At a recent meeting of the Massachusetts Horticultural Society, Mr. Francis H. Appleton said:

" In regard to the size of trees to be planted, the experience of the essayist has resulted in the belief that it is best as a rule to set out comparatively small trees - say not over four or five feet high - for evergreens, and to use a considerably greater number than will eventually be needed, in order that they shall give mutual protection until they become well established. Deciduous trees, whose branches can be trimmed in so as to bear a proper proportion to the roots, may be planted from six to eight feet high. Shrubs and vines are best with small tops and ample roots. When there is any question as to the size of a tree, it is best to use the smaller, which will have a greater chance of success".

This is not the experience with Philadelphia planters. It depends wholly on how the tree is dug, whether a small tree is better than a large one. When people stick to the old recommendation of planting a large tree with a " ball of earth," the small one is undoubtedly best, because the best roots being farthest from the tree, they get left in the ground, while we are caring for the ball of earth which has few good roots in it. A large tree as often moved, is little better than a cutting.

When moved, as intelligent planters about Phila delphia now move, with care to get the roots at the extremities, they find large trees do just as well as small ones, and save often ten and twelve years in getting an immediate effect. Few, in the light of modern horticultural knowledge, would feel that there was any difference in risk, provided the sizes were of equal vigor and equally well dug. The preference is a mere question of cost.