THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION, December 2, 1856. 149 
tances which the secondary branches are to take upon the 
wall for that object. The ultimate vertical growth I allow 
the main stems to reach is fourteen feet; but I do not per¬ 
mit fruit above the height of twelve feet, for the following 
reasons :—Exceeding fourteen feet, the Vines are not so 
manageably under control; and above twelve feet the fruit 
appeal's beyond what I think a comfortable line for the eye; 
besides, the idea of gaining a larger produce than the twelve- 
feet superfices would yield, is to grasp a larger quantity of 
bunches, though not, in point of fact, a greater weight of 
fruit. Two feet apart is the distance I give between each 
two secondary branches, viz., at two feet, measuring from 
the ground level, allow a pair of buds to grow from the 
main stems, one opposite the other; train the shoots hori¬ 
zontally, to meet and to pass even to their extremities; 
then stop them for good, and pinch away every lateral 
they make in its infancy. Possibly, three similar tiers of 
secondaries, at two feet apart, may be achieved this season ; 
and these tiers are for the purpose of producing the 
fruit-shoots next year; therefore, what fruit they attempt 
to form at present, pinch it ruthlessly away. Train a 
pair of horizontal fruiting-shoots nine inches below the 
secondaries just mentioned, and allow them to bear two 
bunches of Grapes each. They should be stopped at three 
leaves beyond the nearest cluster directly the fruit is set 
after its blossoming, and not allowed to elongate again. 
What laterals they form should be pinched back to one leaf 
when they are quite young; and when the Grapes have 
attained the size of early peas, thin them out with a sharp- 
pointed pair of scissors to an extent that the berries which 
remain shall hang perfectly free, in space sufficient to admit 
thrice their circumference between each other; in the 
meantime, the rule of finger-and-thumb should have been 
discreetly given to the spray upon the main stems. No 
central lungs are encouraged for the future; but two or 
three equidistant shoots may be allowed to grow on each 
stem, upright, out of the way, and made secure with zinc 
wire; for it is always advisable to keep up a growing dis¬ 
position, and to encourage an active root action, by leaving I 
a few branches to revel at their pleasure; and it is for this 
purpose that the two feet extra length above the fruit-bearing 
parts to the main stems is given.— Upwards and Onwards, i 
(To be continued .) 
NAMING FLORISTS’ FLOWERS. 
Under this head I was charged by “ H. C. K.,” who I 
take to be the same as “ Sylvester,” with teaching nonsense, 
and I accused him for meddling with such things, as he 
evidently did not understand the subject; not that he does 
not understand Latin, but that he is not aware at this 
moment of how it is applied in the language of botany. A 
man may be able to parse every line of the flEneid back¬ 
wards, and yet not be able to name a Daisy in botanical 
Latin. I said Diadematum regina was wrong in a trade list, 
and that Diadematum regium was the name I gave and 
“ intended.” “ H. C. K.” said that Diadematum regina 
“ had the advantage of being sense,” and there are others, 
from whom I should expect a better knowledge of the 
matter, who have fallen into the same error; but their 
“ ear ” is vitiated with the names of the florists. Scientific 
men never use the substantive genitive plural for a specific 
name, or so extremely rarely that I cannot call a single 
instance to mind. The florists have ninety-nine out of a 
hundred of all their names in either of the two genitives, 
singular or plural—more often the latter, as Geant d,es Ba- 
tailles, Rex rubrorum, and Queen of Scarlets. But to give 
“ H. C. K.” the benefit of a “ suppose,” that the genitive 
plural was commonly used, as he thought, I should have been 
barred from it in that instance, because of the accent which is 
on the antepenultimate vowel, making such a harsh pronun¬ 
ciation as no “ cultivated ear ” could submit to pro¬ 
nounce. Diadematum would be sufficient to throw a lady 
into fits, while a maid of honour could pronounce my word 
Diadematum with a smile. Knowing that I should be “ out 
of court ” on the genitive plural, and out of the fashion on 
the accent, I followed the best authorities, who had named 
the greatest number of plants in the same genus, and I pro¬ 
duced a smooth name, and one as good as is to be met with 
from my predecessors. I might have told all that at first; 
but, on seeing the glaring error of a man so positive, and 
knowing I held the ace and all the honours in my own 
hand, I chose rather to play out the game, and take my 
chance of more of the “ slips; ” and now I shall tell you 
how they came tumbling in, as I was quite certain they 
must have done. 
