134 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ August 18, 1887. 
border ; but there was one Vine perhaps a hundred years old. The 
roots went ‘ straight down 1 quite below the bed of the new border, 
which was made nearly 3 feet deep. The owner would not have the old 
Vine disturbed. It started later than the others, but before the summer 
was over the growths extended more persistently than any. The raised 
Vines, with roots near the surface of the border, and short-jointed wood 
and medium-sized leaves like stiff brown paper, near the roof, could be 
spurred to any extent, and never failed to produce excellent Grapes ; 
but the old Vine pruned similarly was a complete failure ; yet with 
young canes trained in as many Grapes were obtained and as good as 
from any Vine in the house.” 
I will now ask him to read a comment on that statement. It is this: 
“ In a mixed vinery I once had charge of was a Vine labelled Alicante. 
It was an old vinery planted in 1837, roots all outside. The other Vines 
were fairly satisfactory in fruiting, but this particular Vine was sterile. 
Its roots went straight down by the wall; subsoil clay over freestone. 
They were in a cold wet medium, bare and fibrelcss to the depth of the 
border. Nothing was allowed to be done at the roots. The Vine must 
not be touched. The growth was gross as to length, long-jointed, and 
though it was late in starting it soon out-distanced all others in growth. 
It must be kept to its space, therefore was stopped, and it showed fruit 
on the laterals—poor things of bunches. A cane was run up, which 
ripened and gave fruit the year after, which, though it did not colour 
well, gave satisfaction, and that was everything.” Here we have a 
“sterile” Vine, with roots in a “cold wet medium,” and nothing 
allowed to be done to them, yet by a change of pruning, and that alone, 
produced fruit that “ gave satisfaction.” If Mr. Abbey will not accept 
the accuracy of the above statement it is of no consequence, for the 
comment covers everything, and he cannot very well ignore that because 
it is his own. So that it will be seen his experience and mine are 
identical on the point, and why he should ha ve asked for a “ case ” after 
he had provided one is one of those curious episodes in controversy that 
renders it very refreshing. 
Nor is Mr. Abbey a new convert to the modified extension method of 
pruning that he last year applauded and forgot having done so, or he 
would not have asked for the “ example but he approved of it years 
ago. In a description of the Vines at Chiswick in 1880 (page 139, the ' 
issue of August 12th of that year) he says, after describing the crop of 
4500 bunches in the great vinery there, “ The Vines were in the best of 
health, and owe their fertility to Mr. Barron’s practice of yearly 
encouraging new growth to replace the older growth, a portion being 
cut away each season. This, while it does not overcrowd, is clearly the 
extension system modified, and one that might be followed in the case 
of \ ines that have been planted some years with great advantage.” 
That is exactly what I advocated, neither more nor less, and now I am 
taken to task for doing so by one who has recommended the plan so 
forcibly, and who says not one word about border renovation as 
improving the Ch|swick Vines ; nor was it necessary, for on whatever 
system the Vines; were pruned their roots were all alike in the same 
medium. That \\iks and is precisely the case with the Vines I adduced 
as having been improved by the change of pruning. They were “ Vines 
that have been planted some years” (like those at Chiswick), and to 
which Mr. Abbey tells us the plan might be applied “ with great ad¬ 
vantage. He is quite ruht, and why he should turn round, not on me 
so much, but on himself, is one of those peculiarities of life that are well 
nigh incomprehensible. 
When I directed Mr. Abbey’s attention to one portion of a Vine 
having been closely spurred, and some portion of young cane extension 
left on another part of the same Vine, and asked him to account for the 
superiority of the fruit in one part and its inferiority in the other, he 
first gives the reply that “the Vine had the benefit of a favourable 
rooting medium and then, no doubt feeling the weakness of the 
argument (as obviously the same rooting medium influenced the whole 
Vine, the unfruitful as well as the fruitful parts), he goes on to say 
the “ \ ine only wanted a chance and got it.” Very true. The 
“ chance was afforded it in one part more than in the other, with the 
results indicated. I have since seen the experiment carried out more 
completely with still more striking results in the case of a very old 
Vine with its roots under flagstones. Mr. Abbey says I forget 
there are cases in which no remedy is effectual for enfeebled Vines 
save a thorough renovation of the borders. I forget nothing of the 
kind. I have said there are numbers of old Vines that would bear better 
if the “ chance ’ was afforded them, even without touching the roots, 
and if these can be afforded an improved feeding ground so mu ch the better. 
I have proved the truth of everything I have stated in my own practice, 
and have a great deal more supporting testimony than I have adduced 
fioin. Mr. Abbey and others, that a departure from the close spur 
pruning of very weak Vines on the one hand and luxuriant Vines on the 
other, with roots beyond the control of the cultivator, is often wise, if 
good Grapes ami not closely pruned barren rods are the more 
appreciated. 
