62 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ July 23, 1885. 
The great success attending the labours of Mons. Bernet naturally 
excited the curiosity and stimulated others to vie with him in the 
raising of new varieties of this charming flower. Mons. Regnier of 
Avignon sent out a pretty variety under the name of Madame Hardy 
and several others of merit. A like success also crowned the efforts 
of several amateurs of Montauban, whose names are now forgotten. 
The learned Professor Lecoq of Clermont also cultivated it in his 
part of the country, but being unable to obtain any new varieties 
from seed as he lived in a more unfavourable climate he gave up 
growing. Mons. Regnier, too, discontinued its cultivation, and so for 
a time Mons. Bernet was left alone the indefatigable sower and 
raiser of the Chrysanthemum in France. 
Mons. Boisgiraud and Mons. Rarrtonet, however, soon followed in 
the way that Captain Bernet was pursuing, and both raised some 
good kinds, while later on Mons. Bonamy, a raiser noted principally 
for his Pompons, was a successful grower. 
Captain Bernet now began to exchange his seedlings with Mr. 
Salter and Mons. Pelee, and at the same time recognising in his 
nephew the late Mons. Lebois the zeal and enthusiasm of a Chrysan¬ 
themum grower, he regularly sent him half of his crop of seeds, 
thereby creating a rival whose successes, instead of exciting jealousy 
on his part, only tended to bind their relationship more tightly 
together. 
Mons. Lebois, whose name was better known among us thirty or 
forty years ago, made considerable improvements in the Chrysanthe¬ 
mum, besides sending out a large number of Pompons and summer¬ 
flowering varieties. He relates that his first attempt far exceeded his 
expectations, for he obtained a charming flower which he named after 
a fashionable opera in that day—Giselle. 
The second year’s proceedings resulted in an utter failure ; but. 
persevering in the same path, he had the pleasure of raising several 
new sorts in the third year, which were much appreciated and valued. 
—C. Harman Payne. 
(To be continued.) 
THE SPLITTING OF FRUIT. 
Quite as much progress is being made in the discussion of this important 
subjectas could reasonably be expected, considering the wide divergence 
of opinion that apparently existed on it a few weeks ago. In reviewing 
what has been said I shall endeavour to do so calmly, temperately, and 
seriously, as I think there has been enough of mere “ retorting” for the 
present. It is encouraging, too, to feel that the discussion will not be a 
barren one, but will have a practical and almost certainly a beneficial 
effect, inasmuch as it will cause greater attention than heretofore to be 
directed to the question of ventilation and atmospheric moisture in 
structures devoted to the cultivation of fruit. 
It not_ unfrequently happens in the course of a debate that those 
en " a gmg in it are tempted to press their views a little too far, and before 
a settlement is arrived at there is a slight mutual yielding all round. I 
am quite willing to modify any statement I have made if it is not justified 
by an appeal to scientific authority or ascertained facts. This is in 
response to the admissions on the “ other side,” and, from my point of 
view, in the right direction. Stubbornness is not strength. The most 
unyielding have often to give way at last, or as Mr. Iggulden suggests about 
the “ endosnr sic theory,” they get laughed at in their isolation. He can 
smile the smile of incredulity, but he cannot in that happy manner drive 
a law of Nature out of the universe, and the scoffed-at “ theory ” I shall 
have to show is a great fact. My intrepid assailant has already shown 
signs of yielding, as I will point out, and I am convinced that, protest as 
he may, he. will have yet to admit that moisture does pass through the 
skins of fruit by the action of endosmose to a greater extent than he 
appears to have any idea of. I shall not try to convert him, hut shall 
show how he may test the matter for himself, and if he dare not make a 
simple experiment for fear the results should tell against him he will not 
be in a.position to hope that anything he may say against Dutrochet’s 
great discovery can have any material weight. 
.1 have said there has been a modification of views on the subject of 
fruit cracking.^ On page 264 Mr. Thomson controverted Mr. Mclndoe’s 
opinion on 225 as to moisture passing through the skins of fruit, and 
expressed what he termed the common sense view of the matter, that the 
excess of moisture was conveyed by the roots and gimleting was the 
remedy. On page 329 he attributed the cracking of Mr. Melndoe’s fruit 
at Manchester to expansion by heat. After my citation from Dutrochet 
on page 371 he gave evidence of his receptive mind by, on page 402, 
11 quite admitting the action of both endosmose and exosmose when cir¬ 
cumstances favour such action.” That is quite sufficient. The principle is 
admitted, the precise circumstances being merely debatable. It is true on 
page 478 he “ had ” me on immersing Ferns, which I will refer to, but 
even then could not disclaim tbe endosmosic influence. 
I now turn to Mr. Hugh Henderson, who in his letter (page 526 of 
last vol.) has not only proved himself a man of metal, but has taken up a 
far stronger position against the “ endosmosic theory ” than any other of 
my respected opponents. I will come to that in due course ; at present 
I wish to report his progress. On page 422 he made the slight 
mistake of objecting to my giving the “ whole ” credit, or discredit, to 
the skins of the berries admitting moisture ; and then suggested that Mr. 
Mclndoe’s Grapes cracked at Manchester by the moisture passing from 
the air through the stems ; but that will never do, because the Grapes at 
home on the Vines had at least ten times more moisture supplied by the 
roots and remained sound. There was not the faintest admission of the 
action of endosmose ; and in his letter on page 478, in which he asks me 
some pertinent questions, he quite ignores its influence, whereas in his 
last and strongest letter against me, on the page quoted, he fully admits 
the existence of the principle. I say, then, we are progressing. 
