i 4 POPULAR GARDEN FLOWERS 



admonishment in a chastened spirit, and " do better next 

 time " ? That were too much to promise. It is one 

 thing to acknowledge that the botanist has scored a 

 point, but it is quite another to give him an under- 

 taking to accept in future every name that he chooses 

 to give us, and " use no other." We love our old garden 

 names almost as much as we love the flowers them- 

 selves. They come " trippingly off the tongue." They 

 revive old memories. Mignonette might smell as sweet if 

 we had to grow it under the name of Reseda, but it would 

 not seem the same to us. The Sweet Pea would sparkle 

 as brightly in the sunshine with Lathyrus odoratus on the 

 label as it does now, but we could not discuss it under 

 that name as familiarly as we do at present. 



The botanist, let us remind him, has his weak spot as 

 well as we. He is much given to growing dissatisfied 

 with the names which he has given to the plants, and to 

 changing them in consequence or, to be more exact, to 

 changing the names given by other botanists. If two 

 botanists give different names to a plant, there is surely 

 some excuse for ordinary folk giving it a third. By a 

 remarkable coincidence, two botanical names have been 

 given to the China Aster, one being Callistephus and the 

 other Callistemma. Have we not now given the botanist 

 a Roland for his Oliver ? We have, and, being quits, we 

 will part in good humour. 



The Michaelmas Daisy is, then, the real Aster. Time 

 was when it fell little short of weed-dom. It was a 

 rampant grower, with a most aggressive root system, 

 and its flowers were not so very striking. But the 

 modern varieties are mostly compact growers, with 

 large flowers of brilliant colours. So much improved 

 has the plant been, indeed, that it is now extremely 

 useful. Its intrinsic beauty is considerable, and is 



