Retrospective Criticism. 275 



1834, I find his letter, dated in December of the same year, in which is 

 the t'olluvvin^ extract: 



"My seedlino- canielh'as, No.s. 1, 5,6, were raised from seed produced 

 from warratah impresjnated with the striped, sown in 1809, and what 

 is very strange. No. 5, which is a very narrow leaf, with a very double 

 ball like anemone flower, and No. 6, (FI6y«'.) as you know, is a large 

 leaf and flovver, came out of the same pod. The leaf of No. 5 is near- 

 ly as much smaller, as No. 6 is larger, than common ranieilias." 



You observe further, ''that while on a visit to New York, in the spring 

 of 1834, you gave me a condensed account of your tour through the 

 gardens of that city, and, among other filants, are more particularly 

 mentioned Camellia ja|;6aica var. Floyn." and that, "in consequence 

 of our description of this camellia, Mr. Wilder, in the fall of the same 

 year, purchased a fine plant of Mr. FI03', at the high price of fifty dol- 

 lars." 



I am in the habit of placing on record, or on file, most of my corres- 

 pondence, conse(]UPntly, I have before me your letter, bearing date Feb- 

 ruary 7, 1334, containing an account of the fine plants you had seen 

 about New York, and for which, and all favors I have received at your 

 hand-i, you have my sincere thanks. 



By your remarks, Mr. Editor, it would appear rhat I derived my first 

 information of this camellia from your letter, and that in consequence 

 of your description, I |)urchased it of Mr Floy. The facts, however, 

 are not exactly so — [ purchased my plant of Mr. Floy in the month of 

 September, A. D. 1833, one year anterior to the time you mention, and 

 if my recollection serves me, I showed it to you when you first called at 

 my place, for the purjjose of obtaininir a li>t of camellias that you in- 

 tended to import, it being on the 6th day of December, 1833, and before 

 you visited New York, or saw the original j)laut of Camelh'a japonica 

 Floyz/. 



In the light of these facts, I think I may claim the honor (if honor 

 there be,) of asserting, that in consequence of my "description" you 

 purchased your plant of Camellm ja})6nica Floyfj. 



The last error I notice is, that your plant "is now the largest plant in 

 the country, excepting the original plant, Mr. Wilder having worked off 

 several inarchings of his, and reduced its size." 



In reply to this, I was aiiout to say, that I would compare plants with 

 you — but as your New York correspondent and yourself agree so har- 

 moniously that "comparisons are odious," 1 will drop the figure, and on- 

 ly observe, that, until I have occular demonstration, I am not willing 

 to concede that such is the fact. 



The introduction of C. j. Floyu' into Europe, I think must have been 

 previous to the year 1836, l)ut of this I have no proof; and although M. 

 Vershaffelt of Gand, may have introduced it into his country, it is not 

 probable that he received it so early as it went to England. 



This camellia has sold at very hich prices in Germany, under the 

 name of Grand Frederick, and I am informed by M. Rison, of Frank- 

 fort, that he paid 1000 francs for it at the great Horticultural Exhibi- 

 tion at Ghent in 1836. 



The Camelh'« japonica FloyiJ is in every respect a most remarkable 

 production, and I agree with you that it is doubtful whether Mr. Floy 

 will ever [)roduce another equalling this. — Yours, ^'C.^M. P. Wilder, 

 Hawthorn Grove, Dorchester, June 19, 1838. 



We are sorry that Mr. Wilder should take our remarks so much to 

 heart — especially as rejjards the introduction of this variety into the vi- 

 cinity of Boston. Without affording any information upon the real point 

 at issue — the period of its first coming into bloom, and its introduction 



