276 



JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 



[ April 14, 1870. 



ers put this question to himself, and I venture to think the 

 answer will be an emphatic No. Unquestionably some of the 

 first men in all classes compete for prizes, and win them too, 

 and some of the first men are appointed as censors ; but for 

 one of the highest calibre who competes or judges constantly or 

 frequently, many of the same calibre take no active part in the 

 matter. 



It must be known to the regular visitors of our London 

 flower showB, that exhibitors who have long figured as stars of 

 the first magnitude, rising and setting with planetary regu- 

 larity, now shine less frequently, and some are disappearing 

 altogether — departing to shed their light in other spheres. I 

 believe that there are more good and beautiful things now 

 than at any former period which never come up for judgment 

 before our judges or floral committees. .There must be reasons 

 for this. With regard to the exhibitor of novelties, the oc- 

 casional thefts which have been practised at flower shows of 

 late have, no doubt, acted with him as a powerful deterrent. 

 Then the grounds on which our censors act are not very clearly 

 defined ; there are different schools of opinion, and hence the 

 glorious uncertainty of prizes. How often collections of plants 

 and flowers are exhibited on the merits of which there are con- 

 flicting opinions, the exhibitors and their friends agreeing on 

 one point only — that the prizes depend on who are the judges. 

 Hence your first-class man who may belong to another Bchool 

 than that from which the judges are chosen, may find his pro- 

 ductions branded with a low mark, when he and his school 

 think them entitled to a high one. " Better not marked at 

 all " is their reasoning. I cannot but think here that it would 

 be in the general interests of horticulture that the names of 

 the judges should be published in advance. In the present 

 Btate of things the managers of our flower shows find by ex- 

 perience that, in order to obtain the necessary complement of 

 plants and flowers, they must consult the wishes of the com- 

 petitors as to the selection of judges, and the exhibitors often 

 virtually, although not ostensibly, appoint them. This may 

 be necessary to secure a large show, but does it serve the 

 best interests of horticulture ? Does it not open the door to 

 combinations from without, against which a dreaded rival or 

 an indapendent exhibitor cannot contend on fair and equal 

 grounds ? Further, the practice of appointing nurserymen as 

 judges does not commend itself to my views. What has he to 

 judge ? The productions of his rivals or his customers ! How- 

 ever sternly honest he may be, his position is a false one ; 

 he is unavoidably open to distrust because presumably in- 

 terested in the issues. 



The next question that I have to propose is, Can our 

 flower shows be made to pay ? What are the causes which 

 induce horticulturists, amateur and professional, to bring their 

 productions before the public ? The English horticulturist, 

 although often humble and plodding, is not destitute of chivalry, 

 and the love of breaking a lance with a rival or a friend 

 no doubt influences many. But fame of another kind, and 

 money, are perhaps more common influences, especially with 

 professional exhibitors. For the acquisition of these a man of 

 the highest order of intellect sees many avenues open to him, 

 and this one must be made more attractive than the rest to in- 

 duce him to enter it, or if once within to hold him to his course. 



Perhaps flower shows might still be made to pay if exhibitors 

 would be satisfied with smaller money prizes. I do not con- 

 demn the practice of giving large money prizes. Although 

 one of the leading journals (not horticultural) once pronounced 

 the system to be tantamount to giving an annuity to certain 

 firms, we know by experience that the largest prize is money 

 laboriously earned. But if the Societies cannot afford to give 

 large prizes, we must accept small ones, or look to other sources 

 to maintain the footing we have acquired, and to secure solid 

 standing ground whence to push forward the work iu which we 

 are engaged. I have often thought that if nurserymen gene- 

 rally would give special shows of their specialities, trusting to 

 sales and the publicity thus gained to recoup themselves — if 

 amateurs and gardeners generally would send anything re- 

 markable, not necessarily for competition or for large money 

 prizes, but specially for honorary rewards, the new features 

 of such exhibitions might for a time at least prove attrac- 

 tive. But the question naturally arises, Will they do this ? 

 Doubtless many will, but how many cannot be ascertained 

 otherwise than by experiment. In my judgment, as concerns 

 the nurserymen, the business of the future will lie with those 

 who show and sell, rather than with those who only show, good 

 plants and flowers. Beyond this, professional exhibitors of 

 forecast will perceive that if not actually paid in coin for their 



labour, the prestige, position, and influence they acquire by 

 exhibiting are capital well invested for their interests in the 

 future. 



