\n Uhumtrti. 
TRAINING GRAPE VINES: 
The UyiuKtoii »y«teui. 
Acheebi.e to our promise, made last 
■week, we offer the following comments 
upon Mr. Edwin F. Underbill's essay on 
“ The American Grape . „ 
Vine," which appeared in l 
the last volume of the Ru- I 
ral New-Yorker. We J! 
fear, however, that it would i V j 
be injustice to Mr. Bying- r Y\ 
ton to suppose that be J ft 
really does, or has followed J 
the system accredited to \ 
him by Mr. Underhill, f// 
for it is scarcely possible <L 
that he could have been \ 
successful for auy consid- 11 ) ]| 
erable time or number of j 
years. But as he has never f c J 
attempted to correct errors, Vi 
if there were any, we must \ b 
suppose he fully indorses 'j 
the whole. Mr. Underhill 
shirts out with this sweep- {« 
ing assertion, Vol. XXII., 1 
page 236: a 
“An extended observation / 
of the methods of culture ji 
jfenerally pursued in the of c#.. 
Rnii>e-ltrowlnK rejrlona on the n S 
AliunUo Slope, the Lake re- ll \\ 
glon and the Mississippi Val- Ik h J] 
ley. 1ms eonviuoed rne that qj 7 
our system of planting, train- Jh I 
ing and pruning vineyards is J L, I] 
inherently wrong." \51 
inherently wrong." Ui 
And a little farther on he i 
says: L 
“The early vineyards of /J 1 J 
America were modeled on the Q / 
North European system. * * ij ( 
Hence, many early vineyards \\ Cri 
ot Isabellas and Cfttnwbas Y\. 
were planted With the vinos V4 ryA ( 
only three leel apart in either V4y 
dirocUon, and trained to sin- "Cl 
gle stakes, though experience Jl 
showed thnt it was Impossible tijf 
to oonflno these ranU-growing 
American vines to the apace 8U 
thus given them, yet for many 
years the distance was not m- iSSSEtyn 
creased to more than six foeU’ 
We certainly do not know FlG ‘ 1- 
to what particular period Mr. Underhill, 
refers, wlien he says the “ early vineyards," 
but the allusion to the Isabella and Catawba 
serves as a key to liis thoughts, and wc must 
presume that he means those planted within 
the last fifty years. But let us examine the 
writings of some of our old vincyardists, 
and see if they followed or recommended 
the European system of planting vines only 
“ three feet apart." 
John Apltjm, in bis "Memoirs on the 
Cultivation of the Vine,” Washington, D. C., 
1823, says, on page 26 u The rows should 
be marked out from southeast to northwest, 
at the distance of twelve feel, from each 
other, and ilmse rows he crossed again at 
five or six feet distance." 
The above certainly does not show that 
our early vincyardists recommended close 
planting. 
At.phonse Lotm.vT, in his work, "Ameri¬ 
can Vine Dresser’s Guide," printed at 22 
Wall street, New York, 1827, says, on page 
26 " The richer U is, (the soil,) the farther 
apart the plants should be. If you use 
horses for plowing, the roots ought to be at 
least six or seven feet distant, and eight 
or nine if oxen arc used.” 
Wm. R. Prince, iu Ills treatise on the 
vine, 1830, page 242, says:—“I therefore 
think that if the rows are planted six feet 
asunder in the same manner as the foreign 
sorts, the vines should be placed twelve feet 
apart iu the rows.” We might, if necessary, 
quote from a score of authors to prove 
that our "early vineyards” did not fail in 
consequence of close planting; in fact, giv¬ 
ing too much room was then, us now, a 
great and very common mistake, and the 
nearer we have approached the best Eu¬ 
ropean systems, iu both plantiug and 
pruning, tlie greater has been our success. 
We will quote a passage from another of 
oitr early writers on this subject, to show 
that we had a few vincyardists forty or fifty 
years ago who had carefully examined both 
sides of this question. 
John James Dr four published his “ Vine 
Dresser’s Guide at Cincinnati in 1826, and 
on page 153 he gives his opinion on this 
mooted question as follows:—“Upon the 
distance from each other vines are to be 
planted in a vineyard there is a great di¬ 
versity of opinion, as in other things not 
precisely determined. Prejudice, 1 suppose, 
has been greatly the cause of it. I was my¬ 
self in the opinion once that the more the 
sun could strike on the bare earth between 
them, the more the grapes would ripen." 
