175 
August  23,  I9C0.  JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
i>arts  of  the  county,  and  after  his  death  a  sister  named  C  ssy  occu|  ied 
the  cottage,  and  the  work  of  distribution  continued  until  her  death, 
and  thus  it  obtained  the  name  of  Cissy’s  Apple,  by  which  it  is 
known  to  this  day.  Some  few  years  ago  specimens  of  this  Apple 
were  exhibited  at  some  of  the  large  fruit  shows,  when  it  was  given 
the  name  of  Monmouthshire  Beauty,  a  name  to  which  our  people  have 
not  taken  kindly.  I  am  indebted  for  this  information  to  Thomas 
Eboral  Cooke,  Esq.,  of  Newport,  whose  father  knew  Mr.  Tampling 
personally.— (Paper  read  by  Mr.  JOHN  Basham,  before  the  Boyal 
Horticultural  Society.) 
(To  be  concluded.) 
Conifer^. 
When  I  first  thought  of  writing  a  few  notes  on  Coniferae  it  was 
my  intention  to  give  a  list  of  the  different  members  of  the  family 
with  which  I  was  familiar,  and  a  short  description  of  each  with  a  few 
cultural  remarks.  Before  doing  so,  however,  perhaps  it  may  be 
interesting  to  some  readers  to  give  a  few  particulars  of  this  ornamental 
and  valuable  class  of  plants.  In  the 
first  place  it  may  be  as  well  to 
mention  that  the  word  Coniferae,  or 
cone-bearing,  is  the  name  given  to 
a  natural  order  of  plants,  consisting 
of  trees  and  shrubs ;  Pinaceae  has 
been  used  by  some  authors  as  the 
more  suitable  name,  but  I  believe 
the  former  is  considered  more  up-to- 
date.  In  Dr.  Lindley’s  •'  Vegetable 
Kingdom  ’’  the  order  is  named 
Pinaceae;  in  Hen  frey’s  “  Elementary 
Course  of  Botany,”  page  379,  we  find 
Pinaceae,  or  Coniferae;  but  Bentham 
and  Hooker,  in  their  “  British  Flora,” 
give  the  name  Coniferae,  the  Pine 
family. 
In  a  general  way  the  natural 
orders  of  plants  take  their  names 
from  some  prominent  genus  contained 
in  the  order.  To  give  an  example 
or  two.  The  order  Ranunculaceae 
from  the  Ranunculus  or  Buttercup, 
Violaceae  from  the  Viola  or  Pansy, 
and  Primulaceae  from  Primula  or 
Primrose.  Had  this  rule  been  fol¬ 
lowed  doubtless  Pinaceae  would  have 
been  universally  used,  for  Pinus  is 
the  most  important  genus  the  order 
contains.  1  suppose  it  is  not  a  very 
impoitant  consideration  wh  ch  name 
is  used,  but  I  have  sometimes  thought 
that  Pinaceae  would  be  the  more 
suitable.  The  following  paragraph  bearing  on  this  subject  is  taken 
from  Veitch’s  “Manual  of  Coniferae” — “The  fruit  of  the  Fir  and  Pine 
tribe,  which  slightly  resemble  a  cone,  doubtless  suggested  the  name 
Coniferae  as  a  suitable  designation  for  the  order,  but  the  name  has  not 
been  universally  accepted.  Following  the  rule  observed  in  designating 
other  natural  orders,  the  selecting  of  one  of  the  contained  genera  as 
a  type  to  which  the  others  may  be  referred,  the  name  Pinaceae  has 
been  used  by  some  authors  in  preference  to  Coniferae.  It  may  be 
observed,  however,  if  the  name  Coniferae,  as  apnlied  to  the  order  on 
a  c  lunt  of  the  form  of  the  fruit  borne  by  some  of  the  most  important 
species  belonging  to  it,  is  open  to  some  objection,  the  mode  of  growth 
of  by  far  the  greater  number  of  species,  especially  in  their  young 
state,  is  strictly  that  of  a  cone  in  outline.” 
The  Conifers  form  an  extensive  order  spread  over  the  whole  globe 
where  arborescent  vegetation  exists,  although  within  the  tropics 
chiefly  confined  to  mountainous  districts.  In  the  northern  hemisphere 
Conifers  often  form  vast  forests,  and  include  the  loftiest  trees  known. 
Th'-ee  species  only  are  indigenous  to  Britain — Pinus  sylvestris  (the 
Scottish  Fir),  Juniperus  communis  (the  common  Juniper),  and  Taxes 
baccata  (the  Yew).  But  a  large  number  of  exotic  ones  are  generally 
planted,  and  some  to  such  au  extent  as  now  to  cover  large  tracts  of 
country.  As  ornamental  trees  they  were  planted  too  freely  for  some 
time  alter  they  were  first  introduced,  with  the  result  that  some  places 
were  rather  overdone  with  them  Conifers  differ  in  many  re-spects 
from  our  own  indigenous  trees,  both  in  their  roots,  stems,  and 
branches,  as  well  as  in  their  inflorescence  and  seed.  There  is  also 
another  very  inten  sting  and  important  distinction — that  is,  in  the 
structure  of  the  wood ;  but  as  this  is  of  a  microscopical  nature,  perhaps 
even  had  I  the  ability  to  enlarge  on  the  subject  it  would  hardly  be 
suitable  fur  a  practical  garden  paper,  and  is  more  the  work  of  the 
botanist. 
