5G 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
January 18,1894. 
question. We are of opinion your decision is wrong, although we are 
bound to accept it.” I say if they had done that they would have 
earned the gratitude of every horticultural society which loves jus ice 
throughout the length and breadth of the land. By thus acting they 
would have placed their love of right and their sense of justice far 
above the ephemeral dictum of officialism. They would have risen far 
above it, into that altitude where no suspicion can find a home, and 
would have gained for the capital of the north a position for strength of 
will and uprightness of purpose which would have given it fame now 
and for years to come. But the opportunity has been lest. The Com¬ 
mittee preferred, in their wisdom, to be Oificial, and nothing more. 
They would give no opinion, they would hazard no remark that might 
offend the god of oflacialism, they could not dream of doing such a 
thing ; they would not rise even to the level of a “desire” to appoint 
an expert to point the blooms when the decision of the Judges was 
impugned. They preferred, like the old Greek god, to sit supremely 
and sublimely silent on the altar of official do-nothingism or indifference. 
Even the Greeks grew tired of a god who was found nowhere but 
amidst the solitudes of Olympus, and who was quite indifferent to the 
wants of men. Exhibitors will grow callous respecting the god of 
officialism, and grow tired of committees who reign only amid the 
solitudes of the committee room. The old Greek gods died for want of 
worshippers. Horticultural societies will not thrive, will not even 
exist, if exhibitors withdraw their support, and it is not to be wondered at 
it they should refuse longer to bow the knee at the altar of officialdom. 
I may say, as one of the public who attend flower shows, I never 
exhibited a flower in my life, and am not likely ever to do so, but from 
my study some years ago of botany, and my love of flowers, I frequent 
the haunts where they are to be seen. The love of the beautiful is 
closely allied to what is righteous.— Outsider. 
CRITICISING THE CRITICS. 
The fact that “ A. D.” (page 12) has gone considerably out of his 
depth in attempting not only to write on subjects bearing on practical 
fruit culture, but to actually criticise the remarks of fruit growers made 
thereon, is apparent in almost every line of his article appearing under 
the above heading in the Journal of Horticulture for January 4th. 
“A. D.” says at the beginning of his article that “some will rush into 
danger sometimes in criticising the writings of others,” adding, “ and I 
for one take a plunge,” the result being that he has floundered pretty 
well at every step. And again, in his laudable desire to “ elicit, so far 
as may be possible, facts and truths,” “ A. D.’s ” reasoning is calculated, 
unintentionally of course, to pervert the actual “facts and truths” 
which he has taken so much trouble to criticise. 
“A. D.” is wrong in saying that I “having undertaken to set others 
right on points in fruit culture, then proceeded to criticise the ques¬ 
tions put to me.” I did nothing of the kind. I was simply asked to 
answer the series of questions enumerated at page 573 of last volume, 
and this I did in as concise a manner as possible, without in any way 
criticising the questions, which were put in clear and few words. My 
answers were penned on the spur of the moment, but I am quite willing 
and ready to stand by them in every particular, and I also venture to 
assert that my views on the subjects indicated at page 573 of last 
volume accord with those of practical fruit growers generally. 
“A. D.” is not justified in saying that my remarks on canker in 
fruit trees are “practically a contradiction.” This may sound smart on 
your correspondent’s part, but that is all. It must have been obvious to 
most readers why the description of trees referred to by me “ are rarely 
affected with canker,” although their roots penetrate into bad subsoil 
the same as the roots of trees of an opposite description do. It is simply 
owing to the fact of “ strong, vigorous-growing varieties having been 
worked on free stocks.” Many instances of this kind frequently occur 
in fruit culture. How is it that, say, half a dozen children may go into 
a river to bathe early in May, one may catch cold and die, while the 
remaining five sustain no harm ? 
Your correspondent also labours the question relating to the in¬ 
activity of tree roots very much indeed. He tells us that “ whilst tree 
heads in the winter are in a low temperature roots remain in the ground 
under precisely similar conditions all the year.” Nothing of the kind, 
we are dealing with deciduous trees and not with evergreens. Let 
A. D.” carry out his own suggestion by ascertaining the temperatures 
of the ground in a fruit garden at 1 foot below the surface in January 
and April, and he will be able to see whether the degree of warmth in 
the earth in midwinter and the month of April afford any just ground 
for^ arriving at the conclusion set forth at page 12. “ A. D.” says, 
“ Nature utilises the winter chiefly for giving to the soil its greater 
portion of moisture,” adding “ that if the roots remained inactive or 
stagnant during the winter season they would perish.” Nothing of the 
sort. Why should living though inactive roots surrounded by normally 
moist and congenial soil during the interval from the fall of the leaf to 
the bursting of the buds in spring perish and decay—that is, succumb to 
the presence of their own natural conditions ? I have never known fruit 
trees which, having arrived from the nursery when a change in the 
weather unfavourable to tree planting had taken place, were laid in the 
soil by the heels for a few weeks, exhibit any signs of root activity 
when taken out of the soil for final transplantation. And even if they 
did do so in the circumstances indicated that fact would not go to sup¬ 
port “A. D.’s” contention, seeing that the roots had been severed from 
their natural hold of the soil, disturbed, as it were, in their winter 
slumber of inactivity, they would, therefore, evince signs of life, and 
nothing more. Growers know by experience that fruit trees which 
are planted after the fall of the leaf in autumn make no fresh roots 
before the combined power of increased warmth and light cause the buds 
to push into growth in spring, thereby opening the valve of tree life and 
activity for another year— i.e., the free circulation of sap between root 
and branch. This valve is practically turned off again as soon as the 
t.'ces have shed their leaves in the following autumn. 
