3i8 Bulletin 136. 



38. Green Emerald. 



45, Invincible. 



48. I to. Admiral. 



54. Kahma. 



50. Kimball, Edwin A. 

 61. Mas;ee, Miss L. 



60. McHattieJ. IV. 



72. Owen, Walter. 



82. Ridgezuay, Lady. 



81. Roberts, Gen. 



94. Taicvan. 



87. Triomphe de St. Laurent. 

 99. Western King. 



98. Wright, Miss Helen. 



Unpopular Varieties (M^ Chinese type.^ 



The varieties 20 and 88 here named were the best of the novelties in this now 



unpopular class. These varieties are good of their type, but the Chinese or 



ball-form class is in such little favor that it seems almost necessary to put 



these varieties in the unpromising list. All the rest of our Chinese sorts of 



the year were much below the average of what we have formerly seen. 



13. Bock, Betty. 



21. ColiDubine. 



20. Curtis, Chas. H. 



44. Haigh, George. 



42. Hatfield, Mrs. T. D. 



51. Kingston, Mrs. R. C. 

 62. 3Tongolian Prince. 



88. Signal Light. 



Less Promising Varieties. 



The following list of less promising varieties contains those nov- 

 elties in which we seem to detect essentials that are likely 

 to disqualify them permanently; the judgments are formed 

 solely upon the behavior of the plants at Cornell in 1896. How to 

 treat the great number of sorts that are no improvement on old and 

 established kinds but apparently just as good, is a perennial 

 puzzle. (I am not speaking of those that are identical, but of those 

 that are so similar as to be horticulturally synonymous.) Our 

 rule is to offer them as equivalents or substitutes whenever their 

 merits are urgent, and discard the rest. Fine flowers do not make 

 fine varieties. We know how the old plants respond to cultural 

 conditions, but what of the new ? 



Varieties and fashions are proverbially ephemeral and our j udg- 

 ments can hardly be as ruthless as those of Time himself — the 

 Prince of novelty testers. Probably not ten of these hundred new 

 things will be alive in another decade. 



