June 16, 1892, ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
461 
Confusion in Nomenclature. 
“ Lancastrian,” page 488, in his closing remark, says, “ I do 
not think I shall regret the step I have taken in sticking to 
the sport and consigning Golden Qneen to the fire heap.” This 
is so complete an answer to his own argument, and such clear 
ratification of my contention that Golden Queen and John 
Lambert are one and the same, that further argument is needless, 
therefore let me simply add that I shall be well satisfied if all 
growers follow “ Lancastrian’s ” example as the best way of 
avoiding the confusion in nomenclature which he so forcibly 
admits in this case. 
If I am not trespassing too much on your space I should like 
to reply briefly to Mr. Lambert. In respect to the point of both 
having been staged together as distinct by one of my own friends, 
this certainly did not come under my personal observation, 
and I presume no one can remember every line he may read 
in reports of shows. If Mr. Lambert had been so kind as to 
have given me a reference it would not have weakened his 
position, and many persons must wonder why the information was 
withheld. 
The reason I did not adopt Mr, Lambert’s suggested name for 
the blooms I staged at Chiswick was simply to avoid “ confusion in 
nomenclature,” and I venture to think this was a good and valid 
one. The blooms after being staged, and before any name was 
affixed, were submitted to several experts for their opinion, and all 
were unanimous that confusion must arise if any name but Golden 
Queen of England was attached ; therefore in the interest of the 
public I considered my duty lay in giving a just name to the flower, 
even if it was detrimental to the feelings of Mr. Lambert. 
Whether there was a precedent for this action of mine or not I do 
not know, but subsequent results have amply justified the course. 
It has prevented disqualifications, and for this I have received 
thanks. The satirical remarks of Mr. Lambert do not affect me in 
the slightest. I judge blooms on their merits, and endeavour at 
the same time to prevent the insertion of superfluous names with 
the object of avoiding the confusion in nomenclature, which all 
unprejudiced persons in the Chrysanthemum world admit is most 
desirable. Is it necessary to say more on this subject ?— 
E. Molyneux. 
[We do not think it is at present unless Mr, Lambert likes to 
give the reference to which he alluded.] 
South Shields and Northern Counties Show. 
November 9th and 10th have been chosen as the dates for the 
next Show of the South Shields and Northern Counties Chrysan¬ 
themum Show. The schedule has just been issued. It is com¬ 
prehensive and well-framed. The classes number forty-seven, and 
the chief of them is that for thirty-six Japanese, for which ,58, 
£4, £2, and £1 are offered. In that for twenty-four incurved the 
prizes are £6, £3, £1 lOs,, and 15s. For a group, £4, £2 lOs., and 
£1 are provided. Altogether £40 has been added to the prize fund. 
It is satisfactory to note that a balance somewhat exceeding that 
amount stands to th« Society’s credit. Mr. Bernard Cowan, Harton, 
South Shields, is the Secretary. 
Leicester and Midland Society. 
The Show of the Leicester and Midland Chrysanthemum 
Society keeps on growing. This year the Floral Hall has been 
secured for the Exhibition, which is fixed for November 11th and 
12th, and the place is much larger and more popular than the 
Temperance Hall formerly used. The prize list has been 
materially strengthened, the aggregate value being 50 per cent, 
higher than at the last Show. Mr. W. Bell, Knighton Road, 
Leicester, is the energetic Secretary. 
HEPATICAS. 
Allusion has been recently made to these my long favourite 
flowers, and I should like to say a littie about them. The Hepatica 
has been for so long a time an inhabitant of our gardens that its 
absence from so many would be unaccountable did we not recollect 
the changing waves of fashion which substituted bedding plants, 
and which preferred to have a dreary blank in the garden in spring 
provided a gorgeous display could be had for a short time in autumn, 
and thus banished so many of our hardy flowers. It is a matter of 
rejoicing that the tide has turned, and I trust the Hepatica will 
secure a share of the favour of the true flower lover. Scarce as are 
the Hepaticas of any kind, scarcer still are the various varieties. 
First among these I should place the double blue H. triloba 
coerulea fl.-pl., which does not seem to do well everywhere, but 
which is in my garden a most delightful plant, covering itself with 
buttons of the brightest blue and of the most symmetrical form. 
