106 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ August 3, 1893. 
above stated, and also the young wood of the Apple tree, the bark of 
which splits, and underneath is an erumpent stroma (black perithecium) 
subcarbonaceous externally, said to be fleshy within. The leaves of a 
Pear tree which are attacked by this fungus are previously attacked by 
the leaf fungus Actinema crataegi orbiculatum, and the fruits in such 
case are attacked by the Fusicladium dendriticum. The opinion now 
seems to be that the Actinema is the forerunner of the other, and an 
earlier stage of it. I should be very glad if Mr. Abbey would tell your 
readers whether this fungus on the young wood with the black peri¬ 
thecium is the one to which he intends to refer to, and apparently con¬ 
siders to be Fusicladium dendriticum. In my younger days it used to 
be called Dothiora pyrenophora of Fries. 
I should also be obliged if Mr. Abbey has been able to find Nectria 
ditissima on the roots of Apple trees, and what are the factors which 
produce canker on the root. I have often found roots of trees the top 
growth of which is badly cankered perfectly free from canker. I may 
add that both the Dothiora and the Fusicladium dendriticum are the 
food of the beetle mite Oribata orbicularis.—H. P. 
In your number of July 20th Mr. Abbey has incorrectly, and I 
think unfairly, quoted my letter to you, published on page 498 of your 
journal. 
Firstly, he states that I gave no reasons for coming to the conclusion 
that insects and fungus were due to the disease (canker), and not the 
disease to them, whereas I stated that “ I had tried insecticides and 
cleansing the wound,” and as these did no good I abandoned the theory 
of insects and fungus. 
Secondly, I said canker may differ— i.e., have a different form—on 
various soils and in different localities. Mr. Abbey says, “Just so ; it is 
a question of varieties suited to different soils and localities.” I did not 
apply the remark to particular varieties, bat simply to convey that I 
could only speak of canker as it appeared in my own garden, as I had no 
knowledge of it anywhere else. 
Thirdly, Mr. Abbey states my remedy to be cutting off the worst 
cankered branches and cleansing the remainder, but omits the chief 
remedy as stated in my letter, as I go on to say, “ I pared off the top 
soil and round the stems of the trees as far as I thought the roots would 
reach to the depth of nearly a foot, and put some strong decayed farm¬ 
yard manure on the top of them, covering it with the top soil to induce 
the trees to find their sustenance near the surface instead of striking 
downwards to the poverty-stricken and cankerous undersoil.” “ The 
result was a complete success.” 
Mr. Abbey goes on to say that if I had cut away all the cankered 
parts it is perfectly clear I should not be troubled with canker again. 
This I beg leave to doubt, as it does not agree with my own experience 
of some trees from which I cut all the cankered parts away. 
Fourthly, Mr. Abbey says that “ Mr. Tendered cures canker in 
Gooseberry and Currant bushes by letting it have its run of them, and 
when they are no longer profitable roots them out and plants new trees,” 
whereas I said “ I did not try to cure them.” As to whether the 
disease in them and Laurels is canker I am not sure, but I know it is 
similar in its operation, and believe it arises from the soil. Fifteen 
years ago I planted a hedge of Laurels upon a bank of made soil. They 
are now 10 feet high, and are most luxuriant in their growth, with 
scarcely a dead bough. Seven or eight years after I planted in the same 
garden a hedge of the same kind of Laurels on the level ground. These 
grew rapidly for a few years, but latterly whole branches have died, 
though they grow again near the bottom. With this example before me 
I think I am justified in attributing the disease to the soil and not to 
fungus. 
Mr. Abbey’s lengthy articles are, no doubt, very good from a scientific 
point of view, but I doubt whether they are not beyond the reach of the 
ordinary fruit grower, and I invite your readers to try the simple remedy 
contained in my letter on page 498 of your Journal, and I believe 
they will have the same success in destroying canker as I have.— 
Thos. Pendeked. 
SCARLET RUNNER BEANS NOT SETTING. 
1 CAN corroborate the experience of “ T. S., Bristol ” (Journal of 
Horticulture, July 27th, page 80). My Scarlet Runners at Ealing have 
also failed this year to a very large extent, notwithstanding constant and 
copious watering through the whole period of their growth. Messrs. 
Sutton & Sons have noticed a similar thing at Reading, and I find the 
same is occurring in Dorset. Mr. Darwin observed that this species of 
Phaseolus often fails to set pods in the absence of bees, which are 
required to fertilise the flowers ; whereas the French Bean is independent 
of them, being always self-fertilised, and consequently can be forced in 
winter. Moreover, the bees often secure the honey illegitimately by 
perforating the calyx from without; the humble bees come first and 
make the hole, the hive bees following suit and taking advantage of 
the hole. 
That bees are scarce this year appears to be the case from the follow¬ 
ing extract from a letter in the “Daily News” of July 10th. The 
writer from Much Hadham, Herts, says :—“ The present is one of the 
worst seasons ever known for swarms. Under ordinary circumstances 
I should have had at least a dozen swarms, but I have not had one. 
