March  B,  1900. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
199 
STOPPING  VINES. 
“  -A.  J.”  (page  182)  in  my  opinion  commits  an  error  in  not  pruning 
his  young  Vines  nearer  the  base  than  18  inches.  If  he  would  prune 
them  to  within  two  eyes  of  the  base,  allowing  both  shoots  to  grow  for  a 
time,  until  he  can  be  certain  that  the  basal  growth  is  free  from  slug  or 
other  insect  attacks,  and  then  remove  the  second  shoot,  he  would  find 
at  the  end  of  the  season’s  growth  a  stronger  cane.  Under  this  treat¬ 
ment  there  is  no  need  to  retain  a  second  growth  for  encouragement  to 
the  leader,  as  is  his  practice.  In  the  future  he  would  find  the  cane 
stronger  near  the  base  than  is  the  case  where  pruned  to  within  18  inches 
of  the  soil.  It  is  the  stout  basal  growth  that  should  be  encouraged  the 
first  year  as  a  foundation  for  future  greatness.  If  “  A.  J.’s  ”  intention 
is  to  establish  Vines  to  give  annual  heavy  crops  of  fruit  for  say  twenty- 
five  years,  I  should  advise  him  to  cut  the  leader  harder  back  than  to 
within  4  feet  as  advised.  My  experience  is.  Keep  the  rods  well  back 
the  first  two  or  three  years  until  they  gain  strength.  I  have  seen  many 
young  Vines  left  with  6  feet  of  leader  with  a  view  to  cover  their  allotted 
roof  space  in  a  short  time.  Such  Vines  nearly  always  exhibit  weak 
places  in  the  rods,  and  if  they  do  not  swell  regularly,  no  after 
treatment  will  bring  about  that  equality  of  rod  thickness  which  is  so 
desirable,  not  only  for  appearance,  but  for  a  full  crop  of  high-class 
Grapes. — E.  Molyneux. 
PRIMULA  KEWENSIS. 
No  doubt  it  is  somewhat  imprudent,  if  not  impertinent,  to  suggest 
that  anything  emanating  from  the  Royal  Gardens,  Kew,  merits  adverse 
criticism.  But  I  was  not  alone  at  the  Drill  Hall  on  the  27th  ult.  in 
thinking  that  the  giving  of  so  specific  a  name  for  a  large  flowered 
variety  of  Primula  floribunda,  as  the  above  designation  is,  was  rather 
premature.  When  Kew  says  that  the  plant  was  the  product  of 
crossing  P.  floribunda  with  P.  verticillata,  of  course  no  one  should 
dispute  it.  But  still,  even  the  most  willing  believer  likes  to  see  some 
tangible  evidence  of  the  cross  in  the  result.  In  this  case  the  plant 
was  simply  a  P.  floribunda  in  every  respect  and  no  more,  not  the  least 
evidence  of  the  potency  of  the  verticillata  parentage  being  visible. 
Naturally  it  looked  fine  when  compared  with  a  poor  specimen  of  flori¬ 
bunda.  I  should  have  thought,  coming  as  the  plant  did  from  our  great 
Botanic  Garden,  that  it  would  have  been  so  much  better  to  have 
called  it  Primula  floribunda  grandiflora,  which  it  is,  than  by  the  specific 
name  of  kewensis.  What  if  it  seeds,  and  in  that  way  reproduces 
floribunda  after  all  ?  Where  will  the  new  appellation  come  in  then  ? 
Oddly  enough  no  family  of  plants  seems  to  have  been  less  responsive 
to  the  efforts  of  hybridists  than  has  that  of  the  Primula.  Even  the 
assumed  crosses  of  P.  obconica  and  of  P.  sinensis  leave  ample  room 
for  doubt.  Ordinary  growers  of  the  former  species  find  with  constant 
selection  that  considerable  variation  in  flowers  and  leaves  result,  but 
there  are  in  such  cases  no  suspicions  of  intercrossing. — Scrutator. 
SPRING  SPRAYING. 
Having  been  asked  by  several  gardeners  if  I  had  done  my  spring 
spraying  yet,  I  think  it  may  interest  othets  to  learn  the  results  of  that 
done  last  March,  when  I  used  nearly  1000  gallons  of  mixture  on  2000 
fruit  trees.  These  we  have  just  finished  pruning,  and  they  look  very 
well.  The  boughs  are  a  beautiful  deep  healthy  green,  clothed  with 
plump  fruit  buds,  promising  a  fine  crop.  The  moss  and  lichen  have 
quite  gone.  The  mixture  used  for  spraying  was  caustic  soda  5  lbs. 