Finding me so positive, he knew there must be a screw 
loose somewhere, and the plain question he asks is, “ Tell 
me on which vowel is the accent in your word Diadematum.” 
1 answer, That is just the question you should have asked 
before you could be in a position to perceive whether I was 
right or wrong, seeing that you do not know the language of 
our science. 
The next question he asks is the following : “ Is there, 
then, in the Latin language, such a word as Diadematum, i, 
2 dec. n. ? ” There is not; and if there were, I could not use it 
in the nominative singular, because it is not the fashion to 
use it in that case, in conjunction with an adjective, in our 
Latin. 
The next “ hand ” admits that “ he believes the name 
intended is Geranium diadematum regium.” Is it, therefore, 
logic to “ believe ” in a thing, and to believe it an error for 
another to believe the same ? How could you know that I 
did not believe as you do, or that I did not “ intend” the 
name to be as you believe ? and how could you have founded 
the charge against me without knowing that 7 did not 
intend it to apply that way ? You are as wrong in this last 
conclusion, however, as you were in the original charge—I 
did not intend it for Geranium. Those who understand this 
matter know that Geranium had been separated from this 
group of plants as early as 1788, and that before that period 
the custom was to give the specific names, not in two ad¬ 
jectives, and never in the genitive plural, but in many ad¬ 
jectives, and mostly in the ablative plural, as, Geranium 
calycibus monophyllis foliis adscendentibus lobatis pubescen- 
tibus} “ the Balm-leaf Geranium.” But the truth is, I 
am not responsible for Diadematum at all; I only took it on 
my shoulders in order to have the better opportunity of cor¬ 
recting a growing evil—that of honest people putting their 
fingers into other honest people’s pies, without knowing of 
what they are made, and that of lending the ear to a false 
standard of pronunciation, rendering it more repugnant to 
the unlearned than it really is, although it cannot be denied 
that botanical pronunciation is just what it is. Pliny used 
the adjective Diadematus with the accent on the penultimate, 
thus— Apollo diadematus; but whether the adjective is de¬ 
clinable or not is more than I can tell, and I suspect is 
more than university men can tell me. I never saw it but 
in us and um. L’Heritier in France, and Sweet in England, 
are the best authorities we have on the Geraniacese; the 
latter wrote Pelargonium diadematum before I could con¬ 
jugate the verb amo. Subsequently he wrote Pelargonium 
diadematum rubescens, and bicolor followed, but from whom 
non mi recordi. The three beauties flourished, then faded, 
and last of all they died, and were buried in one grave. 
While they were in dormito , men of the names of Bindley, 
Loudon, and Donn went through the land, numbering 
such plants, and, of course, missed the Diadems. Twenty- 
seven years after their funeral I happened to learn some¬ 
thing about them which was not quite free from suspicion, 
and knowing the grave, and that the law against grave 
“ lifting ” was repealed, I had them taken up, examined, 
proved, and found another gem upon them better than the 
rest, and I named it regium, in conformity with the ancient 
usage of the family, that puzzled some and deceived others, 
to whom it may be a consolation to know that the highest 
philosophers were on the wrong scent a few years since, 
exactly in the same way, by a name which Dr. Bindley gave 
to one of his books, Nixus Plantarum. “ What on earth 
could Bindley mean by such a name ? ” Was “ Nixus ” an 
adjective or an adverb, or what ? or did he make a slip of 
the pen, while he meant Nexus ? From whisperings it came 
to gabble ;* but the Doctor explained as I have done this day. 
Nixus Plantarum, the tendencies of plants or of the vege¬ 
table kingdom—“ Astra, quse se nixu suo conglobata conti¬ 
nent,”— Cicero; therefore all the dons were wrong: the 
word was quite different. 
* Cribble gabble —obsolete Scotticism for scolding, gossiping, and 
intermeddling. 
