204 THE TLORIST. 



WHAT IS THE PROPER SIZE FOR A SHOW DAHLIA? 



In resuming my observations on stands or collections of Dahlias, I wish 

 to offer a few brief remarks concerning the size of the flower, and, in 

 doing so, 1 hope to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the question at the 

 head of this paper. 



To award praise where praise is due is always a graceful and pleasing 

 task, and with reference to the point now under consideration, it is 

 gratifying to recognise those indications of a purer and more refined 

 taste which are gradually in the course of development. Until the past 

 autumn I had not enjoyed the opportunity of witnessing a Dahlia show 

 on a large scale since the year 1848, and I could not avoid being 

 struck with the difference in the character of the flowers staged on the 

 two occasions. At the former period exhibitors seemed to have devoted 

 all their energies to the production of large specimens, in the attainment 

 of which end every other consideration appeared to have been lost sight 

 of. At the present time a close, compact, and well-formed bloom, of 

 only moderate size, is far more highly prized than a large, loose, and 

 open variety. This is, doubtless, as it should be. But it appears to me 

 that a great object would be attained by the establishment of something 

 like a rule as to the most appropriate size for a show Dahlia. I am 

 not aware that this has hitherto been done in such a manner as to be 

 generally satisfactory. The latest treatise on this flower which I have 

 seen says, " The standard which is now adopted is that no flower 

 should be less than four, and not greater than six, inches in diameter." 

 Now here these questions naturally arise : — Is this standard practically 

 recognised either by exhibitors or censors ? and is it, in truth, the best 

 that could be adopted ? I think I am not far wrong in giving a negative 

 reply to both. 



While I am free to admit that any arbitrary limitation to the size of 

 a flower is open to considerable objection, I am still of opinion that a 

 standard with a narrower boundary than the one I have quoted would 

 materially tend to improve the general effect of a stand of Dahlias ; nor 

 can I see any great difficulty in adhering — approximately, if not 

 rigidly — to such a standard. I would propose, then, " that no flower 

 should be less than four, nor more than five, inches in diameter." I 

 look upon a Dahlia six inches across as a hisus natiirce, and am disposed 

 to regard it, like all unnatural productions, with astonishment rather 

 than admiration. A bloom of these dimensions may occasionally be 

 produced, but to what purpose ? It will be useless as a show flower, 

 for it is well nigh impossible to have a sufficient number of these 

 monsters at the same time t » make up a row. Besides, such blooms 

 are, almost invariably, " flat and unprofitable." Bear witness you who 

 grew Niobe and Jaune de Passy last year ! 



But mere opinions are little worth until proved to be correct by the 

 touchstone of experience and observation. If mine will not bear that 

 test, good reader, away with them at once. Only bear with me a 

 moment, while, with your assistance, I endeavour to make out my case. 

 Of course you have the back numbers of the Florist not very far off*. 