Those  who  have  had  any  experience  of  the  trar'S}  lanting  of  young 
forest  trees  will  know  quite  well  that  there  is  a  great  difference 
between  the  roots  of  an  Oak  or  Sycamore  for  instance,  and  those  of  a 
Scots  Fir  or  Larch.  The  former  make  a  thick  r<  ot,  which  got  s 
straight  down  in  the  soil,  and  is  known  as  a  tap  root — in  fact,  they 
seem  almost  all  roots  during  the  first  two  or  three  years  of  their 
existence.  But  with  the  Scots  Fir  and  Larch  comparatively  few 
roots  are  made,  and  those  of  a  very  different  character.  They  do  not 
descend  straight  down  in  the  soil,  but  spread  horizontally  near  the 
surface,  and  are  thin  and  tough.  The  roots  of  some  Conihrs  do 
not  extend  very  rapidly  in  a  young  state,  but  increase  in  thickness, 
and  make  more  fibrous  roots,  consequently  these  are  amongst  the 
easiest  of  trees  to  transplant,  and  the  operation  may  be  performed  with 
little  risk.  Trees  of  this  description  will  be  found  in  the  Cyjuess 
tribe  and  the  Retinosporas. 
On  the  other  hand,  some  members  of  the  Pine  family  make 
long  straggling  roots.  We  have  good  examples  of  this  kind  in 
the  Austrian  and  Corsican  Pines,  these  making  a  few  straggling 
roots,  which  render  them  difficult  to  transplant  with  safety,  unless 
they  have  been  well  prepared.  They  should  be  frequently  trans¬ 
planted  in  their  young  state  to  induce 
them  to  make  fibrous  roots  nearer 
the  stems.  Two  years  is  the  longest 
time  they  should^  remain  in  the 
same  position  until  they  are  planted 
in  permanent  situations.  It  is  the 
saPst  ]  Ian  to  plant  them  out  in 
as  young  a  state  as  practical.  In 
the  roots  of  fl’axodiiim  distichum, 
the  deciduous  Cypress,  a  striking 
peculiarity  is  seen  when  this  tree 
attains  its  maturity  and  is  growing 
in  swampy  places,  as  it  most  com¬ 
monly  does  in  its  native  forests  in 
North  America,  or  in  close  proximity 
to  water  in  England  —  they  form 
;  hollow  conical  or  bee-hive  shaped 
•S'  protuberances,  that  rise  several  inches 
ie  above  the  surface  of  the  ground,  and 
which  have  never  been  noticed  to 
produce  buds  from  which  shoots 
proceed.  These  protuberances  are 
popularly  called  “knees.” 
The  vitality  of  the  roots  of  coni¬ 
ferous  plants  is  remarkable,  especially 
in  the  Fir  and  Pine  tribe.  Although 
no  member  of  this  family  will  send 
cut  new  shoots  from  the  roots  of 
trees  that  have  been  felled,  many 
instances  have  been  observed  of  which 
the  roots  themselves  not  only  live, 
but  continue  to  grow  for  many  years. 
The  roots  of  the  Silver  Fir  have  been 
known  after  the  removal  of  the  tree  to  produce  annual  circles  of  ligneous 
matter,  i  ncreasing  the  diameter  of  the  stump  and  forming  yearly  deposits, 
which  have  sometimes  continued  for  many  years.  Ot  the  instances  of 
this  curious  formation,  the  most  remarkable  is  that  recorded  by  Mr. 
Dutrochet,  of  a  stump  of  Silver  Fir,  felled  in  the  Jura  forests  in  1743, 
which  was  still  full  of  life  when  examined  at  the  end  of  the  year  1836. 
This  formation  consisted  of  ninety-two  layers  of  woody  matter,  formed 
during  that  number  of  years  by  the  root.s,  deprived  of  their  trunk 
and  leave.s,  and  the  wood  which  compo  ed  tne  stump  at  the  time  the 
tree  was  felled  had  in  1836  entirely  disappeared. 
Again,  we  find  a  great  difference  in  the  stems  of  trunks  of  Coni¬ 
ferous  trees  to  those  of  our  native  trees.  With  few  exceptions  the 
stems  of  the  former  are  cylindrical  and  tapering,  growing  ferfectly 
erect,  and  attaining  dimensions  varying  from  a  few  inches  to  upwards 
of  300  feet  in  height,  and  with  diameters  generally  small  in  propor¬ 
tion  to  the  height ;  but  in  this  respect  the  Yew  and  Cedar  of 
Lebanon  are  well-known  exceptions.  The  trunks  of  the  larger  Coni¬ 
ferous  tre  's  increase  in  height  and  diameter  very  rapidly  after  the  first 
years  of  their  “infancy”  when  the  plant  has  become  established. 
The  Wellingtonia  is  said  to  grow  in  this  country  at  the  rate  of  from 
24  to  30  inches  in  one  ye.ar,  and  Thuia  gigantea  and  Cupressus  macro- 
carpa  have  been  known  to  make  an  addition  of  nearly  4  feet  to  their 
height  in  one  season.  I  have  measured  the  annual  growth  of  young 
Larch  trees,  and  have  found  many  have  reached  4  feet  in  length, 
the  soil  they  were  growing  in  being  a  light  loam.  The  Douglas 
Spruce  (Abies  Douglasi)  grows  very  rapidly,  especiallv  in  a  soil  that 
is  naturally  moist,  and  I  have  known  them  to  thrive  well  in  very 
wet  situations ;  but  they  were  only  young  trees. — Pinus. 
(To  be  continued.) 
Fig.  47.— Apple  Cissy. 
