434 
[ May 3#1 1889. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
was that the older a tree the better would be its fruit. One 
writer, indeed, asserts that under proper management an Apple 
might thrive and bear for 800 years, which is surely a mistake ; 
but it is said trees are in existence which are presumed to be 200 
years old. 
The title of Parkinson’s book, at least the Latin one, “ Paradisi 
in Sole Paradisus Terrestris,” contains a play upon words rather 
puzzling to some people. The first part of it records the author’s 
name, Park-in-sun, so disguised in Latin, one of the meanings of 
paradise being a park or pleasure ground where a variety of flowers 
and trees were to be seen, and also animals. The book tells, there¬ 
fore, of the “Earthly Paradise of Parkinson,” and it is divided 
into three parts. These treat of flowers, of vegetables, and of fruit, 
the original edition being dated 1629. It had probably a much 
larger sale than Platt’s book. Eventually Platt obtained the 
appointment of herbalist to their Majesties, Charles I. and 
Henrietta Maria, surviving his Monarch, and living to the good 
age of eighty-three. This celebrated book has an engraved frontis¬ 
piece of the Garden of Eden, also 109 woodcuts of flowers and 
fruits. His own experiments were principally made in Long Acre, 
where he had a small garden, and in St. James’s Fields, where the 
King granted him a larger plot of ground. The lists given by 
Parkinson will enable us to judge of the state of gardening in the 
reign of James I., especially as regards the culture of flowers. Of 
Tulips he had about 160 varieties, as he thought; of Narcissuses, 
90 ; of Hyacinths, 50 ; of Irises, 40 ; and of Crocuses, 30 ; and yet 
of Roses he had only about 30 ; of the Pinks and Carnations, so 
popular just then, nearly 70 ; and he reckons 25 Primroses or 
allies. Coming to fruits, he enumerates 64 Pears, 57 Apples, 34 
Cherries, 60 Plums, 21 Peaches, and 6 Apricots. Gerarde had 
grown Monk’s Rhubarb, but Parkinson was the introducer of the 
garden Rhubarb, the seeds of -which he had from Dr. Lister.— 
J. R. S. C. 
CANKER IN FRUIT TREES. 
“Not too much canker but just canker enough” will perhaps 
express the views of the majority of readers of the Journal of 
Horticulture, therefo: e a b: eak in the controversy that has been so 
amicably conducted would not be unwelcome, especially by those 
who are not directly interested in the subject. In resuming I will 
endeavour to state why I am unable to give my entire assent to 
Mr. Tonks’theory that the affection is necessarily the result of the 
absence from the soil of some particular manurial element required 
by the variety, and which is not requisite for the health of a 
neighbouring tree of a different sort of Apple or Pear ; also I 
will state why I differ from Mr. Hiam and his friends who believe 
that canker is generally the result of an attack by insects. 
The series of articles on this subject that appeared during 
February and March were the outcome of a statement of fact— 
namely, of cankered being converted into cankerless trees by 
grafting. The soil had been admirably prepared, as was evident by 
the healthy condition of the majoiity of the trees and the good 
crops of fine fruit they were hearing. Yet some of the varieties 
failed, and in time became almost eaten up with canker. Probably 
hardier, and certainly freer growers were engrafted on the canker- 
worn stocks, and the stems quite down to the ground w r ere soon 
covered with new cortical layers, and healthier and cleaner trees 
could not be desired. When trees are in good soil those restored in 
the simple manner directed will remain healthy for years, but if 
the soil contains hurtful ingredients, such as iron in excess, or its 
fertility is not sustained, the cure cannot be regarded as permanent. 
I am thus in accord to a considerable extent with Mr. Tonks, and 
I believe there are thousands of trees which might be improved by 
the application of some such mixture as he recommends. It cannot 
on his own showing be the best for all, because he says, “ Each 
variety of fruit requires its own appropriate food, and the food 
required by one is different from that necessary for the other ” 
(pp. 169, 191). It is an interesting theory, but to use a gardener’s 
term, “ not workable.” We have yet to learn that even Mr. Tonks 
puts it into practice in curirg his own once cankered trees, for he has 
rot told us he gave each of them “different" food, and I suspect 
they fared very much alike, and what was good for one appears to 
1 ave been good for all. 
I scarcely think this gentleman has done himself full justice in 
the restoration of his trees. There is no need to tell anyone who 
sees them how seriously they have been smitten in past days, and 
it is equally clear to a trained eye that all the wounds are healed or 
healing. It is equally apparent, too, that the soil of the district is 
essentially unsuitable for fruit culture—strong, cold, and poor. It 
must have been greatly improved mechanically in Mr. Tonks’ 
garden by years of intelligent work. It has been rendered more 
friable and warmer. The change thus effected must have benefited 
the trees, but I do not for a moment suggest they could be in the 
condition they are w'ithout the added fertility ; though I am inclined 
to think he gives too much credit to the manurial applications and 
too little to his good management in other respects ; or rather that 
is what his writings convey, for no one knows better than he the 
advantages that accrue from improving the staple of previously 
ungenial soil. 
