Clear ideas about matters of practice are of vital importance. On looking over the literature of grape culture, we are led to believe that there is a great deal of confusion amongst horticultural writers in regard to the names of the different systems of pruning the grapevine; and hence, when we are told by a writer that he prunes according to the renewal plan, we are never quite sure that he means what he says.

Thus Fuller, in the preface to his "Grape Culturist," says: "The horizontal arm and renewal system has been given, as I believe it to be the best for general vineyard culture as well as for gardens, where circumstances will permit of its being used." And yet Mr. Fuller's system is not a renewal system at all; while upon that system (the renewal) he throws unmitigated ridicule. It is true that the system which he has described is a very good one - one of the best; and it is also true that, in the abstract, the name is of little consequence; but when we hear a grape-grower say that he prunes on the renewal plan, and prefers that to all others, we would like to know whether he prunes on the system which Mr. Fuller has described, or upon that which he has ridiculed.

We, therefore, deem it of sufficient importance to enquire what is the renewal system ?

On attempting to look up a printed definition of the term as applied to grape culture, we were somewhat surprised to find ourselves unable to trace it as far back as even Hoare himself. Id no work that we have examined can we find the term "renewal" prior to - well, we are afraid to say how late. We must turn this point over to Horticola, whose extensive research in similar directions is well known. Mearns, in Vol. IV. of Transatlantic Horticultural Society Of London (1822), uses the term "succession," and this is the nearest that we can get to it.

From all that we can gather, however, the term renewal is always applied to those systems only in which a young shoot is trained up to take the place of the part which has been cut away, and thus renew the vine; hence the terms succession and alternate sometimes mean the same thing as "renewal." Of this renewal system there are several modifications. The oldest is that commonly called the "Ohio" system. This was the system first adopted in this country. After this manner, with some modifications, were pruned the vineyards of Antil, Legaux, Smith and others; and a very good engraving of this system, as practised by these grape-growers, is given in an old work now before us, enti tled, "Rural Economy; a Treatise on Pise Building, the Culture of the Vine, and Road Making." New Brunswick, N. J., 1806.

In this system the fruit is borne upon long canes, which are cut away each season, and their place supplied by young canes grown for that purpose during the time that the crop on the fruiting canes is being produced. These young canes renew the vine, hence the name.

The second modification is that suggested by Mearns, and fully described by him in the work already cited. Phin, in his "Open Air Grape Culture," has copied Mearns' description and figures.

The third form is that which is called the "alternate spur system." This is evidently a renewal system, for each spur, after it has borne fruit, is cut away, and its place supplied by a cane grown as in the first case, the only difference being, that in the one instance the cane is left long, and in the other it is pruned to a spur. This system is never called the renewal system, but it is evidently a mere modification of that system.

Thus far, we have alluded to pruning alone. When we consider the subject of training, we find that another modification has been introduced.

The early forms of the renewal system were substantially those adopted in Ohio and elsewhere - the young shoot proceeding from a central head, and being bowed or not at the option of the cultivator. But some time prior to the year 1S36, Clement Hoare applied this renewal plan to that mode of training in which horizontal arms are adopted, and then we had a sy3tem which has been extensively known as "Hoare's Renewal System." The horizontal arms have been adopted for more than a hundred years in France, but we believe Hoaro was the first to combine these with the renewal system, properly so called.

We are aware that in making this assertion we go contrary to very high authority, but we do it, nevertheless.

Loudon, Grant, and others assert that Hoare's combination is very old. All the reply we can make is to ask for the authorities.

Grant, in his Manual, refers to Speech-ley's quarto volume for a description of Hoare's plan. Our copy of Speechley is the 8vo. edition of 1821. We understand, however, that the plates are the same as those of the quarto edition, and if so, Dr. Grant has committed a singular mistake. - Speechley's alternate system is certainly not a renewal system. Wo could not have believed that Dr. Grant could have been mistaken on this point after the particular reference that he makes to Speechley's work, but we are certain that he has examined the plates without consulting the letter press.

Plate X., in the "Treatise on Fruit-Trees," by William Forsyth (London, 1802) much more nearly resembles Hoare's system. Indeed, Forsyth came very near describing Hoare's exact plan. But a careful examination of his work shows that his system only resemble? Hoare's during the first year, and that destroys its claim to be considered the same as the alternate renewal plan.

From all that we can gather, the modern renewal system, with horizontal arms, does not date farther back than Hoare.

We believe that on this point we have examined most of the English and French authors, and we have also looked into some German works. Perhaps Hordeola can set us right if we have made a mistake; but the history of the subject is not so important. The precise meaning to be attached to the term renewal is the great point, and the fact that both Dr. Grant and Mr. Fuller have committed an error here, shows that our ideas upon this point are not as clear as they ought to be.

To Contributors and Others - Address all Communications, for the Editorial and publishing departments, to Geo. E. & F. W. Woodward, 37 Park Row, New York.