1876 .] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
223 
and thus show that pruning was the thing they 
needed ; but they have to go to work and repair 
damages, and several years are lost. But the trees 
have been pruned, and as impartially as Mrs. 
Squeers dispensed her brimstone and molasses, if 
they didn’t need it then, they might at some time. 
No pruning at all would be better in the end than 
this; but it would have been vastly better than 
either, had the trees been properly pruned at plant¬ 
ing, and yearly cared for to keep them in the right 
way. Common sense is as necessary in the orchard 
as elsewhere, and unless one has a good and Satis¬ 
factory reason for cutting off a limb, by all means 
let it remain, even if it results in adopting Mr. 
Hibbard’s new (?) method of not pruning. Still, 
were we to accept the idea that all pruning is inju¬ 
rious, there will occur cases where it is proper to 
“ do evil that good may come,” and we may prefer 
to sacrifice something of the longevity of a tree to 
secure some immediate benefit, and in this as in 
other matters, the safe course lies somewhere be¬ 
tween the extremes. 
A New Salad Plant—Witloof. —Some of the 
English dealers have advertised with high praise a 
bran-new salad, under the name of Witloof; they 
tell of its great hardiness and vitality, and even 
hint that it is good for other things besides salad, 
but they quite fail to tell what it is. The engravings 
give no clue, as they look much like a small Cos Let¬ 
tuce set upon a horseradish root; we were getting 
quite anxious over the matter, but at last a corre¬ 
spondent of the Gardener’s Magazine, sets the 
matter at rest by saying: “ Under the name of 
‘ Witloof ’ the trade are offering us a remarkably 
good stock of chicory.”—Now we know all 
about it, it is our old friend, “ Ghicoree sauvage 
ameliore ,” and Baric de Capucin, own brother to 
Endive, and those who like their salads so bitter 
that quinine will be tolerable after it, can try it. 
But why not say what it is at once ? 
Doct. Hogg’s Classification of Apples. 
The eminent British pomologist, Doct Robert 
Hogg, has recently added to the several attempts 
that have been made to classify apples. The idea 
is, to fix upon such a system of grouping the fruit, 
as will allow one to ascertain the name of a given 
specimen, by comparing its characters of shape, 
color, etc., with a systematic key, in a manner 
similar to that followed by a botanical student 
in determining an unknown plant. Doct. Hogg 
makes four principal groups, founded, 1st, upon the 
eye or calyx; 2nd, upon the seed-cells, whether 
they meet upon the center or not; 3d, the shape of 
the calyx-tube, or that cavity just below the eye, or 
calyx-segments ; and 4th, the stamens, or rather 
the dried remains of these that are found in the 
calyx-tube, their position, whether attached to the 
base, sides, or margin of the tube, being taken in¬ 
to account. These primary groups are subdivided 
into others, founded upon color, form, and other 
characters. Of course, a system proposed by so 
high an authority, is sure of respectful considera¬ 
tion, and it has received the recognition (regarded 
by some as premature) of the Royal Horticultural 
Society. As the author has subjected only 300 of 
the best known varieties to the test of his system, 
and as of these nearly one-third fail to fit, but have 
to be placed under two, three, or more main groups, 
in order to meet all their departures from the 
regular structure, it is evident that the system can 
not be regarded as a very precise one, and that it is 
quite as open to objections, as those which have pre- 
ceeded it. It has already been criticised, very 
mildly and fairly, by the Gardener's Chronicle , and 
the most that can be said of it is, that it will add 
to, without enriching, the literature of pomology. 
The great obstacle to any satisfactory classification 
of fruits, is in the fact that the objects themselves 
are variable. Through long cultivation fruits are 
in an unnatural condition, and all their parts are 
enlarged and exaggerated, and the characters 
which would be of value in the wild fruit can not, 
in these, be regarded as permanent. 
Every one who has much to do with fruits, would 
heartily welcome any fairly accurate classification, 
and we regret that the hope excited, when it was 
announced that Doct. Hogg would publish one, is 
not borne out by an examination of the system itself. 
THE H©HJ§EH(0)MDo 
SHU Xbr other Household Items see “ Basket ” pages. 
Home Topics. 
BY FAITH ROCHESTER. 
Plenty of Flowers. 
For the sake of the children have plenty of flow¬ 
ers around your homes. Plant enough so that it 
may be no sin for the little ones to gather large 
handfuls and make playfellows of them. When I 
was a little girl, it was not generally understood 
that gathering a part of the flowers caused the plant 
to continue its blooming longer, and to produce finer 
flowers than if all its blossoms were allowed to re¬ 
main on the parent stem and ripen seed. It was 
then a “ naughty ” deed for children to pluck any 
but the most common flowers. Little ones cannot 
always be trusted to help themselves from the flow¬ 
er beds as they may choose, but there should be 
beds of bright flowers where there will always be 
some to spare for the children. One little girl, not 
four years old then, used to ask me for pansies be¬ 
fore she was dressed in the morning, every day for 
weeks, last summer. She could hardly count the 
fingers on one hand, but I used to let her run out 
before breakfast and gather three or four pansies. 
Several times again through the day, she could have 
as many more, and they all personated characters 
to her imagination. They were sometimes her 
children, sometimes her pupils, sometimes the con¬ 
gregation to whom Jack-in-the-pulpit preached. 
Other flowers figured also in these plays, but I do 
not wonder that the smiling pansy-faces were most 
attractive. Children should have their own flower¬ 
beds as early as possible, but a great many waste 
places around the door-yard and back windows 
and out buildings might be made to blossom like 
the rose for their sakes, with but little labor. 
Diverting IVauglity Children. 
