October 30, 1867. ] 
JOURNAJ OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
343 
to within 3 or 4 inches of the ground, if it is light, but if there is a wall 
shading the lower part, then stronger Vines should be planted, and cut 
back at the first pruning to two or three eyes above the level of the wall 
plate— i.e., the line of light.” All this is very good advice, and the ques¬ 
tion may perhaps be summed up in some such way as this—the weaker 
Vines are the more closely should they be shortened, and the stronger 
they are the longer the canes may be left. 
But there is another point in connection with the planting and 
pruning of young Vines that ought not to be overlooked, and this is 
shortening or disbudding them before planting. Planting Vines with, 
it may be, comparatively few roots and weak canes 8 or more feet 
long, and leaving these intact with all their buds, is one of the com¬ 
monest and greatest mistakes of the inexperienced, and the cause 
of many Vines refusing to make satisfactory growth the first season. 
M r e do not know whether Mr. Barron has given sufficient prominence to 
this phase of routine, for the work teems with so many good hints and 
vital points that it is quite easy to overlook some of .them in a quick 
glance through the pages. 
Relative to the new matter in the book we find something of in¬ 
terest on the setting and non-setting of Grapes, and cite a short and 
highly suggestive paragraph :— 
“ Herr Stefan Molnor, director of the school of Vine culture at Buda- 
Pesth, has observed that the ‘ free- 
setting’ varieties of Grapes have the 
stamens erect, forming a cluster round 
the stigma ; whilst the ‘ bad-setting ’ 
varieties have the stamens deflexed or 
falling away from the pistil, so that the 
pollen does not so readily reach the 
stigmas. Dr. Englemann has also ob¬ 
served the same peculiarity, and states 
that ‘ the fertile plants are of two kinds 
—some are perfect hermaphrodites with 
long and straight stamens, the others bear 
smaller stamens, shorter than the pistil, 
which soon bend downwards and curve 
under it, these may be called imperfect 
hermaphrodites and do not seem to be as 
fruitful as the perfect hermaphrodites 
unless otherwise fertilised.’ ” 
One of the most important chapters in ithe book and quite new is 
that on commercial Grape culture. There is more information in it of 
a reliable kind than we have yet seen in the space of the half dozen 
pages. The chief British growers of Grapes for market are enumerated, 
and the magnitude and method of Grape culture in Jersey described. 
We are told that one London salesman disposed of about 250 tons last 
year, and that the aggregate market supply of Engli-h grown Grapes is 
nearly 400 tons ; that a fruiterer in Kensington sold to his customers 
last year 40,144 lbs., the cost price of which amounted to £2113 14s., or 
a little over a shilling a pound. The dates of sales and prices obtained 
by Mr. Webber are given throughout the year, and we are informed that 
some of Mr. Bashford’s vineries in Jersey are 890 feet in length by 44 feet 
wide. Methods of packing Grapes are also illustrated, and a N.B. is 
appended to the chapter worth remembering—namely, 1! Never send 
Grapes to market on Saturday.” 
. This excellent volume goes to the world with our high commenda¬ 
tion as useful to all who grow or are intending to grow Grapes, and in¬ 
dispensable to most of them who desire to feci on firm ground in their 
procedure. It is dedicated to Dr. Robert Hogg. 
Fig. 44.—Flowers of the Grape 
Vine showing position of stamens, 
a. erect, free setting; 6, deflexed, 
shy setting. 
beds over hot-water pipes, and by these means they could be flowered 
four times in the year. This, as I have argued, and again contend, 
might be accomplished one year, but it could not the next. That they 
can be flowered four times in one year is a fact, counting from the time 
they first flower, but the growth had to be made before they flowered 
first, and no allowance was made for this. Keeping the plants continu¬ 
ally growing was the basis upon which I formed the opinion that the 
disease was brought about by the cultivator, and could be prevented if 
he followed a more natural system and allowed the plants a season of 
repose as Nature demands. By the violation of this law disease may be 
caused, and under such circumstances my previous views still hold good. 
While my plants remained healthy, and they grew and increased like 
weeds at one time in these gardens, I attributed much of the success to 
a judicious periodical system of resting them. 
This brings me, however, to consider “ R. M. A.’s ” view of the case, 
for he believes that the mite is produced by resting or retarding the 
plants. Disease may be caused by retarding or carrying the process of 
resting to the extreme,as he appears to have done. But when he attributes 
the appearance of the insects to this cause—that is, a check to the 
plants, he opens up, to my mind, the vexed and questionable theory of 
spontaneous development of insect life. I could more readily believe 
that the insects were in existence, say, in the soil ready to attack the 
plant the moment it was brought into a suitable condition, or directly 
disease from any cause manifested itself. But this is a very doubtful 
view to take, and could only be proved by taking a thoroughly healthy 
plant and placing insects in the pot and watching the result. I had 
intended to test this matter, but my experiments with Eucharis have 
been upset by the disposal of our plants. I promised to record some 
experiments I was conducting, but I was prevented carrying them out. 