The bee crop is, like many other crops this year, almost a total failure.” 
—Geokge Henslow. 
I, LIKE “ T. S.,” have noticed that these Beans do not set so well as 
usual this season. In this garden we have rows which have run up 
10 feet high, and to all appearances are the picture of health, having 
received copious supplies of water during dry weather and mulchings of 
partly decayed manure. Even now that we have had such delightful 
showers the Beans do not set as well as could be expected. Although 
plenty of the flower racemes are 1 foot in length, only a very few pods 
are forthcoming from the base. I am totally at a loss to understand 
the reason for this state of things, and am waiting for some scientific 
reason to be given.—E. Molyneux. 
There seems to be a very general complaint hereabouts concerning 
the non-setting of Scarlet Runner Beans. It is not often the plants 
grow so strongly and are in such good condition for bearing so early in 
the season, and the failure to set is all the more disappointing accord¬ 
ingly. From Breconshire I hear the same, or very nearly the same 
report. Curiously enough in the latter case a few pods did form at first, 
then comes a gap on the spikes, and now more Beans are setting again. 
In this locality they failed completely at first, and now are doing fairly 
well. As it happens our first pods are not more than two-parts the size 
they ought to be, imperfect pollination evidently being responsible for 
this malformation of pods. 
I am under the impression the first flowers were, owing probably to 
the excessive heat in which they were partially developed, imperfectly 
formed, or at any rate deficient in pollen, this accounting for their 
dropping off prematurely. It is true humble bees are not nearly so 
numerous as usual, but if their assistance is needed in the case of the 
earliest flowers, why not also for those that follow ? The common bees 
are working among our rows every day, but no humble bees. It is 
doubtful if a remedy for this non-setting can be suggested, and the 
chances are the same circumstances will not be noticeable again by the 
present generation of gardeners.—W. Igghlden, Somerset, 
Our Beans are in the same condition as those of “ T. S., Bristol." 
The plants are a picture in health and robustness; they never know 
what it is to be in want of either drink nor food, and are very floriferous. 
But alas 1 how disappointing to observe a naked raceme with but a 
couple of pods at its base, and two flowers at the points, whose fate is 
to fall like its predecessors. 
For an hour I viewed the bees, both humble and hive, searching for 
nectar in these showy flowers. Out of the whole number only one hive 
bee entered the flower in front; they all seemed to alight outside between 
tbe calyx and corolla, and thus from one flower to the other they flew. 
I could not imagine how they obtained any honey, as both calyx and 
corolla are so closely united, until I plucked a few, and then found out 
the secret, of which many more are in quest. At the base of each 
corolla there was an aperture, drilled no doubt by these honey searchers, 
and into this hole they pushed their proboscis, and obtain the honey 
with greater ease than down the tube. The same thing is done to 
extract the honey out of the flower tubes of my Bouvardias, which soon 
get unsightly and wither. 
The disturbance of the reproduetive organs is the cause of failure. 
They are enveloped in a spirally twisted keel, which makes it awkward 
for the bees to enter, hence the reason for the short cut for hidden 
treasure. No doubt were the bees to enter the flower the right way a 
better set would be the result.—J. D., Duffryn, S. Wales, 
This important crop is unusually late and the gatherings sparse this 
season, few growers having picked pods before August. The cause is 
generally attributed to the droughty weather, and it certainly is the 
chief reason of the late and scanty crops. In the early part of the 
season the flowers are often defective, dropping wholesale; but it is 
not confined to that exclusively, as many racemes cast greater part 
or the whole of the blossoms at different parts of the season without 
forming pods. Stopped plants, as in field cultures, usually set the 
first flowers better and afford earlier pickings than those staked and 
unstopped. The latter, however, produces pods more abundantly later 
in the season, and this points to drought or starvation as the prime 
agent in non-setting. Mulched plants also yield a good crop when those 
in dry and poor soil are sterile, and plants in the open are often loaded, 
while those grown against walls or fences produce little beyond flowers. 
The Scarlet Runner is merely a form or variety of the Dwarf or 
French Kidney Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), a native of tropical and 
temperate regions ; “ universally cultivated but not anywhere clearly 
known as a wild plant ” (Baker), and was introduced to this country in 
1597 as a tender annual, yet it is much hardier than the Scarlet Runner 
(P. V. multiflorus). This is considered to be a native of South America, 
and it is a remarkable fact that the evolutions from it are much more 
hardy and prolific than the old type or common Scarlet Runner, and 
points to the necessity of originating new varieties and selecting those 
best fitted to the environment. There is considerable difference in the 
old variety both in hardiness of plant, setting, and productiveness, and 
by saving seed from those most profitable large growers have secured 
strains which are far more productive and certain in cropping than 
where saving seed indiscriminately is practised. It is also a notable 
fact that “runners” with the pods of French Beans are less hardy than 
Dwarf Kidney Beans generally. 
As to the necessity of humble bees forjeffecting pollenation in Scarlet 
Runners, it is certain that in large towns, where these plants are grown 
