February 7, 1895. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
121 
A worthy branch of this Society is the provident fund, to which 
the ium of £9 ISs. 6d. has been appropriated. A library has also been 
instituted, mainly through the benevolence of Mr. H. Broomhead, who 
has presented the bulk of the volumes ; thus the members have at their 
command a mine of information, which many of them, judging by the 
standard of their exhibits, turn to good accoirnt. 
The Society is deserving of congratulation on its most satisfactory 
condition, and it is hoped that under the present able and business-like 
management it will continue to flourish, and thus be enabled to extend 
the limits of its shows and usefulness. 
Fertilisation of the Chrysanthemum, 
Under the above heading (page 78), you refer to a communication 
upon this subject made by Mr. H. Briscoe-Ironside to the Scientific 
Committee of the R.H.S., and read at its meeting of the 15th inst: 
I infer from the references and quotations made that Mr. Briscoe- 
Ironside suggests a doubt whether florets of the Chrysanthemum are 
proterandrous, and therefore naturally adapted for cross-fertilisation, 
a statement of Burbidge to this effect being apparently challenged, I 
think that a close examination of the life history of the floret of the 
Chrysanthemum will show to demonstration that the florets are clearly 
proterandrous, the lengthening of the style, with its stigma surfaces 
closed, and therefore not susceptible of fertilisation, serving to clear 
away from the tube of the anthers the pollen which has been already 
for some time set free by the dehiscence of the anthers. 
The correctness of this view I have found to be absolutely established 
in practice, for, notwithstanding the “ minuteness and proximity to each 
other of the florets ” which is alluded to, I have never known, in the 
practical work of artificial fertilisation, as distinguished from that 
effected by insect agency or by wind, a single case of fertilisation of the 
ovary by the pollen of the same flower ; and this means the experience 
of some hundreds of seedlings—over 250 in the year 1894 alone. 
It is obvious that the mechanical application, by the camel’s hair 
brush, of foreign pollen, however carefully effected, would occasionally 
bring about the fertilisation of the ovary by the home pollen, were such 
abundantly, or even appreciably, present on immediately adjacent 
anthers. I conclude, therefore, that for the purpose of artificial fertili¬ 
sation, whatever may be the case where insects and wind have access to 
the capitulum, the florets of the Chrysanthemum are sufficiently and 
distinctly proterandrous. 
Whether, under the conditions prevailing in Italy, the Chrys¬ 
anthemum is more, or less, susceptible of self-fertilisation than of 
cross-fertilisation I am not prepared to definitely state, but it must be 
remembered that while it is undoubtedly the fact that the stigmas of 
the ray florets, and of the outer florets of the disc, are ready for the 
reception of the pollen before the inner florets of the disc have shed the 
pollen which they produce, it is also a fairly established conclusion, 
which has, I believe, the acceptance of Sir John Lubbock, that insects 
visit the capitulum centripetally, and are therefore less likely to convey 
the pollen from the inner to the stigmas of the outer florets. 
Mr. Briscoe-Ironside tells us that the seed resulting from the “ self- 
fertilisation ” of the disc florets gives poor results from the horticultural 
point of view, and that he thinks it to be “ most probable that this is 
the seed which is advertised and sold, and which, as we learn, gives such 
poor results.” That artificial fertilisation of the florets of the disc—the 
outer rows only being used—gives the very best results experience has 
proved, and the result of your recent ” audits ” has confirmed ; but 
undoubtedly if the seed be but the result of “ self-fertilisation,” then, 
whether it be from ray or disc floret, we can understand its comparative 
poorness of quality, a point upon which I should not be disposed to 
differ from Mr. Briscoe-Ironside. But the American florists, from whom 
the bulk of the seed of commerce comes, profess, at least, to use only 
the ray florets for fertilisation, cutting out the disc altogether, and to 
carefully fertilise by hand. 1 fancy that the charge of leaving their 
flowers to “ self-fertilisation ” would rather astonish them. 
That because ” history conspicuously refers to the varieties raised by 
their comparatively few raisers,” we are to infer that cross-fertilisation 
is not natural or is infrequent, I confess is not very apparent. You have 
already given two answers to the suggestion, and I may add a third. 
History “ refers conspicuously ” to the productions of man, whether they 
be improvements in the breed of horses, cattle, or of flowers, not 
because these members of the natural world find it “unnatural” to 
breed on their own account, but because the intelligence of man direct¬ 
ing the selection provides a more certain and immediate road to higher 
results than are furnished by the unaided and unguided action of 
“ natural selection ” or haphazard insect agency. 
Suggestions aimed at the acquirement of a more accurate apprecia¬ 
tion of the laws of Nature are always to be welcomed, but in the interest 
of exact science we are bound to examine and test the character and 
sufficiency of the observations which are the cause and authority for the 
suggestions, so that we may assure ourselves that inferences are not too 
hastily drawn from insufficient premises. In the present instance Mr. 
