402 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
February 24, 1894. 
THE ROSE GARDEN. 
The precarious aspect of Rose trees and bushes 
just now is giving a good deel of trouble as well as 
creating much anxiety. A somewhat unusual 
feature is found in the very general breaking of 
buds, so that if pruning follows to secure late 
growths, that cutting back will have to be very hard 
indeed. If this difficulty can be fairly well sur¬ 
mounted in the case of many of the hybrid 
perpetuals it is of greater concern in the case of free 
growers that do not as a whole like very hard prun¬ 
ing, and in their case it would seem as if the pre¬ 
cocious shoots already fully an inch or even more in 
length would have to take their chance. There is 
no help for this, for it is not at all possible to devise 
means whereby the forces of Nature when they 
conduce to growth could be checked, whilst nothing 
is easier than to give them material assistance. 
One of the products of a season such as is the 
present should be invariable early planting hence¬ 
forth. Those who have planted late, or perhaps not 
even yet, but purpose doing so, must, it they have 
any knowledge of plant physiology, realise that 
precocious top-growth before roots have been 
formed, or have in any way got touch of the soil, 
can have poor prospects of making during the 
season for Roses either good heads or roots. There 
is no time for planting like the end of October or 
early in November, for just then not only is the 
wood full of sap that will in the course of Nature 
descend downwards, and thus readily assist in the 
formation of roots, but the soil a few inches in 
depth being then on the average warmer than is the 
external air, the one induces to root action and the 
other to bud rest. Not enough, as a rule, have 
those who plant all descriptions of hardy deciduous 
trees and shrubs studied this characteristic. If they 
did more so, we should seldom hear of deferred 
planting after the most natural season is long past. 
It was an old custom, now, it is hoped, no longer 
honoured, to put in raw manure about the roots of 
Roses when planting them. The result invariably 
was the driving out at the first, and soon to be 
exhausted, coarse pithy shoots that never produced 
good flowers, and later, when hard pruned, so far 
from breaking well, always did so badly. One of 
the defects of nursery Roses is that, having been 
grown in rich soil to force up these strong growths, 
they transplant badly into soil elsewhere of much 
less grossness, and hence myriads of comparative 
failures. The same thing very commonly happens 
in the case of fruit trees, and I have heard market 
growers say they cannot purchase from nurseries 
where the growth is too gross, because the trees 
soon canker or become stunted after the transition 
into poorer soil. That Roses will bear plenty of 
feeding once they have become well established there 
can be no question, but then such feeding is always 
best when applied from the surface. As with fruit 
trees so with Roses, the roots that are kept near the 
surface and are well fed always produce the best 
results both of wood and of flowers. 
One of the chief reasons why standard Roses do 
so indifferently when planted on grass, is because 
the roots cannot be fed ; get them, however, into 
a bed on border, the soil of which is holding and 
has been deeply worked, and interspersed with 
dwarfs; where, too, manure mulchings and ample 
soakings are given; there they do splendidly, 
provided the sorts worked are suitable to the Brier 
stocks. It is very much a matter for surprise that 
more Roses are not raised from cuttings, as many of 
the fairly strong growers do so wonderfully well on 
their own roots. Any one can in that way pro¬ 
pagate their own plants if they have enough of 
elemetary knowledge how to make cuttings, and to 
plant them in the ground. Budding, however, is a 
garden practice that, because of the mechanical 
nicety attached to it, renders it peculiarly 
attractive to amateurs ; and, indeed, it is not at all 
uncommon to find stocks either for standards or 
dwarfs growing in cottage gardens and allotments, 
when the occupiers have some knowledge of the 
pleasant art of budding. 
The getting of stocks, however, is to many of 
these the chief trouble. So far as standard Briers 
are concerned, there still are plenty about in the 
hedgerows, but they are now made more difficult of 
access. Some day, it seems probable, unless special 
preserves of Briers for stock production be pro¬ 
vided, that the home supply may fail. If hips be 
obtained in the autumn, be stacked or stored in soil 
for the winter, and the seed sown in the spring, it 
may be possible to raise some of the strongest to 
ultimately form standards. Certainly dwarf Briers 
for budding may thus be had in plenty. Then of 
the Manetti, it would almost pay to get a plant, and 
put it in one corner of the garden, where it will 
occupy no valuable space, and every year when it 
has grown strong take from it stout cuttings to 
presently root into stocks, The pretty Polyantha 
Roses will in the same way give good stock material. 
