crowded foliage manufactures food for the special purpose of 
making roots of an objectionable character. The truth is, there 
can be no evidence that will prove such a thing, hence Mr. Taylor 
is frightened at his own temerity and quietly retires from an un¬ 
tenable position. We do not wonder he has not time to wait on 
the science that is to prove him right, for it never will come. 
Mr. Taylor wishes me to reconcile two statements which he 
conceives to be inconsistent. As the two have nothing in common 
and are on quite different subjects, I despair of being able to set 
Mr. Taylor right when he really could manage, under the circum¬ 
stances to go wrong. If he again reads the paper he will find 
that to be so. 
I am sorry to take up your space on what is so far from the 
main issue, and this is all I have to say on this part of the subject, 
as I cannot go a-hunting with Mr. Taylor among overfed people, 
surgeons, barbers, and so forth.— Single-handed. 
While I agree that the further discussion of this subject had 
better be left to Mr. Taylor and “ Single-handed,” I cannot 
help thinking, as others must think, that a practice which re¬ 
quires such a long and laboured defence from Mr. Bardney must 
be weak somewhere. When your correspondent has grown Vines 
that have received such striking testimony of their excellence as 
those have at Longleat, he will have better grounds for de¬ 
nouncing a system that has proved its superiority ; and before 
he has the satisfaction of receiving high awards for Grapes at 
the best competitive shows of the Koyal Horticultural and Royal 
Botanic Societies, he will either have to modify his “ thicket ” and 
hacking system that he has advocated, or his Vines will soon 
afterwards need renovating. It was not by adopting a wasteful 
and exhaustive system that the cultivator who has won the 
greatest number of medals for Grapes in Europe grew the Vines 
that produced the fruit, and which yet after nearly half a century 
of cropping afford fruit which possibly equals that from first 
pampered and then mutilated Vines that are not yet out of their 
teens. With the remark that Mr. Bardney has not adduced such 
good evidence of Grape culture by the extension or “thicket” 
system as his own Vines in pots have afforded on the moderate 
restrictive method, and under the conviction that the method of 
culture described by Mr. Iggulden is sound in principle, I shall 
now leave this subject, as word-chopping and straw-catching are 
not quite congenial to me, nor, I think, particularly instructive 
to others.— An Old Grower. 
After carefully reading all Mr. Bardney and his supporter, 
“ Single-handed,” has written on this subject, I am inclined to 
the opinion the more they advance the more the ground is slip¬ 
ping from under the former’s feet. For instance, How much 
does the latest instance Mr. Bardney quotes support his theory ? 
The Madresfield Court Vine mentioned had plenty of space in 
which to grow, presumably both above and below ground, and all 
the growth was not cut closely back ; on the contrary, each of the 
five canes obtained were left 3 feet long. This is far removed 
from the thicket system before recommended by your correspon¬ 
dent. According to him the distance apart at which permanent 
Vines are generally planted is 3 feet, “ with temporary Vines 
between them.” As he gives this distance, and seems surprised 
to find I allow another foot without supernumeraries between, pro¬ 
bably it is the same as his Vines receive. Now, unless restriction 
is practised, and rather closely too, the lateral growth of that part 
of the canes to be eventually retained would be most injuriously 
thick, the foliage consequently being poor in quality. In spite 
of this limited space, atter a time he contrives to take up as 
many canes as can be laid in from the lower as well as the upper 
portion of the main stems, and these are encouraged to grow all 
over the roof and down the back walls. That, however, is during 
the second season, as during the first season, after being stopped 
twice, they are “ allowed to grow as much as they can . . . 
the laterals only being pinched up to the place where the leader 
was stopped the second time.” Then he secured a thicket of 
growth at the top of the house ; and though he wisely refrains 
from stating as much, there is every appearance of the same 
results being produced the second season. Now I ask “ Single- 
handed,” Are not leaves formed under such circumstances “poor, 
thin, and overcrowded,” therefore “papery?” and am I not 
justified in terming the fully developed leaves I obtain by thought¬ 
ful restriction “ leathery ?” If Mr. Bardney fully appreciates “ the 
advantage of sturdy foliage thinly enough placed to allow of the 
sun and air acting their part,” to all appearance he certainly 
makes a poor attempt to secure it. I invite my readers to con¬ 
trast his crowded Vines with Vines grown as I have previously 
described. According to his own showing I secure abundance of 
leaf growth, and that, I may add, of a most serviceable descrip- 
