500 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



also in 1690. Roseum, graveolens, Blandfordiaiiuin are all well-known 

 relatives, with others too numerous to mencion. 



Then there is the large group of Citriodorums, delightful, every one 

 of them, to sight and smell. P. grossularioides, introduced 1731, is 

 the oldest species I have been able so far to unearth. 



The Quercifoliums, and their near relations the Denticulatunis 

 (where does one end and the other begin?), v/ith quercifolium minus, 

 a true Cape species, introduced 1774, and denticulaium (1789), at the 

 head of the family tree, form another large and well-defined group. 



And there is the modem group of ' Shrubland ' hybrids I have 

 already mentioned. No one could ever class them with anything but 

 Scented Pelargoniums. 



These groups are all distinct from each other, and fairly easy to 

 discriminate. But many others are difficult to place, unless their 

 parentage can be traced. And even so, it is not a light task, as 

 according to Sweet they were hybridized in and in. 



But it is when one comes to try to draw the line between the 

 tuberous-rooted Cape Pelargoniums on one end of the scale and the 

 modern Show Pelargoniums at the other, and make up one's mind as 

 to how many and which are to be included in a collection of Scented 

 Pelargoniums, that the fun begins. To start with the Cape Pelar- 

 goniums. They are undoubtedly the original importations, but many 

 of them — hicolor, ardens, fulgidum, pulverulentum — are absolutely 

 scentless. Yet if you study the pedigree of, say, pyrethrifoliuvi 

 (' Scarlet Pet '), you will find that one parent is fulgidum. If you 

 therefore include the child, why ostracize the parent? 



Again, we turn to the other end of the story. Half the old Show 

 Pelargoniums are hybrids from a Scented Pelargonium on one side ; and 

 P. cucullatum, as I said before, is responsible for a very long family. 

 So where one ends and the other begins is more than I can say, and 

 wiser heads than mine must determine the limits of Scented Pelar- 

 goniums and Show Pelargoniums, and solve this puzzle for us 

 amateurs; and also the other question of nomenclature, on which I 

 touched in my former article. I look to Wisley to take these matters 

 in hand, for I consider the classification and proper naming of speci- 

 mens the two main stumbling-blocks in forming a collection. Mean 

 while let me give the intending collector this piece of advice : * ' Never 

 discard any real old variety of Pelargonium you come across. It may 

 not be a true Scented Pelargonium, but it may help to throw light on 

 the pedigree and development of some hitherto puzzling specimen." 

 Before leaving this part of my subject I should like to call your 

 attention to those specimens of the allied types of Geraniaceae which 

 I alluded to just now as off -shoots of our main subject. Some of them 

 will illustrate what I meant as to the difficulty of knowing what to 

 include in a collection. 



(1) P. tetragonum. I find this is given in Sweet as a Jenki^isonia 

 — J. tetragona, date 1774. Its leaves are undoubtedly sweet-scented, 

 so I include it in my collection. 



