Register may be,—that is, who pockets the profits arising from this precious morsel, this twelvepenny worth of index, miscalled appendix, - I do not know. The only name (besides that of the bookseller) which appears on the titlepage of the Register is that of Mr. Sydenham Edwards. To most of the descriptive portions of the work, in the latter volumes at least, the initials J. L. are affixed, which are, I believe, universally understood to signify that eminent botanist Mr. Lindley. I am far from meaning to charge either of these gentlemen with being guilty of so mean a transaction as the one in question; but, as their names appear in connection with the work, I think they owe it to their own characters to use their influence in the proper quarter towards the discontinuance of the practice, or publicly to avow, through the medium of your pages, that they have no participation in the fraud. Yours, &c. - A Subscriber to the Botanical Register. Aug. 6. 1830.

Doctor Hooker's British Flora. — When I procured the British Flora by Dr. Hooker, I expected that I should find in it such information as is essential to be known in order to ascertain the species of plants, disencumbered in a great measure of all unnecessary remarks. One of the first plants that I picked up, after having had this work, was Gentiana campéstris, which I did not know at that time. When I found that my plant had four stamens and one pistil (the stigmas being united), I sought for a description of it in Tetrandria Monogynia; but in vain. I then showed it to a competent botanist, who told me that it was a Gentiana. I turned over all the Gentiana in the British Flora, and could not find that my plant agreed with any of them, because it had only four stamens. However, after long puzzling, I at last found, from its general character, that it was Gentiana campéstris; but, at the same time, I felt assured that it must be a strange variety, as the British Flora does not say a word about any of the Gentianae having only four stamens; while, of course, from the situation in which I found that genus, I thought that all its species ought to have five stamens. I happened afterwards to meet with Sir J. E. Smith's English Flora, in which I found it remarked of the genus Gentiana, "filaments as many as the segments," and of G. campestris, "corolla fourcleft." How soon did these few words awake me out of the fond dream of having discovered a strange variety of G. campéstris, into which I had been thrown by the hasty Scotchman! [Dr. Hooker is an Englishman.] This is but a specimen of the many blunders in the British Flora calculated to puzzle students.-J. Jones. Llanfair, Montgomeryshire, September, 1830.

The Florist's Guide. Sir, Having been much pleased with the improvement of some of the last Numbers of the Florist's Guide, I was greatly disappointed to see that it will shortly be discontinued. It certainly cannot be treating Mr. Sweet well, that, after the pains he has taken to make himself acquainted with florist's flowers, and just when he began to edit the work well, for want of sufficient support he is obliged to drop it. It may be a question whether it is not owing to the trickery of florists; for figuring the flowers certainly tends to establish their names, and prevent the same flower being sold under three or four different names, as is too often the case. We hear of florists' societies in almost all parts of the kingdom, and it is a disgrace to them to let the work fall to the ground; for why should not floriculture have a periodical work, as well as any other department of gardening? I still hope that florists will more generally come forward, and induce Mr. Sweet to continue his work, by rendering him that support which will enable him so to do. I am, Sir, yours, &c. · An Amateur.

Mr. Main's Villa and Cottage Florist's Directory.- Sir, In two instances, I think, you have been good enough to allow authors to make replies to their reviewers in your Magazine: I have to beg the same privilege in a few lines. Tingling (not smarting, I assure you) under the "castigation" of your reviewer of my little book on Floriculture, I feel, notwithstanding, quite disposed to return my best thanks for the very civil terms in which

you have both been pleased to speak of me personally. This I do in perfect good humour; because you know well that I long ago predicted, and consequently expected, this chastisement. I am only assailed on what, I am very sensible, is my weak side, namely, my inadequate powers of language. Still there is something cheering; not a word is said against what may be called my peculiar opinions on the subject, which my reviewer regrets so much I should have meddled with. These opinions, such as they are, I suspect, constitute " the head and front of my offending." They, though in truth too briefly asserted, are plain enough to practical men; and why should they be so mysterious to a man of science? The reason is obvious, though it is not for me to explain. Had these opinions been refuted, both my readers and myself would have been instructed. Refutation, it seems, would have been an easy affair; and it would have been far more graceful and consistent with the character of a superior, to have ingenuously exposed my mistakes, than to have thrown over the whole such a guise of ridicule. This omission I shall therefore accept as an indirect compliment; and I also flatter myself that, had my book received even a very slight perusal, my reviewer could not have charged me with such ignorance of vegetable structure, as to be unable to distinguish a root from any other member of a plant.