What, too, can surpass a clump of H. triloba rubra fl.-pl., one of 
the brightest of all flowers when the sun shines upon it, of equal 
beauty of form and colour ? Then, desired of all, sought for in 
vain, yet possibly enough in existence, is a double white of which 
one has read, but which seems either to have been a myth or to 
have vanished in the vast destruction of choice old flowers. It is 
quite as probable that there is or was a double white in existence as 
well as a double blue or red, and the mention of it by Glenny in 
one of his books has caused much speculation and inquiry. He 
says in his “ Handbook to the Flower Garden ” (London, 1850), 
page 10, “ There are three colours—pink, blue, and white, and of 
these there are also double and single,” . . . “ but the double white 
is very scarce if not altogether lost.” 
It is not only in recent years that this variety of the Hepatica 
has been an object of desire, for Philip Miller, in his “ Gardeners’ 
Dictionary ” (London, 1735), deems it worthy of some remark, and 
says :—“ I have seen the Double White Kind often mention’d in 
Books, but could never see it growing.” . . . “I have some¬ 
times known the Double Blue Sort produce some flowers in 
autumn which were inclining to White.” . . . “ But whether 
the Double White Sort mention’d in the Books was only this 
accidental Alteration in the Colour of the Flower, I cannot say ; 
though it seems very probable it was since I never could hear of 
any Person who ever saw the Double White Sort flower in the 
Spring.” James Justice, who appears to have had a keen apprecia¬ 
tion of many flowers, tells us in his “ Scots Gardener’s Director ” 
(2nd edition, Edinburgh, 1759) that Ray in his “Flora” says the 
double white Hepatica was in England, and that he (Justice) 
sowed seeds seven years in hope of raising this flower, but was 
unsuccessful, although he “ raised many Singles and Semi-doubles 
of various Whites, Flesh, and Carnation colours ; and I will try 
again for it to obtain this flower, for I am told the Florists in 
Holland have obtained it from Seeds.” It is Samuel Gilbert, 
however, who published the second edition of his “ Florists’ 
Yade Mecum” in 1693, who gives us the most precise note on 
the double white Hepatica. He says :—“ The double white hath 
fresher and smaller green leaves than the rest : snow white, 
and as thick and double as the peach or blue, but more 
rarely met withal, and therefore more regarded; yet all of them 
the prettiest beauties the spring at her ffist approach exposes to 
our view.” 
But if this much-desired plant is lost, and is only to be 
recovered through the long-sustained labours of seedling raisers, 
we cannot with reason complain of want of variety among the 
single Hepaticas. The single blue is perhaps the best known, and 
a clump in full flower is a most beautiful object in the garden. 
A fitting companion to it is the single red with fine bright blooms, 
and equally beautiful in a mass. With these may be associated 
the single white, which has somewhat small flowers, but when 
grown in quantity is very fine also. These are the varieties most 
frequently met with, but there are others in cultivation, and some 
of them I have only recently been able to obtain. Perhaps the 
brightest of all is a single red variety known as H. triloba rubra 
var. splendens, which is extremely beautiful. Equally fine, although 
not so showy, is H. t. rosea, a delicate but extremely pretty rose- 
coloured variety, still rare. Then there is a pretty white variety 
with coloured anthers, a white tinged with flesh colour, and a deep 
blue purple named Barlowi. 
These, with two varieties of angulosa, are the twelve in my 
garden, but there is another named H. t. variabilis, with flowers 
varying from lilac to blue or white, and changing with the season. 
This variety is said to have marbled foliage, and I hope to procure 
it shortly. Nor must the large flowered H. angulosa with its fine 
blue flowers and large handsome five-lobed foliage be omitted. 
This is very beautiful, although a shyer bloomer in some gardens. 
There is a larger flowered variety named H. a. major. H. angulosa 
is a native of North America, while H. triloba is a native of 
Europe. There is said to be a new variety or species offered by a 
French florist, but it is possible that it may, like H. acutiloba, 
present few points of difference from the others. 
I have left myself little space for notes on culture. I find the 
plants do well in almost any position and in various soils, but 
mostly of a somewhat light, rich nature. There is a difference of 
opinion as to the time for planting and dividing, but I prefer the 
I spring, as if planted in autumn they are frequently lifted by the 
