230 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
r March 21, 1889. 
from hilf an inch to an inch be fora shortening, and the lower buds 
appear to have started the more freely, no sap escaping from the 
wounds to weaken the tree, but on the contrary, it was strength¬ 
ened by a concentration of resources in its system.—J. Wright. 
AURICULAS—PESTS. 
Of course I do not mean to suggest that the above words are 
convertible terms, but only to notice two visitors of the Auricula, 
one of which is certainly a destructive foe. This is the small 
sluggish caterpillar, to which “ J. M.” has drawn attention, and 
which we call a “ borer,” from its habit of eating down, through a 
small hole, to the heart of the plant. It carefully destroys every¬ 
thing young and tender there, and then migrates to another 
plant, into which it works a hole of larger bore, corresponding to 
its increased self-importance. 
It is not, as “ J. M.” supposes, the grub of Tipula oleracea or 
daddy longlegs. Some years ago I carefully extracted one of 
these “borers” that had injured a valuable Auricula. I took a 
painful interest in the future of that grub, and resolved to guard 
him through infancy’s hour to see what he was as a perfect insect. 
I disarranged his web, and transferred him to a waste seedling, to 
which he took very kindly. “ The bite was on him.” Covering all 
with a bellglass I awaited the course of Nature, and on his pro¬ 
motion to the rank of chrysalis I laid him on view upon a leaf of 
the plant. One morning—a few weeks after—his little dark case 
was empty, and fluttering inside the glass was a small blackish 
brown moth with silvery markings. “ That ’3 him ! ” 
The grub of daddy longlegs is much and deservedly execrated, 
but I think this confession of a moth exonerates him here. I do 
not know where the female “longlegs ” lays her eggs, but I should 
say the fine turf of lawn or pasture is a likely selection. At least 
I have found the grub and empty pupa cases there, and once saw a 
young “ daddy ” in the act of hatching out of his case, set upright 
in the ground, with just the front door conveniently projecting. 
The female insect is distinguishable by her blunter tail, an 
instrument better adapted for embroidering, say a blade of grass 
with patterns in eggs, than for making a hole in the ground to lay 
them in. If she knew how often an Auricula tally is looked at 
and disturbed she would probably not select such neighbourhoods ; 
and though I have at times found clusters of beautiful crystalline 
eggs in the soil against Auricula labels they were evidently nothing 
but the lovely progeny of the snail. 
The other visitor I allude to is the woolly aphis (Trama 
Auriculae), which is somewhat of a mystery in this—that except 
when allowed to get above ground it does not seem to affect the 
plants for ill in the slightest degree. Indeed, I cannot tell which 
of my plants have it on the roots unless I look to see, those with, 
and those without it, being in exactly the same strong health. Mr. 
Ben Simonite’s experience is precisely the same. However, when 
the insect is allowed to congregate on the neck of the plant above 
ground young fibres are checked in passing downward, but the 
woolly surroundings of the aphis are so perfectly waterproof that 
I am inclined to believe it is the drying effect of the wool—like 
that of cotton wool—which does the mischief. There is a moist- 
ne3S underground and among the crocks, and hence where the 
“ wool ” is not so dry we find no mischief from the mere wool 
worker himself. 
This aphis thrives best in any compost that is light and warm, 
as in leaf mould, and particularly if it is dry, and he makes very 
much less headway in a soil that is firm and cool. Of course, I do 
not advocate the preservation of this insect. I would advise all 
who are free from it to keep their plants so if they can, for it is, 
t> say the least, an untidy looking thing. I keep the plants 
scrupulously clear of it at the neck, and have serious engagements 
with it at repotting time, and many a skirmish at other times when 
looking at the ball of soil in pots to see how the roots are getting 
oa. It much prefers the inside of the pots, and the soil imme¬ 
diately in contact, and the crockery at the bottom, and the drainage 
materials, to any other position, so that most of the insects are 
readily within reach. It is almost impossible to exterminate it, 
except by such measures as are too severe for the safety of the 
plants. I am not speaking thoughtlessly when I say I do not care 
a pin about it. Ben Simonite is more “thoughtless” still, bio 
one can grow finer plants than he can, and he will say his plants 
are never so avell as when they have it. It can, however, be 
abundantly kept under, and plants with their roots washed with 
a solution of softsoap, tobacco juice, and rain water can be made 
perfectly free, and kept so if only the locality is new and free. 