Having passed this cold water ordeal, I shall not, however, quail under it, as it is more than probable I may again take up the subject of vegetable physiology in another shape; in doing which I shall certainly avail myself of my reviewer's grammatical corrections, which I have no doubt are just, though I am not accountable for the misuse of all the terms. It will then be seen whether the same ideas, conveyed in other words, will be more palatable; though this I hardly expect. Still, if I can but gain, as I have already done, the approval of practical pens, I shall not dread the erasures recommended by your friend my reviewer. Believe me to remain, Sir, yours, &c.-J. Main. Chelsea, October 4. 1830.

Destroying Earwigs by Tin Pipes. — A correspondent (J. M., p. 491.) recommends the adoption of small tin tubes for the purpose of catching earwigs which annoy fruit on wall trees. Instead of going to the tinman for the said tubes, let us apply to our own garden; to the English bamboo, which every one that has a plot of ground may grow, the Arúndo Donax. With this, not only may the liquorish-mouthed earwig meet a dire fate, but the head of ingenuity sacrifice to the god Pan in concord of sweet sounds. — W. Mason, jun. Necton Hall, Norfolk, August, 1830. Bishop's Dwarf and Early Frame Peas. In the observations following the list of prices of fruits, vegetables, &c., of Covent Garden Market (p. 372.), it is stated that Bishop's peas dropped their blossoms eight days sooner than the early frame. I did not notice the dropping of the blossom. Bishop's dwarf pea being a favourite with me, I resolved to give it a fair comparative trial with the frame. On the 15th of February, 1830, I had a favourable border trenched over, and sown the first afternoon; first, two rows 2 ft. apart of the Bishop's, and then five rows of the early frame 3 ft. apart. The first dish I could gather from the early frame was on the 15th of June; the first dish I gathered from Bishop's was on the 1st of July.-W. P. Vaughan. Brecon, July 20. 1830.

Quercus Robur and sessiliflora. Sir, As I know you do not mind being found fault with, I take the liberty of questioning your accuracy (in a friendly manner, and merely in the way of private correction) on one or two points in your Number for August. First, then, at p. 458., you seem disposed to consider Quércus Ròbur and sessiliflora as mere varieties: this may be matter of opinion, though, for myself, I am inclined to think them distinct species. But be this as it may, you certainly are not correct in stating that "the latter name (sessiliflòra) is merely a synonyme of Sir J. Smith's, in his English Botany, to distinguish it from Q. pedunculata." Both

kinds are figured and described in English Botany as distinct species, under the names of Robur and sessiliflora, without any intimation of their being only varieties. The timber of Q. sessiliflòra is considered to be inferior to that of Q. Ròbur: I agree with you that it perhaps has not " been clearly proved that the timber of the one is naturally, and without reference to soil and situation, better than the other; but I think it probable that the timber of Q. sessiliflòra is inferior, merely because the tree is of quicker growth. Yours, &c.— W. T. Bree, Sept., 1830.

On turning to Smith's English Flora (vol. iv. p. 148.) we find Q. Ròbur and sessiliflora are made species, and that pedunculata is considered as a synonyme of Q. Robur, and not sessiliflora as we have erroneously asserted. Cond.

