May 6, 1905. 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
371 
Letters to the Editor. 
The Degeneracy of Potatos. 
To the Editor of The Gardening World. 
Sir—Having been an interested grower of Potatos in a small 
way during the last thirty-five years, I have been much in¬ 
terested in the articles published in the “ G.W.” last week. 
There is much useful information to all lovers of the Potato 
(but who does not love a Potato ?) in the reports of such trials 
and discussions. 
I cannot altogether think that many varieties of Potatos will 
deteriorate to such an extent as mentioned by some, even on 
the same soil, in so short a time as three or four years. I have 
grown some favourite varieties for at least four times that 
period with their qualities still unimpaired, but I am always 
very careful in the selection of my seed, and also in the keeping 
of them after lifting. Never keep for any length of time in 
heaps or pits, but in some place where they can if possible have 
some light and air. I think a good deal depends on the future 
prosperity of the produce by the proper management of the 
seed. 1 could not express myself in strong enough terms 
against the practice of some who', with new varieties, propagate 
and pot them on, and so ; on—S 0 ‘ very unnatural to the Potato. 
The produce of such must be considerably weakened. A change 
of good seed from North to South would in all likelihood prove 
beneficial, being grown in the hardier cooler climate. I may 
say that I have often got seed Potatos from London, but never 
did they do so well the first year. The- smaller-sized Potatos 
are often kept for seed. This practice I do not object to so 
long as the seeds are properly prepared before planting by 
picking out all the eyes but one or two before planting, as 
when planted whole at the ordinary distance the result is too 
many weak stems, with correspondingly small tubers. 
About forty years ago, while resident on Clydeside, some 
two miles below Glasgow, I lodged with one of the bridge- 
keepers on the Forth and Clyde Canal, who had Potatos of the 
old variety “Rocks” (one of the parents, I believe, of the 
famous champion) which had been grown on the same plot of 
ground for twenty-one years, and never a change of seed, the 
table quality of which I have never even seen equalled. So» 
much for changing seed of some varieties and under some cir¬ 
cumstances. Regarding dung versus artificial manure for 
Potatos, in the garden of which I have had charge for the last 
twenty-five years, for twenty years we very seldom had Potatos 
we could even call fair table quality, which was a great vexar 
tion while growing many of the varieties of recognised good 
quality; when, on the advice of a friend, I commenced to give 
no dung, only artificial manures. The result is excellent table 
quality and far less disease. Old Spud. 
Primula Megaseaefolia. 
To the Editor of The Gardening World. 
Sii'>—Kindly allow me to draw your correspondent’s atten¬ 
tion once again to my article on above, which appeared in 
issue of March 11th date. It will be seen on referring to 
that article that it is the pin-eyed form alone I have noticed, 
vhereas I am apparently understood to say the plants referred 
t ' produced all thrum-eyed flowers. I would also like to 
thank the writer of the note re the hardihood of this fine 
Primrose, but it must be admitted that he writes from a 
favoured corner.” I only hope those of us who live 
m bleak, exposed places may find it possible to grow and 
on ei P. megaseaefolia in the open. Heather Bell. 
To be, or not to be, Apprenticed to Horticulture ? 
To the Editor of The Gardening World. 
eYtr;S'’T Mr ' wri -” le ’ s desperately in his; effort to 
assure K fr ° m the ti "' ll( c °rner be is in, and I can 
- rlelio-ht th f 5? Pf ra ° ra P h of bis letter of April 29th did 
delight me further,” as he put it. Mr. Blair makes a big 
blunder; I point it oul to him, and lo, lie conies up smiling 
with the assertion that he blundered intentionally. Bah! 
Mi'. Blair says lie is tackling the whole subject, instead 
°l discussing a very small part thereof. Had he grasped 
the subject he would know that it cannot be divided into 
parts, since there is but one point to discuss. Once again, I 
must point out to Mr. B. that we are dealing only with lads 
who wish and intend, to become gardeners. I asked why lads 
will work in gardens without being apprenticed. He replied, 
Because the average lad is no fool,” and then lie goes on to 
explain why lads work in other spheres, but that has nothing 
to do with our subject, hence my reason for ignoring that part 
of his letter. 
Mr. B. asks me a question which I have already answered 
in a previous letter, but, lest he again accuse me of evading 
him, I say once more the reason why I consider it unnecessary 
(that is my word, useless being Mr. B.’s interpretation) for 
a lad to serve apprenticeship to gardening is that he can 
learn his profession just as well without. 
In many trades, as I said before, the only opportunity for 
learning is by serving apprenticeship—hence the necessity 
in their case. There is a vast difference between mechanical 
fi .ides and gardening. Let the followers of the former see to 
their interest, let us be content with things pertaining to 
horticulture. 
I wonder why Mr. Blair considers it necessary to tell 
us that his ideas are “ both logical and common sense.” Are 
these qualities so enshrouded that he fears they will escape 
our notice ? Some people say it savours of conceit, and is bad 
form, to magnify one’s own wisdom. When Mr. B. speaks of 
the garden-boy being principally employed running messages 
and wheeling coal ashes, he shows that his experience is con¬ 
fined to i ery narrow limits. I saw only last week in one estab¬ 
lishment a dozen lads aged from 14 to 16 years. The work 
being done by them at the time comprised cutting-making 
pndking-out, and printing labels by means of stencil-plates! 
The lads are paid a fair wage, are shown how their work has 
to be done ; if, after reasonable trial, they prove useless tliev 
are discharged, and, on the other hand, a good lad is encouraged 
and promoted. What more could be done for them even if 
they were apprenticed? Should Mr. Blair desire to prove the 
truth of these assertions, I will furnish him with the address 
of this and many other places I have seen, and where he can 
at any time see garden boys learning gardening. 
Heather Bell. 
To the Editor of The Gardening WArld. 
Sir, My critics on this subject increase in number, but I am 
bouna to say that their combined exertions amount to verv 
ittle. It gets really monotonous. Can they not advance one 
little fact in favour of their theory? They simply make the 
assertion that, among all trades and professions, gardenin<>- 
alone requires no term of apprenticeship. To cany their con¬ 
tention to a logical conclusion, they must admit that a man is 
quite justified in stealing instead of working. The one is 
about as honest as the other. No! I say that every man who 
wishes to follow any profession ought to go about 'learning it 
m a manly, straightforward manner, and not sneak in round 
the comer or over the wall. 
Mi. T. A. W eston, in a recent issue, gets into quite a fury— 
over what? He accuses me of disparaging the single-handed 
gardener. Will he be good enough to point out where I ever 
so much as mentioned the name? I have a very high opinion 
of these men, as many of my best and truest friends are in 
that position, and the amount of good work they turn out 
would astonish some of the staffs in large gardens. But these 
men I admire are gardeners, not men who have slunk into the 
profession without passing through “ the mill.” Mr. Weston 
further accuses me of getting “vicious and personal.” This I 
am quite unaware of, and if I sometimes give it out straight 
and strong, it is only after being subjected to unfair criticism, 
as is happening in the present case. I must say that when an 