In another place he explains the fallacy of 
wide planting, and allowing the vines to run 
a great distance, and we have failed to dis¬ 
cover any good reason for believing that 
any American vineyard was ever the worse 
for close planting, provided il was properly 
pruned. Many have been destroyed through 
neglect, and the vines allowed to hear too 
much fruit, hut such failures should he at¬ 
tributed to the proper cause, and not to a 
system that has had nothing to do with it 
whatever. 
We are not inclined to criticise Mr. Un¬ 
derhill’s essay very severely, for in many 
things we agree with him; but, as several 
of our correspondents have asked us to ex¬ 
press an opinion upon the soundness of some 
of the positions assumed, wc comply, mainly 
for the purpose of showing those who are 
not well posted in the history of grape cul¬ 
ture that the system proposed has been 
brought forward many times, and always 
ended in the same way, i. e., abandoned ns a 
failure. With this explanation, wc resume 
by quoting another passage from the essay : 
“I propose to criticise the ordinary uiothods 
of training nnti pruning, ami to explain the de¬ 
tails of a system of pruning which is essentially 
American in its origin and especially adapted to 
insure the success ol grape culture m our 
country." 
Then, after referring to Gutot’s and the 
old alternate renewal system, he introduces 
Mr. Bytngton’s, whose vines, he says, are 
planted from sixteen to twenty-four feet 
apart iu rows, and are trained on a system 
" essentially American in its origin, and 
especially adapted to insure success, Ac.,’ 
but what there is about it that is essentially 
American we fail to discover. Planting the 
vines so wide apart is not, for in Lombardy 
and in other portions of Europe, vines are 
planted even further apart and trained upon 
trees, but grape culture has not reached a 
very high position in these provinces. Neith¬ 
er can the mode of training be accredited to 
this country, for Speechly gives a descrip¬ 
tion and illustrations of a similar system in 
his work, and Mr. Clement TIoare, to 
whom Mr. Underhill refers, and copied 
from, was an Englishman, and wrote and 
published his work in England. This same 
work was re-issued in Bostou, in 1837. 
Mr. Underhill says that, 
“In training his vines, Mr. Bvington arranges 
His canes, as far ns may be, in conformity with 
the fan sv-tont, his aim being to tiavc the load 
ot fruit evenly distributed over the trellis." 
But the illustration given, as well as the 
description, is certainly a great remove from 
the “fan system,” for it is nothing more nor 
less than the old alternate renewal system so 
often introduced, but never a success. 
The “ Fan system " of training i9 an ex- 
been trained in accordance with several of 
the well known “ arm and spur systems,” 
but the next annual pruning we will intro¬ 
duce the “alternate renewal system,” as 
described by Mr. Underhill. 
Every alternate upright cane, at A, (see 
Fig. 2,) and the-others are shortened to three 
^ ’ or four feet. Now- it is sup- 
posed that the buds on the 
\ long canes will push and bear 
)/ fruit, as shown on -0, aud at 
the same time, new and strong 
/f shoots for fruiting next year, 
v yvill grow from the buds left on 
V the spur. A; but unfortunately 
for the advocates of the sys- 
tern, such desirable results are 
Y| seldom obtained. If the vines 
$ arc very vigorous, strong canes 
will usually be produced the 
Tf first season after the alternate 
IL system is introduced, but when 
we come to cut thebearingcane 
C, we find no good buds at its 
bftse, because they have grown 
Fio. 3. into bearing shoots the pre¬ 
vious season; consequently, if another cane 
is desired in its place, one of the w-eak buds 
on the side or fruiting spur, must be selected 
for this purpose. But even these difficulties 
might be overcome, it it were not for the 
fact that the entire natural tendency in the 
growth of the vine was against us. Every 
vine grower knows that the sap rushes with 
great force to the extremities of the vine, par¬ 
ticularly to the highest point. By glancing 
at our illustration, it will be seen that our 
hearing cane, 0, also the other three, which 
are supposed to be in the same condition, al¬ 
though not shown for convenience, are three 
or four feet higher than the spurs cut at A. 
The sap will flow- into our long canes with 
far greater force than into the spurs, for thc\ 
are not only higher, but the foliage also as¬ 
sists in attracting it thither. So strong is 
this tendency of the sap to rise to the high¬ 
est point, that we have seldom seen an up¬ 
right cane with bunches as perfect at both 
top and bottom, as those shown in our illus- 
1 tration, or in that furnished us by Mr. Un¬ 
derhill. Unless a constant S 3 r stem of pinch- 
■ ing off the young shoots is resorted to in 
Inrirulturf. 