I will neither lead gardeners nor the owners of gardens astray if I 
can help it, and I have the pleasure of being the recipient of the thanks 
of both for having advised methods of procedure that have led to im¬ 
provement and that mutual satisfaction that it is so desirable to pro¬ 
mote, and so gratifying to see established.— Experientia docet. 
TO THE GARDENERS OF ENGLAND. 
Owing to pressure of business at the time of the Gardeners’ Royal 
Benevolent Anniversary I was unable to attend, but having read the 
speeches on that occasion and the success attending them, I "feel bound 
in gratitude to say a few words to my fellow workers. This year the 
death of our worthy friend, “ Stevens of Trentham,” as he was known 
amongst our fraternity, suggested to me what a boon an orphanage 
would be to widows and children in the event of such a distressing 
thing happening of any of us being called away without having had a 
chance of providing for a family. I am glad the idea has not fallen on 
barren ground, and feel sure the resulting scheme will prosper. But 
what I want most to notice is the speech of the Chairman at the Bene¬ 
volent dinner. This speech should be written in letters of marble. 
After such remarks. I say gardeners have many friends, and that their 
services are more than appreciated. There is one other speech I must 
refer to, that of our noble President of the Orphan Fund. These two- 
gentlemen have testified more to the worth of gardeners as a body than 
anyone whose speeches I have either heard or read. We are apt some¬ 
times to feel depressed, but we must work hopefully and without 
murmuring. Let us try, then, to produce and make pleasant our 
occupation to the best of our abilities for our patrons and friends. I 
desire to thank all persons for their kind and voluntary support to the 
above institutions.— Chas. Penny, The Gardens, Sandringham. 
CATTLEYA AMESIANA. 
This is one of the Veitchian hybrids, and a plant is now flower¬ 
ing well in the King’s Road nursery, showing its merits to the best 
advantage. It has two racemes of four flowers each, the sepals and 
petals beautifully tinted with pale rose, the latter rather broader 
than the others and slightly undulated. The lip is large, open, 
beautifully crisped at the margin, the apical half rich crimson- 
urple, light in the throat, where it is veined with bronze, the tube 
eing white. The pseudo-bulbs are long, slender, and fusiform in 
shape, the plant in question being a strong one with eleven leaves. 
This hybrid resulted from a cross between Cattleyas crispa and 
maxima, the influence of the former parent being very perceptible- 
in the lip. There are only about seven plants in existence, five of 
which are in the leading collections of this country, and the other 
two are in the possession of American amateurs, so that some time 
will elapse before it becomes very plentiful; and at a recent import¬ 
ant sale a moderate-sized plant realised a very large sum. It may 
be ranked amongst the best of the Sedenian productions, and that 
is saying much in its favour. 
LiELIA BATEMANNIANA ROSEA. 
Several plants have recently flowered in the Chelsea nursery 
from the same cross as Lselia Bateinanniana, which was recently de¬ 
scribed and figured in this Journal, and some of them exhibit 
slightly varying shades of colour, while presenting an exactly 
similar floral form. One of these has been named rosea, and 
possesses a distinct rosy shade in the sepals and petals, while a 
slight difference is noted in the longer and more slender pseudo¬ 
bulbs. Another variety has a predominance of orange in the 
sepals and petals, approaching to the tint found in Sophronitis 
grandiflora, one of the parents. It has been proposed that this 
hybrid should be named Sophro-Cattleya Batemanniana, and though 
the title is a somewhat cumbrous one it has the advantage of 
suggesting at once the bigeneric origin of the plant. 
CYPRIPEDIUM ORPHANUM. 
At Kensington last week F. G. Tautz, Esq., obtained a first-class 
certificate for a plant of this hybrid Cypripedium, which has been 
flowering at Chelsea for some time. It is a pretty and distinct form,, 
the peculiarly neat outline of the flower and its clear colours render¬ 
ing it attractive. It is one of the few seedlings raised at Chelsea of 
which there is no certain record of the origin, and in consequence 
of its parentage being lost it has received the suggestive name 
given above. With so many minute plants to deal with and attend 
for a number of years before their characters are shown in their 
flowers it is surprising that accurate particulars can be afforded with 
such a large proportion when introduced to the public, and it in¬ 
dicates the systematic care bestowed upon them. Though there is 
no record in this case there is little doubt that the parents were 
C. Druryi and C. barbatum, the influence of which can be readily 
traced in flowers and habit, several characters of the former being 
observable in the flowers. The dorsal sepal is broad and rounded, 
white, veined with green in the centre, and with a dark purple 
shade towards the sides ; the petals are about 2 inches long and 
half an inch broad, the margin very even, but furnished with a few 
dark hairs at the base, with a bold dark central bar like C. Druryi, 
and a clear purplish tint in the other portion. The lip is full, well 