The Functions of Leaves. - Sir, Your correspondent N. H. (p. 414.), in his remarks on Stewart's Planier's Guide, says, "Should it be required to take any off the branches, I always defer it till the following season: I have a great respect for Mr. Gorrie, but I cannot agree with him in cutting any branches off fresh planted trees. I have found cuttings without a leaf removed strike much better than those which were stripped. The last three years I have particularly remarked this in striking Eccremocarpus scaber: those cuttings struck best that had a leaf or a pair remaining at the very joint at which they were cut off, and, in fact, formed plants in nearly half the time that those did which had them removed.” And in a marginal note he adds: "This is proved by every-day experience: every man must be aware that roots make branches, and branches make roots; else how could a cutting strike root, or part of a root form a plant?" Now, had Mr. N. H. been pleased to favour us with his full name, it is likely our respect would have been mutual: but as I can give no particular preference to the N and the H over any other letters in the alphabet, my respect for the anonymous writer must be formed entirely by the opinion I entertain of the paper under consideration; which, bating a few puerilities, or, perhaps, agronomisms, is such as would do no discredit to his name, be that what it may. I can only agree with N. H., about deferring cutting off branches till the "following season," on the principle of " better late thrive than never do well." If it "be required to take any off," I should humbly suppose, the sooner that is done the better. Leaves and roots may, without any impropriety, be called conservative organs; but their functions are widely different, and mutually dependent on the operations of each other. If the roots, by fracture or lack of moisture, cease to perform their office, the leaves, in place of producing (or, as our author would have it, “of the branches making ") roots, soon flag, and ultimately wither and fall off; and hasten, at the same time, the shrivelling of that bark and twig, which, had the root performed its office, they would have contributed to clothe with a fresh layer of living wood. It will be readily allowed that roots imbibe moisture from the soil, and that leaves attract and elabo rate the sap thus supplied: if this be conceded, it will follow that a proper or natural balance between root and branch is most conducive to the health of the tree or plant. In the act of transplanting some roots will necessarily suffer, and in proportion, I contend, branches should be removed instanter. That proportion will be exceedingly small where the operation of transplanting is performed with due care, and amputations producing large wounds, difficult to heal while the tree is suffering from the removal, will be avoided: but, supposing that the transplanted tree has more foliage than root feeders, will not those supernumerary leaves in discharging their natural functions draw too liberally on the sap of the tree, and a small yellow leaf, which soon ceases to attract or elaborate sap, with a constriction of bark, be the consequence? Whereas, if root and branch are fairly proportioned by art or otherwise, a greater individual and general breadth of healthy foliage is preserved, and the operation of transplanting

is attended with less perceptible lassitude in the plant. It was to illustrate this position that, in my short letter on Sir Henry's book, I mentioned that, "when plants are struck by cuttings, every gardener knows that an excess of foliage has a tendency to exhaust the natural sap in the shoot ;" and I say so still and Mr., or Miss, or Mrs. N. H. will agree that an excess of foliage will have that tendency; otherwise, why proportion the length of the cutting above to that below the ground? If "leaves make roots without this tendency, then why not plant a cutting a yard or a yard and a half long, with numerous leaves and branches? On this principle the roots will be the sooner formed. Be it observed, I was not then writing an essay on cuttings: I only alluded to a well known fact connected with that operation. I never either practised or spoke of stripping cuttings of their leaves; but, if they are left in excess, the redundant part will either decay, or the whole cutting will languish and die. It is not strictly logical to say, that " roots make branches, and branches make roots." They have intermediate functions to perform. I grant, nay, I contend, that the one cannot exist long in a healthy state without the other being in fair proportion; but certainly N. H. has seen foliage produced without their producing roots. Has he never seen a willow or poplar tree cut in winter produce foliage in summer without roots? Has he not seen the roots of deciduous trees increase in spring, when the leaves were enveloped in their winter garb? and has he never seen the willow or Solànum Dulcamàra produce roots before the buds had opened? I hope N. H. will not take these remarks amiss, which he has called forth. Had he given his real name in place of a fictitious signature, I might perhaps have treated him a little more courteously. Whenever he chooses to appear in propria persona, he shall be treated on my part with that respect to which, I have not the slightest doubt, his merits and urbanity entitle him. In the twenty-sixth Number (I think it is) a Mr. Newington has given a Mr. Houseman a severe and ungardener-like drubbing. Such a scurrilous letter must recoil upon its author. Although we may happen to differ in opinion on several points, it does not follow that all who may venture to express an opposite opinion are deficient in practical skill. Newington has lost his temper, which some would construe into a tacit acknowledgment that he had the worst of the argument. I am, Sir, &c. - Archibald Gorrie. Annat Gardens, September 3. 1830.