THE LIATRIS, 
Among hardy perennials the Liatris de¬ 
serves a prominent place in every collection. 
It is of the easiest culture, thriving in al- 
1 LIU r *iu uig uu tuv jv - -* 
cellent one, and extensively adopted by our summer, tbe upper bunches will be fully de- 
t _ . _nn.o m#na+ UiffinnHv whll •r.-.ln r! on 1 1 tut, irtwi>r ones small and irn- 
best vincyardists, The great difficulty with 
all the alternate renewal systems is, that they 
will not work in practice, although they look 
well in theory and on paper. We will 
endeavor to make this clear by a short des¬ 
cription of tbe " alternate renewal system,” 
and not any one in particular, for they are all 
essentially the same, whether the vines arc 
planted tw-o feet or forty apart. The train- 
veloped, and the lower ones small aud im-; 
mature. 
Mr. Clement Hoare, who labored in¬ 
dustriously to make this alternate system 
succeed, discovered his mistake, and endeav¬ 
ored to check the flow of sap to the upper 
buds on the hearing cane by bending it in a 
serpentine form, ns shown in Fig. 3; but all 
such distortions act only temporarily, be- 
i « x 
jn<r visually commences as soon as the vines cause, as soon as the leaves are developed, a 
. at t a 1 . m _ * 1 1 — . /» ~ AanmAfl AOUlt nnP.R 
are well established and aufficUitly strong to 
produce canes six to ton fcec long, and in 
nearly all the systems two strong canes, as 
shown ill Fig. 1, is the starting point for any 
ami all tbe different systems. We will now 
suppose that our vines are in this condition, 
and they are to be trained on the alternate 
renewal system as shown by Mr. Underhill. 
The t wo canes arc pruned or shortened to 
_ . . . < < ^ 
new set of cells are formed over the old ones, 
and a free aud unobstructed channel is pro¬ 
duced. 
We have no particular choice in any of 
the well known good systems ot training 
grape vines, but feel in duty bouud to say 
that no alternate renewal system ever intro¬ 
duced was a success, and w-e should as soon 
believe that a man can do more work by 
1 lit? IdVU bULlCa ill ^ JHUIIW ' vuwu - • — 
the length required, which must be varied standing on his head than on his feet as to 
according to their strength ; if very vigorous, believe in such a system of training the vine, 
four feet will not be far out of tbe way. They As for late spring pruning, we believe that 
are then bent down ami fastened horizon- jf vines are too strong ami vigorous, it is a 
tally to the first or low-cr wire on the trellis, good way to weaken them. Because a vine 
The first season the buds will push very j oes not show signs of being injured by se- 
unifonnly on the whole length of these canes, vere bleeding, it is no proof that it is not, 
which we will henceforth call “ arms.” n0 r that such a system will not, in the end, 
Every hud, if fully developed, will produce a be disastrous, 
hearing shoot, but only a small portion must — V * T1I . ~ 
be allowed to grow, tat tabroken off after «4 Mfffe Committee 
U,ey heye posted to a few mebea in leogtli. Homicultnral Society, in his 
In disbudding or break,ng out the young of 11 morn Concord, 
shoots, a careful distribution along the arm 
of these canes that are to become tbe basis 
of our system should be made. We will 
suppose that four shoots are left on an arm 
four feet long. 
U1 I UV, -- — - 
report, claims that the Hartford, Concord x 
Ives and Clinton, are the great aud success¬ 
ful grapes for Illinois. These should he on 
every farm and at every household. Land a 
little too poor for a good crop of corn, is just 
ggyggplipfgp 
Fig. 2, 
m 
Wh/ r 
Ua 
lift' 
• mi 
R Wy, 
KvV 
are borne in a very dense spike on stems 
five to six feet high, while tbe L. cylindracm, 
found in nearly tbe same localities, grows 
only about a foot high, and the spikes of 
flowers very short and narrow. The more 
common L. spicata should not be overlooked 
in making up a collection of these plants. 
The Liatris continue in bloom for a long 
time, usually commencing in July, and they 
are readily propagated by dividing the 
roots, or from seed, sown ns soon as ripe. 
.— --- 
AMARYLLIS CULTURE. 
