1872 .] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
383 
Journal of Horticulture; but even this did not 
save it, and it quietly retired, leaving no vacancy 
in the journalistic world. Not long ago we had 
the Western Gardener, published in Kansas, 
and the Western Pomologist made its ap¬ 
pearance in Iowa. After a while these two 
periodicals coalesced, and formed the Western 
Pomologist and Gardener, which after a brief 
career has united with the Horticulturist. 
We leave out of our account the local Califor¬ 
nian Horticulturist and a Southern journal or 
two. So far as these various publications have 
deserved well of the public, we have spoken 
well of them, and we should not now allude to 
the many disasters attendant upon the publica¬ 
tion of horticultural journals did not some of 
these put on airs which demand a little plain 
speaking. When “Tilton’s Journal” suc¬ 
cumbed, the “ Horticulturist,” with a wisdom 
wonderful to behold, gave its views as to the 
reasons for the want of success of horticultural 
journals. It said: 
“The agricultural journals of the present day have 
stepped over into the field of horticulture , and by engaging 
horticultural editors, writers, etc., draw away a great 
many from the patronage of the horticultural magazines.” 
Hear further the words of wisdom: 
“ In the older days of the Horticulturist this was not 
so. No agricultural papers were then treating specially 
on horticultural subjects, and every one looked to the 
Horticulturist, and nowhere else , for its appropriate 
information.” 
The “Western Pomologist,” taking up the 
same theme in its dying issue, said: 
“Public journals, assuming the title of agricultural or 
horticultural, should confine their teachings in accord¬ 
ance with the title by which they represent themselves 
to the world. * * * Agricultural papers, therefore, 
should never admit to their columns articles purely hor¬ 
ticultural. * * * While agricultural journals may, 
with strict propriety, urge upon farmers to plant orchards, 
and even flowering bushes and plants, as homo adorn¬ 
ments, yet it is not expected, nor would it be within 
their legitimate province, to descant upon the particular 
varieties of the apple, the pear, the peach, or any other 
kind of fruit; to speak of their size, shape, color ; their 
various times of ripening, their keeping qualities, the 
growth of the tree, whether it was hardy or tender. Or, 
in raising flowers, to point out the almost countless vari¬ 
eties and colors of the rose; whether they should be an¬ 
nuals or monthlies, with innumerable other matters 
belonging to the floral kingdom. These all properly 
belong to the horticulturists.” 
Now that the Western Pomologist and Hor¬ 
ticulturist are united, we may look for a com¬ 
bined wail against those horrible agricultural 
journals. These good people do not consider 
that the attention given by agricultural journals 
to horticulture—a subdivision only of agricul¬ 
ture—have made purely horticultural journals 
possible. The Horticulturist was established in 
1846. The oldest agricultural paper we have at 
hand as we write is a volume of the Agricul¬ 
turist for 1842, in which we find that the “ hor¬ 
ticultural” articles bear about the same propor¬ 
tion to the other matter that they do in the 
issues of the present year. The whine of the 
Horticulturist and the expiring groan of the 
Western Pomologist will not deter the agricul¬ 
tural journals from supplying their readers 
with such material as they require. If the en¬ 
gagement of “horticultural editors” by the 
agricultural papers has drawn “away a great 
many from the patronage of the horticultural 
magazines,” as the Horticulturist asserts, why 
on earth does not it engage a horticultural edi¬ 
tor, and not be excelled in what it claims as its 
own specialty by the Country Gentleman, 
Rural New Yorker, Prairie Farmer, American 
Agriculturist, and several other agricultural 
journals? The whole history of journalism 
shows that the public will buy an article that 
they want, and no amount of scolding will 
bring success to a periodical that people do not 
want, however it may be labeled. We are 
glad that the Western Pomologist and the Hor¬ 
ticulturist are united, as it wfill give the Horti¬ 
culturist an editor, which it has long needed. 
So longas it rests its claims upon its own merits 
we shall give it a good word, but when it tries 
to explain away its own want of success by the 
superior enterprise of the agricultural journals, 
we shall show up its folly by quoting its own 
words. We may just here remark that no one 
ever saw in the Gardener’s Monthly any jealousy 
of other journals. It welcomes, and quotes, 
and criticises every earnest worker in the cause 
—a course which we commend to the Horticul¬ 
turist in starting out under its new regime. 
When our neighbor gets out a patent on horti¬ 
culture as an invention of his own, then he may 
prevent others from writing about it. Only we 
can’t help thinking what funny horticulture it 
would be if it were only dispensed by a certain 
journal which we need not name. 
Amaranths as Ornamental Plants. 
