514 JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER . [ December 8, 1881. 
quite as long as the native-grown ones. When the growth was 
made up we kept the plants rather dry. This treatment caused 
the pseudo-bulbs to become firm. By February many flower buds 
were showing. We then began supplying water again. All that 
was done that year was to remove any old moss and supply some 
fre:-h. This has been repeated every spring, and they still occupy 
their original baskets. They have increased their shoots every 
year, and the pseudo-bulbs, at first a foot in length, are, many of 
them, about three, and nearly as stout as those of D. nobile. Last 
spring we had over two hundred flowers, each fully 2 inches in 
diameter on one plant. Occasionally we dip the baskets in a pail 
of very weak liquid manure, otherwise they have had only clean 
tepid water. The treatment in regard to moisture has been the 
same as the first year.—A. H. 
THEORIES IN VINE CULTURE. 
In my first paper on this subject I unfortunately omitted to 
give the distances at which I should plant Vines intended for a 
permanency, and this to a certain extent misled both opponents 
and supporters of the system I advocate. On page 452 I men¬ 
tioned preferring to plant supernumeraries in the body of the house 
and against the back walls, supporting the former with stakes and 
the latter with wires, good crops resulting in both instances. In 
the last vinery I planted the permanent Vines were disposed 
under each rafter, this admitting of a lateral spread of a trifle 
over 4 feet. Now, I ask, is not this if well filled, but not crowded, 
with fine foliage sufficient to meet all the requirements of the 
young Vines ? 
In support of his arguments in favour of unrestriction of 
growth Mr. Bardney quotes a description of a remarkable house 
of Grapes grown in his neighbourhood, and I may point out 
several good houses of Muscats and other Grapes grown on a 
different principle. It appears, however, those Vines, the laterals 
of which are allowed “ almost wild extension,” are fourteen years 
of age, and, what is noteworthy, the growth is encouraged at the 
base more extensively than at the termination of the rods. This 
is very different to the practice of encouraging wild growth in 
young Vines. 
Mr. W. Thomson is undoubtedly a great authority on Grape 
culture, but he is not infallible. Like Mr. Bardney, I wonder he 
has never found out the unsoundness of the system of growing 
young Vines unrestricted, thereby obtaining a “thicket of 
growth,” only to be cut down to “within a foot of the sashes.” I 
should much like to know if Mr. Thomson in his present circum¬ 
stances would resist fruiting such rods as he obtained. If he had 
done this successfully his opinion would have carried more 
weight, but as it is I fail to appreciate the relevancy of the 
quotation. Neither do the weights given of crops obtained by 
Mr. Bardney support his theory.—W. Iggulden. 
Having read the vigorous replies from two of your most able 
contributors to Mr. Iggulden’s article on this subject on page 420, 
I have looked over the said article a second time to see what there 
can be in it to deserve such severe condemnation from such very 
practical men ; and I will at once say, that although there are some 
of the minor theoretical conclusions and deductions which I can 
scarcely follow to their full extent, yet I consider the practice 
therein recommended for young Vines as sound as any that was 
ever penned, and I had no idea till I read the articles of Mr. 
Bardney and “ Single-handed ” but that such practice was 
more general than it appears to be. I have no doubt it will 
look a little inconsistent at first that one who, perhaps, may be 
excused for fancying he has done something to popularise what is 
called the extension system of Vine culture, should take up his 
pen in favour of what your correspondents are pleased to call the 
restrictive system, but I hope the inconsistency on my part will 
disappear before I have finished. Of course the term “ exten¬ 
sion ” is only comparative as contrasted with the severely re¬ 
stricted system. No system of indoor Vine culture can be unre¬ 
stricted if the Vines are grown liberally ; at any rate, I should be 
loth to state the size of house which an unrestricted Vine would 
occupy in twenty years under the modern generous system of 
culture. 
For a Vine to cover 700 superficial feet in half a dozen years 
would probably be considered far enough on the road to extension 
to please most of your readers, but that has been proved to be a 
very easy matter, even when a considerable amount of restriction 
was practised. But Vines no less than children should be “ trained 
up in the way they should go.” If they are to be grown like 
Brambles, let them begin to grow like Brambles in the first place, 
and I have no doubt they will look very pretty ; but as “wild gar¬ 
dening,” whatever that curious term may mean, is not our object 
in this case, I advise a moderate amount of restriction to be begun 
consistently and carried out consistently so far as circumstances 
will allow. For the severely restricted system I have nothing to 
say, as that will soon be a thing of the past. 