Mrs. M. A. White, Petersburg, Ill., wish¬ 
es to know how to make her Amaryllis 
bloom when grown in pots. She has five 
varieties, namely —A. fnrmosiwmvs, Titta- 
ta, BeUadona, Grandiflora and Lutea ; the 
first named is the only one that has yet 
bloomed. 
The Amaryllis is not a very satisfactory 
class of bulbs for house culture, as they re¬ 
quire a high temperature when at rest, and a 
cool one while growing. The A.formom- 
simus (which is really not a true Amaryllis, 
but a Sprclcdn i,) is one of tbe free bloomers, 
and therefore, one of the most popular sorts. 
The plants should be planted in a light, rich 
soil, and while growing given plenty of 
water; but as soon as the leaves show signs 
of fading, withold the water, but do it grad¬ 
ually, until the plauts go to rest, and in this 
condition leave them for two or three months, 
keeping the bulbs in a warm, dry place. 
Whenever it becomes desirable to bring the 
bulbs into bloom, commence giving water; 
a little every two or three days at first, in¬ 
creasing the quantity as the stems appear. 
If no flower stems appear, but leaves in¬ 
stead, treat in tbe same manner as before, 
and dry off the bulbs in tbe course of two 
or three months, and repeat the operation 
until flowers do appear. Some of the spe¬ 
cies persist for a long time in remaining bar¬ 
ren of flowers; but with an equal persist- 
Fig. 1.—Liatris Elegans. 
most any good garden soil. There are about 
a dozen native species. Some are found 
growing in dry, sandy soils; others in low, 
wet places along the borders of streams. 
We have grown them in a loamy soil among 
rocks, where their spikes of purplish blue 
flowers attracted the attention of every vis¬ 
itor to our garden. Among the most beau¬ 
tiful species we would select the following: 
Llntrls Elegnu*. 
This is a native of Virginia and farther 
South. It grows about two feet high, with 
a short, compact spike of purplish flowers. 
The leaves are lanceolate or linear, hut rath¬ 
er short. A spike of the flowers is show -11 
in Figure 1. 
IAatris Piuntla. 
A very dwnrf-growing sort, perhaps a va¬ 
riety of L. Boykinii. It is, however, very de- 1 
sirable to plant among the taller growing 
kinds, on account of its dwarfish habit. (See 
Fig. 2.) 
lAntris S«juavvosti. 
This is a most singular-looking species, 
but very handsome. The flowers are borne 
The first season the eight upright canes | about right for the grape. Would plant rows 
from the two arms will generally produce 
two or three bunches of fruit each, and it 
any one or more of the canes should take 
the lead and grow more vigorously than the 
others, and thereby take to themselves an 
undue share of nutriment they may be readily 
six feet distant, with the plants ten feet apart 
in the row. Advises shallow cultivation 
when young, and favors the training of 
vines on trees. Training vines on trees 
might do if the whole surface of the soil 
was kept mulched in summer and our cli- 
linUUt'SIJiUCUl UUUIU1V.-IH lllLJ ** 1 -- 
checked by summer priming or pinching off mate was a moist one, conditionally, which 
the ends. * Up to this time the vines have probably was not taken into consideration. 
Fig. 2.—Liatris Pumila. 
in a few scattering heads, as shown in Fig. 
3, instead of being crowded together, as in 
first two named. The leaves are also much 
broader, and the entire plant quite distinct. 
IAatris Pycnoetachsn 
is a native of the Western prairies, where it 
is called the "Blazing Star.” The flowers 
Fig. 3.—Liatris Sqttarrosa. 
ency on the part of the grower, they will 
finally yield to proper culture aud treatment. 
— -♦♦♦— -- 
FLORAL NOTES. 
To Keep House Plauts Without Fife# 
If any who read the Rural New - 
Yorker and love plants but cannot keep 
them on account of not keeping a stead) 
fire, they need not deprive themselves ot 
that pleasure any longer, as I know ot ser- 
everal who have kept them without Ireez 
ing, and I will tell you how, the trouble, ot 
course, being to keep them through tba 
night, when the fires are out: — Take an 
old bed quilt, put it on the floor, and set fl«J 
plants together iu the center. Bet a stand 
over them, and bring tbe quilt up over toe 
top. If any of the plants are very sensitive 
to the cold, a newspaper pinned aroum 
them would be an additional protection.— 
I A Rural Reader. 