But if the woolly aphis has been about it must not be trusted not 
to find its way back to old haunts. 
I grow a qa 1 itity of my sselling Auriculas in the open ground, 
and the woolly aphis is there, but never so much as under pot 
culture. It does not the slightest harm in the open, and at the 
same time this renders its extermination impracticable to me.— 
F. D. Horner, Burton-in-Lonsdale. 
WASH TNG THE ROOTS OF YOUNG VINES. 
Mr. Harris (page 188) takes exception to what I said on- 
page 152, but fails to prove me wrong. He says Vines subjected to 
the process of root-washing have done well at Alnwick. I do not- 
doubt that good results can be achieved by this method, provided 
the Vines have careful treatment after planting. It is surprising 
how quickly good Vines can be established by a variety of systems. 
A friend of mine takes no further trouble than the “sticking” of 
good strong Vine shoots into the border where they are to grow 
when he wants to furnish a house with young Vines. They 
certainly do not appear to make the same headway the first seas m 
as a Vine from an eye that is pushed forward and carefully attended 
in a pot for a year previous to planting ; but the second season they 
soon display the advantages of being already established, and make 
greater progress early in the season than any Vines I have ever- 
seen that have been grown in a pot and subjected to the orthodox 
system of spreading out their roots. I should expect a Vine 
subjected to this system to make a larger cane by the end 
of the season than one confined in a pot. It has greater 
facilities for doing so ; but I question whether it is a better cane or 
capable of yielding better Grapes, provided the one in the pot was 
given ample rooting medium during the season it had to ripen fruit. 
I am not advising cut-backs for planting. 
My contention is that it is impossible to shake out and dis¬ 
entangle the roots of young Vines well grown in 8 or 9-inch pots 
for planting without the destruction of large quantities of their 
best roots. It cannot be done, even by the washing princip'e. 
But why follow such a practice ? Is it followed merely to prevent 
deep planting, or the placing of the roots too low in the border? 
Mr. Harris lays great stress upon this point. Are Vines planted 
with their balls practically whole liable to make strong, quill-like 
roots, to any greater extent than Vines that have their roots washed 
and spread out ? Need those who p'ant with the bads nearly whole 
place the roots in the border any deeper than Mr. Harris advises ? 
Certainly not. He says none of the roots should be deeper than 
9 inches, Vines grown in 9-inch pots with the drainage removed 
need not be lower than this. If it c ;me to a push they need not 
be below 8 inches from the surface. Strong surface roots, or roots 
from the collar, can be as easily prevented by planting the balls 
nearly whole as when the roots are spread out. The roots of Vine3 
planted without much uncoiling will take to the surrounding soil as 
freely as if they were placed into larger pots, and earlier than 
those that are spread out. They will also fill the portion of border 
allotted to them equally as well with good fibry roots. If lifted 
out after a few years he would be a good man indeed who could 
point out any evils resulting from this method of planting. Tho 
roots strike freely in all directions into the border, and what more is 
needed? If Vines do equally well when thus planted, why destroy 
large quantities of the fibrous roots that they have made; in fact, 
why waste time in disentangling the roots and spreading them out? 
A man could nearly plant a house on the one principle while he was 
preparing a Vine or two on the other. 
The border Mr. Harris recommends is to my mind very much 
too deep. He appears fully alive to the evils that result when 
Vine roots wander far from the surface. Why provide deep 
borders ? What advantages are gained by haviog borders such a 
depth that air and warmth cannot freely penetrate through them ? 
I am of opinion that they are a waste of soil and labour, and in 
addition provide a medium by which the roots can travel, if they 
so desire, from the surface to the cold soil below. A house of- 
Vines will never occupy such a mass of soil with roots. An inside 
border the length and width of the house 3 feet deep is enormius. 
It is unnecessary.—W m. Bardney. 
A NOTE ON GLADIOLI. 
1888 was good enough to demonstrate the necessity of giving 
not only late but early varieties the benefit of a start under glass, 
in order to have them in flower, and afterwards to finish the ripening 
of the corms. As a season it was as opposed to the well-being of 
the Gladiolus as 1887 was beneficial, yet I was able to flower the 
latest varieties and to ripen the corms fairly well. It was rather 
curious to read of growers hundreds of miles to the south deploring 
the bad behaviour of their plant?, while at the time myself and 
others had spikes in plenty. Judging from the times of fliwerinz 
