December 10. 
THE COTTAGE GARDENEE. 
107 
of two different species thus brought together, there 
can he no doubt about our being able to push this 
process farther than can be done by means of strange 
pollen in the usual way ; and we think it can be done, 
for we perfectly concur in Dr. Herbert’s view of the 
(question. The well-known fact, that the two natures in 
the purple Tiaburnum aspire to separate themselves 
from the union, and assume their original character, 
cannot be accounted for on any other principle. 
The means which Dr. Herbert suggested for effecting 
intermediate forms were to bud in tire usual way, and, 
wherr the rrnioir took place to kill the brrd, and to 
prevent the edges from uniting by lacerating the bark 
till a quairtity of cellular matter was formed, froirr 
which a bud might be expected to issue, if the growth 
of the tree was checked in other parts. It is impossible, 
however, to succeed simply by this process. U.’he 
(prestioir iirvolves the tiare origiir of latent or iucipieirt 
buds—a question that has rrever been satisfactorily 
answered by arry orre. 
'We asserted, rrrarry years sirrce, in “ The Gardeners’ 
Magazine,” that if you crrt out the buds frorrr a yearling 
shoot, leaving only the top brrd to carry on the 
branch, the part of the branch thus disbudded was 
iircapable of producirrg a latent bud afterwards by any 
Idird of manipulation. This assertion was rrnrch dis¬ 
puted by soirre irr private correspondence, when Dr. 
Herbert operred the question in refererrce to the origin 
of the pirrple Laburnum. A new set of experimerrts 
were, therefore, set otr foot, to prove if Dr. Herbert's 
suggestion could or corrld irot be effected; these experi- 
rrrerrts were begun irr 1841, and carried on till the end 
of TS47. The most conclusive of the.se expernnerrts wo 
shall briefly relate, as the result is, probably, the only 
stumbling-block in the way of clearing up the mystery 
which hairgs over the origiir of the prrrple Laburnum. 
Truncheons of the comrnoir Willow are proverbial 
for the ease with which they root and produce shoots 
fi'onr all parts of their surface when planted or stuck 
into the ground. The Willow was, therefore, fixed oir 
as the rrrost likely plant to produce incipient buds. In 
the spring of 1841, cuttings were made from the 
strongest Willow shoots that corrld be procured of the 
former year's growth. They were two feet long, and all 
the eyes or buds were carefully cut out, except the 
three top orres, and they were planted in the usual way 
in rich kitchen-garden soil. In 18-43, when these had 
made two year’s growth, some of them were cut below 
the growing branches, leavirrg only a bare stump. 
Now, we should naturally suppose that a Willow shoot 
of fitll three year’s growth, aird with abundarrce of roots^ 
irr good soil, would not refuse to shoot forth buds and 
twigs from all parts of the bark. Not so, however; for 
they died away inch by itrch, roots and all, without 
ever oft'ering to produce a single leaf. In 1844, another 
lot of the same batch were cut, and they died in tlio 
sanre way. After tliis, the bark of others was lacerated 
in all directions, to see if buds would issue from the 
rrew-forrrred wood over these wouirds, brrt all to no 
purpose; and the last two were cut irr the spring of 
1847, when they were much stouter than a walking- 
stick, and they died also. Now, these Willow-shoots, 
althorrglr rrrrited to other Willows by iirarching or 
budding, could hardly be capable of producing an 
uniorr-brrd—as we suppose the purple Cytisirs arrd 
Laburnum to have done—seeing that they corrld not 
do so on their owir roots; at any rate, the irrfererrce is 
rational enough, and can hardly be corrtroverted. How 
then, it may be asked, can you suppose the shield of 
a bud of the purple Cytisus corrld bo capable of taking 
a part with the liaburnum stock to produce the prrrple 
Laburnrrrn? We answer—simply, by srrrrnising that 
the said hud was taken from a two or three-year-old 
shoot of the purple Cytisus, which is not at all unlikely, 
seeing bow thin the bark of a younger Cytisus shoot is. 
Another inference in favour of this view of the question 
is, that in Frarrce they have always been irr the habit 
of leaving rrrore of the young wood attached to the buds 
in their mrrsery operations than is gerrerally dorre irr 
England ; and all of rrs know, that if a bud on a two or 
three-year-old slroot is destroyed, a quantity of incipient 
buds will immediately issrre frorrr the surrorrndiug parts. 
The close-spurrirrg of the Grape Vine is founded orr a 
knowledge of this fact or principle. Therefore, we can 
see no reason why two shoots of matirro age, to form 
incipient buds, may not be made to produce an uirion- 
bud, if the parts are at first properly arranged; and ! 
we think we can see why rrnion-buds are not produced 
in our mrrseries when the more natrual bud fails, 
leaving the shield alive and in union with the stock. 
Our invariable practice is to take the buds frorrr one- 
year-old shoots; and we have seerr, by the expsririrent 
with the Willow, that if buds on one-year-old shoots are 
once destroyed, the shoots are not able to furnish others; 
besides, it may require more tharr a season or two to 
ripen the young wood over wourrds sufficiently to 
produce buds; arrd leaving a portion of the yorrng wood 
attached to the bud, may have sorrrething to do with 
the time required. 
After wx-ighing these coirsiderations, we think the 
safest way to treat Dr. Herbert’s hypothesis will be 
to inarch two shoots of closely-allied species, not less 
than three year-s old; to bring an eye of each shoot 
directly opposite irr the iuarclred part, to prevent the 
worrnd healing over in the vicirrity of the brrds for tire 
first seasoir; arrd when the jurrction of the edges took 
the followirrg year, to destroy the buds, or the shoots, 
which rrray have sprung from them, and to cut away 
some of the surface-bark frorrr behind the buds, so that 
if incipient brrds were forirred at all, they must coirre 
frorrr the sides next to the wounded parts; and if the ! 
irritation caused by keeping the wound frorrr healing ' 
over has forced the yorrng nratter from the two shoots j 
to rtru into each other, arrd finally to have formed one | 
solid body, there can hardly be any doubt as to the 
issue of this experinrerrt. Let it first be clearly ascer¬ 
tained that it is possible to produce an rnriorr-bud, arrd 
then there need be rro linrits to the application of the 
process.—D. 