In conclusion, it seems to me that horticulture has never 

 received from the state the recognition it deserves, and this, 

 probably, for no other reason but because its ablest representa- 

 tives have been comparatively humble plodding men. But is 

 not humility one of the first of Christian virtues ? and are not 

 the plodding men a chief source of strength and wealth in a 

 great commercial country like this? Some few years since a 

 great impulse waB given to horticultural pursuits by the re- 

 moval of the duty from timber and glass, and our Government 

 has done much of late by a wise and judicious expenditure in 

 decorating the public parks. But the whole thing wants lift- 

 ing bodily. The cultivation of fruits, vegetables, and flowers 

 is already an important branch of national industry, is becom- 

 ing more and more so every day, and the study and practice of 

 it is calculated to make good men and good subjects. The 

 Belgian Government, prompted by their late wise and virtuous 

 King, Leopold I., saw this, and Belgium has benefited largely 

 as a country by the efforts of its Government to lift horticulture 

 in the scale of UFef ul and industrial arts. — William Paul, Paul's 

 Nurseries, Waltham Cross, N. 



CONIFER NOMENCLATURE. 



I quite agree with "C. W. D." (see page 243), that there is 

 a good deal of confusion in the nomenclature of Conifers, but 

 at present I really do not see how we are to get out of it. I 

 have as complete a collection of this tribe of plants as can be 

 met with. I take great pains to keep them true to name, yet 

 am always in difficulty. I had a letter a short time ago from 

 one of the greatest Conifer authorities containing a list of about 

 thirty coniferous plants, and asking if I could spare any of 

 those kinds and vouch for their being correct to name. I really 

 thought this beyond a joke. I had been in the habit of care- 

 fully studying his articles on them, where he pointed out to 

 amateurs the many synonyms which different Conifers bore, 

 and the great doubts that existed as to the propriety of names 

 borne by many of them ; and yet this very authority that I 

 had been worshipping, as it were, asked me to spare him a few 

 rare species warranted truo to name ! Had I sent them, I 

 should have been quite prepared to have received several of 

 them back again with a message that this one was not of Hart- 

 wig, that one not of Douglas, i-c. Only yesterday a friend 

 brought me a gentleman;. who pretended to know much about 

 Conifers. I showed him my wonders, and at the end of our 

 tour he told me I had a marvellous collection, but I had no 

 Sequoia. I tried in vain to explain that some Taxodiums and 

 the Wellingtonia were called Sequoia, but that it was a name 

 rarely used ; notwithstanding this he actually hiod to assure 

 me that there was a plant known wholly and only by the name 

 of Sequoia, and I ought to get it. Here, thought I, is a victim 

 to the " confusion in the nomenclature of Conifers." 



A few foreign lists are helping to get us farther in'.o diffi- 

 culties by adopting Carrie-re's classification. Thus, our old 

 friend CupressusLawsoniana becomes ChamircyparisBoursieri, 

 CupresBus nutkaensis is the new name for Thujopsis borealis, 

 Retinospora leptoclada (sent out, I believe, by E. G. Hender- 

 son & Son a few years back), rejoices in the longer title of 

 Chamajeyparis spha'roidea andelyensis, and Psendotsuga Doug- 

 lasii replaces Abies Douglasii. 



" C. W. D." is quite correct in presuming the Abies taxifolia 

 he Baw at Dropmore is a variety of A. Douglasii. It has shorter 

 foliage, and is quite a distinct-looking tree ; it does not, how- 

 ever, come true from seed (I have sown imported seed of it), 

 and is therefore rarely met with. Less confusion, I imagine, 

 would arise if nurserymen, or even amateurB. were to affix the 

 botanists' name after each kind. We desire no mere new 

 names. Conifers do not want re-classifying. The Araucaria 

 would have just the same majesty if it were henceforth to be 

 called AgaricuB, but there always will be the same confusion 

 unless both dealers and collectors affix the botanists' name as 

 I have just proposed. — Gullelmus. 



GLAZrNG WITHOUT LAPS. 

 Having just completed the glazing of upwards of 4000 square 

 feet without laps, I am able to render " Poplar " some assist- 

 ance. For the last two years I have been making experiments 

 in growing fruit trees in glass structures, which I have called 