When cankered trees are restored by grafting<the improvement 
is, in my opinion, very largely, and may be entirely, due to the root 
extension consequent on invigorated growth, the trees thus neces¬ 
sarily appropriating nutriment from the soil that would have other¬ 
wise remained inert. Obviously, if the soil contains little, little- 
can be abstracted ; but in that case grafted trees fail. Where they 
succeed as many do it seems to me proof that the soil did contain 
nutriment, but the enfeebled trees nearly “dead with canker" 
could not appropriate it because—well, because they were enfeebled 4 
root and branch—and in my opinion their debility was not the- 
cause of the canker, but the result of it. 
Mr. Tonks has told us he has proved that grafting cured canker 
in the case of a Citron des Carmes Pear, which after growing and 
bearing for a time gradually commenced cankering and dying by 
degrees. He inserted a bud of the Pitmaston Duchess, and in due 
time had a fine healthy tree on the cankered stock. From this he- 
concluded the Citron des Carmes had “ used up ” the constituents- 
necessary for its health, but left in the ground those wanted by the 
Duchess. It would be very good of the early little plebeian if that 
were so for the benefit of the aristocratic dame so famous for' 
einbonpoint (I think that is the polite word), but I have a doubt 
if the latter w r ould thrive on the rejected food of the former. Mr. 
Tonks, however, takes it for granted that it is so, for he has asked' 
“ why the one flourishes in the soil in which the other perished 
from canker ?” Pitmaston Duchess is far more vigorous in con¬ 
stitution than the other ; and as strong growers have strong roots 
these would extend considerably beyond the radius of the weaker 
and derive support that the latter never reached. I do not think 
Mr. Tonks makes sufficient allowance for root invigoration and ex¬ 
tension resulting from free growth for appropriating hitherto 
unreached food in the soil. I should like him to give a little con¬ 
sideration to that aspect of the question. 
I should like to know also, if each variety requires different 
food, how the theory is reconcileable with double-grafted trees- 
Establish, say, Marie Louise Pear on a Quince stock. It may grow 
for a time under very favourable conditions, but not for long, and 
will soon canker ; but on the Pear stock in the same soil it will 
flourish, and not only so, but if a scion of Beurre d’Amanlis 
is whipped on the Quince, and Marie Louise is worked on that 
scion, then healthy growth follows. It seems to me that something 
besides particular soil constituents have an influence here. < . 
Returning to the Apple and the cause of its cankering, I wish 
to present a nut or two both for Mr. Tonks and Mr. Hiam to 
crack. The first-named gentleman attributes canker to a lack of 
some particular constituents in the soil, and the cure of his trees to 
the addition of that which was needed for their restoration ; or in 
other words, clean trees would not canker if they had what they 
wanted, and cankered trees could not be cured if something was not 
applied to the soil. Mr. Hiam is convinced that canker is caused 
by the puncture of a minute insect which eats away the wood, and 
attributes clean growth after grafting to the removal of the insect- 
infested parts (page 174), but the “ infested ” trunks were not re¬ 
moved, and he accounts for the microscopical enemies attacking, 
some varieties and not others because their taste varies, and they 
choose those they like best. 
The illustrations are photographic representations of a cankered 
branch cut from a tree at Impney. With the exception of this- 
solitary “ patch ” of canker the branches were as smooth and clean 
as branches could be, and the tree apparently in the best of healths 
The example figured has been seen by Mr. Tonks, who was quick 
to perceive the wound was healing just as satisfactorily as many of 
a similar nature were on his own trees. What caused the affection ?' 
If lack of nutriment, why did every other part of the tree escape ? 
What caused the wound to heal ? Not the application of anything 
to root or branch, for nothing was applied. If insects caused it r 
what became of them ? I have seen the first canker stain many 
times, like a small brown scar or discoloration of the bark, and 
watched the development of the evil, and the drying-up of the 
“sore.” The Impney case had probably been three or four years 
developing, and one or two healing. In my opinion it originated 
from a frost bite, and is analogous to a chilblain. The tissue was 
ruptured, the sap arrested, a wound formed, widened, and eventu¬ 
ally the healing process commenced in a natural way. I do not say 
all canker is thus caused, though I am old enough to remember 
three cold and wet summers, followed by three very severe winters,, 
and on each occasion there was a marked, and in some districts an 
extraordinary, increase of canker. 
I believe any one of these causes will induce canker in fruit 
