548 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ December 18,1884. 
better taste might have been displayed than having the tables covered with 
red cloth. Green baize or cloth seems far better adapted to the purpose. 
I did not approve of the way the tables were arranged; in my opinion 
they would have been more effectively placed had they been narrower— 
just of sufficient width to admit of one row of boxes down each side, and a 
row of small plants down the centre, such as are used for dinner-table 
decoration, raised, say, 6 inches above the level, enough to relieve the 
otherwise monotonous flatness of the stands of cut blooms. I noticed 
that the boxes of cut blooms in many instances were placed in a double 
row on the tables one box behind the other, which seemed to my mind not 
quite the correct thing for a National society. In the class for forty-eight 
blooms, where the handsome sum of £15 was given as a first prize, this 
style of arrangement was manifest. Placed in this way it was difficult 
for visitors to see at once which were the competing stands in all the 
classes. The flowers in the front row of boxes stood in great fear of being 
bruised by the constant stream of people desirous of inspecting those 
blooms in the boxes behind. Still there was much to admire in the show 
as a whole, for there was some very beautiful flowers staged, and the 
Society is to be congratulated upon bringing together such a large quantity 
of fine flowers. I do not write this in a carping spirit. I wish to point 
out in a good-humoured way the defects which I saw. We expect a 
national society to carry out properly all the details connected with a 
large exhibition, and in a way that may be copied by other younger socie¬ 
ties, of which there are many now springing up in nearly all parts of the 
country.— Observer. 
The Future of the Chrysanthemum. —The success this year of the 
autumn shows of Chrysanthemums at Chelmsford, Colchester, Saffron 
Walden, and other places in Essex, the exhibitions of staged plants at 
the Temple and Hackney, and the grand displays at the Westmin-.ter 
Aquarium and the Crystal Palace, have amply proved, if proof were neces¬ 
sary, how general both the cultivation and the appreciation of the 
Chrysanthemum have become in the south of England. There is, how¬ 
ever, some fear that fashion will lead to degeneration in the standard of 
excellence for this beautiful flower. Who that appreciates the form, 
colour, and habit of some of the Pompons and smaller incurved varieties, 
but has marked with a kind of awe the vast expanse of bloom developed 
in a prize specimen of the modern Japanese type 1 The Chrysanthemum, 
we all know, is a gross feeder, and much depends upon cultivation, but 
we may be tempted to ask in doubting amazement before one of these 
blooms, “Upon what meat does this our Cresar feed that he has grown so 
great ? ” While each new variety is bred with the special object of being 
first of all bigger than his neighbour, and some ninety new varieties are 
produced each year, there is no doubt about the result as it will affect the 
future of the Chrysanthemum. The larger sorts only being cultivated, it 
will soon become utterly unfitted for any but decorations on a grand scale, 
and the small amateur who has anything less than a Palm house for a 
conservatory will quietly fade away from the ranks of exhibitors. 
We have always admired the Chrysanthemum from a higher stand¬ 
point than mere size, and would gladly see it saved from the fate alluded 
to. Why should we not adapt it as far as possible to decorate the table 
and the hall ? The first step towards this end is at any rate within the 
bounds of the practical. As the prize list sets the fashion, let the pro¬ 
moters of next year’s shows offer prizes for Chrysanthemums grown in 
pots of 32-size, on single stems, not trained, and tied only to a central 
stick. One class would be required for Pompons, with which might be 
included the smaller hybrids, and a second for incurved or reflexed 
varieties. This would probably be welcomed as a novelty both by growers 
and the public ; it would bring into notice many beautiful varieties now 
looked upon as useless, and having set up some other standard than size 
for which to grow, it would tend to a general improvement in the cultiva¬ 
tion of the species .—(^Essex County Chronicle.') 
Mabel Ward and Bendigo. —Having grown a quantity of the 
latter, I fail to distinguish how it differs from the former. It cannot 
be a sport from Mrs. Heale, as stated by some writers, because it has 
no resemblance to Mrs. Heale in general character, or habit, or size of 
flower, I always found Mrs. Heale a tall grower, and my experience 
extends over eighteen years. Bendigo I find is a dwarf grower like its 
parent Eve. Jeanne d’Arc or Madame Madeline Tezier are identical. 
I have grown both for three years, and fail to find any difference (only 
in name) in habit, size of flower, shape, colour, or time of blooming, 
hence my reason for using only one name— i.e., Jeanne d’Arc, in future 
in my catalogue.— Egbert Owen, Floral Nurseries, Maidenhead. 
Chrysanthemum Queries. —Now that showing is almost if not 
wholly at an end, and the memories thereof fresh in observers’ memories, 
it would seem to be an excellent time to clear up any doubtful point or 
add to our stock of information. It was probably from this point of 
view you permitted me, under the above heading, to ask in your issue for 
the 4th inst. a few queries. My first duty is to thank Mr. Davis of 
Camberwell for so kindly replying thereto, and to ask permission to add 
a few additional observations that may serve to elucidate the apparent 
difference between us. Eeferring to his memory of my recommendation 
in the Journal some time since of late as compared with early struck 
cuttings, he says, “ his experiments on this point seem to have ended in 
failure, as the Elaines he speaks of have not come to perfection the 
query referred to being “ is there a strain of Elaine that does not show 
a centre ? ’’ I was speaking of Chrysanthemums for decorative purposes 
at the time referred to, and I am still of opinion that March or April is 
time enough for that purpose. If I had a doubt on the point I have 
only to turn to Mr. Davis’s own “ Guide to Cultivation,” page 20, to find, 
“ Cuttings struck in March often give the best of blooms, especially such 
as Elaine, James Salter, &c.” But Mr. Davis may say 1 did not skilfully 
treat my plants, but it was a neighbouring gentleman who does that drew 
my attention first to this query, and who had his plants from hina. May 
I again ask. Is it the general experience that any strain of Elaine, if struck 
early and skilfully treated, will not show a centre ? 