As to the present difficulty arising from the too 
precocious growth of Roses, we can but advise 
patience. Pruning will have to be sometime hence 
deferred, and when it is, great help may be given to 
the new start if mulchings of manure be applied, 
and if the weather be dry some soakings of liquid 
manure be added — D. 
- —- 
BEES AND THEIR PROPENSITIES. 
If there are any lines in the English language more 
familiar than those composed by Dr. Watts, in 
relation to these insects, I do not know them. More¬ 
over, naturalists of all classes, from Aristotle down¬ 
wards, have commended the bee for his intelligence, 
his industry, and his general usefulness. Judge, 
then, of the shock which my feelings received on 
reading your editorial remarks on p. 352 of The 
Gardening World, condemnatory of the usefulness 
of this favoured insect as a fertilising agent. I 
rubbed my eyes in astonishment and read again; 
but mirahih dictu ! the print did not err, and a 
second perusal confirmed the first impression. Your 
comments, I ought, perhaps, to say, had reference to 
a discussion on this subject by the 'members of the 
Horticultural Club, some of whom had been stigma¬ 
tising our little whilom friend (or his supporters) 
most unmercifully. But, I would ask, in all earnest¬ 
ness, were your remarks intended to be serious or 
sarcastic ? As, if the habits of any insect is fully 
known, surely it is those of the “ busy bee.” I have 
been awaiting developments, but as no further 
reference—except a facetious one by Mr. McMillan, 
p. 386—has resulted, I trust this inquiry will act as 
a stimulus to others, and that some further informa¬ 
tion will be afi'orded. 
I take it, however, that neither his intelligence nor 
his industry is called in question—only his horticul¬ 
tural utility ; for you write that ” the eulogies of the 
bee as a fertiliser won’t stand the test of observa¬ 
tion. "Surely there must be something wrong here, 
for all observers have testified to this salient quality 
in the bee’s career. Hitherto I have regarded this 
point of his character as beyond reproach. So that, 
before I can admit that he is not entitled to be con¬ 
sidered a valuable friend, I should require the 
clearest and most irrefutable evidence to the con¬ 
trary. Scientists 'and poets have severally contri¬ 
buted to our knowledge, and of the latter. Gay has 
observed that: — 
" The careful insect ’midst his works I view. 
Now from the flowers exhaust the fragrant dew. 
With golden treasures load his little thighs. 
And steer his distant journey through the skies.” 
Although this does not record his fertilising 
powers, except 'by implication, it is at least a 
measure of his skill and vigour ; for it is asserted 
that he is able to carry, in the shape of honey and 
pollen, nearly twice his own weight. 
In further support of these views, and for the 
benefit of those of your readers who are not able to 
consult the best authorities, I should take it as a 
favour if you would permit me to quote from some 
of these. 
Sir John Lubbock, then, who is an admitted 
authority on bees, says :—“ Bees are intelligent 
insects, and would soon cease to visit flowers which 
did not supply them with food. In the hanging 
flowers of the Heath, for instance, the stamens form 
a ring and each one bears two horns. When the 
bee inserts its proboscis into the flower to reach the 
honey, it is sure to press against one of these horns, 
the ring is dislocated, and the pollen falls on to the 
head of the insect.” And again, " the Snapdragon 
is especially adapted for fertilisation by bees. The 
stamens and pistil are so arranged that smaller 
species would not effect the object. It is therefore 
an advantage that they should be excluded, and in 
fact they are not strong enough to move the spring.” 
Other flowers, such as the Furze, Broom, Labur¬ 
num, etc., are similarly commented on, and the 
necessity for insect visitations insisted on. 
