being broken by the wind; that is, let the middle of the branch run in be on the outside of the shoot you wish to preserve, and the ends tucked under the two adjoining branches. After the fall of the leaf it will be necessary to take out these loose branches, which will give the shoots more liberty, and admit the sun and air to ripen the wood before the spring pruning." FORSYTH, Ed. 3. p. 49.

Yet this practice, it appears, has been pursued in His Majesty's Gardens at Kensington, and is set forth in Mr. Forsyth's Book, I imagine, as a model of excellence.

There can, indeed, be little doubt of the excellence of such a system, since it possesses the peculiar advantage over all other systems, of causing the wood to ripen during the depth of winter, by the admission of sun and air.

Now, with all due respect for this authority, I would suggest, in contra-distinction to such a practice, that from the first time of nailing in the summer, the shoots should not be suffered to grow more than six inches before they are nailed again, and thus followed up so long as they continue to extend themselves.

In this way, I apprehend, the shoots will be as secure from a violent gale of wind, as those under the tuck system; and that they will be full as likely to ripen during the summer and autumn, whilst we have sun, as in the depth of winter when we have none.

In having given such directions for the pruning and training of Peaches and Nectarines as I have myself been taught and practised, and satisfied myself with, it remains only for me to recommend that the trees should not be overloaded with fruit, but that the crop be regulated by a judicious mode of thinning.

In the thinning of Peaches and Nectarines, and indeed any other drupaceous fruit, it is necessary to pro

ceed with caution, as they are apt to fall off after having attained a considerable size. In order, therefore, to secure a crop, it will be the best way to thin them at three separate times; the first, as soon as the fruit is of the size of a hazel-nut; the second, when of the size of a small walnut; and the third time, as soon as the stone has become hardened: after this it rarely happens that either Peach or Nectarine falls off before it is matured.

In order to render this account of Peaches and Nectarines as complete as possible, I shall in the next chapter give an extract from a paper on their Classification, which I drew up, and presented to the Horticultural Society of London, in 1824, and which is printed in the fifth volume of their Transactions, correcting two or three errors which had crept in, and adding such other varieties of fruit as have since that time come under my own personal observation.

THE Confusion of the sorts of Peaches and Nectarines, the misapplication of their names, and the perplexity thus occasioned both to the nurseryman and the gardener, are sufficient inducements to attempt such an arrangement as may remove these inconveniences. I am aware that this has been already done to a certain extent; but the characters employed for the purpose have, I conceive, been insufficient, as will appear on a comparison of the different arrangements now to be examined. In doing this there is no great difficulty, since the authors to be considered are but few.

MILLER and DUHAMEL† are the first who have given us any thing like systematic descriptions, and they have gone no further than to distinguish, generally, sawed from crenate or smooth leaves, large from small flowers, and to separate the Peaches with downy skins from the Nectarines with smooth skins, and those whose flesh adheres to the stone from those whose flesh separates from the stone. Had there been no augmentation

* Gardener's Dictionary, 8th edit. art. Persica.

+ Traité des Arbres Fruitiers, par Duhamel, vol. ii. p. 1, &c.

of the number of varieties of these fruits since the time when these authors wrote, their distinctions would probably have been sufficient; but the great influx of new kinds demands a more systematic and extensive division.

Mr. ROBERTSON* has gone much further into this subject than either MILLER or DUHAMEL, and has favoured us with the first synoptical distribution of Peaches and Nectarines which I have met with. It is simple and perfectly clear, as far as it goes; but it is defective in general application: for if he had attempted by it to make an arrangement of all the different sorts, he would have found the eight subdivisions of his table insufficient. Mr. ROBERTSON's two classes, founded on the leaves, are correct only so far as regards the first, or those sorts whose leaves are without glands. The second, comprehending the glandular-leaved kinds, require to be extended to a third; for it includes plants with two distinct natural characters dependent on the glands. His divisions into those with large and those with small sized flowers are also objectionable, since our collections furnish several varieties of Peaches and Nectarines which possess a middle character. The designating the large blossoms as light-coloured, and the small ones as deep-coloured, cannot be admitted as proper distinctions; several of the small flowers being quite as pale as the large ones. The character of Mr. ROBERTSON'S subdivisions, founded on the adhesion of the flesh to, or the parting from, the stone, are perfectly natural.

The Editor of the Bon Jardinier, and the Count LELIEUR in his Pomone Française, have given a classification on a much more comprehensive scale, introducing a third division of flowers; and they take notice also, for the first time, I believe, of two different cha

*See Horticultural Transactions, vol. iii. p. 380.

racters in the glands of the leaves. Their method of arrangement, however, appears objectionable in forming their classes from the fruit instead of the leaves, because an attempt at a thorough classification on this principle must be ineffectual till the fruit has arrived at maturity. In forming a synoptical Table for practical purposes, we should follow nature herself as nearly as possible; we ought not to make an arrangement that is not progressive, or to which we cannot apply ourselves as the parts successively come into existence. The fruit not being the first produced, we ought not to begin with it, in preference to the leaves.

Having stated thus much, I must render a just tribute of acknowledgment to the writers last mentioned, for having brought into notice the divisions of the glandular leaves, which are highly important, and some marks of distinction between varieties which might be otherwise considered alike.

The anxiety which prevails to cultivate the Peach in its full extent, the disappointment which cultivators daily experience in finding one sort of fruit imposed upon them for another, to say nothing of the error of continuing to propagate a fruit by a name wholly at variance with acknowledged authority, have induced me to attempt such an arrangement of Peaches and Nectarines as will, to a certain extent, give a facility of discrimination in distinguishing one sort from another. For this purpose, I have formed a synopsis on so extended a scale as to admit not only all those which are at present well known, but such also as are likely to become known, or to be introduced hereafter.

To accomplish this, I create three classes, each of which has three divisions; these are each separated into two subdivisions, and every subdivision into two sections; making in the whole thirty-six sections. Part only of these sections are applicable to those varieties we