“ A. D.” also finds fault with me for looking upon light as an 
important factor of growth. He says, “Light cannot be by any means 
so important a factor of growth production as is generally assumed.” 
And in support of this rash assertion he says, “ It is easy with suitable 
warmth to obtain robust (?) growth and leafage on Vines in January,” 
adding, “ whereas in a state of nature they would not leaf until May.” 
Vine growers know very well from experience what a great difference 
there is in the texture of growth and leaves made in January and those 
made a month or two later. They also know that the cause of the 
increased size and quality in that growth and leafage is to be attributed 
to the increased period of light and sunshine. “ A. D.” says that with 
the “ indifferent light which Nature furni.-hes in the winter, growth and 
foliage can be had at any time.” Yes, but such growth and leafage is 
at its best very indifferent indeed when compared with growth and 
leafage made in April and May. “ A. D.” appears to forget or not to 
know that light is quite as essential to the development of growth, 
leaves, and fruit as it is to the maturation of the same. Heat 
generates growth it is true, but this growth would be useless without 
being operated on by light, to give substance, texture and colour to it. 
The last paragraph in “A. D.’s” letter go to show that be has mixed 
up my statement anent the application of liquid manure to fruit 
borders with srme imaginary one of his own creation, and so he labours 
the question. My words are these :—“ It is most certainly beneficial to 
well water fruit trees with diluted liquid manure previous to their 
coming into bloom, then, or at any other time, always assuming that the 
condition of the soil about the roots is such as to render the application 
of water advisable.” I adhere strictly to this statement in its entirety. 
Instead of criticising “A Fruit Grower’s” replies, he introduces 
vagaries of his own, which clearly show that he is writing under some 
very disadvantageous circumstance in criticising the writings of practical 
fruit growers.—A Fruit Grower and Exhibitor. 
THE PRICE OF NEW PANSIES. 
For many years the stereotyped price of 5?. a plant has been the 
universal custom with florists for a new variety on its first introduction. 
1 have long regarded it as a stupid custom, preventing amateurs 
buying the new varieties until they became much cheaper. The 
days of 21s. and 31s. 6d. for new Pelargoniums passed away long since, 
as also did 10s. 6d. and sometimes more for a new Dahlia. I am very 
pleased to see that some of our florists in Scotland, to whom we are so 
much indebted for new Pansies and Violas, are very sensibly adopting 
the reduced and satisfactory charge of 29. 6d. a plant for their quite new 
varieties. The popularity of the Fancy Pansy and the Viola causes a 
great demand for new kinds known to be of first-class quality, and at a 
moderate price amateurs are more inclined to add them, or some of them, 
as introduced, when obtainable at something considerably less than 53. 
each. 
Numerous new varieties are again to be introduced in the spring 
for the first time, and many of them I know to be “ up to the mark,” 
having seen them at the great exhibitions of Pansies at York, Tam worth, 
Birmingham, London, and elsewhere during the last summer. As the 
new flowers seen at these places are duly noticed each autumn in the 
Journal of Horticulture, raisers and owners see the desirability of 
letting their new seedling varieties ’ne seen at some of these exhibitions 
with a view to their obtaining certificates, for at these leading exhibi¬ 
tions of Pansies, and meeting of experts in Pansy knowledge, very great 
care is exercised in awarding certificates only to flowers which possess 
superior qualities, and even if not very distinct from others, must show 
an improvement on them. Tnis is as it ought to be, or we should be 
flooded with a great number of worthless varieties.—W. D. 
THE APPLE SUCKER 
(PSYLLA MALI, Forstcr'). 
This insect is frequently the unsuspected cause of much injury to 
the Apple crop. Its larvm, which cause the mischief, are so small and 
so closely concealed in the buds that they may be easily passed over by 
casual observers. Their action upon the flower and leaf buds is often 
confounded with that of the caterpillars of the winter moth and the 
larvae of the Apple bud weevil, which appear at about the same time. 
The Psylla larvae may be seen by careful inspection within the folds 
of the buds actively engaged in sucking up the juices and preventing 
the development of leaves and blossoms. The exhaustion of the juice 
and sap, and the irritation set up by the larvae, soon cause decay and 
prevent the fructification of the blossom buds. 
Although the Psylla mali has been known in Great Britain for a long 
while, it is only somewhat recently that it has been recognised as a 
serious trouble to Apple growers. It seems to have rapidly increased in 
the past four or five years. It is well known in many European countries. 
In Germany it has done considerable harm, and the well-known economic 
entomologists, Schmidberger and Taschenberg, have written able 
treatises upon it. It is net known in America, but an allied species 
* known as Psylla pyricola is very destructive in Pear orchards in that 
