March 17, 1892. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
195 
where they are to flower, about the middle of April. Many other 
plants might be enumerated, but I think it better to be content 
with a good show of a few varieties each season, so that fresh 
features may be added in succeeding years.—PI. Dunkin. 
NOTES ON APPLES. 
Red Bietigiieimer. —In reference to Mr. Rivers’s article on 
page 140 of the Journal of norticullure, it may interest your 
readers to know that the Red Bietigheimer Apple was imported to 
these nurseries some time since under the above name, and as it 
was remarkable for its growth and foliage we cultivated it to prove 
its nature. Soon after the Cranston Co., of Hereford, exhibited very 
grand examples of it at a Crystal Palace Show, where its remark¬ 
able salmon-red colour at once attracted attention, and led to a 
demand for exhibition purposes, as it makes a striking dish. We 
find it a robust free grower, but in the young state it crops very 
sparsely, and is apt to cast its fruit, so that we should only recom¬ 
mend it for exhibition, though probably, like Mere de Menage and 
Waltham Abbey, it may crop regularly when the trees gain age. 
We do not deny that it may have many other names, but so have 
nearly all good fruits ; and a nursery catalogue is scarcely the 
place for a lengthened list of such. It is in season in October, and 
therefore cannot be confounded with Norfolk Beefing, a very late 
Apple. 
Baumann’s Red Reinette. —This is a fine variety here. It 
crops most abundantly, carries fine colour, and often attains a 
large size. It may not do so well in colder counties, but we 
know it is a favourite with Mr. Barron at Chiswick, and will 
as a market Apple take a high position. It is good in quality as 
grown here. 
Wealthy. —A very fine Apple, most distinct in its growth, quite 
hardy and a capital bearer. Its flesh is soft and pleasant and the 
flavour is good, while it is among the most beautiful fruits we 
grow, and being from three to four times the size of Colonel 
Yaughan must not be confounded with that second-rate market 
Apple. Wealthy has given great satisfaction to our customers, 
and is a distinct gain for exhibition and table purposes. 
Our experimental orchard now reaches nearly 400 varieties of 
Apples which are under trial, and any good ones will be selected 
for culture and be duly submitted to competent authorities, amongst 
which the Journal of HortiGulture will not be forgotten.— George 
Bunyard and Co., Maidstone. 
RCTELLIA MACRANTHA. 
How often in country gardens or provincial nurseries we find 
some rare old-fashioned plants, none the less meritorious for being 
scarce, but retained and propagated in their old homes year after 
year, not gaining the notice that would be obtained in larger 
towns, where good plants soon become known. The Ruellia named 
above I saw at Mr. E. Cave’s nursery, Newport, Isle of Wight, 
when visiting there last December There, in one of the inter¬ 
mediate houses, near the scarlet Centropogon bristling with flower 
buds, were three or four plants of Ruellia macrantha which they 
had obtained somewhere in the island a few years ago. I must 
confess it was a stranger to me, and I found upon inquiry that no 
one that had seen it had recognised it. On searching Dick’s 
“ Gardener’s Dictionary,” 1769, in the possession of Mr. Cave, we 
found several varieties of Ruellias mentioned, but not this particular 
variety, neither is it mentioned in Johnson’s “ Gardener’s 
Dictionary.” My object is especially to call attention to the 
merit of the plant for winter flowering in the conservatory, 
or to afford blooms for cutting. The plant is sub-shrubby, a 
good companion for, and similar in growth to Justicias or Thyrsa- 
canthus, the flowers of a rosy purple hue, about the size of an 
Allamanda grandiflora. They last a long time when cut. I 
have some now that have been cut three weeks, and they are only 
just showing signs of decay. No doubt the plant could be as easily 
propagated as others of that class. It may be more common than 
I am aware of in some parts of the country, but nevertheless it is 
worth general cultivation as a winter-flowering plant.—C. Orchard, 
Bembridge, Isle of Wight. 
OPEN AIR PEACHES. 
In taking a careful review of the various articles contributed upon 
this subject I cannot but feel that some good will result from their 
publication. I am sorry if any so-called personalities I may have 
indulged in in this controversy should have the effect of causing the 
slightest pain to any of my opponents. I am somewhat surprised that 
so experienced a writer as Mr. Iggulden should so far forget himself 
in the article contribxrted on page 168 as to endeavour to saddle the 
responsibility of my articles in so personal a manner upon one of the 
best horticultural writers of modern days. Thank you, Mr. Iggulden. 
What ambitious thoughts the compliment engenders ! yet “ begone false 
thought ” and allow the humble pen of ‘ Nous Vcrrons” to pursue its 
way. It is for practical knowledge I thirst, not literary attainments. 
