400 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN, Mabch 27, 1860. 
many of which, in one season, when get out in May, attain a 
growth of six feet. My impression is that if a Vine is trans¬ 
planted in the spring, you may graft pretty successfully at any 
time that same spring. 
By the former mode I could, a few weeks ago, have shown you 
Logan , Delaware, North America, Pauline, New Hanover, and 
others, from eight to fifteen feet growth, set last spring in 
ordinary stocks. 
One important part has almost been overlooked $ you must 
select stocks of as near similar wood; for instance, Delaioare 
will hardly take at all on a rank Fox ; while upon Clinton and 
our wild Frost Grape it takes very freely. Almost any kind will 
take upon Isabella. —(S. M., American Gardener's Monthly). 
THE SCIENCE OE GARDENING. 
{Continuedfrom 'page 371.) 
Thebe are some other curious facts connected with buds, and 
of which the gardener takes advantage. Foremost among these 
is the power of some buds to produce stems and roots from 
their base at the same time. By this mode the Grape Vine and 
Hollyhock are propagated. Their power to do this depends 
upon the alburnous matter they contain, and, consequently, the 
strength of the plants thus produced depends upon what the 
gardener calls the well-ripened state of the wood on which the 
bud, or eye, grows. “ I found,” said Mr. Knight, “a very few 
grains of alburnum to be sufficient to support a bud of the Vine, 
and to occasion the formation of minute leaves and roots; but 
the early growth of such plants was extremely slender and feeble, 
as if they had sprung from small seeds; and the buds of the 
same plant, wholly detached from the alburnum, were incapable 
of retaining life. The quantity of alburnum being increased, the 
growth of the buds increased in the same proportion.”— {llort. 
Soc. Trans., ii., 115.) 
The only other curious fact we shall here notice, relates to 
what is known as the production of adventitious buds. 
There exists, says Mr. Beaton, great difference of opinion respect¬ 
ing the true origin of that anomalous production—the purple La¬ 
burnum, Cytisus Adami. Some believe it to be a cross-bred plant 
between the common Laburnum and the purple Cytisus; while 
others as firmly assert that it must be the result of artificial 
treatment, although the facts respecting the process have 
escaped notice. The question is, therefore, still at issue. Mr. 
Adam, in whose nursery, near Vitry, in France, it was origi¬ 
nated about the year 1825, believed it to have issued from a 
blind bud of the purple Cytisus inserted in the Laburnum as a 
stock in the common way, as related in the Annals of the Hor¬ 
ticultural Society of Paris in 1830 by M. Poiteau. A deputation 
from the Society was sent, after Mr. Adam’s death, to ascertain 
if the original plant was really a seedling or a budded plant. 
But the evidence of this deputation was contrary to that of 
Mr. Adam’s, and in favour of the cross-seedling side of the 
question. 
Dr. Herbert suggested a very ingenious and probable hypo¬ 
thesis to account for the possible origin of this tree, which can 
easily be reconciled with the statement given by Mr. Adam, 
already referred to. Dr. Herbert believed that the shield of the 
purple Cytisus bud might be still alive after the bud itself was ! 
destroyed, and that this live portion might unite with the La¬ 
burnum stock in the absence of a bud; and that the new wood, 
or cellular matter, which formed over the wound, between tlie 
shield and the stock, might produce an incipient bud, in the 
absence of a leading bud; and if the new bud were from an 
intermixed matter formed by the two plants, it could hardly 
fail of partaking of the two natures—that is, of the Laburnum 
stock and the purple Cytisus bud, which, in reality, it does; 
and the question is. How are we to proceed in order to obtain 
similar productions between other allied plants? for we must 
still adhere to the fact that species can only mix by pollen, or 
by this kind of union, when they are nearly related to each 
other. If it is possible to force a bud from two wounds in union 
with each other, and partaking of the natures of two different 
species thus brought together, there can be 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 two natures in the purple 
Laburnum 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 inter¬ 
mediate forms were to bud in the usual way, and when the 
union took place to kill the bud, and to prevent the edges from 
uniting by lacerating the bark till a quantity of cellular matter 
was formed, from which a bud might be expected to issue, if the 
growth of the tree were checked in other parts. It is impossible, 
however, to succeed simply by this process. The question in¬ 
volves the true origin of latent or incipient buds—a question 
that has never been satisfactorily answered by any one. 
