536 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER 
[ December 17, 1888. 
the Committee have in all cases been sent direct to the exhibitors. A 
pleasing feature noted by the Committee was the general correctness of 
the nomenclature. 
On a general examination of the whole of the collections exhibited, 
and noting the more prominent varieties in each, the following list has 
been prepared—viz., 
Sixty of the most Prominent Varieties of Pears Exhibited 
at the Conference. 
Alexandre Lambre 
Bergamotte Esperen 
Beurr£ Alexander Lucas 
d’Amanlis 
d’Anjou 
de l’Assomption 
Bachelier 
Baltet, p6re 
Bose 
Clairgeau 
Diel 
Hardy 
Ranee 
Spae 
Sterckmans 
Superfin 
Chaumontel 
Comte de Lamy 
Conseiller de la Cour 
Doyenne Boussoch 
du Comice 
Duchesse d’Angouleme 
Durondeau 
Easter Beurrd 
Emile d’Heyst 
Flemish Beauty 
Fondante d’Automne 
Gansel’s Bergamot 
General Todtleben 
Glou Morpeau 
Huyshe’B Bergamot 
Josephine de Malines 
Jersey Gratioli 
Louise Bonne of Jersey 
Madame Andr6 Leroy 
Treyve 
Marie Benoit 
Marie Louise 
Marie Louise d’Uccle 
Nouvelle Fulvie 
Olivier de Serres 
Passe Colmar 
Passe Crassane 
Pitmaston Duchess 
Princess 
Souvenir du Congrbs 
Suffolk Thorn 
Thompson 
Urbaniste 
Van Mons L6on Leclerc 
Williams’ Bon Chretien 
Winter Nelis 
Zephirin Gregoire 
Stewing Peaks. 
Bellissime d’Hiver 
Catillac 
Gilles 6 Gilles 
Grosse Calebasse 
Uvedale’s St. Germain 
Verulam 
Vicar of Winkfield 
Of modern Pears or varieties, although not new, which are not yet in 
general cultivation, the Committee made the following selection, which 
are highly recommended for good quality both in flavour and bearing 
properties—viz., 
Beurre Giffard. 
Madame Treyve . 
Summer Beurrd d’Aremberg 
Clapp’s Favourite . 
Pitmaston Duchess. 
Beurrd d’Anjou . 
Beurrd Baltet, pdre . 
Emile d’Heyst . 
Marie Benoist. 
Nouvelle Fulvie . 
Beurrd de Jonghe . 
L’lnconnue (Van Mons) 
Duchesse de Bordeaux 
[ Passe Crasanne. 
Olivier des Serres . 
Varieties recommended by 
purposes— 
Beacon. 
Fertility . 
Souvenir du Congres. 
Marie Louise d’Uccle... 
Durondeau or de Tongres ... 
Season August 
„ September 
5 ) 11 
11 11 
„ October, November 
„ November 
» » 
„ J anuary 
» » 
5? )| 
H ), 
„ February 
,, February, March 
i> » 
Committee for growing for market 
... Season August 
... „ September 
••• 11 
... „ October, November 
••• ii ii ii 
Of new varieties, the Conference Pear exhibited by Messrs. Rivers and 
Son (season, October) was awarded a first class certificate. 
In the collections of varieties exhibited from France, and not yet 
proved in this country, the Committee recommended the following as 
worthy of introduction :— 
Beurrh Dumont. October. 
Madame AndrC Leroy. ..».••».••••• November, 
President Mas. 
President d’Osmanville . ” 
No list of the worthless varieties has been prepared, it being deemed 
sufficient in this report to notify those that are worthy of cultivation. 
Without entering into comparison of the merits of the different col¬ 
lections exhibited, it is important to notify this fact—that the cultivation 
of good Pears is not confined to any particular climate or district of the 
country. If we take the magnificent examples from M. Cornu of Jersey 
as the result of good and careful cultivation, we have their equals produced 
by Mr. Haycock and by Mr. Thomas in Kent, and closely followed by 
Mr. Wildsmith in Hampshire, and Mr. Breeze in Sussex. Many other 
single examples throughout the exhibition were equally meritorious. No 
one failed to remark on the excellence of the examples from Lord Chester¬ 
field in Herefordshire, or those further north still from Mr. Dalrymple, St. 
Boswells, Scotland, which were probably the most meritorious of all. 
Aothing contributed so much to these successful results as good and care- 
lul cultivation. As a general rule, the best fruits are produced where the 
greatest care is bestowed. An important factor in the successful cultiva¬ 
tion of the Pear is, as gathered from the returns, in the use of the Quinc e 
stock, which, from its close surface-rooting character, is more directly 
amenable to the attentions of the cultivator. 
A general detailed report is in course of preparation, but which will 
necessarily take some time. This will contain the cultural and other 
notes supplied by the various exhibitors and the selections of varieties 
made by them ; also a short descriptive catalogue of the whole of the 
varieties exhibited.—A. F. Barron, Secretary to the Committee. 