Allow me to say that the majority of gardeners Mr. Iggulden advises 
me to visit “ once more ” are strange to me personally. I know them by 
repute alone, and should not shrink from criticising the system adopted 
by any one of the gardeners named if I thought it as faulty as that 
advanced by himself. Those readers who have watched closely the 
articles contributed must allow that what I advanced in my original 
article has so far proved true. Take for instance the short note by 
“ W. H. W.” (page 144) and supported by Mr. John Chinnery, who also 
states that Mr. Igguklen’s success on the exhibition table is sufficient 
proof of his ability as a Peach grower to justify anyone in attaching 
importance to any statement he may make respecting his practice. 
What a statement for a practieal man to make or support I Do not 
such statements make Mr. Iggulden tremble for his future reputation ? 
How careful he ought to be not to omit one word in any future MS., or 
he may find in his travels many ardent admirers busy with knife and 
spade undermining Peach trees laden with crops of fruit. Did he win 
prizes in good competition with fruit from trees treated as he advised ? 
If not, what is there left of Mr, Chinnery’s argument Z 
In perusing carefully the different articles it must strike readers 
very forcibly that some of Mr. Igguldeu’s supporters are far more willing 
to adopt the treatment he advances in his original article than he is 
himself. His reply upon page 168 is exceedingly moderate compared 
with his former article, although he still adheres to the assertion that it 
is perfectly safe and advisable that root-pruning be carried on up to the 
time the trees are in flower. I am pleased to see that he has omitted 
“ when they have growths on them 6 inches long.” I still maintain 
that this is faulty teaching. Simply because the two young trees moved 
“whilst in full flower” did not die the operation is lauded as successful 
and beneficial. Successful I allow, but beneficial never. If this is no 
“ new method ” of treating Peach trees, how is it that the Peach trees 
at Marston have only just been operated upon ? Is it not new to them ? 
There is no need for me to force this question further, because Mr. 
Iggulden admits in the last paragraph of his article (page 168) exactly 
what I maintain ; that is, if a young tree is found growing far too 
strongly to be productive it should be root-pruned or completely lifted 
in the autumn, not in May. 
I will now turn my attention to the more recently written article by 
Mr. A. Young, on pages 179 and 180. It is rather unusual for him to 
enter so fully into a controversy, and I must confess some slight disap¬ 
pointment that so able a gardener is so wide of the mark. He com¬ 
mences his critique by accusing me of “ stretching a point.” I think 
when he looks more carefully into the question he will admit that it is 
himself who has fallen into that error. He states that when reading 
that part of Mr. Iggulden’s article relating to the “ young trees moved 
whilst in full flower ” that it “ naturally ” occurred to him that the 
meaning was simply to illustrate that Peach trees could be lifted with¬ 
out fear of any harmful results before growth commenced. The 
sentence did not occur to me as such, and Mr. Iggulden’s reply 
(page 130) must certainly convince Mr. Young that it was never 
intended to convey that impression alone, because he states, “ when in 
flower, or even when they have shoots on them 6 inches long.” After 
such a statement as this I think .Mr. Young’s charge of my “ stretching 
a point ” is exceedingly weak, and I certainly cannot modify my views 
to meet such treatment as this. 
I cannot agree with the dictum of Mr. Young, however certain he 
may feel, that no harmful results would happen to a Peach tree lifted 
when the buds have commeneed moving than would happen to a 
Fuchsia. I consider the comparison weak, because you may cut off all 
the roots from a Fuchsia, and it will recover without any apparent 
injury; but adopt the same tactics with a Peach tree, and watch the 
results. To practically test my views of the extra work involved by 
this “late moving,” perhaps Mr. Young will, for experiment, move a 
Peaeh tree when it has growths 6 inches long; he will certainly be 
better able then to test whether “ my ideas are more imaginary than 
real.” 
I assure Mr. Young that I was quite serious in my comments upon 
Mr. Iggulden’s “ lifting or root-pruning in full bearing.” Why should 
I be otherwise, seeing that the expression was used ? ^im I to read a 
sentence, and then “ naturally ” take it to mean something else ? This 
would appear to me a most unnatural proceeding to follow. Anyone 
reading Mr. Young’s article would think that I had condemned the 
operation of root-pruning entirely. This is wrong. I have never questioned 
the system of root-pruning when it is found necessary, and performed 
at the right time, I can point with pleasure to many trees under my 
charge which have been severely root-pruned, and should not hesitate to 
compare results with the produce grown even by Mr. Young. His 
remarks respecting the success with lifting loses weight by his not 
stating at what period the trees were operated upon. My principal 
objection throughout has been to condemn moving trees so late as May 
This is the standpoint I take after many years’ careful observations. 
I have seen trees moved carefully in various stages, and am fully con¬ 
vinced that whatever root-pruning is necessary it should be done in the 
autumn, “ early in November,” and I have not yet heard one good reason 
advanced to the contrary. 
Mr. Young also accuses me of “stretching another point,” because 
I stated that Mr, Iggulden recommended manipulating the roots yearly. 
