226 
THE FLORIST AND POMOLOGIST. 
[ October, 
do not depend on any of tliem for permanent work. Then head the stem back 
to, say 4 ft. or 6 ft. of new wood, according to its strength. A good stem should 
be about the thickness of one’s thumb, and a weak one of the thickness of an 
ordinary black-lead pencil. If the main stem resembles the latter, it should be 
headed back quite close, as it would be too weak to produce good side-spurs, or 
to bear good fruit. 
Fig. 4 represents the growth from spur A of Fig. 3 ; and Fig. 5 that of the 
spur B, at the end of the third season. The properly pruned spur a has produced 
the properly placed shoot Z>, which should be now pruned as shown by the cross 
line, thus forming a close compact spur, which may subsequently be pruned for 
years after the same manner, with little apparent enlargement. The improperly 
pruned spur b of the previous season, it will be observed, is infinitely worse now. 
The shoot produced is equal to that of A, but the point bud having been left, 
the spur is now, not only unsightly, but permanently weakened. It should have 
been pruned at the lower cross line, but now that cannot well be-done. .To 
continue the same system of pruning, the cut would have to be made at the cross 
line c d. This shows clearly to what an indefinite lehgth the spurs pruned in 
this manner would attain in a few years’ time. In the course of eight or ten 
years each spur would be from 4 in. to G in. in length, and this on each side of 
the vine, which would give 12 in. of wasted empty space, besides the extra 
amount of energy expended by the plant in producing sap to annually clothe these 
long ragged spurs. For the well-being of the plant, therefore, in an economical 
point of view, no less than for its neater appearance, it is better to prune so as to 
have short close spurs.—A. F. Barron. 
TASTING FKUIT AT SHOWS. 
® HIS practice is still very common, when judging fruits at provincial shows, 
and tt is really done more to please exhibitors, than to arrive at the true 
f merits of the produce. To say which lot has the finest flavour out of 
twenty dishes of Plums, or as many dishes of Peaches, after trying to 
arrive at just conclusions by tasting, is simply absurd. Then, suppose a dozen 
fruits to be shown in each dish, how -could the merits be amved at by simply 
tasting one ? I never find that one or two represents the quality of the whole dish ; 
some being dead-ripe, while others are unfit to eat. Yet the system of making the 
exhibition-tables look disgusting by a mass of mutilated fruit is quite common at 
provincial exhibitions. Often before the day is at a close, it is a putrid mass, and 
instead of showing what first-rate examples should be, the whole character of the 
fruit is destroyed. Surely, if exhibitors in general knew how little they gain by 
the practice, and how much they lose, such a rule as cutting stone-fruit would 
never be tolerated. It is, moreover, common for judges to cut up lots of the fruit 
after the decision has been made, simply to please exhibitors, and to let them feel 
assured that their produce has been noticed. 
Another argument may be urged against this absurd practice. We seldom 
