October 6, 1892. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
803 
left from the current year’s growth, when the leaves are still on the 
trees. October is a good time to prune the trees ; indeed, I have 
already gone over many of ours. The main point to impress upon 
beginners in pruning is the absolute necessity of providing abund¬ 
ance of light and air between the branches ; overcrowding them is 
the commonest cause of non-success. In high and moderately dry 
districts I am of opinion that much more regular crops of Apples 
would be annually produced if greater attention were paid to keeping 
the branches thinner than at present, and to following a regular 
system of summer pinching of the shoots. By this means the 
branches and buds in the embryo state are more matured and the 
flowers in a better condition to become fertilised, also to withstand 
light frosts. By following this method of pruning and summer 
pinching closely many of our trees have given us a full crop of 
fruit for the last ten years without fail. 1 am an absolute believer 
in the extension method of training Apple trees, of course where 
space will permit, as against the practice of close pruning of the 
branches and shortening of the roots with a view to the re¬ 
striction of the trees generally. For this reason I regard a loose 
form of bush tree as being infinitely better than a formally trained 
pyramid tree, both from its giving more and better fruit and as 
requiring less attention in the matter of labour in training. 
In pruning trees that were planted one or two years ago some 
attention must be paid to the manner in which they were pruned 
the same season as they were planted, as this will guide the future 
manipulation of the branches. I am a staunch supporter of pruning 
the trees the same season that they are planted, although I know 
that some persons prefer to let them alone for a year and then 
cut them back. I think this is a waste of a season, when equal 
growth can be had the first season by pruning the trees judiciously 
■— i.e., cutting the shoots made the previous year to within 
about six eyes of the base, varying a little according to the 
manner of growth of each variety, some sorts being longer 
jointed than others. The second year I prune to within, say, 
1 foot of the previous cut ; sometimes more is left if plenty 
of space is available for the tree. By shortening the shoots back 
in this manner well-formed trees are obtained right from the base. 
It is an advantage to take the point out of any shoot over 9 inches 
long when dealing with trees planted less than five years; such shoots 
are thus induced to break more regularly into growth from all 
the eyes than when left untopped, the flow of sap is diverted from 
the leader, and if all the shoots are not required (as they will not 
be) fruit spurs may be encouraged to form by pinching the young 
growths during summer. Very often vigorous shoots will fail to 
send out side growths at all if left intact, all the sap flying to the 
point of the shoot and thus leaving it quite bare of spurs or side 
growths. This is neither desirable nor necessary considering that 
topping the shoot at the autumn pruning would obviate the defect. 
Timely attention to these apparently small details in pruning will 
render young trees not only a pleasure to look upon but a greater 
source of profit through the increased production of fruit. 
In dealing with, say, two-year-planted standard trees, which 
were cut hard in the first season and are now furnished with shoots 
2 feet long, or in some cases more, half of the shoot—for instance, 
the growth made last year—will now be bristling with fruit buds 
of this season’s formation for next year. I do not advise these 
shoots to be interfered with at all if the last year’s growth gives 
promise of forming buds and shoots, but if there is not sufficient 
evidence for the future furnishing of the tree I advise the point of 
the shoots to be taken out as directed. Next season these trees 
will bear fruit if allowed to do so, and if the weather at blossoming 
time is favourable, and the weight of the fruit on the long and, in 
some cases, upright shoots will induce the branches to form shapely 
heads by bending down the points of each. It is a mistake to 
crowd the branches of standard trees at any time, and especially 
the first two or three years. Each shoot should be allowed suffi¬ 
cient space to stand alone with a view to its maturity and the due 
formation of the future tree. 
In pruning bush trees that have been established fully ten 
years I do not hold with the hard cutting-in of the points of the 
leading shoots if they are strong and inclined to make vigorous 
growth, and space is available for extension. I prefer to allow 
them to extend, simply removing the point to hasten bud and side 
shoot formation. After a couple of years of this treatment the 
length of the leading shoots will be considerably lessened, fruitful¬ 
ness of otherwise bare branches will follow, and the necessity for 
root-pruning wdl diminish, providing, of course, that the roots are 
in a healthy condition and near to the surface. Especially does 
this method of pruning agree with Cox’s Orange Pippin, Blenheim 
Orange, Warner’s King, Ecklinville, and Mere de Menage, all of 
which, with the exception of Blenheim, can be relied upon for an 
annual full crop of fruit. Abundance of space should be provided 
for the branches by a free removal of the current year’s shoots, first 
by summer pinching to about three or four eyes, then cutting back 
at the present time to one or two, so that a free admission of light 
and air to the inside of the tree is insured at all times.— 
—E. Molyneux. 
