November 23, 1882. ] JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 477 
any other method. 2, “ On the Use of Kites for Meteorological 
Observations,” by Prof. E. Douglas Archibald, M.A., F.M.S. In 
this paper the author advocates the use of kites for meteor logical 
observation, and describes the mode in which they may be best 
flown, so as not to be mere toys, but scientific instruments capable 
of ascending to great heights, remaining steady in currents of vary¬ 
ing velocity, and of being manipulated with ease and rapidity by 
the observer. 3, “The Meteorology of Mozufferpore, Tirhoot, 
1881,” by Charles M. Pearson, F.M.S. 
- The inventor of Gishurst compound desires us to publish 
the following letter which he has received from Australia :—■ 
“ Melbourne, 19th Sept., 1882. 
“ When in Sydney two weeks ago I went up to Paramatta and 
spent a day with an old friend, Alderman Pye. He was one of the 
first to plant Oranges on a large scale. When I first saw his orchard 
twenty years ago I found his largest trees a mass of scale and smut, 
so suggested to him the use of Gishurst compound. That at that time 
was not much known in this country, as I had to send to my London 
agents to procure it for me. Mr. Pye acted on my suggestion, and 
now these trees that he planted upwards of sixty years ago are bright 
and clean, covered with fine fruit. Have been lately figured in the 
Town and Country newspaper, an illustrated Sydney paper. I tried 
to get a copy, but failed. The trees are now said to be 35 feet high, 
standing erect. I could not get my hands to meet round one. Mr. 
Pye said he had tried everything against scale, but found Gishurst 
best of all.” 
HEATING GREENHOUSES. 
Your correspondent “A. 0. W.,” page 448, calls attention to 
the advantages of certain oil stoves, which he says “ will not in¬ 
jure the most delicate Fern if properly managed.” It is well to 
put in the “ if,” judging from the many complaints we hear of 
these, as, owing to there being no chimney to the burner, a very 
little draught makes the flame smoke, and this does undoubtedly 
cause injury. The trouble of filling with oil, and the difficulty of 
trimming wicks to burn evenly every six or eight hours, is quite 
as great as that of feeding a slow-combustion boiler with coke or 
cinders always at hand. Hot-water pipes are the safest and best, 
and—considering the fact that a complete apparatus can now be 
obtained for less than £5 which will last for twenty years, while 
a couple of large stoves, to give anything like the same heat, will 
cost quite half as much and last two or three years—it is easy to 
see which is the most truly economical, especially so as the cost of 
oil will, as a rule, be more than the fuel for a boiler. Where gas 
is available and at a low price, small pipes heated by a copper 
boiler placed outside is as economical as oil, heat for heat, and 
requires no attention, as it may be kept burning for weeks together 
if necessary in severe weather. If oil must be used it can be more 
advantageously burnt under a properly constructed copper boiler, 
with small-sized sheet-iron water pipes, the ordinary wrought-iron 
pipes being too thick to let the heat escape readily, unless with 
the more powerful flame of a gas-burner.—B. W. Warhurst. 
THE NOMENCLATURE OF GARDEN PLANTS. 
Mr. W. Taylor recently had some remarks upon the above 
subject which should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. That an 
evil exists in the numerous synonyms borne by plants is manifest, 
but that the method of dealing with the matter he proposes would 
decrease the inconvenience is extremely doubtful. In the first 
place, it is unfair to blame the botanists for what is often due to 
the neglect of the nurserymen, who too seldom take proper 
measures to insure that their plants are accurately named, though 
there are some very creditable exceptions to that rule, and such 
purveyors enjoy a proportionate degree of confidence on the part 
of purchasers. It is, however, a deplorable fact, which no one re¬ 
grets more than myself, that nurserymen will not take sufficient 
care in naming the plants, and a slight error is soon multiplied a 
hundred ora thousandfold. In the case mentioned, where totally 
different plants are obtained under the same name at different 
nurseries, the vendors are alone to blame, and not the botanists ; 
and if nurserymen will not take the trouble to consult competent 
authorities the matter does not admit of any improvement, and the 
purchaser must do what should have been done by the vendor. 