I received orders to sell the plants, and was determined if mites still 
existed on my Eucharis they should not prove a nuisance to any person, 
and so I destroyed them. Under the circumstances I am sorry that I 
did so, for I could before now have told if the plants were clean or not. 
All I can say is, after the skinning they received they soon commenced 
to root and grow again vigorously, and would, in the course of the 
seassn, have made good flowering bulbs. 
I am convinced that if the presence of the mite could be determined 
directly it attacks the Eucharis it could quickly and effectually be de¬ 
stroyed by washing the roots and bulbs thoroughly in any insecticide 
that would destroy aphides or thrip, but when they eat into the bulbs 
cleaning becomes a tedious and difficult process. To try and eradicate 
this pest may not be worth the trouble when clean plants could be 
obtained to start again with. This would, perhaps, not be a difficulty 
with “ R. M. A.” or myself at one time, but many are not placed in 
such favourable positions. I think it right to try and overcome such 
difficulties for the benefit of others. 
Your correspondent is evidently more certain of success than I should 
dare to be if I had once discovered the presence of the mite at the bulbs 
of my Eucharis. I hope his bright anticipations may not be blighted 
by finding before long that he has too hastily come to a conclusion. I 
thought again and again that I had overcome the pest by the plants 
starting freely and vigorously into growth, while the root activity was 
all that could be desired. But hope was quickly dispelled by the plants 
assuming their old habit of going yellow round the margins of the leaf. 
I have had them displaying every signs of doing well from three to 
nearly twelve months, but I found at last that this was only the result 
of the reduced numbers of the insects. The more thoroughly they were 
cleaned the longer they appeared to do well. I sincerely hope our friend 
will not be disappointed in finding the plants only grow and do well 
while the insects are increasing their numbers until they bring growth 
to a standstill.—W m. Baedney. 
NOTES ON EUCHARIS CULTURE. 
I have not the remotest idea who your correspondent “ R. M. A.” 
is, or whether we ever held a conversation on the subject of the 
Eucharis disease. I daresay it is possible, for I have been much in¬ 
terested in the subject for a good number of years. I ought to be pleased 
to find an experienced Eucharis cultivator boldly embodyiug the views 
I expressed some years ago. I am not, however, but should have been 
gratified if my more recent contributions on the subject had been 
confirmed instead of being mildly taken to task for changing my 
opinions. 
My earlier opinions on the disease were expressed with as much 
sincerity as my later ones. There is a tendency when certain ideas have 
once been expressed to cling to them whether they are right or wrong. 
Such methods cannot be too strongly condemned, for I have found that 
through failure we add to our store of useful knowledge much more 
than we do by success. I have modified my views on several subjects, 
and this has been brought about, not by success, but through failure, 
and I have not been afraid to communicate the results for the benefit 
of others. We are often too elated by success, and overlook the facts 
that result in successful attainments. 
I do not know that I have ever used the exact words attributed to 
me by “ R. M. A.,” “ that I could produce the disease and cure it,” but 
I have said, and written, that the disease was brought about by the 
cultivator, and could be prevented. This may be practically the same, 
but at that time I thoroughly believed that the Eucharis mite was not a 
reality. That plants were diseased I never doubted, but I attributed 
the cause to the method of culture that had a few years previously been 
placed before the public and strongly urged—namely, growing the 
plants without rest. Planting out the E ucharis became all the rage in 
FRUIT TREE PLANTING. 
All persons laying out new gardens, or betaking themselves to 
the conducting of old ones, with the soil of which they are im¬ 
perfectly acquainted, should, first of all, well ascertain the character 
of both soil and subsoil. As to wetness, or, as practical men term 
it, “sourness,” all the world knows that draining is the only radical 
cure. The opening of a few holes here and there will soon show 
if stagnation exists. But then there is the surface-soil to be con¬ 
sidered ; this may be the best loam imaginable for fruit culture, 
and yet too tenacious. It has been affirmed by men of sound 
practice that there needs little nicety in testing land as to its mere 
mechanical character, and that any land or soil on which the water 
stands for three days after a heavy rain has ceased, affords a most 
decided case for drainage. I do, indeed, think this matter indis¬ 
putable ; and I also think that, as an off-hand rule, nothing can be 
better. The character of the subsoil, however, exercises a most 
important influence on the welfare of tender fruit trees. It matters 
not talking about platforms if the bottom soil is ever damp, 
perhaps wet, and this brings us back to thorough drainage. But 
we must proceed to examine still farther the platform affair. 
I advise strongly, then, that wherever the least amount of 
grumbling exists about low situations, damp air, damp soil, and 
that sort of ill usage which a garden here and there lays claim to— 
a sort of unenviable pre-eminence—drain, elevate ; what ought not 
to be done below the ground level do fearlessly above. An honest 
Hibernian once remarked that he had, in the course of a long life, 
