32 ON THE PKRFECTION OF PINKS, I'lCOTEES, AND CARNATIONS. 



cultivators of those divisions of the Dianthus family known as Pinks, 

 Picotees, and Carnations. 



The first step, it appears to me, towards an amicable solution of the 

 difficulty is to point out in what the difference really consists. In the 

 first place, the northerns are challenged by the southerns for an extreme 

 thinness, as being but just one remove from their primitive " single 

 blessedness." On the other hand, the southerns are blamed for raising, 

 fostering, and distributing quite the reverse, or full flowers, somewhat 

 vulgarly denominated " mops." 



Are these differences never to be adjusted ? for in this one ingredient, 

 viz., the number of petals constituting a perfect flower, lies the sup- 

 posed barrier. That all growers agree as to colours, their brilliancy, 

 and distribution, shape of individual petals, the desirableness of smooth 

 edges and thickness of texture, their imbricating arrangement for the 

 better display of such colours and markings, size of specimen, and dis- 

 tinctness of variety, no one has ever yet denied, therefore the difficulty 

 is very far from insurmountable, if we calmly discuss the subject ; let 

 all be friends in the good cause, and vigorously set about tlie amalga- 

 mation of opinions, and so clear up existing doubts. The many floral 

 organs now at our disposal offer a happy medium for intercommuni- 

 cation, and it must go hard indeed if, ere long, northerns and southerns 

 be not so united that our metropolitan exhibition of " tlie happy family " 

 shall no longer " stand alone in its glory." In offering my views on 

 the subject, I anticipate and desire some rejoinder — I merely seek to 

 open tlie question, so that by-and-by our editors, conductors, super- 

 intendents, and all " of that ilk," will have a goodly crop of seed, 

 which, wlien harvested, and in due time " thrashed out," may, I hope, 

 yield them a fair return for our occupying so much of tlieir grounds — 

 or pages. 



What have we first to consider? The nortiierns and southerns are 

 said to differ; this gives rise to other questions, viz., who are the 

 northerns, and who are the southerns? are there no others interested 

 in these differences? no down easterns, or far westerns? are they of no 

 consideration? It may be all very fine, Messrs. Ely, Dodwell, Slater, 

 Wood, Cheetham, Ilepworth, Lightbody, Gatliff, and our other friends 

 far north, for " York is wanted;" but Messrs. Puxley, May, Pond, 

 Willmer, Headley, Twitchett, Barnard, Edmonds, Young, Creed, 

 Keynes, Hale, Smith, Ward, Norman, Matthews, Kirtland, Traiiar, 

 Turner, Fellovves, Burroughes, Wilson, Garratt, " do not lodge there," 

 for until the " boundary question" be first settled, all must be " con- 

 fusion worse confounded." 



Our midland friends (thanks to I. F. Wood for perpetuating the 

 distinction by his powerful, yet merciful organ Tlie Midland Florist,) 

 Messrs. Fletcher, Marris, IloUyoiik, Barringer, Holliday, and others, 

 representing Birmingham, Warwick, Coventry, Bedford, Northampton, 

 Leicester, and neighbouring districts, are purposely passed over, or 

 only very sliglitly touched upon, for obvious reasons; they at present 

 are almost without a " local habitation and a name," a sort of hybrid, 

 or Jack-on-both-sides, and must so remain unless we give them a settle- 

 ment ; their claims are strong, however, and amongst them are men 



