4i 6 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
I November 15,18*5. 
inow how long Vines have proved satisfactory in narrow borders, and 
■the treatment they received. Of course the definition of a narrow 
border will vary with individuals, but it may, I suppose, be understood 
to mean in a general way small in proportion to the Vines which 
•derive their support chiefly from it. 
My first experience with narrow borders was when a junior in an 
establishment where Vines were grown well. Pot Vines had previously 
been grown for an early supply with the uncertain result they usually 
produce. The bed in which the pots were placed was of fair dimensions ; 
then a border was made and canes planted as soon as the pots could 
be removed. As they were forced annualiv when established their life 
was but short, and after several years, when signs of weakness were 
showing, they had to make way for others. Now for such a purpose as 
this a narrow border is in every respect preferable to one of the orthodox 
description. 
At a later period I had charge of a vinery where from force of 
-circumstances the border was what was generally considered too narrow, 
and yet the Vines for about four years bore excellent crops of good 
Grapes. After that time they began to colour indifferently, although 
the bunches were of good size and the berries quite up to the average. 
It seemed as if they had nearly exhausted the soil, and the feeding to 
which they were necessarily subjected had only the effect of carrying 
them on to a certain stage, and failing when the colouring began. Even 
top-dressing a narrow border has not the same influence on the Vines 
that it has on a more proportionate one, the crowded condition of the 
roots making it more difficult for all to get a share of its virtures. 
My experience shows that for permanent Vines narrow borders are 
not advisable where borders in proportionate size to the vinery can be 
made, but, as several correspondents have so ably demonstrated, plenty of 
porous material in the soil is a matter of great importance whatever the 
size of the border.—M. D. 
THE NATIONAL AURICULA AND THE NATIONAL 
CARNATION AND PICOTEE SOCIETIES. 
(Southern Sections.) 
As the writer of the report of the annual meeting of the above 
Society, held on October 23rd, which appeared in the Journal of Horti¬ 
culture (page 390), I take exception to Mr. Douglas’s statement that it 
was an inaccurate one. It was a .fair, honest, and independent report, 
and my simple aim was to bring before the notice of florists the fact of 
the existence of societies that have of late appeared to hide their light 
under a bushel, and by giving publicity to the fact of their existence 
seek to increase their usefulness. As I am not in any way responsible 
for the “adverse criticisms” founded upon these reports, it is not 
necessary for me to refer to them. The main point in Mr. Douglas’s 
•contention is, not that I was guilty of an inaccuracy, but of an omission 
—namely, that I said nothing about application being made to the 
Royal Horticultural Society. I was 'silent about it because I heard 
nothing respecting it of a definite character. The place for holding 
next year’s Exhibition of the National Auricula Society was certainly 
discussed, and a general condemnation of the Drill Hall at Westminster 
indulged in. Those who were at the Exhibition held there in April 
last will remember it was so dark within that the colours of the 
■flowers could not be determined with accuracy. It was assumed that 
ns the R.H.S. gave the Society nothing in 1888 they were hardly likely 
to do so in 1889, therefore it was agreed that Messrs. D’Ombrain and 
Ilibberd should approach the Crystal Palace Company to see if terms 
•could be obtained from that quarter. I objected to going to the 
Crystal Palace on the ground of its distance from London, and I said 
that supposing the Council of the Royal Horticultural Society were to 
agree to carry their meetings to Chiswick, that it would be better to 
hold the Show there without a subsidy than at the Crystal Palace with 
one ; but 1 heard nothing about approaching the Council of the R.H.S., 
and, indeed, that seems to be an afterthought on the part of Mr. 
Douglas. Mr. Douglas appears to think that he as the Secretary to these 
Societies should have, and indeed possesses, the exclusive right to send 
reports of their proceedings to the gardening papers, but I hold that the 
annual meetings of these Societies are as interesting to horticulturists 
as that, for instance, of the Royal Horticultural Society. They are 
■Societies appealing for public support, and it is only fair the public 
should be made acquainted with their proceedings. I object altogether 
to Mr. Douglas regarding these Societies as his sole property. Their 
existence is known to comparatively few, and for want of the know¬ 
ledge they do exist, but this knowledge should be conveyed by means of 
impartial and independent reports, and not by those prepared by their 
officials, such reports being too often coloured according to circumstances. 
—Richakd Dean, Ealing , W. 
CANKER IN FRUIT TREES. 
Referring to some comments on my paper on canker by two of 
your correspondents, I think Mr. Kruse may be led astray if he relies on 
analysis of his soil as a guide in estimating the ingredients of the 
manure required to supply its deficiencies. The father of modern agri- 
■culture, Liebig, says “ Analysis gives but rarely a correct standard by 
which to measure the fertility of different soils and Ville, “ The most 
laborious analysis is not able to throw light upon the most vital and 
essential questions of practical agriculture.” The reason for this is very 
simple. Although the chemist can accurately determine the severe 
ingredients of a soil, he cannot distinguish between such as are soluble 
and available by the plant and those which are insoluble, and con¬ 
sequently inert; therefore in attempting to cure canker the application 
of a complete manure, containing all which may be required for perfect 
growth, is more likely to produce satisfactory results. It is extremely 
improbable that the iron in Mr. Kruse’s soil is a cause of canker. The 
3'38 per cent, given in Dr. Voelcker’s analysis is far from an excessive 
quantity. Some of the most fertile soils known contain three times as 
much of the peroxide. Nor need he have any fear of the acid in super¬ 
phosphate producing injurious effects, but its use may involve a question 
of economy, as recent experiments seem to prove that undissolved phos¬ 
phates are equally beneficial. 