Next we have to note Mr. Iggulden’s yielding. In his first great rush 
at myself, Dutrochet, and the doctors, on page 455, as if he would bear 
all down before him, he exclaimed “ Candidly, are there ‘ any ’ practical 
men” who will believe a dictum that he manifestly regarded as absurd ? 
yet after he “ heard from me ” (478) he rejoined by what he calls 
“again” asking (page 498) if there are “many ” believers in the theory. 
From any to many is a great jump down, and as soon as he has made it 
he falls among the frogs in .ZEsop’s fables. Then he goes on to “ defy.” 
(nothing if not strong) either myself or Mr. Mclndoe to “ crack berries in 
a well ventilated house by syringing them.” Mark the condition, a “ well 
ventilated house,” which means, if it means anything, that they might 
split in an ill-ventilated structure if syringed excessively. That is an 
instance that occurs now and then of negative evidence being as powerful 
as positive. In my young days, long before the Duke was born, and the 
Grizzly Frontignan was grown much better than it is now, a standing 
injunction was not to syringe the “ Grizzly ” or it would split; and it 
would, and it will if syringed when it is ripening, as I well know, not 
from scientific reasoning alone, but from actual experience, no matter 
how dry the roots may be kept. Having regard, then, to both positive 
and negative evidence, I think I am justified in saying we are making as 
much progress as can be expected on the not-yet-fully-understood 
“ endosmosic theory,” that, old as it is, appears to have taken some persons 
by surprise. 
Some arguments, assertions, and observations remain to be noticed. 
Mr. Henderson, on page 422, reminded us that cat flowers and fruits 
received supplies of moisture through their stems when inserted in water 
and implied, as Mr. Iggulden has done, that moisture can only pass 
through the “ordinary channels”, except in very “minute” or “infini¬ 
tesimal ” quantity. It was in answer to that (page 458) that the 
immersion of Fern fronds, with the stalks in the air, was adduced in 
evidence to the contrary. This enabled both Mr. Thomson and Mr. 
Henderson to score a point against me on page 478—namely, that no 
moisture can escape by evaporation from immersed leaves, and hence they 
remain fresh even with their stalks in the air. That is a good argument 
as far as it goes, and I must say the replies were not unexpected. Now 
then let them gather some flowers, Pansies for instance, let the petals flag 
considerably, then immerse the flowers ; also let them pluck sprays from, 
say a Rose tree, let the buds droop and the leaves become quite flaccid, 
then immerse similarly, leaving the stalks above water, and they will find 
flowers, buds, and leaves regain their freshness, which can only be by 
actual absorption and not very “ minute,” either in the case of much- 
withered leaves of Roses. This is mentioned as a point of interest that 
has arisen by the way. But to the fruit. I have never tried sealing the 
end of a lateral bearing a bunch of Grapes and immersing these, but 
Frontignans placed in water for a short time, then in a damp box kept 
close in a warm house, have split most decidedly, the temperature of 
the water and the house being 80° more or less ; so have some varieties of 
Plums, Cherries, Melons with the 6talks removed, Gooseberries, and Figs. 
The mere degree of temperature is not very material in setting up the 
action of endosmose ; it is a question of the quantity of moisture acting 
on and passing through the skins of fruit, causing a distension that they 
cannot bear, hence the emphasis that Mr. Iggulden places on the im¬ 
portance of judicious ventilation and a buoyant atmosphere. We are at 
one on that point, and I think on some others, but it will not do for him 
to yield too much at once. Of the counter action of exosmose I will speak 
when considering Mr. Henderson’s last letter. 
An opinion seems to prevail that the splitting of fruit is the result of 
an expansion of their juices by heat. Mr. Thomson suggested this as the 
possible cause of Mr. Mclndoe’s Grapes splitting in the Manchester tent, 
as described on page 304, but he takes care to remind us on page 402 that 
it was only a suggestion, not an expression of his belief. Mr. Iggulden is 
a younger and bolder man, hence does not hesitate to assert on page 498 
that the expansion of their fluids by heat is “ really the ‘ true cause ’ of 
fruits cracking,” and asks why I persistently ignore this. I have ignored it 
because not an atom of evidence has been adduced to support it; and when 
he says “dry heat does not unduly expand the juices,” he places himself in 
a very peculiar position, and if he fully comprehended the action of heat 
on fluids not another word would be required to prove the fallacy of the 
expansion theory, but as a want of adequate information is clearly dis¬ 
played on the subject, and as he has appealed to me, I will respond in a 
few lines. 
I know that fluids expand, and the degree of their expansion under 
specified degrees of heat, and, let me add, of cold or declining tem¬ 
perature, and I have reason to believe that the force of distension of the 
fluids in fruit by the action of endosmose is enormously greater than the 
pressure resulting from the expansion of the same fluids by heat. It is 
true that fluids expand by heat, but so does the surrounding air, which is 
an all-important element in the case. It is a popular fallacy to suppose 
that water only expands under a rising temperature, with the exception of 
just at the freezing point, when it expands by crystallisation. Water is 
at its greatest density at a temperature of 42° Fahr., and it expands quite 
as much, and continues expanding, as the temperature falls below the 
standard of density, as it does in the progressive increase of heat above; 
and to show how weak the “ expansion theory ” is as applied to the 
