THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN. 
2/ 
ARBORETA. 
T^e term arboretum as now understood, is a classified 
collection of trees and shrubs. Both the idea and the 
word used to express it are modern. I cannot find that 
Loudon used it in 1834, although he planted the Derby ar¬ 
boretum about 1840. He failed to make it eminent for 
arboreal beauty, as almost all others have failed in like at¬ 
tempts. The old arboretum at Kew Gardens was planted 
without any classification, it was simply a rare collection of 
trees. Now, however, I find, by Sir Joseph Hooker’s letters, 
the new arboretum is progressing, and, as I understand, 
is being planted in classes — whether these classes are 
divided into groups, orders, or genera, I have not learned, 
but it is upon the very material differences produced by 
these varieties of grouping that I desire to say a few words. 
The trouble with nearly all classified collections of trees 
shrubs or plants that I have seen is, that professors have 
endeavored to treat the living, growing materials as though 
they occupied the cases of an herbarium or the pages of a 
book. The result is usually most unmitigated ugliness. My 
old time friend, Mr. Thomas Meehan, as I understand him, 
does not believe in classification, a very natural feeling for a 
member of the Kew league mentally comparing the herba¬ 
ceous grounds with other portions of the Royal Gardens. 
Professor Sargent says, “ Of course an arboretum could be 
made much more beautiful, if no attention was paid to the 
scientific grouping of species, genera, and families.” This 
is partly true ; it is impossible to construct beautiful groups 
upon any such foundation as species or orders ; the basis is 
mostly too narrow. 
But—“ the most perfect arrangement of species in regard 
to variety, would be to employ”—a selection adapted to the 
purpose and climate=“ and arrange them according to the 
natural system. We (Loudon’s Plncy.), have already sug¬ 
gested that grounds might be wooded in this way, so as to 
obtain a maximum of variety and beauty.” Yet when 
Loudon assayed to do it, he found as others have found, 
that it is easier to plan on paper, than to plant effective 
grounds. One or two excellent landscape gardens have 
long ago pointed out the futility of expecting to obtain pub¬ 
lic interest for these hide-bound lineal arrangements, which 
have been stubbornly adhered to since the very first attempts 
to plant physic gardens. 
The evolution of the arboretum in the United States is 
quite interesting. The so-called Bartram Garden is the 
earliest attempt whose ruins I have examined. There is a 
line of oaks, but so far as I could see, no other sign of 
classification. I fancy Mr. William Saunders of the De¬ 
partment of Agriculture, is the father of the modern arbore¬ 
tum in this country, and although he was badly handi¬ 
capped for want of space, yet twenty years ago when his 
trees were small, they were exceedingly instructive, pointing 
the way to extract beauty out of a collection designed for 
instruction. It was easy to see that their future would de¬ 
pend upon selection. It was equally evident that the 
method of grouping the large trees on the margins, and 
the shrubs in front of them was in good taste, but it was 
quite difficult to find whose particular system was followed. 
I should think, however, with the abundance of species to 
select from, that the aspect of the generic grouping (prop¬ 
erly thinned) must still be good, for the lineal arrangement 
of the genera was quite frequently interrupted, for the sake 
of effect. 
Another style of arboretum on quite another plan, was 
one I examined some years ago at one of the large Roch¬ 
ester nurseries. It might be termed an “ arboretum walk.” 
It was simply a straight row of the species of trees used in 
trade in that climate, legibly labeled. So far as I remem¬ 
ber, there was but little attempt at classification. I have 
not seen the larger arboreta lately planted or designed—but 
I am informed that their character is that of an “ arbor¬ 
etum drive.” Of course those who drive to see an 
arboretum, will leave it with but very superficial ideas, and 
those poor enthusiasts who walk along five miles of road to 
examine constantly recurring forms, with but slight points 
of differentiation, would not, I should think, often repeat 
their visit. It must be frightfully like going along nursery 
rows, to walk along a road such as I have seen described, 
with a row or two of trees on either side. Such a con¬ 
ception is a distinct retrogression, and I notice it only to 
avoid it. 
The conspectus of the genera plantarum gives some 
24 groups containing trees and shrubs hardy at the North 
and containing varying numbers, of sufficiently varied as¬ 
pect for the formation of harmonious masses. Each group 
may be a selection from a series of large or small orders. 
Within the limits of such group, the fancy of the designer 
should have free play. In such a way as this, botanical 
classification, and either gardenesque or picturesque beauty 
may find a happy meeting ground. Many groups contain 
trees and shrubs of many sorts and sizes, such as the rose 
alliance, for example, which includes the legumes, hydran¬ 
geas, witch hazels, etc., as well as the rose family; enough 
in itself to plant a large extent of ground, if all were used. 
There is very rarely a want of variety ; the rule is quite the 
other way, and selection becomes quite imperative. 
In methodical planting, no two groups can be alike, 
there can be no promiscuous effects, and as Mr. Meehan 
once remarked, “ The student can find the plants when he 
wants to do so—without traveling five miles, more or less, 
in a buggy, or maybe beneath the broiling sun.” 
I have given this matter much study from boyhood up, 
for my grandfather planted many groups after the Jussieu- 
ean classes 70 or 80 years ago, and those groups very distinctly 
convinced me that they were infinitely more ornamental 
than any lineal arrangement I have seen, comprising as 
they did the best selections available from both trees, shrubs, 
and herbaceous plants. So great is the difference of effect 
obtained by simpl}^ extending the basis of a group from the 
