30 Retrospective Criticism. 



The charge of " prejudice" we disclaim. 



It may not be improper to state, that the Editor kneio, or should have 

 known, that the rules of the Metropolitan Society of florists and ama- 

 teurs of London, have not been adopted by the Massachusetts Horticul- 

 tural Society; and if his mark of approbation was given, on the princi- 

 ple which governs the members of that Society, we will venture an 

 opinion, that all the other gentlemen used their own eyes, and their own 

 opinions, when they marked for the best flower. 



It appears somewhat unaccountable to us, that the owner of the flow- 

 er Victoria should be the only person present who should be able to ap- 

 preciate the beauty of " the most attractive flower in the room," upon 

 which, at "every show," "encomiums" had been "bestowed" while 

 " others equally fine were scarcely thought of." Were all the persons 

 present prejudiced ? 



In our former paper we mentioned Victoria, with a view to show how 

 the Editor's taste, (whose "duty" it is "to decide") was sustained by 

 the marking for the best dahlias; which he now states "cannot be con- 

 sidered as any test of their respective merits." By this assertion does 

 the Editor wish it to be understood that he considers himself possessing 

 better taste than the other nine gentlemen, some of whom (to speak ad- 

 visedly) have had as long experience and as good success in the cultiva- 

 tion of the dahlia as himself ? or is their marking to be considered as no 

 test, because they have judged by what they have seen and known, rath- 

 er than from the information of the Editor and his English reports ? 



The scale made by the Editor, from the English periodicals, is foreign 

 to our purpose. Many varieties of the dahlia that continue to take 

 prizes, in England, have been excluded from some of the best collections 

 in this country, as they seldom give us a passable specimen; other va- 

 rieties may probably do better in this country than they do in England, 

 and this may be the case with the Marquis of Northampton. We 

 marked for this flower, using our omj/i judgment; and there was no other 

 variety that received a greater number of marks, as the best formed 

 flower. The statement made by the Editor, that the Marquis of North- 

 ampton has not taken " a single prize," this season, in England, is in- 

 correct; we have proof to the contrary. The Conqueror of Europe is 

 too well known to require praise at our hands; it received seven out of 

 ten marks, as the best flower ; a pretty good proof that it was the "most 

 attractive flower in the room.'" 



Will the Editor please to point out when and where JVidnall's Prin- 

 cess Victoria obtained a prize. We have examined the reports of the 

 American, English and Scotch Horticultural Exhibitions, and, thus far, 

 it ap|)ears WidnalPs Princess Victoria (probably " for want of size") 

 has not even made an entry in the " winning stand" of Mr. Widnall, or 

 any other cultivator. 



We respectfully request that you will give the above a place in your 

 next number. 



Yours, &c. M. P. Wilder, 



S. Walker. 

 Dorchester, Dec. 21, 1837. 



*^* Since the above communication was written, we have examined 

 Mr. Widnall's catalogue of May, 1837, and find the Beauty of Cam- 

 bridge is retained in his collection of "superb dahlias," with the follow- 

 ing notice, viz: 



" S. W. has aijain taken from his list of 183G more than fifty of the 

 old varieties, and has added about the same number of the newest and 

 best kinds, all of which obtained prizes at the princii^al exhibitions of 

 the last season." 