As to the best reflexed or recurved white Chrysanthemum. I cannot 
say I am quite satisfied with Mr. Davis’s answer, though he should know. 
We cannot be too precise in queries of this kind, so I will, with your 
permission, quote Mr. Burbidge’s definition, from his new book on the 
Chrysanthemum, of a reflexed flower. “ The florets are strap-shaped, but 
curving outwards from the centre, so that the inner surface of the florets 
only is exposed.” Now, though I dearly like the Christines, and the 
white variety (synonymous with Mrs. Forsyth) especially, they do not 
coincide with this definition. The Christines at their best, cut, and drawn 
on paper, say with a pencil, will form an almost exact semi-globe—not a 
single floret will be either reflexed or recurved, or falling outwards. The 
petals stand upright, as they do also in Soeur Melanie ; and if from this 
point of view, if the latter is a Japanese so is the former, though later 
and larger. I like the shape of Emperor of China much better, and it 
comes nearer the above definition, but the colour is not pure white. 
Neither is Felicity, which has a shade of lemon-yellow; it is highly 
spoken of by Mr. Cannell, but Mr. Burbidge classes it among incurved. 
My ideal reflexed Chrysanthemum is one with the outer ray florets very 
long, the next lying flat on those, and a shade shorter, and so on to the 
centre. I know no white recurved Chrysanthemum, large, of this de¬ 
scription but Snowdrop, and a few of the small Pompons come near it. 
I cannot help regretting with your correspondent Mr. E. Molyneux, 
page 531, “how strange it is there are no new varieties of reflexed 
Chrysanthemums brought out.” Might I ask, in conclusion. What has 
become of that beautiful Japanese Chrysanthemum Gracieuse (Delaux) ? 
Except in Mr. Burbidge’s book I do not find it in any of the catalogues.— 
W. J. Murphy, Clonmxl. 
Proliferous Chrysanthemums. —In answer to Mr. F. W. Jameson 
(see page 533, Dec. 11th) I may say that here several varieties of Japanese 
Chrysanthemums produced flowers of the “ ben and chicken” type. The 
most noticeable were Fair Maid of Guernsey and Curiosity, thelatter bearing 
five or six bunches on the same plant. In our case I believe it was caused 
by the crown buds being taken too early in the season. Other plants of 
the same varieties with buds taken later bore perfect, though of course 
later, flowers. I have no doubt that if it were thought desirable such 
flowers could be produced next season if the same means were employed. 
For my part, I infinitely prefer a well-shaped flower, and hope to avoid 
such deformities in future by taking buds two or three weeks later.—T. W. 
I have noticed paragraphs from Mr. F. W. Jameson and others 
respecting the proliferousness of Chrysanthemums, and I may mention 
that a few years ago I found James Salter produce flowers as mentioned. 
I have frequently seen Fair Maid of Guernsey bearing side flowers. In my 
case the plants were struck in November, or rather inserted in November, 
and the buds taken very early in August. I have not seen these flowers 
produced on plants struck in spring, or on plants that had been cut down 
as recommended by many practical growers.—J. Pithers. 
I noticed in the Journal of the 11th inst. Mr. F. W. Jameson wishes 
to know if others have had deformed Chrysanthemum blooms this season. 
I had twelve deformed blooms of Madame Berthie Rendatler. They were 
on three plants, four blooms on a plant, and those blooms were from the 
July bud. I counted upwards of sixty blooms and buds from one terminal 
bloom, the lowest were projected 8 inches. They became smaller towards 
the centre, and the smallest bud never opened. It was quite a bouquet 
in itself. I had one more plant of the same which had perfect flowers, 
but these were not from a July bud. I have never had any deformed 
Chrysanthemum blooms before the present season, and I have never seen 
any elsewhere.— N. Campany, 
Chrysanthemums Jeanne d’Arc and Mdlle. Madeline 
Tezier—Proliferous Flowers. —I have enclosed two badly grown 
blooms of Jeanne d’Arc. They are side flowers. Are they .any different 
from the Mdlle. M. Tezier sent by Mr. Laing ? I thought perhaps the 
cultivation might make a difference. I see by the last issue of the Journal 
that Mr. Molyneux has pronounced them distinct, so I should think they 
are, he ought to know. I have also enclosed a dead flower of a proliferous 
Chrysanthemum, Madame Berthie Eendatler. I have had several this 
year. In this morning’s Journal I can say in answer to Mr. F. W. 
Jameson, that it is a common occurrence for this variety, also Fair Maid 
of Guernsey and Mens. Ardene, to come in this curious manner. All buds 
taken early have that tendency, especially of the former variety, hence 
it is being distributed under the name of Curiosity, a name that ought 
to be discontinued by all growers. The terminal buds are the best to 
depend upon for this variety, unless the crown bud did not show until 
the third or fourth week in August.—C. Orchard, Coomhe Leigh. 
[The blooms before us have a far closer resemblance to that sent by 
Mr. Laing as Mdlle. M. Tezier than to those of Jeanne d’Arc as exhibited 
with incurved varieties this year. Perhaps Mr. Molyneux will grow a 
plant from Mr. Laing with the true stock of Jeanne d’Arc at Swanmore. 
The “dead” example of Madame Berthie Rendatler referred to, com- 
