P. B. Mead, Esq. - Dear Sir, - I take the liberty to send you, pre-paid by Express, a few bunches of grapes, grown upon a vine found a few years since in the garden of the late Dr. Spofford of this place, where the To Kalon originated. Will you be so kind as to inform me what variety it is, and whether you consider it worthy of dissemination. Good judges here pronounce it superior to Diana. The vine is perfectly hardy, and the fruit ripens ten days before Isabella.

Lansingburgh, N. Y"., Oct. 22d, 1861. A Subscriber.

[The above was duly received, for which please accept our thanks. In answer to our subscriber's queries, we remark, that the grape is entirely new to us, being distinct from any now in cultivation, but resembling somewhat a seedling we received from another quarter. We desire to compare the two more closely. We have no hesitation in saying that it is worthy of dissemination. The bunch and berry are above medium size, and of the best quality. The color is not very attractive, being of a dull claret or red; the color, however, constitutes one of its distinctive features. We have a drawing in preparation, with which we shall give a description. This and Mr. Merceron's grape we can cheerfully endorse. - Ed].

Mr. Peter B. Mead : - Sir: In your remarks on my note of correction, about the name of Camellia Cochlidea, you make some statements, which require a few words in reply.

You state it was proper to call Mr, Humphrey's plants, the "original stock"

If Mr. Becar had never raised any but the seedling plant, and Mr. Humphrey procured it from him, then he might claim having the "original stock;" but as Mr. Becar raised several, and they being distributed among different parties, Mr. Humphrey's has no more right to be called the " original stock "than any of the others.

The only "legitimate" authority to name a seedling is the raiser thereof. And the plant of my friend the amateur, coming from the collection of Mr. Becar, being duly purchased, (know nothing of the stolen plant, hearing of it from you for the first time,) and declared by the seller to be the only plant in existence; the amateur therefore being possessed, as he thought, of the true "original stock," unbaptized, was certainly then the duly accredited namer. I fail to see why Cochlidea is not as legitimate as Spiralis rubra, which you name it, after it has been known to the public for at least three years as Cochlidea.

I need only reiterate my former statement, that as Cochlidea, it is pretty well known in the vicinity of New York. It is to be found as such at Mr. Buchanan's and Mr. Bridgeman's, and probably some more of the florists, and in several of our first class collections. But we need not wonder at your not being fully posted on this matter, when we know that the two best private collections of Camellias in New York, both containing the disputed plant, have never yet been honored by an inspection from the Editor of the Horticulturist.

Until you show us why the name ought to be changed to Spiralis rubra, I don't see why we should not stick to its equally " legitimate" and older one of Cochlidea. Unde.

[it seems to us that Unde has pre-determined not to understand what we said, and it is always a difficult matter to convince a man against his will. Yet, with singular inconsistency, he admits precisely what we claim, viz., that Mr. Humphrey's plant having come from Mr. Becar's collection, it is proper to call it original stock; so, also, it is proper to call Unde's friend's plant original stock. Unde must understand as well as we do, that by original stock is not meant the original plant. In regard to naming a plant, the legitimate authority to do so resides originally in the person who raised it; he can exercise that authority himself, or request others to do it for him; and that is precisely what was done in this case. There is a recognized and acknowledged rule, too, that the person who first publicly describes a plant has a right to name it. Unde's friend may have thought he purchased the only plant in existence, but we know that he did not. Mr. Becar never parted with all the plants of any of his selected seedlings; he had plants of them all to the day of his death. We say we know it, because it is a matter entirely within our personal knowledge.

If Unde's friend had had the only plant in existence, no one would question his right to name it; and we wish to be distinctly understood as having no controversy with him on this point. As to the plant having "been known to the public for at least three years as Cochlidea," we have only to say, that Unde's public and our public are bodies of vastly different magnitude: there is simply a difference of opinion here. Unde reiterates, "that as Cochlidea it is pretty well known in the vicinity of New York," and that "it is to he found as such at Mr. Buchanan's and Mr. Bridgeman's, and probably some more of the florists," which is not quite so immoderate as his first statement. But in this connection we have only to repeat the denial in our last. Thinking it strange that we had not seen it, except as noted last month, we applied personally to our principal Camellia growers, and they assured us it was not among their plants. Being at Mr. Bridgeman's several days after the receipt of Unde's present article, we asked Mr. Bridgeman again if it was in his collection, and he told us it was not, and his word is as good as gold. We could give additional force to this point if we chose.

Unde adds, not as politely, however, as he might, that we have never inspected the two best private collections in New York. There may be some difference of opinion as to which are the two best private collections in New York, but we should esteem it a personal favor if Unde would tell us which two he refers to. In one of them he probably refers to Mr. Stewart's. If so, he is mistaken; for we saw his fine collection of plants long before we saw those under Unde's care. In conclusion, if Unde is not already convinced that Spiralis rubra is properly named, we fear we can say nothing that will convince him.* If we admit the claim of Unde, we do not see how we can deny that of others who have had it* for several years under the name of the Screw, which we discarded as mildly as we could, because of our previous knowledge of the plant. , Under the circumstances, we really can not perceive why all the parties should not show their good nature and good sense by letting the matter remain where we have placed it. - Ed].