Mr. Iggulden asks, Why should we allow young Vines to grow 
wildly for the first season or two merely to be cut back ? I also 
say, Why, indeed 1 and your two able contributors have failed to 
answer the question. There is a certain cheap commodity mis¬ 
called “ science ” which used to frighten me tremendously, in the 
same way as little children are sometimes frightened by unskilful 
and naughty nursemaids when they are told “ the bogies will have 
them.” This bogie tale, no doubt, often does a considerable 
amount of harm to weak little minds, and should not be resorted 
to. Happily Mr. Iggulden and myself, if not yet adults, are 
getting out of our horticultural babyhood ; and although I do not 
wish to be presumptuous, I may say that this bogie has often been 
proved to be only a paper one, and is not so terrible to me now as 
it once was. For true science I have the greatest admiration, but 
not that sort which is gained by reading a few theoretical books 
and attending an odd lecture, though these are of incalculable 
benefit when supplemented by knowledge gained from practice 
and personal observation. 
This “all round” sort of knowledge intelligently applied is my 
idea of science, and without at least a smattering of it a man’s 
ideas are not worth much. Mere theoretical science is very ac¬ 
commodating when successful practice or even failures have to 
be explained, but it is often sadly behind when we plodding 
practical men want a difficulty solved, and as often as not we 
have to grope our way as best we can, and then when success 
comes the theorist know's all about it and could have told us 
before. 
We are told by your generally very able correspondent, “ Single- 
handed,” that science is opposed to the practice recommended 
by Mr. Iggulden. I beg emphatically to say that science is nothing 
at all of the sort, and that your correspondent is using the term 
science, unconsciously, no doubt, for what he supposes to be the 
right practice because many people follow it. Science does not 
say you will build up a healthy-constituted man by fattening the 
child as fast as possible, while it can have comparatively little 
demand on its muscular or nervous systems ; neither does it say 
that growing young Vines Bramble-fashion, however fast it 
may manufacture roots, is the system best calculated to promote 
longevity and fertility. 
There is a wide-spread notion that a certain area of foliage 
means a corresponding amount of storage for future use, but this 
is sometimes misleading. Foliage which is thin, and which can¬ 
not be acted on by the light, is not only useless as regards future 
storage, but I take it to be positively injurious, inasmuch as it 
assists to manufacture and circulate crude material which it can¬ 
not assist in elaborating. I have no doubt it assists in forming 
roots—not, however, the kind of roots you would be likely to mis¬ 
take for those of a Box bush, but those gross roots as large as a 
small quill, which ramble for many a yard without a fibre, and 
which generally decay within twelve months of their birth ; or if 
they do not decay outright, the central part only lives, and it has 
to form a new epidermis suitable to its diminished corpulency. 
Where such stragglers are known to exist a common garden spade 
is a very suitable instrument to apply to them, but it must be 
done some time before the fall of the leaf. It would surprise a 
good many people to see what amount of root-pruning a Viiie will 
bear if it is operated on at the right time. The practice, however, 
is not necessary for the purpose of inducing fertility. As with 
other fruits, light, air, and summer-pinching, with the requisite 
heat, will always bring that about, but it is well for many reasons 
to know where the roots are. 
Not only would I restrict the growth during the first season as 
recommended by Mr. Iggulden, but I would go further and treat 
the Vines more in the style that good pot Vines are grown, thus 
forming a good foundation at the bottom ; and if your corre¬ 
spondents will try this plan and carry it out thoroughly they will 
find there is no necessity to cut the Vines down as low as is 
usually done, and that a bunch may be carried with advantage 
both to the Vine and the proprietor when the former is only 
twelve months old from the bud. Vines so treated will break 
regularly up the stem for several feet, and these breaks, encou¬ 
raged to a moderate extent all the way from the surface of the 
soil, will do more to enlarge the stems and mauufacture suitable 
roots than would half an acre of thicket-like growth at the top. 
I do not consider your correspondents have treated Mr. Iggul¬ 
den fairly when they make him an advocate for the severely 
restrictive system. If I understand him he merely recommends 
some restriction during the early stages of the life of a Vine, and 
I think it quite possible that in the more advanced stages your 
