The Gardeners' Monthly just to hand, containing my remarks on " Peach and Plum Hybrids." You have been more kind and courteous to me than I deserved. I should have modified my paper some. You wrote a special postal giving me opportunity to do so, but unfortunately I was away from home on an extended journey in Western Texas, till too late for last month - the September number - and not seeing the paper in that number, I supposed it was considered hardly worthy your valuable space, which was, to my mind now the case; but you still have most generously printed it. If not too late, please let me say now that my boast that you dare not say which of the specimens were peach and which plum, was completely nipped in the bud by your telling, in August number, that two were pure peach and the others plum. Two only were pure peach. Thus far you were certainly correct. As to the purity of the plum blood in the others, of course we still disagree, unless you consider I have now brought sufficient proof to ] sustain the supposition that they have some peach blood also. But my boast was uncourteous. I should have modified the paper by leaving it out. It was unscientific, and that far marred other statements of botanical characteristics, which alone constitute its merit.

Thus in the endeavor to make my paper piquant it reads seemingly unkind. But your action in the matter shows you understood my real feelings and intention. If my conclusions in the matter are incorrectly or unscientifically drawn, I am anxious to have the errors pointed out. Please don't mete me the merits of a braggadocio by allowing me " the last word." My conclusions may not rest upon sufficient evidence, though I am yet unable to see otherwise. Such discussions are sure to stimulate further investigation, and finally elicit the truth, if conducted with that suaviter in modo, of which your blunt correspondent possesses so little.

[Our good correspondent need have made no apology. The Editor of this magazine has no interest other than advancement of horticulture, and those branches of science or art that are co-incident to it; and he is quite willing that correspondents should debate their side in their own way.

In the case of supposed hybrids between peach and plum the case still stands this way: First, it is believed certain trees must be hybrids because they have leaves more like peach leaves than the trees from which they were raised. Secondly, because they are sterile. Thirdly, in Mr. Hillen-meyer's case, because the product was a result of actual manipulation in crossing.

We have been disposed to give some weight to the last, and felt nearly converted, till we had samples of similar character where hybridization was out of the question. It is, however, in the line of evidence we like.

The second point is of no account at all, for, with the exception of the mule, between the horse and the ass, it is beginning to be well understood hybrids are as fertile as species.

And the first has little weight because the range of natural variation is also well known to be as great as any variation through crossing.

We have been quite willing to give space to a full discussion of this question, because it would be of immense advantage to pomology if it could be demonstrated that the peach and plum would freely hybridize. - Ed. G. M].