Mr. Beaton asserted, many years since, in the “ Gardeners’ 
Magazine,” that if you cut out the buds from a yearling shoot, 
leaving only the top bud to carry on the branch, the part of the 
branch thus disbudded was incapable of producing a latent bud 
afterwards by any kind of manipulation. This assertion was 
much disputed by some in private correspondence, when Dr. 
Herbert opened the question in reference to the origin of the 
purple Laburnum. A new set of experiments were, therefore, 
set on foot, to prove if Dr. Herbert’s suggestion could or could 
not be effected; these experiments were begun in 1841, and 
carried on till the end of 1847. The most conclusive of these 
experiments we shall briefly relate, as the result is, probably, the 
only stumblingblock in the way of clearing up the mystery which 
hangs over the origin of the purple Laburnum. 
Truncheons of the common Willow are proverbial for the ease 
with which they root and produce shoots from all parts of their 
surface when planted or stuck into the ground. The Willow 
was, therefore, fixed on as the most likely plant to produce in¬ 
cipient buds. In the spring of 1841 cuttings were made from 
the stongest Willow shoots that could he 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 ones, and they 
were planted in the usual way in rich kitchen-garden soil. In 
1843, when these had made two years’ growth, some of them 
were cut below the growing branches, leaving only a bare stump. 
Now, we should naturally suppose that a Willow' shoot of full 
three years’ growth, and with abundance of roots, in good soil, 
would not refuse to shoot forth buds and twigs from all parts of 
the hark. Not -so, however; for they died away inch by inch, 
! roots and all, without ever offering to produce a single leaf. In 
; 1844, another lot of the same batch were cut, and they died in 
; the same way. After this, the bark of others was lacerated in 
: all directions, to see if buds would issue from the new-formed 
wood over these wounds, but all to no purpose; and the last 
two were cut in the spring of 1847, when they were much stouter 
I than a walking-stick, and they died also. Now, these Willow- 
shoots, although united to other Willows by inarching or bud¬ 
ding, could hardly be capable of producing a union-bud—as we 
suppose the purple Cytisus and Laburnum to have done— 
seeing that they could not do so on their own roots; at any rate 
the inference is rational enough, and can hardly be controverted. 
How then, it may be asked, can you suppose the shield of a bud 
of the purple Cytisus could be capable of taking a part with the 
Laburnum stock to produce the purple Laburnum ? We answer 
—simply, by surmising that the said bud was taken from a two 
or three-year-old shoot of the purple Cytisus, which is not at all 
unlikely, seeing how thin the bark of ai younger Cytisus shoot is. 
Another inference in favour of this view of the question is, that 
in France they have always been in the habit of leaving more of 
the young wood attached to the buds in their nursery operations 
than is generally done in England; and all of us know, that if 
a bud on a two or three-year-old shoot is destroyed, a quantity 
of incipient buds will immediately issue from the surrounding 
parts. The close-spurring of the Grape Vine is founded on a 
knowledge of this fact or principle. Therefore, we can see no 
reason why two shoots of mature age, to form incipent buds, 
may not be made to produce a union-bud, if the parts are at 
first properly arranged; and we think we can see why union- 
buds are not produced in our nurseries when the more natural 
bud fails, leaving the shield alive and in union with the stock. 
Our invariable practice is to take the buds from one-year-old 
shoots ; and we have seen, by the experiment with the Willow, 
that if buds on one-year-old shoots are destroyed, the shoots are 
not able to furnish others ; besides, it may require more than a 
season or two to ripen the young wood over wounds sufficiently 
to produce buds; and leaving a portion of the young wood 
attached to the bud, may have something to do with the time 
required.—J. 
( To be continued.) 
