NoTunber 30, 1893,] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
488 
I AM very sorry to be so late in bringing out this analysis, but 
having missed my opportunity early in the year through press 
of other work, I have delayed completing it until the show time 
came round again, thinking it would then be of more interest than 
during the summer or early autumn months. At the Exhibition 
held by the National Chrysanthemum Society at the Royal 
Aquarium, Westminster, in November, 1892, the display of 
incurved cut blooms was the smallest of which I have any 
record. There were, however, rather more Japanese than at the 
previous Show. 
The following short statement gives the number of cut blooms 
staged in the incurved and Japanese sections at the eight 
exhibitions. The flowers shown in the classes for six blooms of 
any one variety were not tabulated for the analysis, and therefore 
have not been included in the totals. 
1885 
1886 
1887 
1888 
1889 
1890 
1891 
1892 
Incurved . 
. 839 
1080 
964 
1147 
682 
1377 
827 
609 
Japanese . 
. 835 
1026 
1221 
1759 
922 
2054 
975 
1033 
1674 
2106 
2185 
2906 
1604 
3431 
1802 
1642 
Now that I have a complete set of records for eight years to 
deal with, I am in a position to adopt a similar system of analysis 
to that so successfully employed when dealing with the last Rose 
and Dahlia analysis. This system I have endeavoured to explain 
at page 358. The steady going incurved Chrysanthemums will not 
be found in any way seriously affected by this improved method— 
indeed, the relative positions of nearly all the leading kinds remain 
practically as in the previous analysis. The table of the headstrong 
Japanese has, however, become greatly changed, and I trust 
improved since the last version of it appeared. I have gone most 
carefully into the places accorded these Japanese varieties, and 
endeavoured to give each its proper relative position in the list; 
but the changes in this section are so rapid, and there is such a large 
accession of new sorts every year, that I have in many cases only 
the records for a few years to guide me in placing them —indeed, 
the careers of many of these Japs are so brilliant, and yet at the 
same time so fleeting, as to make them in these respects more 
resemble butterflies than well regulated florists’ flowers. However 
trying to the analyst these startling chrnges may be, they indicate, 
T must confess, very substantial progress. In order to give some 
idea of the extent of the changes referred to, and at the same 
time show how greatly the flowers themselves have improved, I 
may mention that only five out of the first twenty-four varieties in 
the table published only six years ago are now considered worthy 
of places among the first twenty-four in the present analysis. Of 
these five, Madame C. Audiguier has fallen since then from its 
position as the premier flower to No. 19, Jeanne Delaux from 
No. 3 to No. 10, and Val d’Andorre from No. 5 to No. 9. Boule 
d’Or stands pretty well the same in both tables, and Mr. Ralph 
Brocklebank, then quite a novelty, will be found at No. 16. If the 
advance made during the short space of six years has been so 
considerable as these alterations indicate, what glorious possibi¬ 
lities may there not be in store for us during say the next decade. 
Already there are not wanting indicatioi^s in the comparative 
tables before me of the speedy downfall of many varieties at the 
present time in much request. Not only are the flowers of many 
No. 701.—VoL. XXVII., Third Series. 
of the modern varieties improvements on those of their prede¬ 
cessors, but the plants themselves, particularly as regards their 
heights and constitutions, show a decided advance as well. 
Empress of India once more heads the table of incurved 
varieties, and deservedly so, as it appears to be a most reliable 
Chrysanthemum. In certain seasons Queen of England, Lord 
Alcester, and Golden Empress of India have not been far behind 
the premier flower, and have each at a single show been staged 
rather more frequently, but their records from year to year being 
more unequal, they do not seem to have any chance of seriously 
threatening its position. Lord Wolseley, Princess of Wales, 
Golden Queen of England, and Novelty have never before been 
better represented than they were last year. On the other hand 
Alfred Salter, Prince Alfred, Barbara, Jardin des Plantes, Hero of 
Stoke Newington, and Cherub at none of the preceding seven 
shows have been as seldom staged in competition. Miss M. A. 
Haggas and Violet Tomlin were also poorly represented. 
In this section the newer varieties in the table, those dating 
from 1889 and after, are eight in number. Of the 1889 incurved 
Mrs. S. Coleman, No. 14, and John Doughty, No. 15, were equally 
as well shown as at the previous Exhibition ; while Camille 
B. Flammarion has improved on its performance in that year. 
Madame Darier and Monsieur R. Bahuant, sent out in 1890, appear 
for the first time in the table, and both at No. 23, while Ami 
Hoste of the same year takes up a position at No. 37. The 
still newer kinds, Mrs. Robinson King and Robert Cannell, 
only introduced in 1891, will be found at Nos. 35 and 36 re¬ 
spectively. 
Turning now to the table of Japanese varieties, as I said 
before I have done all in my power to deal with them as fairly 
and accurately as the data at my disposal will allow. The results 
generally can never, however, be considered quite satisfactory 
while this section remains in such a state of rapid transition. 
That grand Jap., Edwin Molyneux, it will be noticed, is for the 
time being the leading flower, closely followed by the snow white 
Avalanche. The following established kinds, if they can be so 
called, were less frequently shown than at any previous exhibi¬ 
tion :—Mr. Ralph Brocklebank, Jeanne Delaux, Madame Baco, 
Madame J. Laing, Sarah Owen, Meg Merrilies, Carew Underwood, 
Mdlle. Lacroix, Baronne de Prailly, Belle Paule, Mrs. C. H. 
Wheeler, Mr. H. Cannell, Fair Maid of Guernsey, Criterion) 
Marguerite Marrouch, Thunberg, Lady T. Lawrence, Yellow 
Dragon, Mrs. J. Wright, Monsieur J. M. Pigny, Mrs. H. Cannell, 
Comtesse de Beauregard, and four others. This is a goodly list, 
and clearly shows how quickly many of the older favourites are 
retreating before the advance of the new comers, although, of 
course, this does not necessarily apply to every variety included 
in it, as the disastrous effects of certain seasons upon particular 
sorts is well known. But the question may naturally be asked, 
“On the other hand, what ‘established’ Japs, were last year 
staged oftener than at any previous show ? ” I answer, only 
two ! Avalanche and Sunflower, the first an 1887 and the other 
an 1888 variety. 
No fewer than twenty-one Japanese Chrysanthemums which 
have been sent out since 1888 already find places, and a fair pro¬ 
portion of them excellent places too, in the analysis. Looking 
carefully down the table we first come to Viviand Morel (No. 4), 
the sensation flower at the 1892 exhibition. This fine variety, 
although only sent out the year before, appeared in more stands 
than any other with the exception of Edwin Molyneux, Avalanche 
and Sunflower, which are from three to five years older. Except 
as regards its variability in colour it is indeed a sterling acquisition 
in every way. Next comes Gloire du Rocher, sent out only in 1891 
at No. 6. W. H. Lincoln (No. 6), an 1890 Jap., was also last year 
surprisingly well shown. Florence Davis (1891) likewise made its 
mark, and is pretty sure this year to rise even higher than its 
present honourable position at No. 15. Louis Boehmer (No. 15) 
No. 2357.— VoL. LXXXIX. Old Series. 