THOUGHTS ON CURRENT TOPICS. 
Mr. Hiam has again invited me to give my opinion on the cause of 
canker in fruit trees “ quite independent of anything he has written.” 
It is not very easy to consider this subject apart from your correspon¬ 
dent’s views, because it is the conflict of these with established doctrines 
that brings the matter immediately under discussion. When casually 
alluding to this subject on page 422, I was inclined to think there might 
be something in the theory of insects causing “ what is known as canker,” 
but how much it was impossible to say, so long as evidence was with¬ 
held in support of that theory; but is Mr. Hiam’s reply on page 517 
evidence at all ? It is the honest reiteration of his belief recorded with 
the best of motives, but the accuracy of his views appears only to be in 
some vague way confirmed by one individual who has “ not actually seen 
the insects.” So long as Mr. Hiam confines his observations to his own 
trees I am not in a position to say they have not been injured by insects; 
but as he makes a broad statement applying to trees generally that 
“ insects are the cause of canker,” I am not able to acquiesce. 
There are hundreds of fruit trees affected with “ what is known as 
canker,” but which is really ulceration. This is caused by the punctures 
of insects. I had this in view when writing before, and I now find 
support, then quite unexpected, in the reply given to a correspondent on 
page 529. The question in my mind was, Are Mr. Hiam’s trees ulcer¬ 
ated only, or really cankered ? If the former he is probably right in his 
opinion respecting them, but if he asserts that the genuine canker of all 
fruit trees is “ caused by insects,” I am of opinion he is wrong. I prefer 
to rely on the causes ascribed on the page quoted. One statement 
embodied therein I know is true —namely, “if the subsoil be irony gravel 
canker is almost certain to make its appearance, however young and 
vigorous the trees when first planted,” and the circumstances under 
which I gained this knowledge may be worth recording. 
Some years ago I had more to do than was pleasant with a number of 
young Apple trees, not a dozen or two of a few varieties, but hundreds, 
covering many acres of ground, embracing all the most useful varieties in 
cultivation. The trees were planted for commercial purposes, and perhaps 
no better could be had. The soil, too, appeared of the best—a reddish 
brown, sound, yet free-working, loam, 18 inches or more deep, and 
naturally drained by the gravelly brash on which it rested. The pro¬ 
prietor of the trees felt certain they would eventually be very profitable 
For a time they grew well, producing sturdy wood that was well ripened 
but in the course of four or five years canker appeared on the branches. 
They were fine trees then, with heads 4 to 6 feet in diameter. They were 
pruned, the branches doctored with strong insecticides, the soil over the 
roots dressed with manure, but still the scourge spread. Some we dug up, 
root-pruned, and replanted, but the improvement resulting was only of a 
temporary character. It became evident a cure was impossible. The 
trees were ruined, and the land sold. It was purchased by a company for 
extracting the abundance of iron it contained. It was full of iron, which 
glistened in the stones excavated. The trees I had to remove, or at least 
the few considered worth removal. The worst cankered roots and 
branches were cut away, and the trees replanted in suitable soil. They 
wore dressed with no insecticide, yet they “ grew out of the canker,” and 
have since borne many a good crop of fruit. It was an excess of iron in 
the soil, and not minute insects on the branches, that caused the destruc¬ 
tion of that great and once healthy collection of young trees. It was a 
lesson never to be forgotten of the importance of making sure of the real 
condition of the soil and subsoil before planting fruit trees extensively. 
To return to the insects. There is only one way in which these, if 
they had “caused ” the canker of the trees in their old position, did not 
injure those removed to the new—namely, being shaken oil in transit, 
and I have yet to learn that fruit tree pests can be “shaken off’’ so 
easily. I have been managing and mis-managing fruit trees for nearly 
thirty years, and have been able to trace canker to other causes, but never 
satisfactorily to insects. I have seen them in cankered portions of Apple 
tree wood under the microscope, as I have seen others marvellously like 
them in the decaying wood of a gate post; but as I was not able to regard 
the mites as the cause of the collapse of the post, I conld not consistently 
regard them as the originators of canker in the tree. This is my response 
to Mr. Hiam’s invitation, and his reply shall have my respectful consi¬ 
deration, as, though at present I must dissent from his views, his researches 
are fully appreciated. 
In the account of Rood Ashton Gardens on page 519, the writer 
informs us that Mr. Miller intends trying if a “good pail of tar” in a 
Peach house will keep wasps out of it. Possibly it may, but if it does 
not, it will, I am inclined to think, prevent the wasps eating the Peaches, 
because they will in all likelihood be flavoured with tar. I am not able 
to speak positively on that particular point, but I believe ripe fruit, as a 
rule, is a powerful absorbent of effluvia, including tar. I am able to state, 
