324 JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. [ October 7 , mo. 
and fine colour. Canadian Wonder is still a good Bean amongst 
dwarf varieties, and Osborn’s for forcing ; but tbe latter will meet 
with a strong rival in Carters’ new Haricot Bean, which grows 
about the same height as Osborn’s, but is more prolific and fruits 
earlier, which is a very great recommendation, as we cannot have 
a French Bean to fruit too soon after sowing the seed either 
indoors or out. Suttons’ Giant White Runner is another variety 
deserving of notice and cultivation, as its fine pods are extremely 
good in flavour. Kidney Bean seed was the worst I had in the 
past spring, as it appeared to have been ill-matured and in many 
instances failed to grow : but I hope for better results next year. 
—J. Muir, Margam . 
HEDYCHIUM GARDNERIANUM. 
A reference to Hedychiums in your answers to correspondents 
last week reminds me of a magnificent batch of H. Gardnerianum 
that I saw lately in the conservatory at Buxted Park. Mr. 
Prinsep has planted it in one of the beds, and it has spread and 
become a thicket of wonderfully robust stems from 6 to 8 feet 
high, most of them with flower spikes quite a foot in length and 
nearly as much in diameter. The effect of these huge spikes of 
bright yellow flowers with their long scarlet stamens is very 
striking, and they present a very attractive appearance, to which 
the elegant Canna-like foliage materially contributes. Hedychiums 
are classed with stove herbaceous perennials, so are Cannas. Why 
should not both prove suitable for the flower garden in summer ? 
It is worth a trial, for no clump of Cannas that I have seen, even 
at Battersea Park, is worthy of comparison with the grand bed of 
Gardner’s Hedychium at Buxted. —Sussex. 
VINES AT GARSTON. 
Like your correspondent “ J. U. S.,” I have recently visited 
the “Vineyard,” and send a short supplementary^note to his 
concise description on page 305. 
Grapes are grown in seven large houses, but those that attract 
most attention are the Madresfield Court Vine and the Vine of 
Gros Guillaume, which are grown on the extension system. The 
former is planted in a large house facing due east; it was planted 
in the centre of the house, and its roots were formerly inside. 
But two or three years ago an outside border was made, thus 
giving the roots a chance of spreading as well as the top growth. 
The branches are trained horizontally right and left and have filled 
the house. They are now extending a good distance into a second 
house 40 feet long that had been previously filled with Peach 
trees. This Vine annually produces heavy crops of first-rate 
Grapes. Under Mr. Cowan’s system of management the berries 
never crack, and this he attributes to diminishing the supply of 
water after colouring commences. This is really a grand Grape, 
and for market purposes cannot well be surpassed. The Gros 
Guillaume Vine also fills a half-span house 40 to 50 feet in length, 
and is extending into an adjoining span-roofed house, which is to 
be entirely filled with it. This Vine is planted at one end of the 
house, the roots being entirely inside, and the rods are trained 
lengthways along the roof. It never fails to bear a good crop of 
Grapes. At the time of my visit some very large bunches fully 
18 inches in length were hanging upon the young wood, yet the 
Vine is furnished with good-sized bunches from the oldest portion 
of the rods. A glance at this Vine, however, will be sufficient to 
indicate to a practical observer that the long-spur system, or the 
retention of a good portion of young wood annually, is the system 
pruning to pursue with this variety. 
Vines in pots are grown to the extent of seven or eight thousand, 
including fruiting and planting canes. Of the former about five 
thousand are grown, and that they will fruit freely there is no 
doubt from the extra care that is exercised in thoroughly ripening 
them. Mr. Cowan does not believe in cut-backs, and has not more 
than thirty in his establishment. The Vines are grown from eyes 
into a fruiting size in one season, and are remarkably strong with 
plump eyes so much desired by Vine-growers. A good quantity 
of the parings of horses’ hoofs are incorporated with the soil used 
for them, and two or three top-dressings of a similar compost to 
that in which they are potted is given during the season. Two 
or three low houses are devoted to the Vine eyes in the early 
season, and the eyes are inserted in beds of soil instead of small 
pots as usually practised, and when large enough are placed in 
6 and 7-inch pots. The young Vines are all pinched when about 
9 inches in length, and the lateral growths removed, so that 
the Vines have to start again from the main bud. Mr. Cowan 
contends, by pinching the young Vines it gives them an oppor¬ 
tunity to make roots for a time instead of exhausting themselves 
by making a thin wiry growth, and that they are strengthened 
considerably at the bottom—much more so than if not stopped, 
as they start away again after stopping with greater luxuriance. 
