BRIEF REMARKS. 181 



untruth ; but I feel called upon, in vindication of my character for 

 truth and honesty of purpose, to refute the calumny. 



Your correspondent proceeds to misconstrue the words of my letter, 

 and accuses me of finding fault with the work in which the diagrams 

 appear, which I most positively deny : there is not a word about the 

 merits or demerits of the work' itself. I referred to the drawings and 

 diagrams only. He then asserts that I have told an untruth, and states 

 " But I shall not quibble on straws — the petals are not of two different 

 widths ; it is simply an untruth ; [No doubt he meant only a miscalcu- 

 lation. — Editor.] but it would not alter the case." Those are his 

 words, and I beg you will print them, Avith the italics, precisely as in 

 his own article. Now let us see who has told an untruth. 



Take the diagram of a perfect Carnation, as it is called. The upper 

 guard petal in the plate is within a trifle (under or over) one and a half 

 inches broad, at the junction with the two adjoining petals ; the com- 

 passes being placed on the outer edge of the diagram at the points of 

 junction. Of course this would not be the broadest part of the petal, 

 if it could all be seen ; but with this difficulty standing in my way, I 

 can show to your readers who has told an untruth on this subject. The 

 lower petal is the widest of the three other petals which imbricate and 

 form the first tier ; and although there is a perceptible difference in 

 applying the compasses, between this and the two oiher imbricating 

 petals (which, by the way, is of itself a refutation of the statement of 

 your correspondent), I can afford to select the broadest for him, and at 

 the broadest part shown it is only one inch and three-eighths. Now, 

 Sir, I ask you candidly^ whether I committed myself by telling an 

 untruth, when I stated the petals on the same tier were of two widths ? 

 Observe, if the two petals could be separated from the rest, and mea- 

 sured at the broadest part of each, the difference would be considerably 

 more. 



But as your correspondent has made such a repetition of the excel- 

 lency of the work entitled "The Properties of Flowers and Plants," 

 he will have no objection, I presume, to my referring to that work 

 (particularly if lie is related to the author), although it should be 

 found to disagree with the diagrams. The author states, — " there 

 should not be less than five or six rows of petals laid regularly, and the 

 flower should rise and form a good bold centre or crown ; and in quan- 

 tity should form half a ball." " The petals should be stiff and slightly 

 cupped." And yet it is now asserted that neither seven tiers, or forty- 

 two petals, or more if they could be obtained, would be too many ! 

 Perhaps not, if we had more " Professors of Dressing the Carnation 

 and Picotee " than we have at present. A rosette, too, is now prefer- 

 able it seems to "half a ball;" verily this is like G. G., or Glenny 

 improving upon Glenny ! 



1 had no intention of' interfering with or alluding to the " Properties 

 of Flowers and Plants" in my article in the Midland Florist, nor do I 

 now think I did. What I referred to was, the different width of petals 

 on the same tier in the diagrams, which are not published in that work, 

 although your correspondent intimates they have been published and 

 approved many years. I have a copy of the second edition, 1847, on 