(Greenbank’s  98  per  cent.),  pearlash  5  lbs.  Dissolve  the  caustic  soda 
carefully  in  boiling  water.  Pearlash  will  dissolve  in  cold  water,  but 
I  prefer  hot,  as  it  is  quieter  in  its  action.  Add  these  together, 
and  put  them  into  50  gallons  of  rain  water.  In  small  gardens  this 
mixture  can  be  applied  with  a  syringe,  bulj  in  large  orchards  a  sprayer 
is  best, 
I  claim  another  great  merit  for  this  mixture — viz.,  it  destroys  the 
codlin  moth  (Carpocapsa  pomonella).  My  trees  have  suffered  much 
from  it  in  the  past.  Bushels  of  fruit  have  prematurely  fallen,  but  last 
season  the  dreaded  foe  did  us  no  harm.  So  convinced  am  I  that  this 
blessing  resulted  from  my  caustic  spray,  that  I  intend  to  give  the  trees 
another  dressing  with  it  this  year  about  the  middle  of  March.  On 
let  May,  1899,  I  tried  a  stronger  solution  |  than  the  above — viz,,  2  lbs. 
caustic  soda  and  2  lbs.  pearlash  to  5  gallons  of  water,  with  the  result 
that  the  trees  looked  very  unhappy  all  the  summer,  and  this  winter 
I  have  taken  their  heads  off.  To  use  the  mixture  at  this  strength  is 
wasteful  and  dangerous. 
Another  good  mixture  for  spraying  trees  at  any  time  when  in  growth 
is  given  by  Mr.  L.  H.  Bailey  in  his  “  Principles  of  Fruit  Growing,” 
• — viz.,  1  lb.  of  Paris  green  to  200  gallons  of  water.  This  is  a  service¬ 
able  wash.  To  it  may  be  usefully  added  2  lbs,  of  lime.  Or  a  pound 
of  Paris  green  may  be  added  to  200  gallons  of  Bordeaux  mixture. 
If  the  Paris  green  be  made  into  a  paste  with  a  little  water  it  mixes 
better  in  the  barrel.  For  the  blue-head  i  caterpillar,  or  figure  8  moth, 
I  used  with  success  2  ozs.  of  softsoap,  and  cne-third  pint  of  nicotine  in  a 
gallon  of  water.  This  is  cheap  and  effectije. — Jno.  Miles,  Southampton. 
FROZEN  WATER  PIPES. 
I  THINK  that  if  I  state  the  fact  “  That  9  cubic  inches  of  water 
becomes  when  frozen  10  cubic  inches  of  ice,”  readers  who  may  not  be 
already  convinced  by  the  arguments  which  have  already  been  brought 
forward  will  be  able  to  see  that  if  a  pipe  is  already  full  of  water,  it 
must  break  if  it  cannot  expand,  to  make  room  for  every  10  inches  to 
replace  the  9  inches.  But  if  there  should  happen  to  be  room  in  a  pipe 
for  the  10  to  replace  the  9,  there  would  certainly  be  no  danger  when 
every  10  cubic  inches  was  again  replaced  with  the  9  cubic  inches  of 
water  in  the  thawing. — J,  L.  W. 
DECADENCE  IN  WALL  TREES. 
I  AM  afraid  that  one  of  the  reasons  of  the  bad  training  of  the  present 
day  is  not  so  much  the  want  of  knowledge  as  the  lack  of  time  ;  the 
garden  staff,  as  a  rule,  is  not  strong  enough  for  a  man  to  devote  snfiflcient 
time  to  the  fruit  trees.  When  the  gardening  account  has  to  show  a 
balance  in  hand  there  is  often  something  which  is  not  done,  either 
when  or  how  it  should  be.  If  fruit  trees  are  to  be  trained  straight  and 
at  correct  distances,  the  young  shoots  must  have  attention  in  the  summer 
as  well  as  winter.  As  regards  the  unfruitfulness  of  wall  trees  which 
is  apparent  in  large  as  well  as  small  gardens,  even  after  good  training 
has  been  bestowed  upon  them,  overcrowding  of  spurs  and  want  of 
sufficient  support  are  two  of  the  principal  causes.  I  speak  from 
experience,  as  I  have  brought  old  unfruitful  trees  back  to  fruitfulness 
by  thinning  and  feeding. — J,  L.  W. 