Some misapprehension exists of the object of my paper. It was not 
intended in any way to describe the nature of the disease so well known 
as canker, but to suggest what are the circumstances under which it 
may make its attacks, and the means by which these may be warded off, 
and possibly the disease cured. 
It is not improbable that the disease itself may be due to the fungus 
referred to by Mr. Fraser in his paper on “ The Enemies of the Apple 
and Pear,” as Nectria ditissima—it is so stated in De Bary’s book on 
fungi, Oxford, 1887, on the authority of two German naturalists, R. Hartig 
and R. Goethe—but while it would be absurd without^siiffioient reason 
to question the conclusions of such distinguished authorities, there need 
be less hesitation in expressing a doubt as to the relation of Acari to 
this disease. Some of these little arachnoids, notably the red spider, 
are the most troublesome pests with which the gardener has to contend, 
but others are not enemies. The scarlet mite (Trombidium holosericeum), 
to which I suppose “J. R. S. C.” refers, being carnivorous is probably 
beneficial, and has about as much to do with canker as its much-abused 
relative has with the disease of the Eucharis. 
Our knowledge of the animal and vegetable parasites affecting 
plants is yet in its infancy, and the injury done by them is, I believe, 
increasing. Patient observation may in time enable us to work out the 
life history of these terrible,pests and discover means of averting their 
attacks. In the meantime we cannot do better than encourage healthy 
growth. It is patent to the most careless observer that both animals and 
plants when well nourished are not so subject to the attacks of parasites 
as those in ill condition. Topical applications of insecticides and ger¬ 
micides may give temporary relief, but the good gardener has occasion 
to use them but rarely.— Edmund Tonks. 
I have read all the articles in the Journal on this subject with 
interest, and I did not intend to intrude with any remarks^ until I 
noticed my name mentioned by your correspondent, “ J. R. S. C.” I am 
very pleased to see that the subject has received so much attention at 
the late Conference. It would be presumption on my part to follow 
these scientific papers with my poor abilities. A member of our 
Amateur Gardeners’ Society was once asked to give a paper on a subject 
with which it was known he was familiar as a practical grower, and his 
answer was that he could not, and in his simple and unaffected way said 
he knew nothing about it, “ only from experience.” Another was asked 
to give us his experience on “ bult-growing,” especially Hyacinths, as he 
was well known to have been a successful grower. His reply was, I can 
give it in a few words, it was to this effect, “ Fill your pot three parts 
full of soil, place your bulb on it, and then fill up with soil, and water 
occasionally.” My experience of canker and its cure remains so far 
about as short. If 1 get rid of the live stock or acari my trees remain 
healthy, notwithstanding the soil, climate, weather, drainage, and bad 
sorts for cankering, including Wellington and Ribston Pippin. I should 
like to see a piece of the cankered wood referred to on page 407, “ and 
others near cankered with no insects upon them.” I am afraid I am too 
much like Thomas of old.—J. Hiam. 
ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
The usual fortnightly Committee meetings were held in the Drill 
Hall, Westminster, on November 13th, but the duties of the Committee 
were extremely light. One side of the large hall sufficed for the 
exhibits. 
Fruit Committee. —II. J. Yeitch, Esq., in the chair. Present: 
Messrs. Crowley, Cummins, Blackmore, Willard, J. Smith, Denning, 
Cheal, P. Barr, and Marshall. Mr. E. H. Woodall, St. Michael’s House, 
Scarborough, exhibited a dish of Grapes under the name of Mrs. Clarke, 
described as a seedling from Gros Colman and as ripening earlier and 
colouring more freely than the parent. The bunch sent was small and 
not well coloured. A seedling Apple unnamed and undescribed was 
shown by Mr. Kent, Denver, Downham Market. Mr. W. Roupell, 
Harvey Lodge, Roupell Park, London, S.W., staged a collection of fifty- 
seven varieties of Apples, comprising good examples of Peasgood’s 
Nonesuch, The Queen, Ecklinville Seedling, Stirling Castle, and 
Loddington. A bronze Banksian medal was awarded. He also showed 
a basket of Pears, comprising two fruits of Pitmaston Duchess weighing 
respectively 10 and 15 ozs. from trees grown in pots out of doors ; two 
fruits of Baltet Pere and Louise Bonne, both from trees on the Quince 
stock, were also exhibited. A. Lane, Esq., Mileham, Leigham Court 
Road, Streatham (gardener, Mr. Thornton), also exhibited a collection 
of Apples. A collection of Onions came from the Society’s garden, also 
a dish of Stachys tuberifera, and a few examples of Beetroot. Mr. 
Willard, The Gardens, Holly Lodge, Highgate, exhibited specimens of a 
new vegetable described as Asparagus Chicory, and stated to be suitable 
