218 
JOURNAL OF HORTIGULa'URE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
September 6, 1894. 
the fact that several species of birds greatly reduce their numbers ; 
but, of course, the temporary effect of the explorations they carry 
on does not improve the appearance of any lawn or field. Starlings 
are described as hunting for the grubs in hundreds, or even in 
thousands, rooks prey upon them, also the missel thrush, and other 
birds. Poultry, if turned out where they abound, will clear off 
some of them, and, as Miss Ormerod remarks, even pigs might be 
of use, were it not that their mode of ploughing up the ground 
with their noses would do damage to the turf worse than that caused 
by birds. But the most reliable method of keeping the insects 
under, next to encouraging its bird foes, is, Miss Ormerod thinks, 
the capture of the beetles by shaking them off the plants or trees 
they visit. This can be done in the daytime, better still at night, 
when they have settled down to their repose. Lime and other 
alkalis, scattered over the land in autumn or winter, may be of 
some service, also diluted gas liquor, but an objection to that, and 
to other strong smelling applications, is that they may drive away 
birds without extirpating the grubs. 
The Rose chafer, called by entomologists Cetonia aurata, is 
a much larger insect, and, from its golden tints, looks very metallic 
when it is flying in the sunshine. It has the peculiarity of extend¬ 
ing its wings without at the same time spreading out the elytra or 
cases, which are only raised a little. Many years ago I noticed 
this beetle flying by hundreds along a Privet hedge in one of the 
market gardens then existing at Fulham, and felt convinced 
that the larva or grub could not feed upon wood solely, as was 
commonly supposed then, but that it was probably a devourer of 
roots, or the beetle would not have occurred thereabout in such 
profusion, though there were orchards near in which some decayed 
trees might have been found, no doubt. Recent observations prove 
that the larva is frequently subterranean in its habits, perhaps 
preferring the larger roots of trees for its food when these are 
decaying, and occurring upon them sometimes in parties. Their 
growth is slow, the larval life continuing for three years, after 
which they construct a strong cocoon in which they become pupae. 
Should they feed in gardens upon various roots the grubs, it is 
presumable, are seldom distinguished from those of the cockchafer. 
Like that species, they are stout and fleshy, but have shorter feet, 
and upon the body rows of reddish hairs. The beetle, as a visitor 
to flowers, has been noticed to favour those that are white ; it often 
visits Roses, Honeysuckles, Candytuft, the Elder and Privet bloom, 
as already remarked, and occasionally, at least, gnaws the necta¬ 
ries, and the lower part of the petals. I am not aware of any 
recent instances of damage arising therefrom, but this insect is 
known to visit Strawberries while in flower, and it is said to have 
a fancy for Turnips that are grown for seed, when it bites the 
anthers off the flowers. The sound produced by this chafer is a 
rather musical hum or buzz, quite different to the droning noise of 
the dor, and the shrill chirp of the musk and other beetles.— 
Entomologist. 
THE NUTRITION OF ROOTS. 
As Mr. Bishop in his last communication (page 168) states 
that he considers I have wilful'y “ perverted a great deal of 
his articles,” I think it is time this controversy was brought to 
a close. It is quite bad enough to have to try to make sense and 
to puzzle out the meaning of Mr. Bishop’s communications, without 
being told that I have “perverted his articles.” Those readers 
who have followed this discussion must judge between us on this 
point. They have the whole matter before them. Under these 
circumstances I do not propose to reply to Mr. Bishop further 
than is necessary to terminate the controversy as quickly as 
possible, but I wish to explain to my readers my reasons for taking 
this step. Firstly, when once an opponent begins to charge his 
adversary with wilfully “ perverting his articles” he will continue 
to do so whenever he is driven into a corner. Secondly, if I am to 
go on replying to Mr. Bishop’s statements, and he alters them as 
fast as I reply to them, where is the matter to end ? What I mean 
is this, after T have gone to the trouble of replying to Mr. Bishop 
on a certain point, and have shown him that he is talking nonsense, 
he wriggles out of it by saying that “ what be ought to have said 
was something different.” Is it right; is it fair that he should be 
allowed to do this ? 
To illustrate my meaning more clearly I will give a few 
examples. Mr. Bishop states that “air assimilates food.” When 
the absurdity of this is pointed out to him he passes it off by 
raying his MS. was wrong, and he ought to have said something 
different. Not a word of regret, not a word of apology. Again, 
Mr. Bishop enters into an elaborate explanation to show what he 
really did mean when he said that “ when water passes off from 
the surface of the soil by evaporation it leaves all its solid 
impurities behind.” Now, when I read Mr. Bishop’s original 
paragraph I was astonished. Here was a man stating that 
rarefied water contained solid impurities in solution. How can 
anything which is dissolved be solid ? This is quite as absurd 
as stating that air assimilates food. I sent the paragraph to a 
scientific friend of mine, and asked him what he thought Mr. 