BIRDS  AND  BUDS. 
I  sympathise  heartily  with  Mr.  Kneller  in  the  trouble  he  has  with 
wild  birds,  which  is  not  his  alone,  as  I  have  heard  of  others  in  certain 
districts  where  trees  and  birds  abound,  and  they  are  as  rigidly  preserved 
under  the  influence  of  modern  sentimentalism  as  are  pheasants  and 
hares.  Therein  do  we  see  one  of  the  strange  inconsistencies  of 
humanity,  for  whilst  the  very  persons  who  refuse  to  allow  a  sparrow 
or  a  tomtit  to  be  shot  in  a  garden,  where  they  are  doing  immense 
harm,  will  yet  take  part  in  a  battue  and  glory  in  having  shot  their 
hundreds  of  half  tame,  harmless  pheasants.  Personally,  I  would  not 
shoot  a  bird  or  animal  of  any  description  except  to  convert  it  into 
useful  food,  or  even  harm  any  insect  except  to  protect  myself  from  its 
depredations. 
My  inoffensive  action,  however,  towards  all  things  living  must  not 
prevent  me  from  holding  that  when  wild  birds  commit  such  depreda¬ 
tions  in  gardens  as  they  did  at  Malshanger,  that  they  should  be 
destroyed.  Why  tolerate  birds  to  do  such  enormous  harm  to  our  fruit 
crops,  when  we  destroy  rats  wholesale  when  they  prey  upon  our  corn 
stacks  ?  Are  not  rats  as  worthy  of  some  sentimental  protection  as 
devouring  birds  ?  The  law,  through  the  County  Councils  is  showing 
itself  to  be  on  this  matter  a  “  hass,”  and  is  only  giving  these  birds 
liberty  to  prey  upon  and  devour  our  fruit  crops.  What  nonsense 
is  it  to  be  crying  after  more  home-grown  fruit,  and  yet  protect  by  the 
law  some  of  the  greatest  enemies  to  fruit  culture  we  have  in  birds. 
—A.  D. 
JUDGES  AND  JUDGING. 
When  “  An  Inquisitor  ”  (page  179)  undertakes  to  call  into  question 
the  practice  of  employing  judges  to  act  as  such  in  connection  with  the 
same  classes  or  departments  at  shows  successively,  he  should  realise 
that  generally  the  practice  has  worked  well,  and  that  in  indicting  the 
practice  it  is  his  duty  to  set  out  his  reasons  for  such  objections.  But  in 
•the  present  case  he  indicts  the  practice  without  presenting  any  reasons 
or  grounds,  and  invites  others  to  defend  a  practice  that,  so  far  as  I  can 
perceive  fi’ora  his  article,  needed  no  defending.  What  does  he  say  to 
the  practice  in  relation  to  Chrysanthemum  shows,  where  the  same  men 
judge  the  same  classes  year  after  year  with  good  results  ?  Does  he 
suggest  that  Orchid  men  or  Rose  men,  or  vegetable  or  fruit  men,  should 
be  put  on  to  such  duties  ?  The  same  thing  applies  to  Roses,  Dahlias, 
Carnations,  to  fruit  or  vegetables,  or  to  any  other  special  exhibition 
section  in  flower  shows. 
Judges  are  usually  selected  by  exhibition  committees  because  of 
known  reputation  in  relation  to  certain  sections  of  horticulture.  One 
man  is  well  up  with  plants,  another  with  florists’  flowers,  another  with 
table  decorations,  yet  others  with  fruit  and  vegetables,  and  so  on.  No 
doubt  most  of  these  men  could  judge  in  other  classes,  but  everyone 
familiar  with  shows  knows  how  great  is  the  risk  attendant  upon 
putting  round  men  into  square  holes.  When  we  see  the  same  men 
engaged  year  after  year  by  the  same  committees,  certainly  conclusive 
proof  is  afforded  that  such  executives  are  entirely  satisfied.  It  should 
not  be  assumed  that  such  selection  takes  place  in  defiance  of  exhibitors’ 
wishes,  as  committees  are  usually  quick  to  act  when  they  find  exhibitors 
have  good  ground  for  complaint.  I  do  not  see  that  “  An  Inquisitor  ” 
has  any  cause  to  fear  others’  wrath,  but  at  least  he  might  have  started 
the  subject  by  giving  his  reasons. — A.  Kingston. 