A few years ago I wrote something on this sub¬ 
ject, under another head. The opinions then ex¬ 
pressed were not well understood by some of my 
acquaintances, and 1 have long had it on my mind 
to say something further about diverting children 
from naughtiness, or switching them off from the 
emotional track they seem to be following, upon 
one which is safer for them and pleasanter for all. 
My idea was that a watchful parent might often see 
when the patience of a child is beginning to fail, or 
when its temper is beginning to rise, and by a little 
strategy, prevent an open explosion, and, perhaps, 
unpleasant correction. One should appear not to 
notice the child’s mental trouble (in attempting to 
follow out this plan), but should propose some plan 
to awaken interest, or mention some fact that will 
arouse attention. In this way the little one may of¬ 
ten be led to forget its troubles, just as we find a 
new plaything for the baby when it is tired of those 
it has already. When the matter has even gone 
farther, the naughty child may be diverted safely if 
you only disguise your policy—but not without 
some reproof for giving way to naughty behavior 
if it has already done so. In the same breath, al¬ 
most, you can say soberly, “ There 1 there ! we 
can’t have this noise,” and then, with animation, to 
some one else, perhaps, but so that the one reprov¬ 
ed may hear, “Listen! Did some one knock?” or 
if there is a person passing, or an animal or bird in 
sight, make a remark about that, and let it be fol¬ 
lowed up by interesting conversation if possible, or 
by some change of scene which will interest the one 
you seek to “ switch off ” from the dangerous track. 
But when a child is kicking and screaming with 
passion, or is knocking things right and left, it 
is folly to pretend not to notice its behavior. It 
is unwholesome for the child, to have others make 
light of its conduct. For its sake, as well as for 
the general peace, bad behavior must be discounte¬ 
nanced. Either the child should be put firmly out 
of sight and left to do its fighting without a spec¬ 
tator, or it should somehow be made to feel that 
“ the way of the transgressor is hard.” It always 
distresses me to hear any one begin to “divert” 
after the naughty fit is on, in an undisguised way, 
like this,—-speaking complacently to the child, who 
is outraging the sensibilities of every one present: 
“Katie! Katie! come here and see what I have 
got for you,”—without a word of sober reproof. 
This is a kind of premium upon yelling. The child 
who could not get attention by good behavior, has 
everybody running to amuse her when she makes 
herself a nuisance. It reminds one of the story of 
a little girl who stopped in the midst of the most 
passionate crying and kicking, to ask coolly, “Why 
don’t somebody pacify me ?” One of Miss Alcott’s 
characters in “ Old Fashioned Girl,” is a little girl 
who used to say of herself when she wanted some 
extra attention, and was seeking it by sulks, “ I’m 
fwactious (for fractious) and must be amused.” 
Parents sometimes flatter themselves that they 
never give their children the things they cry for, or 
never change their “ no ” to “ yes,” to stop a child’s 
crying, but they often fall into the mistake of 
coaxing the crying child’s good nature back by of¬ 
fering it something even better than the thing re¬ 
fused. It sometimes happens that some indulgent 
relation, hearing the parent’s refusal, and seeing 
the little one’s distress, comes to the child’s relief 
in this thoughtless fashion. It gives a good moth¬ 
er pain to refuse what her child desires, but if this 
is done for the little one’s good, it affords a natural 
opportunity for the child’s discipline. All should 
learn, in early life, that many dearest wishes must 
be denied, though they seem innocent enough in 
themselves; and it is a very important part of every 
one’s education to learn to bear disappointment 
well. So when a good parent, who takes every rea¬ 
sonable opportunity to gratify his child, thinks best 
to deny its wishes, no wise person will try to “pay” 
the child for its pain, or to stop its tears by bribes. 
Yet any one who loves to alleviate distress, may 
seek, by such natural methods as attract no atten¬ 
tion, to bring about a happy mental atmosphere, 
which will work a speedy cure for unhappy child¬ 
ren present. 
House-kept. Women. 
Probably it is true, as the wise ones tell us, that 
we women should have fewer “ blues ” if we spent 
more of our time in the open air. In the State Re¬ 
ports concerning the condition of Insane Asylums, 
it is mentioned as one of the chief causes of the 
excess of female over male lunatics, that women 
live in-doors too much, and breathe too little out¬ 
door air. Out-door exercise is prescribed as a part 
of the reasonable cure of most chronic diseases. 
Our silly and barbarous costume is one thing that 
lies in the way of our regular daily exercise out of 
doors. It is almost too absurd to believe, and yet 
it is true that hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of 
good, decent American women wear in their kitch¬ 
ens, and about their daily work, skirts that touch 
the floor. They make their calico dresses accord¬ 
ing to the prevailing mode, with under and over¬ 
skirt, “caught up” and “ tied back ” when Fashion 
says so. When these come to be old dresses, to be 
worn on washing days, how ridiculous they are ! 
And when they are out of style what silly shapes 
they have ! Others wear dresses made in plain and 
simple style, which “just clears the floor,” or “just 
touch the feet.” But even this more mitigated 
form of woman’s slavery to skirts does not render 
a woman free to run out of doors at a moment’s 
notice, as a man can, without care and anxiety for 
her Clothing. When the dew is on the grass, when 
a shower has just fallen, when the walks are mud¬ 
dy, she will probably stay in the house unless 
obliged to go out. Perhaps she wears slippers in 
the house, and cannot afford the trouble of chang¬ 
ing them for thick shoes, or of putting on rubbers. 
Whatever deference to custom may be suitable 
on dress occasions, all thoughtful women must 
asrree that for home wear no costume is reasonable 
which interferes with a woman’s work, or which 
makes a daily walk (or much daily exercise) out of 
doors more of a task than of pleasure. 
A housekeeper’s work lies in the house. If she 
has a large family, the customary three meals take 
