516 WHO is RIGHT? 



[From " The Florist? 1874,^. 177.] 



IN my last paper I pointed out the difference of opinion 

 formed by the Floral Committee of the Royal Horticul- 

 tural Society and some of the largest growers of Pelar- 

 goniums as to the merits of the different varieties valued 

 for their leaves. In the present I shall proceed to place 

 side by side the opinions of the same authorities as to the 

 value of varieties judged by their flowers : 



Memnon. Discarded for bedding, R.H.S. ; one of the 

 best bedders, H. Cannell. 



Commissioner. Not equal to others of similar character, 

 R.H.S. ; recommended for bedding, John Fraser. 



Claude Lorraine. Not equal to others of similar 

 character, R.H.S. ; novel, distinct, and beautiful, W. Paul. 

 David Garrick. Not equal to others of similar char- 

 acter, R.H.S. ; recommended for bedding, John Fraser. 



Douglas Pearson. Not equal to others of similar 

 character, R.H.S. ; one of the best dark bedding varieties, 

 H. Cannell} first-class bedder, C. Turner. 



Madlle. Nillson. Not equal to others of similar char- 

 acter, R.H. S.\ a great acquisition for bedding, John Fraser. 

 Diana. Not equal to others of similar character, 

 R.H.S. ; recommended for bedding, W. Paul. 



White Perfection. Discarded as a pot plant, R.H.S. ; 

 fine for pot culture, John Fraser; fine shape and very free, 

 H. Cannell. 



George Peabody. Not equal to others of similar 

 character, R.H.S. ; extra, Do^vnie, Laird, & Laing. 



Sydney Turner. Not equal to others of similar 

 character, R.H.S. ; a novel and distinct variety, Downie, 

 Laird, & Laing. 



The following are also given as not equal to others 

 of similar character by the Floral Committee of the Royal 

 Horticultural Society, and are offered by Messrs E. G. 

 Henderson & Son as of proved quality Detiil de la 

 Lorraine, C. Fox, Margaret, Miss Saunders, Mons. Charles 



