I have read with much interest the articles by Mr. Fuller on the propagation of plants; but I must confess that on reading the one on the propagation of plants by divisions of the roots, I was not a little surprised at the criticisms which he offers on the works of Gray, Lindley, and Schlei-dcn. That these authors should have fallen into any very gross errors in regard to the morphology of plants was something surprising to me.

Schleiden is well known to be one of the most careful of original observers, a man who has worked ably and industriously upon the structure of plants. Gray is a botanist of the first rank, and is well known in other departments of that science besides taxonomy, while Lindley was unquestionably at the head of the scientific horticulturists of Great Britain. That all these men should be in error on the point in question does indeed seem strange.

After carefully reading Mr. Fuller's article and the references he has given to the works of these distinguished men, I have no hesitation in saying that he has not presented a fair statement of their views and of the morphological principles which they advance. They take a purely scientific view of the subject. For such purposes definitions must be close and exact, and their definitions are such as exclude from the catalogue of roots a great many things which find a place there in the minds of common readers. Thus, we all know that when farmers speak of root crops, they include potatoes. Neither Gray, Schleiden, nor Lindley admit potatoes among roots. Schleiden carries this so far as to deny entirely to some plants the possession of true roots, as Mr. Fuller will see if he reads on five lines beyond the passage which he quoted from that author.

If he will consult De Candolle's "Or-ganographie Vegetale," he will find that at one time it was proposed by Hedwig to call all underground parts roots. Probably Mr. Fuller has adopted Hedwig's definition.

But it was seen at once that this would not answer. It would be tedious to give the reasons. They are fully set forth by De Candolle.

Then again, in regard to Dr. Gray: At page 102 of the work quoted by Mr. Fuller, he says: "To the general statement that roots give birth to no other organs, there is this abnormal, but by no means unusual exception, that of producing buds, and therefore of sending up leafy branches. Although not naturally furnished with buds like the item, yet, under certain circum-stances, the roots of many trees and shrubs, and of some herbs, have the power of producing them abundantly. Thus, when the trunk of a young apple-tree or poplar is cut off near the ground, while the roots are vigorous and full of elaborated sap, those which spread just beneath the surface produce buds and give rise to young shoots. The roots of the Maclura or Osage Orange habitually give rise to such irregular or adventitious buds and branches."

With all due deference to Mr. Fuller, I think Dr. Gray's expose of the facts in the case quite as full and quite as clear as that given in the September number of the Horticulturist.

Dr. Lindley is quoted as saying that cuttings should be made only from those parts of the plants which have buds upon the surface. To this Mr. Fuller objects, that we never look for buds - just as if our looking for them made any difference. Moreover, buds may exist, and yet not be very obvious to uneducated eyes. Mr. Fuller well knows that if he were to offer for sale a quantity of grapevine cuttings which did not contain very visible buds, he would make but slow sales. Here we have a plant on which in those parts usually employed for propagation the buds are very prominent. On the other hand, every botanist knows that the willow is nearly covered with adventitious buds, which can be very readily seen if looked for properly.

But Mr. Fuller says that the doctrine laid down by Dr. Lindley would lead us to ignore the use of leaves for propagation. Now, it so happens that at page 271* of Dr. Lindley's work, he commences a whole chapter devoted to the propagation of plants from mere leaves! Moreover, he refers to the old work of Agricola (edited by Bradley, London, 1721), to show that the process is an old one. Agricola's work is a very curious production, and gives very full details in regard to the propagation of plants by leaf. Of all the old authors that we have read, he came nearest to a description of the modern system of propagating grapevines by eyes.

In regard to propagation by leaves, Dr. Lindley says: "The mere leaves of some plants will grow under special circumstances - a fact often supposed to be much more rare than it really is."

Moreover, in regard to propagation from roots, Dr. Lindley gives nearly two pages of fine type describing the methods of propagating plants from pieces of roots. (Op. cit., pp. 282-4.)

But Dr. Lindley holds with Schleiden, that roots have no buds. "In general, roots have no buds, and are therefore incapable of multiplying the plant to which they belong. But it constantly happens, in some species, that they have the power of forming what are called adventitious buds; and in such cases they may be employed for purposes of propagation. There is no rule by which the power of a plant to generate such buds by its roots can be judged of. Experiment is therefore necessary, in all cases, to determine the point" He then gives an instance (Anemone ja-ponica), in which he says: "Every fragment of the plant is reproductive." (Op. cit., page 31.)

He also describes a process very similar to that figured by Mr. Fuller, but in regard to it he says: "They [the roots] are now in every respect similar to branches, developing buds, and consequently all the appendages of the axis. They appear anatomically the same as branches, excepting the pith, of which they are destitute. Now, it appears that roots when so circumstanced perform all the functions of the stein, confirming Knight's theory, that sap can at any time generate buds, without any previously-formed rudiment, when circumstances are favorable to their production."

These extracts from their works show very clearly, we think, that Lindley, Gray, and Schleiden are quite as fully posted in regard to the facts in the case as is Mr. Fuller. Is it to be supposed, then, that such men would stultify themselves by denying in one breath what they were about to assert in the next ? Such a supposition is too grossly absurd for me to believe. The difficulty is, that Mr. Fuller has merely glanced at the works of the authors he has undertaken to criticise, and has failed to inform himself fully as to their views. When he does this, I think the "mystifying statements" of which he complains will become plain. Bibliophile.

Asparagus beds may be made this month just as successfully as in the spring. Prepare the ground by digging or plowing "Theory of Horticulture," London, 1865. The American edition, by Downing, contains the same chaptsr. it deep - not less than sixteen inches - securing some drainage from the beds into the alleys, and thence freely away. Cut off the tops of the plants, plant about three inches deep, and dress the whole bed over with coarse manure four inches deep.