SEPTEMBER. 
189 
great many of them), with their flowers picked off, for then the beauty of their 
foliage is seen to greater advantage. 
Among scarlets of the brighter and crimson shades, I should prefer Clipper, 
Glow, Commissioner, Manfred, Lucien Tisserand, President Reveil, and Adonis. 
Of the lighter shades of scarlet down to rose, I should choose Hector, Fo¬ 
rester, Viceroy, Bonnie Dundee, Roi d’ltalie, Excellent, Tintoret, and Rebecca. 
Of the white varieties, I should prefer Madame Vaucher, Purity, and Virgo 
Marie. I consider Purity to be the best of the whites yet out. 
Among the painted and salmon varieties, I would give the preference to 
Amelina Griseau, Fanty, Monsieur Barre, St. Fiacre, Rosebud, Auricula, and 
Eugenie Mezard. This section makes a very pleasing bed. 
As regards the pink shades, my choice would fall on Christine. Madame 
Barre, Helen Lindsay, Wiltshire Lass, and Beaute de Suresnes, are all distinct 
shades of colour. 
Among the Nosegays, I prefer Stella, Cybister, Amy Hogg, Orange Nosegay, 
Le Grand, Indian Yellow, and Waltham Seedling. 
Of the gold-leaved varieties, I would select Golden Christine, Circlet, Glow¬ 
worm, Beauty, Gaiety, Mrs. Pollock, Creed’s Seedling, and Golden Fleece. 
Among the silver-leaved varieties, I think most of Mountain of Snow, 
Flower of Spring, Mrs. Lennox, Silver Chain, Countess of Warwick, and 
Brillant Superbe. 
The above are first-rate either for bedding or pot culture, and I would 
strongly recommend all gardeners who may go to London, to try and pay 
Chiswick a visit, and they will be amply rewarded for their trouble. 
Crabwoocl , Southampton. J. C. Higgs. 
REMARKS ON FRUIT TREE CULTURE.—No. 12. 
It is a question whether root-pruning, properly so called, as applied to 
Peaches and Nectarines, is always the most judicious course that the operator 
can pursue whenever the necessity for a check upon luxuriant growth arises. 
So far as my experience enables me to judge, I am decidedly opposed to any 
extensive mutilation of the roots. It must be remembered that we possess in 
disbudding and defoliation a considerable power of control over the formation 
of roots, which arises from the fact that the action between the foliage and 
branches on the one hand, and the roots on the other, is reciprocal, and by 
checking the development of the former during the growing season, we not 
only interfere with the formation of roots, but prevent that excessive storing 
up of strength for future exertion, which results' the following season in an 
over-luxuriant woody growth. Again, if during the progress of these mani¬ 
pulations we can so modify our treatment as to produce a good supply of fruit¬ 
ful wood, and at the same time can induce that fruit to set and swell off, we 
are still better able to dispense with any severe mutilation of the roots, because, 
if the trees show any signs of excessive luxuriance of growth, it is easy enough 
to leave double the number of fruit, or even more than that, which will so far 
exhaust the energies of the tree as in most cases to interfere very materially 
with the growth, and do its part in preventing a greater degree of luxuriant 
development than such as is absolutely necessary to keep up the strength and 
increase of the tree. On the other hand, there are often cases in which this 
fruit-bearing condition cannot be brought about, because, as I have before 
observed, the growth is so rapid as to cause the fruit to fall off abortive, and 
when this is observed, instead of adopting any severe mutilation of the 
branches, it is better to allow a more free development of growth, and at the 