Perhaps the most notable among the new 
plants of last spring was the Willow-leaved 
Amaranth, Amarantus salicifolius. It was ex¬ 
tensively advertised and indorsed by English 
cultivators, and hundreds of our people who 
are on the lookout for novelties have marie a 
trial of it. It has in some cases proved a com¬ 
plete failure, and in others a most gratifying 
success. The reason for this difference we will 
presently explain* Not quite so new, but still 
strongly commended, were Amarantus tricolor 
gigantens —an improved form of the old “Jo¬ 
seph’s Coat”—and Amarantus atropurpureus , 
a variety of the old “ Love-lies-bleeding.” This 
last we may dispose of by saying that it is a 
miserable, coarse, weedy thing, that in the gar¬ 
den bears no more resemblance to the colored 
plates sent out from Germany than does the 
sleeprg half-dead boa-constrictor of Barnum’s 
menagerie bear to the raving, ramping, and 
violently-twisting “sarpent” upon the show¬ 
bills. The first two species., salicifolius and 
tricolor giganteus, are good or not, according to 
circumstances. Tliorburn & Co., who kindly 
send us spring novelties, sent us seeds of all 
three kinds. These seeds were sown in boxes 
iu a gentle liot-bed, and came up well, but the 
young plants seemed to make very little progress. 
Being very desirous of making a show of these 
new Amaranths, we assigned to them a large 
circle in the most conspicuous place in the lawn. 
Happening to call upon a florist-friend, we 
found that he had salicifolius and tricolor gigan¬ 
teus in pots, and several times larger than our 
own seedlings, and we arranged for a number 
of each. In planting the bed, we found we had 
not enough of the potted plants from the florist, 
and filled out of each sort from our own seed- 
boxes. Now for the result. The plants of salici¬ 
folius from the florist reached the liight of 
eighteen inches and died, those of the tricolor 
giganteus grew about eight inches high and fell 
over dead, while those from our own sowing 
grew some four feet iu liight, and were still ad¬ 
vancing, but the defection of the others left the 
bed so one-sided and ragged that the whole was 
cut away to make room for other plants. The 
plants which we procured from the florist had 
become pot-bound, and immediately stopped 
growing and began to produce seed, and in the 
act of providing for their perpetuation they ex¬ 
hausted themselves, and having fulfilled their 
career died. The plants from seed sown in 
boxes had plenty of root-room, and after being 
transplanted went on growing, as they should 
do, and began to make a fine show, when, for 
appearance’s sake, they occupying only a small 
part of a large circle, they hail to be removed. 
Now, this experience teaches two things. 
First: Never allow ornamental annuals to be¬ 
come checked in their growth, but keep them 
pushing from the very start. Second: Do not 
decide upon the value of a plant from one trial. 
If we had only planted out the potted plants from 
the florist’s we might have justly recorded our 
experience with these Amaranths as adverse. 
As it is, we think with proper management both 
the salicifolius and tricolor giganteus will prove 
valuable garden ornaments. 
The Arnold Arboretum. 
Mr. Arnold, who died a few years ago, at 
New Bedford, left a large bequest to Harvard 
University for the establishment of an Arbore¬ 
tum. It has finally been decided to locate this 
Arboretum on the Bussy farm, about ten miles 
south of Boston, where the School of Agricul¬ 
ture is already under way. The details of the 
work are to be under the immediate control of 
Professor Sargent, who is eminently well quali¬ 
fied for it. He proposes to lay out the ground 
(137 acres of well-diversified land) as a natural 
park, with drives and rvalks tastefully arranged, 
and leading from one family to another, in scien¬ 
tific order, of all the trees and shrubs hardy iu 
this climate. It will be the work of more than 
a single lifetime to complete the arrangements 
contemplated, but it will not be long before 
the Arboretum will assume a useful form. 
The ultimate result will be so important, 
whether we have regard to the pleasure or to 
the instruction of those who may be able to 
visit it, that we trust all who are interested in the 
advancement of scientific horticulture will give 
this beneficent enterprise the encouragement 
and assistance of their best efforts and sympathy. 
Something about Corn. 
This season we have had numerous samples 
sent us of corn in which the ordinary manner 
of growth is departed from. People in different 
parts of the countiy seem to have been more 
observant than usual, for we have rarely gone 
through a field of corn without finding some of 
these abnormal forms, and they are common 
enough to those who are on the lookout for 
such things. Some of the specimens come ask¬ 
ing us to give an explanation and cause of the 
occurrence. It is very difficult to assign causes 
for the abnormal things we meet with, but per¬ 
haps we can throw a little light upon it. In the 
first place, we must premise that the structure 
of the flowers of Indiau-corn is difficult to de¬ 
scribe to those who are not quite familiar with 
the structure of grasses in general; for the Corn 
is only one of the large family of Grasses, and 
one too of a sub-family which is one of the most 
difficult to study. It will serve our purpose to 
saj* that the corn-plant has flowers of two 
kinds. Those in the tassel are staminate, or 
male, and their business is to produce the 
fertilizing powder or pollen. These flowers 
are produced in a loose terminal spike, along 
the branches of which they are arranged. The 
pistillate or female flowers are inclosed by 
leaves or husk, and the only visible part of these 
is the long styles, which protruding from the 
husk are popularly known as “silk.” Each 