Sir Joseph Hooker, a host in himself, says in his 
science primer on " Botany ” that, “ though stamens 
and pistil frequently occur in the same flow’er, it 
does not follow that the pistil of such a flower is 
fertilised by its own stamens. On the contrary, it 
has been proved by many careful observations and 
experiments that Nature has provided that pistils 
should be fertilised by pollen from other flowers, or 
from the flowers of other plants.” This fertilisation 
he largely attributes to bees, and gives, by way of 
example, an illustration of a section of an Orchis 
and a bee standing upon the lip. The Primrose 
also comes in for a share of his philosophy, into 
which the bee enters in more senses than one. 
Finally, let me use here the words of the keenest, 
the most careful, and the most patient of all 
observers, viz., the late Chas. Darwin. In that 
great work on " The Effects of Cross and Self- 
Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom,” he states 
that " humble and hive bees are good botanists, for 
they know that varieties may differ widely in the 
colour of their flowers and yet belong to the same 
species.” Then follow examples which came under 
his own immediate notice, showing how the bees 
worked; and how, as a rule, they confined their 
attentions to the flowers of the same species, how; 
ever much they differed in respect to colour. 
In the chapter on the means of fertilisation, a list 
of plants is appended, showing that, when insects 
are excluded, either the plants become quite sterile, 
or produce less than half the number of normal 
seeds. I refrain from quoting from this list, as I 
have already trespassed most outrageously on your 
goodwill; but as I was anxious to present a decent 
argument in favour of the bee, I thought it desirable 
to go somewhat fully into his many merits. That 
there are many humbugs on the face of this little 
globe of ours I am prepared to admit, but that the 
bee is one of them I cannot yet concede.—C. B. G., 
Acton, W. 
-- 
ROOT FIBRES DYING IN WINTER. 
In the course of the discussion that followed the 
reading of Mr. William’s paper on "Root action ; 
its effects on Vegetation” (see p. 370), before the 
members of the Preston and Fall wood Horticultural 
Society, the question was asked if Mr. Williams 
believed that fibres died in winter ? Mr. Williams 
replied that he did not, unless they were of an 
annual nature. Several engaged in the discussion 
on this point, and the concensus of opinion was with 
Mr. Williams. Mr. Fsisby, who thought they did 
die, moved that the discussion be postponed to the 
following meeting, which he opened by reading a 
quotation from a letter of Professor Asa Gray in 
The Gardeners' Chronicle and Agriculture Gazette (date 
not given), which clearly stated this to be the case, 
and the editor and Mr. Rivers held the same views ; 
so I nnderstood the reader. Dr. Bindley, who I 
presume was the editor of the gardening part at that 
time, states in his " Theory and Practice of Horti¬ 
culture,” "that roots are not inactive even in 
winter, unless actually frozen.” Mr. Frisby referred 
the members to the " Cottage Gardeners’ Dictionary,” 
where under the heading of roots it states, "The 
fibrous parts of roots (radiculae) are strictly annual ; 
they die as winter approaches, and are produced 
with the returning vigour of their parent in the 
spring.” 
I should like to know if this is the prevailing 
opinion of scientists and practical men of the 
present day. My experience in moving trees and 
shrubs during late autumn and winter months does 
not warrant me in supporting the statement that the 
small fibres perish. I have met with dead vine 
roots in borders, which I have attributed to some¬ 
thing wrong in the treatment, because of their 
paucity or entire absence in some instances, and 
their prevalance in others. I am not moving any 
trees just now, but in cleaning away some Black 
Currant trees half killed by the mite, I examined 
their roots and they all seemed healthy enough. I 
have also, with the aid of a fork, examined the roots 
of Apples and Pears without discovering any trace 
of decay. I have moved Peach trees in early 
autumn, and by Christmas numerous young roots 
were formed ; truly, they were more like Onion roots 
than tree roots, which proves that they will grow 
and not perish. Dr. Asa Gray uses the terms fibrils, 
and the dictionary has stated radiculae, both, I pre¬ 
sume, meaning the fibres with their root caps.— 
\V. P. R. [See p. 399.] 