Briscoe-Ironside gives us an insight into his data in an interesting article 
upon “The Chrysanthemum in Italy,” contributed by him to the 
N.C.S.’s “ Year Book for 1895.” Referring those interested in the matter 
to this article in question, I fear I must say that the range of ascer¬ 
tained fact must be somewhat extended before we can safely modify our 
opinions adversely to those of the authorities by whom we are accustomed 
to be guided, for we learn that from two flowers of C. Florence Davis 
Mr. Briscoe-Ironside obtained three seeds only, and that from three 
flowers supposed to be fertilised after removal from the plant—I say 
“supposed,” for there is nothing whatever to show that these few seeds 
were not the result of insect fertilisation prior to removal—only seven 
seeds resulted. And Mr. Briscoe-Ironside candidly admits, “ but the 
amount of seed I obtained in crossing was always very small.” Whether 
we have, therefore, yet premises sufficient to found any acceptable 
theory of fertilisation must be at least a question for consideration. 
I trust, however, that Mr. Briscoe-Ironside will continue in thie 
country the observations which he has commenced in Italy, and that 
data will eventually be amassed sufficient to add to the stock of know¬ 
ledge which we possess upon a very interesting section of Nature’s 
handiwork.— Charles E. Shea. 
PEELING AND CLEANING VINES. 
“In the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom,” and it is certain 
that your correspondent who asked for advice cannot complain of 
inattention on that score. 
It appears there are one or two points on which a few more remarks 
are expected from me, and I am quite willing to make myself as useful 
as possible. So far the majority of correspondents favour the removal 
of at least some of the bark, but still I am unconverted. I like to see it 
in all its rough and ragged beauty. True, if a piece half a yard long 
hung in my way I would not hesitate to shorten it, otherwise let it 
remain or fall as happens to suit it best. 
I do not say that there can be any great harm in pulling off the loose 
bark, but does anyone ever stop at that which is really loose? You take 
hold of the end which has parted from the stem and pull it gently. It 
tears along easily a yard, perhaps 2 yards, and you think you are only 
pulling off the loose bark ; but examine the stem at the two extremes 
from which the bark came, and you will find them very different in 
appearance. The first part has provided itself for the loss, and the other 
has not. Mr. Molyneux (page 76), who is very temperate in his remarks, 
and who, I think, would not, any more than myself, peel Vines if there 
were no necessity for it, yet gives some measurements to prove that no 
very bad results follow the practice. 
His figures for fourteen-year-old Vines are 9 inches circumference 
for the largest, and 5J inches for the smallest. These measurements 
are, I believe, considerably above the average for Vines of that age, 
but they do not “ beat the record.” If he will turn to the Journal of 
Horticulture for December 21st, 1876, he will see that of the Longleat 
Muscats planted at midsummer, 1870, “ the circumference of the largest 
is 13 inches, and that of the smallest lOJ inches, measured just above 
the ground. At 2 feet 6 inches from the ground the largest measures 
8|^ inches, and the smallest 1\ inches.” In one of the numbers for 1882, 
that is twelve years after planting, it is recorded that the smallest Vine 
then measured 18 inches in circumference. These Vines are, I am happy 
to say, still in good hands, and are doing remarkably well. 
Mr, Murphy (page 72) is too flattering. He evidently expects me to 
be not only a practical grower but a cyclopaedia of physiology. Now I 
have no difficulty in stating facts as they appear before my eyes ; but 
when I commence with theory I am not on such sure ground. Never¬ 
theless, I will do my best even in that line. 
First, we must consider what bark really is, and here let me say that 
the definition given by “ J. S. G.” (page 102) from Chambers’ is out 
of date, and that there is no such thing as a “ solid part ” in bark at all. 
In Prantl’s “ Text-book of Botany,” second English edition, revised by 
Dr. Vines, at page 65 is given a highly magnified section of the bark of 
Ailantus glandulosa, and this shows a series “ of tabular cells arranged 
in rows perpendicularly to the circumference of the organ, their walls 
are converted into cork, and are scarcely permeable to water. They 
usually contain nothing but air.” Between the outer skin and the 
cortex these cells are to be counted to the number of eight or ten, one 
above another, besides two or three near the inner bark, which are not 
empty. At page 66 we read, “ A formation of cork is wholly absent 
from only a very few woody plants, such as the Mistletoe and a species 
of Maple (Acer pennsylvanicum). . . . In consequenceof the impene¬ 
trability of water, which is characteristic of the cork cells, all the 
tissues outside the periderm necessarily dry up, and these dried tissues, 
which may belong to different tissue-systems and include the most 
various forms of cells, constitute what is known as iark." And at 
page 84, “ Every part of a plant which is exposed to the air and which 
is not covered by a layer of cork or of cuticle is constantly losing water 
by evaporation into the atmosphere. . . . The stems of most woody 
plants and trees are almost entirely prevented from transpiring by thick 
layers of cork.” 
We see then what a perfect covering the bark forms, and if the flow 
of sap, as believed in by our forefathers, upward and downward, as 
regular as the water in our heating apparatuses, was not a myth, alt the 
rest would be easily explained. But modern science, that cruel 
destroyer of the poetry and simplicity of our youthful beliefs, says there 
is no such thing as sap in the old acceptation of the term to flow like 
blood from the human heart and back again. That plants were heart¬ 
less we have long found out, or they would oftener reciprocate our tender 
love, and that there is no continuous channel even for half an inch for a 
fluid of any kind. 
We have only, then, water and air as far as I know to look to for 
solving the problem. I take it that if all this non-conducting material 
was necessary to prevent transpiration, which is certain to take place 
on its removal, and also that the exposure would interfere with the 
current of water necessary to keep the leaves rigid. 
I cannot say for certain, but should imagine that the bark on my 
