JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
398 
[ May 17, 1883. 
before it, in hardiness, and, like it, is only lit for tlie 
piot. Excepting for preserving purposes, all the above 
are not worth growing, although there are degrees of 
inferiority, Breda and Brussels being the poorest in 
quality, and neither Shipley nor Boyal can compare 
with Moorpark. 
Large Early, Oullins Early Peach, Hemskerk, St. 
Ambroise, and Kaisha have all good constitutions and 
not generally liable to gum, unless the soil be rich so 
as to induce strong growth in the early stages of the 
trees, and then nothing will save them from canker, 
as has been indicated in the hardier smaller-fruited 
varieties. Alsace is a very slight, if any, remove from 
Moorpark, as also are Hemskerk and Oullins Early 
Peach. 
Moorpark and Peach are very much alike, if not 
identical; but the Peach is not so subject to decay of 
the branches as the Moorpark, which may be due to its 
being budded on the Brussels stock, whilst the Moorpark 
is worked on the common Plum or Mussel. Admitting 
that they are different, which is beyond my ken, both 
are notorious gummers, and the failure of Apricots from 
variety is to be attributed to the fact that everyone 
planting Apricot trees plants Moorpark. This is, to 
say the least, courting failure, as is done with Ribston 
Pippin Apple, the proclivities of which for canker are 
established, and yet it is planted again and again, 
in hope that it will cast off its constitutional diseases 
without departing from previous procedure. Moorpark 
being the most subject to gum or dying of the branches, 
why continue to plant it ? It is the best of sorts ! 
This is undeniable ; but then there are others nearly as 
good if not quite equal to it in quality, as, for instance, 
Hemskerk, a hardier and earlier opening variety of 
Moorpark, which has not given any indications of gum 
under precisely the same conditions that Moorpark 
has died more or less under. Knight’s idea that con¬ 
tinuation by budding and grafting of a variety is likely 
to result in debility or death after the removal of the 
original by natural decay, receives some confirmation 
from the fact that varieties originated from it, of course 
by seed, are marked by healthier constitutions, if not 
robuster growth; for although Moorpark grows very 
vigorously and apparently healthy for a few years, it 
soon gives indications of enfeeblement and decay. 
Alsace is also a variety of Moorpark, being vigorous 
and hardy, and does not die off in pieces large or small 
like its prototype. Varieties, too, of the Peach Apricot— 
for instance, Oullins Early Peach and Large Red—have 
much better constitutions than the Peach Apricot; 
hence we may conclude that varieties of which the 
type is existent are more healthy than those continued 
indefinitely hv budding of non-existent kinds as 
regards the originals on young or seedling stocks, as it 
is a well-known fact that stocks from suckers and layers 
are weak (debilitated through the age of the parent) 
and apt to cause gumming. 
"What I have to suggest as regards variety is to 
discard those kinds that give irretrievable indications 
of continued gumming and supplant them with those 
that are not so affected. I may mention Large Early, 
Hemskerk, Oullins Early Peach, Alsace, and St. 
Ambroise, with Shipley’s for preserving, as not being 
prone to gum. The aim of the cultivator should be 
directed to raising seedling Apricots of hardier con¬ 
stitution, seedlings, as a rule, not being given to die 
off in the limbs as do varieties worked on Plum 
stocks.—G. Abbey. 
(To be continued.) 
PLANTING OUT GARDENIAS. 
That there is a decided preference generally for Gardenias 
in pots is undoubtedly as true as that good reasons can be 
shown for such preference, the most important being the 
facility with which an early and successional supply of its 
fragrant flowers can be had, and the additional utility of such 
plants for “ furnishing.” But for an abundant supply of cut 
flowers in spring and early summer commend me to plants 
turned out of pots and thoroughly established in the soil of a 
convenient bed or border in a stove. “ Have you seen the 
Gardenias at Maresfield ?” said a friend to me the last week in 
March “ Yes,” I replied, “ I saw them soon after they were 
planted out last September, and thought them a promising 
batch of young plants.” “ Go and see them again now, they 
are quite worth seeing again,” said he. I did so, and was 
certainly well rewarded, for the plants were a pleasant and 
instructive sight. There are fifteen of them planted in just 
such a narrow raised border on one side of a pit with a passage 
running along the middle, as one is accustomed to plant 
Melons or Cucumbers in for training on a trellis ; but the 
Gardenias have had no training, and are mere bushes, hand¬ 
some as could possibly be wished, notwithstanding each of 
them about 30 inches in diameter, a dense mass of deep green 
foliage, so thickly interspersed with flower buds that at a 
rough computation there must have been two hundred on each 
plant. The whole of them are G. florida ; the flowers are very 
double, pure white, petals of great substance, very fragrant, 
and the few that were fully expanded measured nearly 4 inches 
in diameter. The soil in which they are planted consists of 
equal parts of peat and loam, fairly enriched with decayed 
horse manure. The plants were crowding each other, and the 
roots must have penetrated every part of the soil long before 
flower buds were visible. Mr. Thomas attributes much of his 
success with these plants to a low temperature in winter, 50° 
being the minimum night heat, especial care being taken that 
it should never exceed a maximum of 55°. 
The system of culture which has thus been so successfully 
practised by Mr. Thomas will commend itself to many of your 
leaders having small houses and limited means at their disposal, 
and will probably be more generally adopted than the equally 
valuable method of covering walls with it at Ashton Court as 
described by Mr. Iggulden on page 325, because of the greater 
amount of space required to do full justice to wall plants. 
Each plan is a praiseworthy step out of the beaten track in the 
culture of a deservedly popular plant, and both have been 
proved worthy of attention by the impress of success stamped 
upon them by the able gardeners under whose care and skill 
they have answered so well. —Edward Luckhurst. 
CATERPILLARS versus CABBAGES. 
It is seldom Mr. Taylor requires correcting, but even in his 
case—sound as his practice and advice are generally and rightly 
considered—there appears an occasional paragraph which admits 
of lawful criticism. On page 357 in his sensible remarks on 
“ Cabbage-growing and Cabbage-cutting,” he writes :— “ Mr. 
Iggulden grew a variety the year before last (and he might have 
added last year) which he considered more desirable than Ellam’s, 
because, while the latter was riddled by caterpillars, his favourite 
variety escaped ; but I confess I should be rather doubtful of a 
Cabbage which was not good enough for caterpillars.” 
Now among Mr. Taylor’s various attainments not the least is 
the fact of his being a good entomologist. Consequently it is 
surprising to note that he credits caterpillars with a discrimination 
which the voracious pests do not in the least merit. At any rate, 
according to my experience, the discrimination, if there is any dis¬ 
crimination in the matter, is shown by the butterfly, the latter 
selecting a suitable feeding ground for the caterpillars which 
may be hatched from the eggs they deposit. Whether the butter¬ 
fly shunned our smooth-leaved Cabbage, or the caterpillars when 
small tumbled off and broke their necks, in the same manner as 
thrips when treated to Mr. Taylor’s paraffin mixture, I cannot 