Bishop meant. He replied, “ I do not think Mr. Bishop himself 
knows what he means.” I mention this to show the trouble I 
have taken to try to understand Mr. Bishop’s statements. My 
impression is that when Mr. Bishop wrote the paragraph he 
meant that the water passed off in vapour, and left everything 
behind on the surface of the soil, and that is the meaning I have 
put upon it. 
As regards Mr. Bishop’s explanation of what he means when 
he speaks of “rarefied” water (page 169, paragraph 3), is there 
any man in England who can see either sense or meaning in it ? 
First he says it is normal water in a bucket ; then he speaks of 
water at a very high temperature (boiling water he means, possibly); 
then he speaks of it as vapour. 
In the next paragraph (page 169) he makes mincemeat of his 
former statement that water exists in an intermediate state 
between water and vapour (page 100), as he says “ that water 
remains liquid until it turns into steam or vapour.” 
Mr. Bishop (page 100) says “ that the roots imbibe moisture as 
it is in process of evaporation, and he defies contradiction.” I 
will not contradict him ; he shall do it himself. On page 169, 
paragraph 6, I find him saying, “ My impression has always been 
that the roots being cooler than the soil and cooler than the air 
the roots condense this moisture or vapour into water, and assimi¬ 
late it. Here we have him stating that (1) roots imbibe moisture, 
not water ; (2) that roots imbibe water, not moisture. Wonderful, 
Mr. Bishop ! Space will not permit me to go any farther ; but in 
concluding my reasons for wishing to close the discussion I will 
say I never came across anybody who contradicted himself so much 
or so often as Mr. Bishop does. 
I may be drawing too largely on the credulity of my long- 
suffering readers. Be that as it may, I ask them to believe me 
when I tell them that if I do not reply more fully to Mr. Bishop it 
is not for want of matter or facts for the purpose. Now I suppose 
Mr. Bishop, when ho reads as far as here, thinks he has nothing to 
do but step forward and claim the victory. Alas ! “ There is 
many a slip ’twixt the cup and the lip.” Before I finally leave 
this question I will compel my opponent either to prove himself to 
be right, or to prove me to ^ wrong. This, of course, with the 
Editor’s permission. 
So here I challenge Mr. Bishop to produce any authority, 
accepted as such by the scientific world, in support of the following 
statements which he has pot forward, the greater number of which 
are in his own words, and which form the basis on which his 
theory rests. 
1. That roots of plants do cot absorb their food in actual liquid 
water (page 100, paragraphs 2 and 4). 
2. That roots of plants absorb their food by means of moisture 
which is not actually liquid, but in process of evaporation (page 
100, paragraphs 2 and 4). 
3. That roots of plants condense moisture into water and assi¬ 
milate it (page 169, paragraph 6). 
4. That moisture in the soil, not in a liquid form, can and does 
contain all the elements of plant food (page 100, paragraph 2). 
5. That vapour can and does hold in solution elements of plant 
food, gaseous or otherwise (page 169, paragraph 3). 
6. That moisture, not being actual liquid water, can rise in the 
soil by capillary attraction (page 100, paragraph 2 ; page 169, 
paragraph 5). 
7. That oxide of hydrogen exists in an intermediate state 
between vapour and water (page 100, paragraphs 2 and 6). 
8. That when the suriace of the soil becomes dry by excessive 
heat, that the moisture which exists low down in the soil is not a 
liquid nor yet vapour (page 100, paragraph 2). 
As I am most anxious that there should be no misunder¬ 
standing regarding these statements, and as Mr. Bishop has never 
said in plain English “ that roots of plants do 7iot absorb their food 
in actual liquid water,” I wish to repeat here the paragraph in 
which I Ihink it will be generally admitted that Mr. Bishop very 
fully and plainly infers that such is the case. Here it is (page 100, 
paragraph 2) : “Moisture which exists low down in the soil, when 
the surface becomes dry by excessive heat or drought, becomes 
rarefied, and is diffused, carried by capillary attraction to the 
surface. Can this moisture be called water? Can it be called 
vapour, while one is a liquid and the other an invisible compound? 
I say, No. It is a condition between the two capable of dissolving 
—more so than actual water—soluble elements and compounds 
which can be assimilated by the plants. Do not understand me to 
say water applied, or which falls in rain, or is forced up as in 
springs, is not water; nor that the roots cannot make use of it in 