The

Pruning Timber Trees. According to the wishes of Agronome (as one of your readers) I have applied myself to candle-making, and beg to assure his superior judgment, that, as far as an experience of fifteen years goes, the foreshortening system of pruning forest trees answers most completely: first, in giving a lead to the main stem; and, secondly, in assisting trees to tower perpendicularly, where they grow in exposed situations. Some Chichester elms, 7 ft. high, and the size of an old gentleman's walking-stick, were planted by me in 1814. The situation being favourable, the plants soon threw up such vigorous shoots that, if left to themselves, they would have found tops like the many-headed hydra. I commenced the work of foreshortening instanter, and have continued it every year since. trees, on an average, now rise a height of 50 ft., and are conically shaped. I have served oaks, ashes, and other elms, in like manner; but their height, from difference of growth, does not in any case exceed 30 ft. To ascertain the timber quality of this rapid-growing elm, I last year stubbed one up, put it on the sawpits, and had it cut into gate stuff, when the scantlings became dry. The carpenters said they could discern no difference between it and the wych elm of the country. As to beauty, the aspiring tree forms a contrast to the umbrageous one, the pyramidal to the round one; and our woods and parks become equally the objects of admiration and of utility, by at one time leaving nature to her own freaks, and at another putting her into a state of pupilage. In my humble opinion such system

belongs to no man or writer in particular, but to the plain common sense of the thing. One word more, and I have done. I believe it to be a great error not to prune the Scotch fir, by taking off a tier or two of boughs every two or three years. As for experience, I beg to say that, though the spruce fir, when it comes to the sawpit, will show no knots in the plank, however large its lateral boughs may have been, the Scotch fir uniformly does; and so much so as oftentimes to render it wholly unsightly, as well as unfit for flooring and other purposes. If forest deal timber is cleaned, because competition in growth destroys its lateral boughs, why not effectually imitate nature, by gradually reducing the stem to the same state? We have had spruce and Scotch fir of great magnitude in our sawpit not long since, the former planted by my grandfather, and the latter by my great grandfather: the spruce, however covered with boughs, makes clean planks; the Scotch, clean planks only so far as the boughs had formerly been periodically removed. May not Q. E. D. be put after this, as a solution of the fir-pruning problem? Thus much, therefore, for the present, of candle-making, as Agronome says; in which, if I have any way succeeded to his wish, I shall be truly gratified; and beg leave to subscribe myself your obedient humble servant.— William Mason, junior. Necton Hall, Norfolk, August, 1800.

Erratum. Sir, In the notice of my two melons (p.338.) I see my employer's name is misspelt. His real name is Tunno, instead of Punno. Should you think my other letter worth publishing, you will no doubt, after this, state it correctly. Such mistakes are easily made; and the blame, if any, is more likely to rest with the writer than the compositor.-J. Holland. Taplow Lodge, September 15. 1830.

Errata.-P. 495., for " Arniston Hall" read "Ormiston Hall." P. 601, line 7 from the bottom, for "scale" read "scape."

ART. IV. Queries and Answers.

GLAZING with Lead Laps. In answer to "A Subscriber" (p. 500.), I can assure him, from long experience, that glazing with lead between the squares (lead laps, as they are called) will prevent their cracking. I know a large green-house, the roof of which is glazed in this way, which was done twenty years ago, and to this moment not a pane of glass has been cracked in it, unless by accident; and I can further assure him that no green-house preserves more plants through the winter than the house alluded to. This is a subject that has undergone a great deal of discussion, and many fantastical shapes have been recommended for the form of the squares; but these did not break the spell : where the glass came in contact many of the squares would be cracked. I am at a loss to assign the cause, and I do not think it occasioned by the frost, though certainly a very rational way of accounting for it; for, to the best of my recollection (now many years ago), on my first erecting a green-house so many of the squares cracked that I had the lights taken down and reglazed with lead laps, long before the winter had commenced. Yours, &c. - Cultivator. September 30. 1830.

Proper Size for an Ice-house. Sir, Three years ago I had an ice-house built, of the following dimensions; viz. 34 ft. diameter at bottom, 7 ft. at the widest part, and 10 ft. deep. The well is sunk in a bed of gravel, 8 ft. below the surface; the bottom of the pit is paved with a drain of 3 in. square, which carries the waste ice into the gravel, as will be seen in the annexed sketch. (fig. 140.) The ice-house is entered through a passage of 8 ft. in length, with sliding doors or boards next the wall; and 3 ft.from that is another oaken door, the interval I always fill with straw. The first year