A Woman’s Choice. 
During the course of a conversation on Apples recently the 
wife of a nurseryman and fruit grower mentioned the advice she 
had given to her husband for extending his plantations. It was to 
this effect :—“ Plant as many trees as you like, but the three sorts 
that always bear and are always good are Keswick Codlin, Ecklin¬ 
ville, and Alfriston. Those are the Apples for me, and I can do 
very well without any others.” This is not a very bad choice. 
Who can name three more useful varieties ?—A Gardener. 
Doctors Differing. 
The notes given in the last number on different sorts of 
Apples seem likely to be useful, but “ doctors differ ” apparently 
on a most valuable point for those intending to plant—viz., 
what varieties will be best suited to their soils. Mr. Brotherston 
says Lord Suffield does not succeed on a light soil, while Mr. 
Bunyard, whose authority is second to none, says in his cata¬ 
logue that it “ does best on a light loamy or stony soil,” and, I 
may add, that is a fair description of my land, and it does well 
with me. Again, the former says, “ Cellini and Stirling Castle 
for heavy soils only,” while Mr. Bunyard says of Cellini, “should 
not be planted in cold soils.” I was thinking of trying Cellini, and 
should be inclined to trust Mr. Bunyard. Keswick Codlin does 
not do well with me, being poor in growth and in fruit, and 
Wellington, though growing well, gives me small samples. Lord 
Grosvenor is very good, and Alfriston and New Hawthornden give 
me nice crops of good Apples. Reinette de Canada has never 
failed to give me a crop of handsome and useful fruit. Lane’s 
Prince Albert crops well, but I expect it likes a better soil, as the 
fruit is not very large, but even then the wood is so weak that it 
requires support. Of that excellent dessert Apple, American 
Mother, I have this year the best crop and the finest samples 
that my tree has ever borne. We had only a fair show of bloom, 
but the flowering season was so fine and favourable, without any 
frost, that I was much disappointed at the very small proportion of 
blossoms which set. It looked like being a bad year for Apples, 
but they have stayed on and filled out well, and in my own garden, 
and generally in this part of Suffolk, we have quite an average 
crop.—W. R. Raillem. 
THE MARGUERITE CARNATIONS. 
In last week’s Journal of Horticulture you inserted a short para¬ 
graph written by me in reference to some hybridised seedlings which 
are now in flower at the Spark Hill Nurseries, Birmingham. They 
are a marvellous improvement on the Marguerites, and show 
clearly that a great future is before this new race of Carnations 
when our practical florists take them in hand. They are also 
exciting attention, as may be seen by brief notices in the gardening 
periodicals, and in one or two instances inquiries made as to their 
origin. They were introduced from Germany, and in a catalogue 
now before me from a leading seed-grower there, are to be found 
under the heading of Dianthus, as D. caryophyllus nanus fl.-pl. 
Margueritae (the new dwarf double Margaret Carnation). The 
plant is thus described : “ An excellent annual Carnation, height 
about 18 to 22 inches. Sown early in the spring the plants will 
flower from July until winter, which renders this new Carnation 
very valuable for cut flowers as well as for market plants, and the 
play of colours consists of from fifteen to twenty various shades.” 
This description conveys a good idea of their qualities and 
habits, but I could not look upon them with much favour except 
as attractive border plants, because of their very serrated edges 
and want of form and texture or stoutness in the flowers. But it 
became a question of how far any improvement could be effected 
by crossing with our fine exhibition flowers, and Mr. C. H. 
Herbert, who is rapidly rising to the front as a cultivator and 
exhibitor of Carnations and Picotees, determined to try what could 
be done in this way. He crossed a Marguerite with pollen from 
Robert Houlgrave, scarlet bizarre Carnation, a prize variety, very 
rich in colour and of the finest form. This was done last Sep¬ 
tember, for the Marguerites did not flower until the greater portion 
of the prize flowers were out of bloom ; however, a late bloom or 
two of Robert Houlgrave enabled an experiment to be tried and a 
pod of seed ripened. The seeds were sown in February last, the 
seedlings pricked off and grown into handsome young plants, which 
are now flowering, and are the beau ideal of what pot plants should 
be for indoor decoration. They are in 48-pots, are from 
18 to 20 inches high, cvell-formed bushy plants with from tw«lv« 
to twenty blooms and buds on each, and with stronger and better 
foliage than the Marguerites. The latter possess a good erect 
