Apr 1 7,1892. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
251 
T he Exhibition of the National Chrysanthemum Society, held 
at the Eoyal Aquarium, Westminster, in November last, was 
with two exceptions—1885 and 1889—smaller than any of the six 
previous Exhibitions, as the following particulars will show .— 
1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 
Incurved . 839 1080 964 1147 682 1377 827 
Japanese . 835 1026 1221 1759 922 2054 975 
1674 2106 2185 2906 1604 3431 1802 
As was the case at the two preceding shows, the early flowering 
sorts were last year but indifferently represented. Happily for our 
present purpose these early kinds happened to be specially 
favoured in 1886, 1887, and 1888, so that in this analysis the 
early and late varieties are as a rule placed on very nearly an 
equal footing. This is a matter of no little importance, as it is 
surprising what a marked influence forward and backward seasons 
have upon the number of early flowering varieties staged at any of 
these exhibitions of the National. 
In calculating the averages which regulate the positions of the 
different Chrysanthemums in the accompanying tables, no account 
has been taken of the number of times any variety was exhibited^ 
except of course those of 1890 and 1891, until two or three years 
after it was first sent out. This is done in order that the newer 
kinds may have something like a fair chance against their more 
established rivals ; for it is seldom that any new sort appears in 
sufficient force to enable it to do this until the second or third 
year, as the case may be, after its introduction. In the last 
analysis, however, owing to the Jubilee Exhibition having been 
very much larger than any of its predecessors, many of these 
newer varieties had higher values, and consequently better places 
given them than they were justly entitled to. To correct 
irregularities such as these, due to the varying extent of the 
shows, all the averages in each table have this year been calcu¬ 
lated as for an exhibition containing an average number of blooms, 
taking into consideration the whole of the seven shows. This 
new departure may at first sight appear a somewhat artificial 
method, but when once understood it will be seen that in reality 
it is not so. Indeed, by its adoption the records of all varieties, 
no matter what their ages may be, are now rendered as nearly 
comparable as they can well be made. 
The most noteworthy feature of the table of Incurved varieties 
is the fact of Empress of India having regained the premier place 
on the list—a position it had held throughout the analyses until 
deposed last year by two new comers. Miss M. A. Haggas and Miss 
Violet Tomlin. Had the new corrections been applied it is quite 
certain that these new comers would never have enjoyed even this 
brief reign, as the exalted positions then accorded them were 
entirely owing to the 1890 show having been such an unusually 
extensive one. The following well known kinds were better shown 
than at almost any of the previous exhibitions :—Princess of 
Wales, Golden Queen of England, Alfred Salter, and Mrs. Heale ; 
whereas on the other hand Lord Alcester, Jeanne d’Arc, John 
Salter, Prince Alfred, Mr. Bunn, and Lady Hardinge have 
scarcely ever been represented by such a small number of 
blooms. 
If we take as a test of the advance made in this section in recent 
No. 615.—VOL. XXIV,, Third Series. 
years the first twenty-four varieties in the analysis for 1885, and a 
similar twenty-four in the present one, and compare the two lists, 
it will be at once seen that there have been but few changes during 
the seven years. In fact, nearly all the favourite exhibition flowers 
of seven years ago still remain as great favourites as ever. I have 
now before me a table which has been specially prepared to give 
the true relative positions occupied by all the leading varieties at 
the last seven exhibitions. On looking carefully over this table 
I fail to detect any definite indications of decline in any of 
them. 
It is always interesting year by year to watch in these analyses 
the progress made by the newer kinds. In this section they are 
by no means numerous, nevertheless several of them already 
occupy prominent positions. For instance, two of the varieties 
sent out in 1888—Miss M. A. Haggas (No. 5) and Miss Violet 
Tomlin (No. 6)—have proved themselves undoubted acquisitions. 
Judging by the analysis they appear to have lost ground since last 
year, but on reference to the table just referred to, in which due 
allowance is made for the relative sizes of the exhibitions, I find 
that both were equally as well represented in 1891 as at the Jubilee 
Show. The other 1888 variety (Alfred Lyne), however, has fallen 
to the bottom of the list. Of the varieties distributed in 1889 
Mrs. S. Coleman (No. 14) has well maintained the good position it 
held in the previous analysis. John Doughty, which was only 
staged five times in 1890, was last year represented by twenty-six 
blooms, and that at an exhibition containing only about half the 
number of flowers. Camille Flammarion, on its first appearance, 
rises to No. 35, The only other new kind is Robert Cannell, 
which, although only sent out last year, will be found as high 
as No. 29. 
Turning next to the table of Japanese varieties we find Etoile 
de Lyon still holding the proud position it secured last year as 
head of the list. The following established kinds, taking into 
consideration the total number of Japanese blooms staged, were 
never so numerously shown as at the last exhibition — Edwin 
Molyneux, Avalanche, Ralph Brocklebank, and Boule d’Or. The 
list of sorts, however, which have been at no previous show 
so poorly represented, is a much longer one—viz., Madame 
C. Audiguier, Mdlle. Lacroix, Fair Maid of Guernsey, Carew 
Underwood, Elaine, Comte de Germiny, Criterion, Soleil Levant, 
Thunberg, Belle Paule, Marguerite Marroucb, and Li Triom- 
phante. 
Comparing the present analysis with that of 1885, as we have 
previously done in the case of the Incurved varieties, the revolution 
which has taken place during this short period will be found to be 
truly startling. For instance, of the first twenty-four on the 
present list, only twelve varieties, or half the number, were even 
in existence in 1885, and of these only ten had been grown a 
sufficient time to allow of their appearing in the analysis for 
that year. Even of those which appear in both lists, there are 
a few which show such decided evidence of decline as exhibition 
flowers that they are likely gradually to disappear from among 
the leading Chrysanthemums in this section. For example, 
Madame C. Audiguier, for several years the premier flower, has 
been less and less frequently staged at each of the last four 
shows, and the same may be said of Fair Maid of Guernsey, 
Thunberg, and some other prominent favourites of only a few 
years ago. 
Like 1887 the year 1888 was a prolific one as regards the intro 
duction of sterling novelties. Of these Etoile de Lyon heads 
the list, and was last year even more frequently staged than at the 
previous Exhibition ; Sunflower, which stands only second to it, 
well maintains its position ; Condor (No. 22), Mrs. F. Jameson 
(No. 23), and W. W. Coles (No. 54), have all advanced on their 
1890 form ; Stanstead Surprise (No. 36), however, was but poorly 
represented, but this may be in some measure owing to its early 
flowering propensity. Of the varieties sent out in 1889 W. H. 
No. 2271.— VoL. LXXXVL, Old Series. 