This is by no means a general practice, yet the result is all that 
can be desired, and the Vines are worth a long journey to see. 
I am informed from a most reliable authority that they are better 
this year than they have ever been since the Vineyard has been 
established. 
Roses and all kinds of flowering and fine-foliaged decorative 
plants are also extensively and well grown in this nursery.— 
W. Bardney. 
FUNGI A CAUSE OF DISEASE IN PLANTS. 
Presuming that Mr. Luckhurst as a reasonable man is desirous 
of discovering the truth, and that he does not write merely to 
support an opinion whether it is well or ill founded, I will briefly 
review what he has regarded as favouring his view of the subject. 
The first statement was a general and positive one—that attribut¬ 
ing disease in plants to the effect of fungi “is in every instance 
erroneous.” Only three instances were selected to prove this 
comprehensive declaration, and one of these scarcely required the 
trouble taken to disprove it, as it was the unsupported opinion of 
one individual. The other two, however, were worthy of con¬ 
sideration, as different views have been taken of them, and the 
defenders of each have adduced many facts to substantiate what 
they regard as correct. Had Mr. Luckhurst succeeded in demon¬ 
strating that the opinions respecting the Potato disease and Peach 
blister opposed to his own were incorrect, he would still be far 
short of proving his original statement; but even in these in¬ 
stances he has not advanced sufficient to convince the fungologists, 
as he terms them, among whom I suppose he includes myself. 
In the first place, treating of the Potato disease, your corre¬ 
spondent considers that the tissue of the plant must be diseased 
before the fungus can grow upon it, because he tells us the “ plague 
spots” invariably appear before the fungus is perceptible. This 
is quite contrary to my experience, and in reply to a question 
Mr. Luckhurst gives the modified explanation that he has “ never 
been able to detect it [the fungus] till after the disease has laid 
hold of the foliage.” Now this is decidedly ambiguous, for the 
instant the mycelium has penetrated the tissue of the leaf the 
substance is discoloured, and the ordinary first indications of the 
disease appear, so that it would not be likely that the fungus 
could be detected before the “ plague spots ” are seen, as these are 
the discolorations produced by the poisonous action of the myce¬ 
lium. As to hot dry weather checking the progress of the disease 
and wet weather favouring it there can be no doubt, but that only 
more clearly indicates the fungoid origin of the disease, and 
scarcely agrees with the attempted explanation that “ the gradual 
drying-up of the tissue renders it susceptible to the attacks of the 
disease.” Mr. Luckhurst has carefully avoided the question about 
the first appearance of the disease in this country—namely, why 
the fungus Peronospora infestans was unknown here before 1845 ; 
and I might further ask why that disease, if not the result of the 
fungus attacks, should have appeared so suddenly, and so widely 
and seriously affected the Potato crops ? 
Respecting the Peach blister Mr. Luckhurst presents us with 
very clear statements, which in regard to the facts I have no 
doubt are quite correct; but though I am “ open to conviction ” I 
am not prepared to give my full credence to the conclusions. “ It 
is,” says he, “ positive assurance that enables me to say that the 
blister is caused by cold wind and nothing else.” I have been 
under the impression that cold exposed positions favour the growth 
of the fungus, because I have repeatedly observed the blister very 
prevalent under such conditions. But that is not all. For several 
years in a garden not fifty miles from the one under Mr. Luck- 
hurst’s charge, a number of young Peach trees planted against 
the southern aspect of the north wall in the kitchen garden were 
annually severely affected by the blister ; yet the position,was an 
exceptionally sheltered one, for the garden was protected to the 
north and east by a hill of considerable height, and the walls both 
east, west, and south were sufficiently high to effectually prevent 
any injury from winds, which could not in this case have produced 
the blister. Can Mr. Luckhurst explain this, or the case described 
by Mr. Taylor on page 487, vol. xxxviii., when trees from a house 
were placed outside and were yet unaffected with blister, though 
those previously out were greatly injured by it? It is obvious 
from both these facts that the very positive statement as to the 
wind alone invariably causing blister is not correct; and he has 
not ventured on an explanation of how wind could produce such 
effects, nor does he give an example of similar injury being done 
to other trees. 
That there is an analogy between plants and animals I have 
not disputed, only that it is not sufficient to justify the argument 
drawn from the supposed fact that weak human beings are more 
subject to infectious diseases than those in robust health, for it is 
