Mr. Editor: Mr. John Fiske Allen, in your November number page 516, writing about grapes, remarks: "I have never been able fully to satisfy myself that there really was any permanent difference between the White Nice and Royal Muscadine." It is quite certain the grape cultivated under the name of Nice by Mr. Allen, is not the same as grown under that name in England.

Turning to Mr. Rivers' Catalogue (an excellent authority) I find it described thus: "Berries round: medium size; greenish white; sweet and agreeable; not rich; bunch very large, often weighing several pounds." This agrees with Thompson in his description of the variety cultivated at Chiswick.

The Horticultural Society, at great labor and expense cultivated fruits from all available places, fruited and corrected the nomenclature, and we may safely suppose they are as near correct as possible.

More than twenty years since I have seen this variety cultivated, and in great perfection. It agreed in all particulars with the description of Mr. T. Rivers. An average bunch of this grape is fully six times as large as an average bunch of the Royal Muscadine. In fact, it has the largest bunch of any grape I have ever seen; not excepting Syrian, Muscats, Damascus, Palestine and others. The berries are small for a bunch of such a size - not larger than a Royal Muscadine. When fully ripe they are scarcely of as deep an amber color, and are greatly inferior to it in flavor. Indeed, it is considered in this latter quality as very poor. It has very large shoulders. In England it is very little cultivated, as it has nothing to recommend it but size of bunch.

Royal Muscadine is universally cultivated by grape growers in England, and under its other name Ghasselas de Fontainbleau, in France; and is considered the same grape by Thompson, who had opportunities of growing plants and fruiting from various 'sources, and in this the leading grape growers in England agree with him. - Johx Saul, Washington, D. C.

Grapes #1

Mr. Editor. - My attention has been called to an article of Mr. Allen's in reply to Mr. Eaton of Buffalo, as to the difference between the so-called Royal Muscadine, and Chasselas Fontainbleau grape. I have had the experience of some twenty-years among vines, and if your humble servant had the capacity to see and know the difference between a cabbage and a cauliflower during that period, perhaps it will be generally conceded he knows the difference between two varieties of grapes. Now to the subject.

The Royal Muscadine of England, and the Chasselas Fontainbleau of France, are identical and the same grape. But here let me be understood. There is in this country as well as in England a confliction of nomenclature. We have there as here a White Muscadine, or White Chasselas - the latter and the former are confounded. The White Muscadine bunches are of medium size, shouldered, rather loose and long; berries globular, light green, flesh rather firm, flower never large, yet passable.

Royal Muscadine or Chasselas Fontainbleau, bunches large and shouldered. Berries round, middle-sized, growing crowded, amber color; when ripe flavor excellent; wood stronger and darker than the above. This variety we grow, and the bunches are commonly one and a half pounds. Again, Mr. Allen is of the opinion that the White Nice and Royal Muscadine are the same. Now to me this difference is monstrous. I cannot conceive any greater difference existing between any two vines (except that of white and black) than exist between the Nice and Royal Muscadine, or Chasselas Fontainbleau. However, I will endeavor to describe the Nice as I have known it in the Horticultural Society's Garden in London, seen it elsewhere, know it and grow it myself. First, the vine is a very strong grower, almost as strong as the Syrian, foliage very large. I have just measured some of the leaves and find they are sixteen inches long by twelve wide, very downy underneath the leaf; young wood rather light, with a red stripe, bunches very large, often twenty-four inches long and twenty inches wide. My experience is that, with good culture the size of the bunch improves with the age of this vine. Berries medium size, appear soon after setting to be rather thinly set on the ramifications of the bunch.

Footstalk of the berry very long. Color yellowish green, when ripe.

In reference to the footstalk of this grape, I do not know any other that resembles it. It seems to carry each berry erect, not hanging one on the other for support like the Syrian, Palestine, or Barbarossa. Again, the size of the foliage, also the color, is vastly different from the Royal Muscadine; the leaves of the latter measuring ten inches over, and of a light green, the former sixteen inches and dark green. The Royal Muscadine weighing one pound and a half. The White Nice weighing five and often six pounds. My conclusion is, that Mr. Allen does not grow this White Nice, from his own description of it, but has the Royal Muscadine for it. Again, the old White Muscadine is plentiful enough all over the country for Chasselas Fontain-bleau; and this explains the mystery with Mr. Allen in his not being able to discover much difference between the two. No person that ever grew White Nice, true to name, could confound it with any of the Chasselas. Now we are speaking of grapes I may mention the Barbarossa, or Prince Albert an identical. And with me it deserves a better characfer than is generally given it in reference to its fruitfulness. I have cut this season 35 pounds from an eye struck and planted in the spring of 1856, many of the bunches weighing 5 pounds and one 6 pounds.

Please remember this is not guess work, for we weigh all the fruit twice over, on the premises and in New York City where it is sold. This was produced too, without any dead horses in the borders. Yours very respectfully, Fox Meadow.