Certainly some plants are unnecessarily loaded with synonyms ; 
but that, unfortunately, is not always an indication of their merit, 
as Mr. W. Taylor supposes, but rather points to some peculiarity 
of structural character that has induced different botanists to take 
diverse views regarding their affinity to other plants. This can¬ 
not be prevented, as, like other human beings, botanists are not 
infallible, and so some have described and named plants which had 
been previously described under other names, and thus synonyms 
have accumulated. There is a simple rule, however, which is 
generally followed now, and that is to accept only the name first 
published, with a description by a competent botanist, and where 
this is consistently followed little difficulty will be experienced. 
An instance occurred recently of hasty naming and correction, 
which has given rise to a synonym that fortunately, however, is not 
likely to come into general use. A new Selaginella was first ex¬ 
hibited by Messrs. Yeitch under the name of S. platyphylla ; it 
was certificated under that name, and described in the reports of 
the horticultural periodicals. Subsequently, on the examination 
of an experienced pteridologist, it was named S. grandis, as being 
a more fitting title, the first signifying broad-leaved, whereas the 
true leaves are not remarkable for their breadth, but, being closely 
placed, they give the branches the appearance of fronds, and doubt¬ 
less it was to this that it owed its first name. 
There is one sentence in Mr. W. Taylor’s notes that specially 
deserves attention. He says, “ We do not want the collections of 
weeds we see in botanic gardens.” Would it surprise Mr. Taylor 
to learn that nearly the whole of his hardy flowers, which he prizes 
so highly, have been either brought into cultivation through bo¬ 
tanic gardens, or preserved in them when they would have been 
otherwise lost? Even now there are plants cultivated in some of 
the leading botanic gardens of this country that rival the best of 
those in general cultivation, and yet are scarcely known ex¬ 
cept to scientists, and so they will remain until they attract the 
attention of an enterprising nurseryman. IMns has been the case 
with hundreds of plants, and it is both unjust and incorrect to 
stigmatise them as “ collections of weeds” when they include not 
only all the best that Mr. Taylor has grown or seen, but many 
others equally beautiful. It is the object of forming a botanic 
garden to obtain as large a collection of distinct species and varie¬ 
ties as possible, and not to grow only those which are structurally 
interesting—to show, in fact, a good general view of the vegetable 
world, including both its beauties and its curiosities ; and that the 
leading establishments of the kind in Great Britain satisfactorily 
accomplish this as far as their means will permit, any competent 
and impartial visitor must be ready to admit.— Justitia. 
PRUNING GOOSEBERRY BUSHES. 
This operation in many gardens is often carried too far, and 
hard cutting-in is annually practised more as a matter of form 
than from any good results that may follow. Some pride them¬ 
selves on this, and persist in having it carried out on the lines 
of some hard-and-fast rule they have laid down. I could point 
to instances of this kind where pruning has proved repeatedly 
disadvantageous. Gooseberry trees in this respect are much like 
Apples and Pears, and the more they are cut the more useless 
wood they make, until the trees are so crowded that it is almost 
impossible for light and air to ripen the wood. I have seen Goose¬ 
berry bushes become more crowded under a severe system of 
annual pruning than when left untouched. I do not say fruit 
cannot be produced where pruning is freely practised, and I admit 
the fruit may be larger than that produced from unpruned trees, 
but the crop will not be so heavy from the former as from the 
latter. The question arises whether hard pruning is needed in 
the cultivation of Gooseberries, and more especially in moist 
localities where late spring frosts are general. I know some 
bushes that failed in the majority of seasons from no other cause 
than overpruning. For about half a dozen years, while under 
this system of cultivation, I do not think a full crop was obtained ; 
in fact more fruit was produced the first season under moderate 
pruning than during the whole time under the other plan, and 
they have never failed to fruit abundantly during the past six 
years. 
The only pruning I consider necessary is to thin out the branches 
slightly to prevent them from becoming crowded, and to remove 
the lower branches from those inclined to hang upon the ground. 
By carrying out this method failure in the crop is reduced to a 
minimum. Pruned bushes have but little foliage at first to protect 
the young fruit from late frost, while, on the other band, a large 
per-centage of fruit, especially on the under side of the branches, 
is safe from all ordinary late frosts through the abundant foliage 
on the unpruned or lightly pruned bushes.— Lancastrian. 
Notes on Asparagus. —Now that the tops of Asparagus have 
decayed, cut them off and fork the soil away from the crowns into 
the alleys, almost bareing them. Give a good dressing of manure 
and a sprinkling of salt, but do not return the soil until next March, 
when the beds should have another sprinkling of salt, being then 
